If the whole world was of one religion would this be good or bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itullian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
it would be the best thing ever, assuming that religion was Catholicism of course.

there would be no divisions among us. War’s wouldn’t happen as much, and many other great things.
 
Except as a result from the second coming of Christ I’d say absolutely not.

Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Rick Warren have in the most subtle way suggested something like this…it’ll be like some form of earth worship bs. One world religion is just a red herring for controlling the people. When you here talk of that…RUN!
 
:tiphat:👍
It would be boring, just like if the whole world were one culture or ethnicity. No diversity of ideas, unless, of course, everyone were either Jewish or Jesuit, since neither group can ever agree among themselves.
 
The situation would be awful.

Theocracies are not good for civil rights and personal freedom - a totalitarian theocracy would have neither limits nor boundries, and force even the most willing victims to live on their knees.

Obviously, this would not apply if Jesus was with us in the flesh!
why does one world religion = theocracy?
 
It would be boring, just like if the whole world were one culture or ethnicity. No diversity of ideas, unless, of course, everyone were either Jewish or Jesuit, since neither group can ever agree among themselves.
🙂
That’s good! Love how you have the Jebbies as their very own religion, which essentially is true even with the inner divisions!
 
What do you think?
Depends on what you mean by “religion”…for there is corruption even within “religions”

Perhaps what is a better question is - “What if everyone in the world believed and acted in the same way?” What if they had the same “Faith” and acted fully on that “Faith”.
Then the answer would depend on what that “one way” is based on and what the “god” of the world is.
Right now I would say that there is something of a “one world faith” who’s god is money. This faith has adherents among every religion, and non-religion. Even those who would not normally be considered “greedy” are firm believers in this god and spend more time serving him than serving the god they profess to believe in.

However - if the world were of one faith and that faith was Love - and all truly worshiped the God of Love and the God who IS Love…Then amazing things could happen.

If - only…

Peace
James
 
Theoretically, God could be doing a lot more to reduce the number of religions in the world, but He isn’t. For example, he could appear before every Muslim and show them compelling evidence that Jesus was God incarnate, not just a prophet. Yet, again, He doesn’t do this. I will also say, in advance, that I reject the claim that God cannot provide more evidence if He wished to, that’s just plain silly! He wouldn’t be “interfering with free will” by sharing the gospel with those who haven’t been exposed to it, for example.

So perhaps there is a reason why He does not?

Would there still be a Pope at that point or would Jesus’ presence render the position unneeded?
I agree with this. Perhaps there is indeed a reason He doesn’t provide more clear evidence. He could have done so without compromising our free wiill.

Maybe He allows us to have very incomplete evidence partly because it gives us plenty of opportunity to learn to love others who are unlike us; and to humbly listen to other people as fellow humans, not just demonize them as opponents; and to accept that we have to learn to live with mystery and not having all the answers if we’re ever to be fit to know God at all.
 
What do you think?
It would be extremely bad, unless the religion happened to be perfectly correct in all aspects. This implies that the religion offers a better explanation, and verifiable explanation for the beginning of the universe, and a highly credible explanation for the motivation behind creation. Moreover, the religion in question must be so logical that the most dogmatic atheist cannot find flaws in it.

Currently there is a theology which approximates this standard, but at present no religion can come close.
 
Would there still be a Pope at that point or would Jesus’ presence render the position unneeded?
I’m not much of an end times scholar. But, I would guess that just as Jesus created the Papacy, He alone could end the Papacy. And, I would say He probably would do so.
The thousand year reign will come after the Judgement. So… there won’t be any people on Earth that need to be saved. The Church’s mission is to save people and to bring Christ to them through the Sacraments. Well, both of those things will have been accomplished.

But, as far as Church teaching goes… we believe that the world will one day be under one religion. But, that this will only happen after the End Times. [And I stand to be corrected by End Times Scholars of course, I know very little]
 
is this avoiding the question?

let’s just say…ok?
No, if the world was one culture- it would mean the loss of cultural diversity, spiritual riches, etc. Personally, I have gained great spiritual enrichment from the Scriptures of Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.

Maybe it would be great if we had a new post-modern syncretism, where we accepted ALL religions are studied as offering different statements of Truth.
 
No, if the world was one culture- it would mean the loss of cultural diversity, spiritual riches, etc. Personally, I have gained great spiritual enrichment from the Scriptures of Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.

Maybe it would be great if we had a new post-modern syncretism, where we accepted ALL religions are studied as offering different statements of Truth.
If the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth in its teachings… why turn to anything else?
 
If the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth in its teachings… why turn to anything else?
That’s a big IF. Given that the Church’s beliefs in omnipotence and omniscience are fundamentally illogical, the thinking man is advised to turn elsewhere. Other religions, however, are equally illogical.

Notice that the one characteristic which all religions have in common is that their members, programmed from childhood to believe that they alone are privy to absolute truth, actually believe that their religion represents that truth.
 
As an earlier poster said, it would put an end to religious wars (excepting schism and fractures, etc…) but I don’t think much else would change. Most people nowadays don’t seem too interested in religion, and therefore probably would behave just as badly as before. There would still be crime, greed, war, poverty, etc…

If anyone has ever seen the two-part episode of South Park where Cartman freezes himself and is thawed out 400 years later and the whole world is atheist, the world is still fighting over “religion.” A vulgar episode, but their satire of atheism is pretty funny.
 
What do you think?
I think it would depend on which religion it was. Some would think it is good, and others would not — which would lead to other religions being followed. It’ll never happen unless God wants it that way.
 
If the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth in its teachings… why turn to anything else?
Fullness of truth is one thing but that’s not the only thing that people turn to something for. As far as culture is concerned, he’s got a point.

I certainly won’t turn to the Church if I’m hankering for some Chinese food. 😛
 
That’s a big IF. Given that the Church’s beliefs in omnipotence and omniscience are fundamentally illogical, the thinking man is advised to turn elsewhere. Other religions, however, are equally illogical.

Notice that the one characteristic which all religions have in common is that their members, programmed from childhood to believe that they alone are privy to absolute truth, actually believe that their religion represents that truth.
Not completely. Hinduism and Buddhism both maintain that truth is relativistic, or more precisely, that any expression of the truth is only provisional. I recommend the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings, which deals with this very topic- saying that every expression of the truth admits innumerable understandings, and that all teaching is relative. Also the Diamond Sutra, “The Truth cannot be expressed, and that which can be expressed is not truth”. And Taoism- “the truth that can be named is not the enduring, unchanging truth.”

You will find the same expressions if you check out the more mystical pathways of Christianity- Pseudo-Dionysius, Eckhart, etc.

The Koran quite openly says that Jews, Sabeans and Christians will all be saved if they follow their Scriptures.

So, most religions admit that truth as we (they) know it is not absolute truth.
 
If many here do not want a world of ONE religion…why do so many of them try to convert people to believe in their religion?
Why not just let them be?
Maybe we shouldn’t try to convert, but to learn. “Seek not so much be understood, as to understand.”
 
Not completely. Hinduism and Buddhism both maintain that truth is relativistic, or more precisely, that any expression of the truth is only provisional. I recommend the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings, which deals with this very topic- saying that every expression of the truth admits innumerable understandings, and that all teaching is relative. Also the Diamond Sutra, “The Truth cannot be expressed, and that which can be expressed is not truth”. And Taoism- “the truth that can be named is not the enduring, unchanging truth.”

You will find the same expressions if you check out the more mystical pathways of Christianity- Pseudo-Dionysius, Eckhart, etc.

The Koran quite openly says that Jews, Sabeans and Christians will all be saved if they follow their Scriptures.

So, most religions admit that truth as we (they) know it is not absolute truth.
There is a humungous difference between what religions profess in their public, published writings, and what they actually teach in real life, and how they act out their religion in real life.

For example, I have a neighbor who was once a close friend until his physical disabilities, caused by his wife’s insistence upon keeping an indoor cat which freely spread cat feces on the kitchen counter tops and table, led to his being essentially taken over by that wife. He is the American version of a high mucky-muck Buddhist; people come from far and wide to his mountain retreat to learn from him. He has visited India to learn at the feet of high mucky-muck Buddhist supermonks. And he does not know squat.

What he learned about classical Buddhist teaching (Gautams’s original stuff) he learned from me. He eats meat, just like me. He lied to a school about his wealth to get a worthless son a free ride scholarship, and the son got kicked out of school for dealing drugs. Despite an interesting mind, the man is a complete hypocrite, which, as I discovered on a journey through Thailand, is typical of that worthless religion. Buddhism has no real beliefs, no standards, and no theology. It is a perfect religion for anyone who wants to apply an official, recognized name to whatever illogical nonsense his drugged up mind wants to call a belief system.

Religions are like politicians. They have a front line which sounds good, but operate according to an expedient back story. E.g: Obama— can anyone name the campaign promises that he actually kept?

Organizations whose officials do not work for a living cannot be trusted. Their existence is dependent upon the willing contributions of those who believe in their cause. Thus they will never present an unflattering truth about the validity of their cause.

Hinduism is not a religion with which I have much experience. I only worked with one Hindu person, a young computer programmer. He would not discuss his beliefs, and was the 2nd most wretched programmer with whom I tried to work. He accomplished nothing, blaming everyone but himself for his failures, much like B.O. His religion served him poorly in the areas of logical thinking and personal responsibility. Many years later I tried to find an Asian wife, and corresponded with quite a few Hindu women. They were totally illogical people. I’ve studied a bit about the religion, putting in about as much time as I could tolerate spending on a belief system that makes Greco-Roman pantheism look like the most brilliant explanation of reality ever devised.

A quote like your, “The Truth cannot be expressed, and that which can be expressed is not truth,” is the wailing of complete incompetents, nits who expect to spend their lives sitting on their fat butts and being admired as gurus, by pinheads— and being financially supported by those pinheads. Their words are directed to the ignorant who are happy to remain ignorant.

Every mathematical equality represents a truth which can be expressed, clearly, concisely, and unequivocally. 2+2=4 is a clear and simple truth. Zen meanderings are simply nonsense.

There are lots of stupid people who are willing to believe nonsense such as that which you expressed. Those who find learning a chore, and who have not a curious neuron in their limited brains. They comprise at least half of any human population, more in poorly educated, belief-dominated societies. Your quote is not wisdom— it is simply a marketing slogan, a talking green lizard with a foreign accent, designed to appeal to the mentally and physically indolent, assuring them that their inherent stupidity and consequential ignorance is the way to be.

That nonsense may work for you, and others living on the public dole. It does not work for those who think, learn, and work as a natural part of their lives.

The words you promote are those of third-world priests, ignorant, incompetent fools who, like Obama, want to gather around them the support of the ignorant (students), the indolent (welfare slugs) and the pigs who get rich by keeping people as stupid as possible (unions).

So you admire the Koran. You neglected to quote the parts where it teaches that Muslims should kill those Jews, Christians, etc. who choose not to embrace a belief system founded by an illiterate thief and pedophile. I admire neither your taste nor your ability to tolerate extreme cognitive dissonance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top