Brookes School        English Nanny Agency
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: A new religion

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Corning, Нью-Йорк
    Posts
    1,324
    Thanked: 520

    A new religion

    Now if you were going to design a religion, what would be in it? (defining "religion" as a system whereby an individual can achieve happiness and success).

    Start, perhaps, with a "Golden Rule" - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This or similar, seems to be found in many religions.

    And the contrapositive "Don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

    What else?
    Government is like Fertilizer. A little is good, too much is a pile of crap.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    TPE
    Posts
    20,615
    Thanked: 2419
    A new religion - what, again? ©

    http://youtu.be/IjkUGKRUtgc
    All the world's Kremlin,
    And all the men and women merely agents

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Moscow/Russia
    Posts
    16,771
    Thanked: 2895
    Never say - only mine is right, the only one and correct. And all the others are wrong and will bring you damnation forever -.
    There is no greater treasure then pleasure....

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Benedikt For This Useful Post:

    Suuryaa (20-06-2017)

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    7,712
    Thanked: 679
    Quote Originally Posted by Benedikt View Post
    Never say - only mine is right, the only one and correct. And all the others are wrong and will bring you damnation forever -.
    This is pluralist agnosticism. It says "I don't know the truth, therefore, nobody can". It's pretty irrational.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    4,601
    Thanked: 1656
    Well , here I go again ......I always say to myself 'just let it go' but I just can't resist it!
    I believe there are many thousands of religions in our world and each and everyone one of them has followers who believe that theirs is the only plausible one .Truth and religion is a bit of an oxymoron as far as I can make out .....!
    “You don't love someone for their looks, or their clothes, or for their fancy car, but because they sing a song only you can hear.”
    ― Oscar Wilde

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    7,712
    Thanked: 679
    Quote Originally Posted by vossy7 View Post
    Well , here I go again ......I always say to myself 'just let it go' but I just can't resist it!
    I believe there are many thousands of religions in our world and each and everyone one of them has followers who believe that theirs is the only plausible one .Truth and religion is a bit of an oxymoron as far as I can make out .....!
    OK, Vossy. Let me ask you this.
    People have held various beliefs as to how the world (universe) came to be. Does that fact that there are multiple beliefs mean that therefore none of them is true? Or that all of them are? Do you believe that the world both came into being through an irrational process unguided by anyone AND that God or gods or aliens or all of the above made it, AND that it is standing on the back of an elephant, which is on the back of a turtle, and so on?

    Obviously, there MUST be a true version, whether we ever know it or not. The world came about in a - A- ONE - definitive way, not in "no way" or in "all ways, as each person imagines it".

    Logically, it could be that case that it happened in a way that nobody has proposed, and everybody could be wrong for that reason, but not just because many explanations are offered. So either everybody is wrong, including you, or else most people really ARE wrong and some minority is actually really right. It is a given that many, or even all, could be right about some (and most likely differing) details, but I am talking about the offered explanations as a whole.

    It is irrational to say that a multiplicity of possible explanations negates the actual explanation. People are either correct in regards to that actual explanation, aka "the truth", or they are wrong. THAT is the only logical consideration.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    4,601
    Thanked: 1656
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post
    OK, Vossy. Let me ask you this.
    People have held various beliefs as to how the world (universe) came to be. Does that fact that there are multiple beliefs mean that therefore none of them is true? Or that all of them are? Do you believe that the world both came into being through an irrational process unguided by anyone AND that God or gods or aliens or all of the above made it, AND that it is standing on the back of an elephant, which is on the back of a turtle, and so on?

    Obviously, there MUST be a true version, whether we ever know it or not. The world came about in a - A- ONE - definitive way, not in "no way" or in "all ways, as each person imagines it".

    Logically, it could be that case that it happened in a way that nobody has proposed, and everybody could be wrong for that reason, but not just because many explanations are offered. So either everybody is wrong, including you, or else most people really ARE wrong and some minority is actually really right. It is a given that many, or even all, could be right about some (and most likely differing) details, but I am talking about the offered explanations as a whole.

    It is irrational to say that a multiplicity of possible explanations negates the actual explanation. People are either correct in regards to that actual explanation, aka "the truth", or they are wrong. THAT is the only logical consideration.
    Ahh Rus , we are on the cusp of a conflict thesis here and much better intellects than you or I have spent their entire lives trapped without coming close to consensus........I for one do not intend trying to play a Huxley to your Wilberforce thank you
    “You don't love someone for their looks, or their clothes, or for their fancy car, but because they sing a song only you can hear.”
    ― Oscar Wilde

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Moscow/Russia
    Posts
    16,771
    Thanked: 2895
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post
    This is pluralist agnosticism. It says "I don't know the truth, therefore, nobody can". It's pretty irrational.
    I do not think so Rus. Does not every religion teach - only mine - is right? and only if you are a believer (in mine) you will go to heaven or Nirvana or wherever perpetual happiness is?
    There is no greater treasure then pleasure....

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Benedikt For This Useful Post:

    Suuryaa (20-06-2017)

  11. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Moscow/Russia
    Posts
    16,771
    Thanked: 2895
    [QUOTE=rusmeister;1466102]OK, Vossy. Let me ask you this.
    People have held various beliefs as to how the world (universe) came to be. Does that fact that there are multiple beliefs mean that therefore none of them is true? Or that all of them are? Do you believe that the world both came into being through an irrational process unguided by anyone AND that God or gods or aliens or all of the above made it, AND that it is standing on the back of an elephant, which is on the back of a turtle, and so on?


    Well, no one ever came back to tell us that HIS version was right. and that means all the others are wrong.So, let us be happy in our way and believe, or not believe what might be right or wrong.
    There is no greater treasure then pleasure....

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Corning, Нью-Йорк
    Posts
    1,324
    Thanked: 520
    OP here, sorry, I did not put my question in proper context. I am postulating that all present-day religions have failed. In that none of them have united the human race nor brought us to a state of serenity in our interpersonal and our international relations. Let me define "religion" as not only a method to enhance one's happiness and prosperity, but as a commonly-agreed-upon set of moral principles by the wider society, and as a construct for determining right from wrong.

    In the West, Secular Humanism, based on the flawed "humanistic sciences" has succeeded in nearly destroying the foundation of the Judeo-Christian philosophy that constructed Western Civilization and which nurtured its own enemy - sort of like a parasite eating itself out of home by devouring its host. The eastern religions are too passive to be able to confront contemporary events. Islam has "succeeded" in making everyone else angry or afraid of it.

    Science and technology have created new wonders, such as genetic technology, which need to be controlled so they don't open a Pandora's box of chaos.

    Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, et al, probably never envisioned a day when reality itself would be artificial (cyber). The old religions have scant mechanisms to confront and handle such changes.

    So, therefore, what is needed is a new religion. A new way for people to bridge widening communication gaps and to bring understanding to disagreeing factions. And what would the ingredients of such a successful religion be? A religion that unites all tribes, that ends wars, etc. under a common system of ethics?

    It's not only an opportune time for a new religion, it's necessary, given that science and technology have raced ahead of our ability to control it. I mean "control" in a good sense - like controlling a classroom of children.

    Building an ark probably won't help.
    Government is like Fertilizer. A little is good, too much is a pile of crap.

  13. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    7,712
    Thanked: 679
    Quote Originally Posted by Benedikt View Post
    I do not think so Rus. Does not every religion teach - only mine - is right? and only if you are a believer (in mine) you will go to heaven or Nirvana or wherever perpetual happiness is?
    Not necessarily.
    Even in Orthodoxy, while we believe that Christ is the only Way, we do not assert that He will only save people in the Orthodox Church; and in fact, being a member of the Church in and of itself is no guarantee.
    Some religions don't even promise perpetual happiness. In fact, your view of religion, as you present it, makes religion sound childish and ridiculously simplistic. It's not fair at all to great minds who never conceived of things like that.

  14. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    7,712
    Thanked: 679
    Quote Originally Posted by vossy7 View Post
    Ahh Rus , we are on the cusp of a conflict thesis here and much better intellects than you or I have spent their entire lives trapped without coming close to consensus........I for one do not intend trying to play a Huxley to your Wilberforce thank you
    You're basically saying "I'm right, but I won't (can't) defend my view."

    Consensus, yes. But why should you expect consensus, when it is manifestly clear that we humans are so very good at self-deception?
    But to imply from that that great minds did not come to more reasonable views than yours is silly. First of all, if they WERE better intellects, what exactly was it that "trapped" them? And what does "trapped" mean? Are you "trapped" into believing that ancient Rome existed?

  15. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    7,712
    Thanked: 679
    [QUOTE=Benedikt;1466105]
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post
    OK, Vossy. Let me ask you this.
    People have held various beliefs as to how the world (universe) came to be. Does that fact that there are multiple beliefs mean that therefore none of them is true? Or that all of them are? Do you believe that the world both came into being through an irrational process unguided by anyone AND that God or gods or aliens or all of the above made it, AND that it is standing on the back of an elephant, which is on the back of a turtle, and so on?
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post

    Well, no one ever came back to tell us that HIS version was right. and that means all the others are wrong.So, let us be happy in our way and believe, or not believe what might be right or wrong.
    Until death comes at you like a freight train ending all possibility of being happy in enjoying being ignorant, of that sad "carpe diem" philosophy of "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!"

  16. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    7,712
    Thanked: 679
    Quote Originally Posted by TheInterocitor View Post
    OP here, sorry, I did not put my question in proper context. I am postulating that all present-day religions have failed. In that none of them have united the human race nor brought us to a state of serenity in our interpersonal and our international relations. Let me define "religion" as not only a method to enhance one's happiness and prosperity, but as a commonly-agreed-upon set of moral principles by the wider society, and as a construct for determining right from wrong.

    In the West, Secular Humanism, based on the flawed "humanistic sciences" has succeeded in nearly destroying the foundation of the Judeo-Christian philosophy that constructed Western Civilization and which nurtured its own enemy - sort of like a parasite eating itself out of home by devouring its host. The eastern religions are too passive to be able to confront contemporary events. Islam has "succeeded" in making everyone else angry or afraid of it.

    Science and technology have created new wonders, such as genetic technology, which need to be controlled so they don't open a Pandora's box of chaos.

    Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, et al, probably never envisioned a day when reality itself would be artificial (cyber). The old religions have scant mechanisms to confront and handle such changes.

    So, therefore, what is needed is a new religion. A new way for people to bridge widening communication gaps and to bring understanding to disagreeing factions. And what would the ingredients of such a successful religion be? A religion that unites all tribes, that ends wars, etc. under a common system of ethics?

    It's not only an opportune time for a new religion, it's necessary, given that science and technology have raced ahead of our ability to control it. I mean "control" in a good sense - like controlling a classroom of children.

    Building an ark probably won't help.
    You speak of religions as having "failed". But they have only failed by your criteria, not their own.
    You hold presumptions, going by your words here, that the human race must be united in the here-and-now, and that we must achieve serenity in our relationships, understanding, etc. I'd say the major world religions are way ahead of you, and if you can find particularly ignorant forms of Christian Protestantism or Islamic Wahabbism or a parochial form of Hinduism that offer primitive and unsatisfying answers, I can find intelligent forms of the same whose answers are far more sophisticated and thought-out.

    Some people are actually devilish enough to understand what they are doing, and still desire to do it. You discount what so many have discounted, including the Communists of the Soviet Union, the fact of human sin, a virus that eventually makes a hell of all attempted utopias. We are all riddled with that virus. That is the first thing YOU ought to come to understand.

    RELIGION IS ABOUT DISCOVERING TRUTH, NOT "INVENTING" IT.

    Your definition of "religion" is defied by the religions I do know something about, and your definition narrows, rather than broadens its historical functions.

    Religion, the immortal maiden, has been a maid-of-all-work as well as a servant of mankind. She provided men at once with the theoretic laws of an unalterable cosmos and also with the practical rules of the rapid and thrilling game of morality. She taught logic to the student and told fairy tales to the children; it was her business to confront the nameless gods whose fears are on all flesh, and also to see the streets were spotted with silver and scarlet, that there was a day for wearing ribbons or an hour for ringing bells. The large uses of religion have been broken up into lesser specialities, just as the uses of the hearth have been broken up into hot water pipes and electric bulbs. The romance of ritual and colored emblem has been taken over by that narrowest of all trades, modern art (the sort called art for art's sake), and men are in modern practice informed that they may use all symbols so long as they mean nothing by them. The romance of conscience has been dried up into the science of ethics; which may well be called decency for decency's sake, decency unborn of cosmic energies and barren of artistic flower. The cry to the dim gods, cut off from ethics and cosmology, has become mere Psychical Research. Everything has been sundered from everything else, and everything has grown cold. Soon we shall hear of specialists dividing the tune from the words of a song, on the ground that they spoil each other; and I did once meet a man who openly advocated the separation of almonds and raisins. This world is all one wild divorce court; nevertheless, there are many who still hear in their souls the thunder of authority of human habit; those whom Man hath joined let no man sunder.
    GKC, "What's Wrong With the World"

    Since some of us believe Jesus to have been God incarnate, we think He imagined many things that have never occured to you.

    We need the Truth (and the Way and the Life), not "a new religion". For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

  17. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Corning, Нью-Йорк
    Posts
    1,324
    Thanked: 520
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post
    You speak of religions as having "failed". But they have only failed by your criteria, not their own.
    The Pope is taking lessons from the latest anti-religious sociology textbook, when churches in the US have become activist political "social justice crusaders" and when the 2000-year-old tradition of marriage, the bedrock foundation of the church, has been demolished in the past decade, it's not just my criteria.

    You hold presumptions, going by your words here, that the human race must be united in the here-and-now, and that we must achieve serenity in our relationships, understanding, etc. I'd say the major world religions are way ahead of you, and if you can find particularly ignorant forms of Christian Protestantism or Islamic Wahabbism or a parochial form of Hinduism that offer primitive and unsatisfying answers, I can find intelligent forms of the same whose answers are far more sophisticated and thought-out.
    These are not the old days and the old ways don't get it in these days. North Korea and Iran, soon Saudi Arabia, are run by psychotic dictators three levels down from the cellar of insanity. In the old days we could just ignore them, we had 3000 miles of ocean between us and the crazies. Soon they could blow up the planet to placate their inner mental maladies. We all need to get on the same page, planetwise.

    Some people are actually devilish enough to understand what they are doing, and still desire to do it. You discount what so many have discounted, including the Communists of the Soviet Union, the fact of human sin, a virus that eventually makes a hell of all attempted utopias. We are all riddled with that virus. That is the first thing YOU ought to come to understand.
    I was never really comfortable with that postulate. It seems to limit the abilities of a human being, act as a continuous damper on his expression and creativity. I am not a "sinner," nor am I an animal, I am a human being. I don; walk around with a cloud over my head.

    Your definition of "religion" is defied by the religions I do know something about, and your definition narrows, rather than broadens its historical functions.
    When you use different definitions of the words I am using, it is difficult to understand. When you change the definitions of the words I was using and which I explicitly defined so there would be no mistake as to the meaning of what I was trying to say, communication is impossible.
    Government is like Fertilizer. A little is good, too much is a pile of crap.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •