Traditional: right or wrong reasons?

[Darkwolf]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

This is the time for all the good men to come to the establishment of a universal all satisfying religion.

To be honest, I don't like the idea of a "one world religion". I like diversity. I think it would be more valueable to focus on getting along dispite our differences. My dream is of a world where we can practice and believe differently without harassing each other, degrading each other, or blowing each other up.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by Darkwolf

To be honest, I don't like the idea of a "one world religion". I like diversity. I think it would be more valueable to focus on getting along dispite our differences. My dream is of a world where we can practice and believe differently without harassing each other, degrading each other, or blowing each other up.

And so do I, but we accept 'Unity in diversity'. We are told to rejoice in our differences and to be curious about them. Our differences should never be a reason for disharmony, unless they cause harm to others. Then the rest of the world should unite against those that are causing the harm.

An example would be a belief system that suggests that one group of people should be segregated from others and did away with, simply because of their belief. Historically, the group that is being martyred are a non-assuming, loving group and the group that is forcing their belief system onto others is an aggressive/militaristic group. Today, we have many groups that preach separatist ideals that would cause disharmony among many.

Unity in Diversity

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Darkwolf

To be honest, I don't like the idea of a "one world religion". I like diversity. I think it would be more valueable to focus on getting along dispite our differences. My dream is of a world where we can practice and believe differently without harassing each other, degrading each other, or blowing each other up.

Kindest Regards, Darkwolf,

I am in agreement with you. I cannot help but think that a "one size fits all" religion would inevitably end up forcing itself on someone (or group), or otherwise watering down the beliefs and cultures as they became integrated and assimilated. Ultimately, choices would have to be made, who and what to sacrifice...? Perhaps not an important question to the one holding the handle of the sword, a very important question to the one at the business end of the sword. In other words, the idea seems good, until you realize that your belief/faith/religion/society/culture is on the chopping block!

I'm not too keen on that thought, considering every culture that has lasted for any legitimate length of time, has contributed to the vast treasure trove of human understanding, wisdom and beauty. Among the collected human races, someone somewhere would lament the passing of any of those cultural treasures. And ultimately, we are all the poorer for it.

Religion, in the purest sense, seems to me a collection of myths, stories, fables, parables, and wisdoms that ultimately lead a person along a path to moral enlightenment. Without such enlightenment, what purpose for the religion? If a religion cannot show each or any individual the benefit of morality, it is no true religion. Without morality, religion becomes ritual for the sake of ritual, the meaning becomes lost, the adherents become blind, and the practice becomes futile. If no goal or purpose, why begin the journey?

[bgruagach]

The idea of a "universal religion" is basically the point of monotheism, isn't it? Every monotheistic religion out there has presented itself as the "one true and only valid religion" at some point or other. That's the primary purpose of actively seeking to convert nonbelievers, isn't it?

Trying to push a "universal religion" hasn't worked too well in the past few thousand years of human history. I would doubt it would go over too well now or in the future.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bgruagach

The idea of a "universal religion" is basically the point of monotheism, isn't it? Every monotheistic religion out there has presented itself as the "one true and only valid religion" at some point or other. That's the primary purpose of actively seeking to convert nonbelievers, isn't it?

Trying to push a "universal religion" hasn't worked too well in the past few thousand years of human history. I would doubt it would go over too well now or in the future.

Kindest Regards, bgruagach!

Good point. Of course, the monotheistic religions began within specific cultures. In that regard, they were no different than the many subsets of polytheistic religions. All religions proselytize, its just part of what they do. And one could point to the Roman persecutions to see a polytheistic culture that held as a basic point the extermination of competing religion(s). So while what you say is true, it is not the exclusive domain of monotheism. Polytheism is equally (and sometimes more so) guilty.

[bgruagach]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Good point. Of course, the monotheistic religions began within specific cultures. In that regard, they were no different than the many subsets of polytheistic religions. All religions proselytize, its just part of what they do. And one could point to the Roman persecutions to see a polytheistic culture that held as a basic point the extermination of competing religion(s). So while what you say is true, it is not the exclusive domain of monotheism. Polytheism is equally (and sometimes more so) guilty.

Actually, all religions don't proselytize. And in a polythestic viewpoint, people who believe other things aren't routinely seen as a threat since polytheism means that multiple deities (and multiple religions) can coexist.

The problem, in my opinion anyway, is when a religion gets the idea that it's superior or more correct to all others and then starts to act on that assumption.

My understanding of the Roman method of dealing with other religions was to accept those other religions (and in some cases to adopt them outright if they were appealing) with the exception of those religions which insisted on denouncing all the ones which were already considered acceptable to Rome. In other words, Rome was fine with religions that "played nice" and only had a problem with religions that refused to get along with everyone else.

Sure, there were conflicts between polytheistic religious groups. I'm not so confident the conflict was over religion as much as it was about politics though. In monotheistic conflicts, though, it is very much an issue of at least one religion trying to actively wipe out all competition because in their philosophies there can only be one.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, and thank you for the thoughtful reply, bgruagach!

Actually, all religions don't proselytize.

OK, I can accept that perhaps my response was a little too all inclusive, but I need only look in the back of a periodical such as The Old Farmer's Almanac to find proselytizing for many polytheistic and "alternative" faiths. I suppose a distinction could be made between active and passive proselytizing, but a religion must seek new recruits over time in order to stay in existence.

And in a polythestic viewpoint, people who believe other things aren't routinely seen as a threat since polytheism means that multiple deities (and multiple religions) can coexist.

I have heard this point expressed before. It is a noble idealism to strive for. I have also seen instances where this ideal was not fully realized. This very thread deals with the competition for bragging rights between competing versions of polytheistic faith. Admittedly, that competition is somewhat friendlier than some full scale religious clashes, however it still exists.

The problem, in my opinion anyway, is when a religion gets the idea that it's superior or more correct to all others and then starts to act on that assumption.

This is a very valid concern. And I can understand the association with monotheism in this regard. Typically, monotheists are not particularly tolerant, when they are in a position of power. When a minority, they have little choice but to go along, up to a point. Then, as with any minority, if pushed too far, something will have to give. I can't help but think the exercise of political power becomes a determining factor, polytheism when wielding such power is little more tolerant. Or better stated, conditionally tolerant.

My understanding of the Roman method of dealing with other religions was to accept those other religions (and in some cases to adopt them outright if they were appealing) with the exception of those religions which insisted on denouncing all the ones which were already considered acceptable to Rome. In other words, Rome was fine with religions that "played nice" and only had a problem with religions that refused to get along with everyone else.

I have heard this point before as well. It sounds good, but there's something about it that doesn't make sense to me. The Jewish wars were fought to quell a distinct political rebellion, so that makes sense. But the fledgling Christians...? Let us consider for a moment, what percentage of the population was Christian at the time the persecutions began? Perhaps a fraction of 1%? The political power of Rome was threatened by a wee little passive group that only wished not to serve "other" gods? The early Christians were not a political force, they were not a military force. The only secular force they had was community service. And this somehow threatened mighty Rome?

My understanding of Rome's position on other religions was that they were allowed only if they first recognized the gods of Rome, above all Caesar. It was for not worshipping Caesar as a god that the Christians were persecuted, in my understanding. If I am incorrect, I will stand corrected. As has been pointed out before by others, and with which I am in complete agreement, written histories tend to get slanted to the composers biases, political, religious, and otherwise.

Sure, there were conflicts between polytheistic religious groups. I'm not so confident the conflict was over religion as much as it was about politics though. In monotheistic conflicts, though, it is very much an issue of at least one religion trying to actively wipe out all competition because in their philosophies there can only be one.

There is a great deal of validity in this. Not least because religion and politics are synonymous historically. In effect, religious wars were political wars, and vice-versa. Perhaps not exclusively, but certainly predominantly. And I am prepared to accept that monotheism tends towards intolerance when it holds political power. Political power then, in my mind, is the constant in these variable sums.

I am willing to accept your position for the sake of understanding. I once fit very well within the stereotype you have fixed. A number of things have come to light in my life, not least the tragedy of 9/11. I am awed at the destructive power of intolerance, the wasting of so many innocent and peaceable people of so very many walks of life.

Now I see tolerance as a key component to mutual co-existence, especially any peaceful kind. Tolerance, in my view, is not acceptance or adoption. It is allowing another person to view the world and live their life in a way that seems fitting to them, while preserving and developing your own view and life. As long as such is carried out in mutual respect. When one side begins to disrespect another, both sides lose.

Thank you most sincerely for your kind response. I trust we can be friends, or at least respectful acquaintances. Regards!

[Susma Rio Sep]

The result of the poll is in:

Posters in this thread are generally agreed that diversity of religion is more acceptable that unity.

Do they mean then that they don't ascribe to the idea of a true religion?

In which case one more worry is lifted from their minds: the search for the true religion, and the fear that one might miss altogether when as Vaj tells us that his boat is nearing shore.

For me, of course, religion is like hairdo and cuisine. No need to be disagreeable to each other on religious beliefs and observances, just as we don't do so with hairdo and cuisine of other peoples.

General conclusion: religion is not like air and water, if you don't get the real air or the real water, you are slated for extinction. No, not with religion.

So, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, what do you say about the true religion?

Susma Rio Sep