Universal temples!

[redindica]

Originally Posted by Bandit

hi 9Harmony

ok. but are they going to change the name form bahai temple to universal temple? & does it allow tarah cards & magic potions? & what happens when the muslim starts telling the christian that jesus did not die for sin & he is not the son of God?
& what happens when the Jew starts telling the christian Jesus is not the messiah?

& what happens when the christian who wants to shout for joy & the buddha says you are being too loud?
& what happens when the christian starts reading the greatest name is Jesus & the bahai reads the greatest name is 'O Glory of Glories'
um, all these world religions do not believe the same thing.

Interesting spin and I think this is at the heart of the matter. In a universal temple you wouldnt need to tell anyone else they are wrong only to respect others as you yourself would want to be respected.

And as a Hindu, I wouldnt dream of telling anybody their faith is wrong, that's just bad Karma.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Z

I see no reason why e.g. druids cannot see churches in the same light as the stone circles, and Christians as they see it. Of course there would have to be restrictions on kinds of worship, generally a universal philosophy and religion would suffice for all.

Hmm, and just whom would be the authority that would be restricting worship, and who would grant such authority?

One would think that we would have learned our lesson by now. Looking at history, it seems we've been down this road before.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by redindica

Interesting spin and I think this is at the heart of the matter. In a universal temple you wouldnt need to tell anyone else they are wrong only to respect others as you yourself would want to be respected.

And as a Hindu, I wouldnt dream of telling anybody their faith is wrong, that's just bad Karma.

well yes & i could easily respect that. if everyone just sat there in silence everytime there was a service that might work. but when the praise & worship goes up & the readings start & the prayer starts, baptisms & sacraments & chants or whatever it is people do, boy that would be one confusing matter & i am pretty sure someone would have something to say about it.
for example at my church we have choirs sing, orchestra plays, people discuss the bible & pray out loud sometimes. i really dont think that is going to fly with all these religions unless we just sit there like bumps.

i can just as easily go to a service & house of worship of a different faith & not make waves & show the same respect.

[_Z_]

Hmm, and just whom would be the authority that would be restricting worship, and who would grant such authority?

No one! Firstly I think a universal church would and could not cater to all faiths – except in the form of a philosophy forum [like the ancient Greek], secondly if there was a hierarchy then it would not be a universal church – thus there would be no one of authority over another!



The idea of comes from the fact that so many people these days have faith and spirituality without religion. Science is also moving closer to seeing the universal mind, with the quantum matrix and universal algorithms [the computational universe] for existence. I simply believe that most faiths shall become cults then fade completely [or as near as] – they are just very out of date! It appears that our spiritual understanding has not really moved forwards since Mohamed [except perhaps Baha’I].



I do not think that Baha’I is a universal religion, or else it would not be a religion + it is imho an Abrahamic based universal view [a self contradiction]! Close but yet so far.



Universalism is similar to science; there are theories and philosophies but no sheep! [Apparently that is – I think atheist’s baaa a lot ]



As I said before I like the idea of religions meeting more, of sharing their temples and churches on specific days – a little mixing goes a long way.



Personally I am dropping religion – even druidry [the religious side of it], to learn a purer view. A natural philosophy without all the hoo ha i.e. no gods or spirits. I feel there is a skeleton philosophy out there, it will be based on theory and fact - this will serve as a basis for understanding



I am sure I am not alone in this pursuit! And one day we will be the majority.



Z

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by _Z_

[Personally I am dropping religion – even druidry [the religious side of it], to learn a purer view. A natural philosophy without all the hoo ha i.e. no gods or spirits. I feel there is a skeleton philosophy out there, it will be based on theory and fact - this will serve as a basis for understanding



I am sure I am not alone in this pursuit! And one day we will be the majority.



Z

Interesting, Z. Kind of a non-theistic approach?

cheers,
lunamoth

[Bandit]

what about scientiology? you might like that one Z. it has philosophy & science.

Scientology Fundamentals by L. Ron Hubbard


What is Scientology? Scientology is an applied religious philosophy. The term Scientology is taken from the Latin word scio (knowing in the fullest sense of the word) and the Greek word logos (study of). In itself the word means literally knowing how to know. Scientology is further defined as the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life. Any comparison between Scientology and the subject known as psychology is nonsense.

there is another one real popular religion in Hollywood called universal (something or other) you might like.
no matter which way you go with it, there has to be some fundamentals to start or you have nothing. even cub scouts has that.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Interesting, Z. Kind of a non-theistic approach?

cheers,
lunamoth

Rereading this, just want to clarify that I am sincerely interested in your decision, not being sarcastic.

luna

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by _Z_

No one! Firstly I think a universal church would and could not cater to all faiths – except in the form of a philosophy forum [like the ancient Greek], secondly if there was a hierarchy then it would not be a universal church – thus there would be no one of authority over another!



The idea of comes from the fact that so many people these days have faith and spirituality without religion. Science is also moving closer to seeing the universal mind, with the quantum matrix and universal algorithms [the computational universe] for existence. I simply believe that most faiths shall become cults then fade completely [or as near as] – they are just very out of date! It appears that our spiritual understanding has not really moved forwards since Mohamed [except perhaps Baha’I].



I do not think that Baha’I is a universal religion, or else it would not be a religion + it is imho an Abrahamic based universal view [a self contradiction]! Close but yet so far.



Universalism is similar to science; there are theories and philosophies but no sheep! [Apparently that is – I think atheist’s baaa a lot ]



As I said before I like the idea of religions meeting more, of sharing their temples and churches on specific days – a little mixing goes a long way.



Personally I am dropping religion – even druidry [the religious side of it], to learn a purer view. A natural philosophy without all the hoo ha i.e. no gods or spirits. I feel there is a skeleton philosophy out there, it will be based on theory and fact - this will serve as a basis for understanding



I am sure I am not alone in this pursuit! And one day we will be the majority.



Z

I must apologize to you, Z. {I hope you won't try to throw me to the lions in the colleseum for saying this!} I thought you were making intimations towards the past actions of the Catholic church with your bringing up the idea of "Universal Temples," and that it was unfair that the only church in your village was a Christian one. Please notice the definition of "catholic:"

cath·o·lic
adj.
1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: “The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found” (Scientific American).
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: “what was of catholic rather than national interest” (J.A. Froude).

Hence, my comment:

One would think that we would have learned our lesson by now. Looking at history, it seems we've been down this road before.

Your following comment really seemed to bring this out, {in my mind}

I see no reason why e.g. druids cannot see churches in the same light as the stone circles, and Christians as they see it. Of course there would have to be restrictions on kinds of worship, generally a universal philosophy and religion would suffice for all.

I think we can all agree that Spiritual Fascism isn't beneficial. All we have to do is look back on history in order to see its effects. It has left deep wounds that are still festering today. I'm sorry if this response seems harsh.

[redindica]

Originally Posted by Bandit

well yes & i could easily respect that. if everyone just sat there in silence everytime there was a service that might work. but when the praise & worship goes up & the readings start & the prayer starts, baptisms & sacraments & chants or whatever it is people do, boy that would be one confusing matter & i am pretty sure someone would have something to say about it.
for example at my church we have choirs sing, orchestra plays, people discuss the bible & pray out loud sometimes. i really dont think that is going to fly with all these religions unless we just sit there like bumps.

i can just as easily go to a service & house of worship of a different faith & not make waves & show the same respect.

Hello Bandit and thankyou for the reply.

I think you misunderstand my point. Church’s and Temples and Mosques will remain for ritual. However a universal temple would be an adjunct to them as a forum for uniting the various practitioners of faith (to) come together in a non fundamentalist fashion for the good of society.



Something similar to Rothko’s Chapel in Houston Texas…one of the most extraordinary places I’ve visited.

Peace

[_Z_]

Seattlegal, hi



Actually I did not know that Catholicism was once considered universal! I see what you meant now, and yes there are all sorts of complications as to what priest one would use, and what service etc. this is why I agree with redindica concerning adjacent philosophy forums.



I also like the ancient libraries like the one at Alexandria [shame it got burned down], where people of all cultures and religions would go to write and debate, I wonder if everyone there was told to be quite like in modern libraries or if there were separate areas for reading and debate.

thanx and much respect

Z

[wil]

Actually I did not know that Catholicism was once considered universal!

Not that Catholicism was considered universal, they created their own importance by naming themselves universal.

Like a company calling itself World Bank, or World Gym, World Series, or Seattle's Best Coffee, International Juggling Association, or Super Bowl...you create a system and give it a name which implies acceptance by all...

It is actually one issue I have with the concept of a Universal Church, 'who says?' The holier than thou, self agrandizing aspect of it (despite any semblance of reality or intent to defraud)

[earl]

With respect, Z, why should there be universal temples (or universal spirituality/religion)? All levels of Life are comprised of both unity and multiplicity. Skin cells are not organ cells, yet do they not come together into 1 body? Individuals in family or community-one and the many. Life animates all living things, but do we need to see only 1 outward form? I rather like the way that Shunryu Suzuki put it in his classic book, "Beginner's Mind," that Reality is "not one, not two." That is, in discussing the mind-body interaction, for instance, he was speaking of how our minds and are our bodies were both distinct yet interrelated as one, adding that humans had a tendency to think if something was not "one," it had to be "two." His reply was "not one, not two." Form and formlessness-not emptiness or form. You try to force Spirit into one particular form, you kill its appropriate expression. Have a good one-or two , Earl

[_Z_]

hi earl,

Err that sounds exactly like how I think of universalism!


Primary formula – ‘IT’ = either neither and both of a dichotomy.



I have often talked of the multiplicity and the one. Both are questionable concepts – oneness cannot be complete without being absolute, which is impossible because of the multiplicity and vice versa. The whole idea is to find a way through the duality maze – the idea as you say that the ‘our minds and our bodies were both distinct yet interrelated as one’! There is apparent and holistic separateness & oneness, reality utilises and observes both, it does this by separating levels of existence into the subtle [or joined] and the gross [the distinct].

Religion can be thought of as the same as race and culture – if we were to blend all into one then we would have a beige monoculture of one race, resulting in a continual status quo. Universalism is not the idea of blending all into one, as that would be mono-ism, it is to except and embrace diversity as well as unity and gain dynamism through it.



To be universal is to be all – simple as that, so yes I will enjoy my ones and two’s

respect

Z

[earl]

Perhaps I misunderstood your philosophical stance through this thread, Z. I thought you were advocating against all organized "forms" of religious/spiritual practice and expression in favor of some sort of amorphous Mega-form; i.e., the "Universal Temple." Take care, Earl

[suanni]

Originally Posted by _Z_

Universal temples!




In this multicultural and multi-faith age, is in not time that anyone may worship as they please? And in the same place! [Could be difficult in some respects]. Most churches are half empty, so why not fill them – with people and ideas!

Well it works here doesn’t it, wouldn’t it be great if we had places like this forum but for real!



If not churches, then I hope there comes a day when we will all share universal temples of some kind!


Z

I had this vision around the turn of the millenium. I thought it would be more fitting to build a temple of sorts to accommodate all faiths rather than all the silly things that were built. We do have a multi faith, multi cultural population and it would demonstrate a kind of unity. All faiths share a similar thread.
However no sooner had I thought it, I thought of the reality of it and had all the backing of history behind the reality. One faith would squabble with another and wouldn't share, wouldn't fit a timetable, wouldn't conduct a service whilst the 'unclean/demon worshippers' were in the place or would be out to convert one congregation to their faith. Instead of a place of worship/peace it would turn into a house of war and in no time the dominant faith would see fit to claim the temple for their sole purpose and it would be unlikely to be the one who uses it most, just the best war monger.
I know I sound pessimistic and I know we all discuss our faith in peace on here but this is a rare site.
I would love one day for all the faiths of the world to realise what they have in common rather than what divides them but I don't think I'm going to see it in my lifetime.