State Religion

[juantoo3]

I'm afraid I cannot agree with those who have so little faith in the potentials of the human Spirit (which is not different than that of the Divine). I believe our innate human nature is Good

I am not certain if this is directed at my comment about human nature, but I will proceed on the presumption that it is.

I have no reservation about the "potential" of the human spirit, but I do not presume that potential is equivalent to that of the Divine. In fact, to me it is according the same value to both the potter and the clay. Is the thing made greater than (or equal to) the Maker?

I also see a possible misunderstanding regarding human nature. Yes, our spirit has potential. How seldom we live up to it, because our nature is fallen. Human spirit is inherently good, but that does not mean all things human spirits are capable of are good things. We fall, and we fail, and we come short of the mark. Were it not so, we would have no need for spiritual guidance or religion in any form or manifestation. In other words, if humans can only do good, why bother with any religion, including unified religion?

A unified religion changes none of these things, and can only serve to exacerbate the problems inherent in them. Unified religion cannot cure humans from the simple fact that they are, and always will be in this existence, human.

[taijasi]

I guess ... that regarding human nature, Divine nature, the importance & value of religion (both personally, and in group context, or in terms of the world picture), and also as concerns the spiritual path, plan & destiny for all of us - I can sum up my views very succinctly in the Vision/Ideal of Jacob's Ladder, which recently came up in the Conversion/Initiation thread.

I think that all of life tends - gradually & generally speaking - towards betterment. We may at times take three steps forward ("up") and only one in reverse ("down"), yet at others, we will move forward only one step, and backwards two. The general trend, however, is forward. I believe that this is thanks to God, as well as owing to - our deepest, human/spiritual nature, not despite it.

We have fallen from states of greater spiritual Unity - with less pronounced individual(ized) consciousness (and Intellect) ... into apparent disparity and separateness, yet this affords us the opportunity to perfect ourselves - in accordance with the Divine Plan. Thus, I take it as the obeying of God that we have Fallen, not a disobeying. This is a thoroughly Gnostic view, and an esoteric one, at odds with the more common Christian viewpoint. No problem; we can agree to disagree on this one!

Religion, I think is what helps us along as we Universally ascend Jacob's Ladder, which is the process of the Prodigal returning to the Father's House. Each step, each rung we climb, brings us closer together ... and helps us to better understand our relationship to each other, to the Divine, and to all of (His/Her) Creation. After a certain point, I am convinced, we will no longer need to keep making distinctions between our own Highest (or most Spiritual) nature, and God's. They are one and the same, imo and findings. Which means that God is then the Eldest among Brethren, and truly - an older Brother ... not a "parent" at all, except in the sense of a Divine Steward, and one who stands far ahead of us on the Evolutionary path.

Yep. That's a far cry different than what many believe. But then, as I look up I notice that this is a Secularism forum (oops), and it's on Politics and Society that I'm posting this anyway. So, hmmmm. This post is getting off topic.

Suffice it to say, that a State/Global Religion, if properly instituted, would exclude none, potentially include all, be inherently offensive to none, and would embody all the highest ideals which each of currently existing religions does, while also allowing for all forms of worship as currently practiced in the many, disparate traditions. Personally, I have do difficulty picturing it whatsoever, for it is what I think has been preached Universally by the worlds many Saviors, Prophets, and Teachers. But because we often insist on dead-letter, and do not see beyond forms, we have trouble with a common vision.

Are we presently imperfect, with a long, arduous road ahead, including a certain inevitable degree of conflict & struggle? Yep. Will that stop us from reaching the Goal? Nope. I don't think so. God's Plan, or just - someone's bright idea about how nice it would be if we were all on the same page for a change. I think it will happen. If we don't live to see it soon, then I still think our labor is not lost. We just have to learn to see beyond the present generation.

[Oops, I just saw your earlier two posts, Juantoo. As for the form of a State/Global religion, we haven't seen it yet - at least, not in practice. I could argue till I turn blue in the face that it is Christianity ... and that it is also Buddhism... but so long as there are those who can only shake their head and say, No, man, they're not they same ... then my words are empty. That's another, Let's agree to disagree case. The Divine is either - Universally present, or Universally absent. At one level, I don't think there's any room for a "middle ground." But, if it's the former, then I think it's obvious - that the Divine is not universally present in the same degree, or in a state of "Perfection," as it were. How could the Divine not be perfect? Again, wrong thread. How could anything that is "of God," not be God? Not be Holy? Not be perfect, from a certain point of view? One is reduced to semantics - if we find ourselves looking out upon Creation, with a failure to behold/perceive the Glory of Creation in even the smallest unit of life. Even secularism, which removes morality from the religious context, can admit of a `Good' within us all - and by extension, within all of life. Even Beauty, can be observed in the Order and Ritual of Wall Street. ]

Peace,

andrew

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Originally Posted by taijasi

No problem; we can agree to disagree on this one!

Surely that is the problem right there, a state religion or worse, a universal religion does not agree to disagree, it requires the agreement of all. Otherwise it is not a universal religion.

Originally Posted by taijasi

Suffice it to say, that a State/Global Religion, if properly instituted, would exclude none, potentially include all, be inherently offensive to none, and would embody all the highest ideals which each of currently existing religions does, while also allowing for all forms of worship as currently practiced in the many, disparate traditions.

So, no one excluded, based on the ideals of all our religions and allowing for any form of worship and practice? Wow, that sounds a hell of a lot like what we have now.

Originally Posted by taijasi

As for the form of a State/Global religion, we haven't seen it yet - at least, not in practice. I could argue till I turn blue in the face that it is Christianity ... and that it is also Buddhism... but so long as there are those who can only shake their head and say, No, man, they're not they same ... then my words are empty. That's another, Let's agree to disagree case.

If you claim that we can all be both Christian and Buddhist then it seems your words are empty. Furthermore you seem to completely misunderstand both groups.

For Christians to be considered Buddhist, they would surely have to accept that their God is imperfect and impermanent and that only the Buddhas are perfect, that their Karma will determine the circumstances of their next life in this world and that there will be no end to suffering in this world.

For Buddhists to be considered Christian, they would surely have to accept that God is eternal and omnipotent and that he created us, that Jesus was God's son and God Incarnate and that after death, there is only heaven or hell (or possibly limbo).

These are faiths which are totally at odds with one another. And the differences do not end here. Even in the monotheistic faiths, which from my point of view seem so very similar, there are differences which simply cannot be reconciled.

To unify Christians and Jews both parties must agree whether Jesus was God's son and God Incarnate or just a wise teacher.

And to bring muslims into the fold, will they agree that mohammed was in fact, not god's messenger, or will the Jews and Christians believe his words and follow the quran which tells them that their own texts are corrupt and invalid.

What of Baha'u'llah? what of Krishna? must we all believe in them or must their respective groups reject them?

These vague claims that we can and should unite all religions based on mankind's inherrant goodness are very nice, but I see no way this can be done without either choosing one single religion for everyone or hybridising so many different faiths together to the point where each is unrecogniseable.

All we need to do is accept each other's beliefs and love each other. For me, that is the ultimate, and indeed, the only form of universal religion available.

[taijasi]

Awaiting,

Because this may not be the appropriate thread, I will respond at this point only by saying that I think a proper consideration of whether or not "one religion" is desirable, or attainable, would require an unbiased look at the history, origins, societal & geographical context, and time period (of inception) of each of the religions you mention - and others.

But you've summed it up quite nicely, and provided a cornerstone for the future world religion - right here:

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

All we need to do is accept each other's beliefs and love each other. For me, that is the ultimate, and indeed, the only form of universal religion available.

Out of this, the possible Unity I speak of will grow; otherwise (and lacking this), I agree - it will not happen.

And the sooner that Bill (mentioned in the first post) dies, the better.

Namaskar,

andrew