Yes, it’s like arguing over brands of toothpaste. Well, cosmic toothpaste.
Yes, the idea of superseding the previous “stage†is widespread, although I think that early Moslems had probably observed correctly before they themselves got themselves into a pickle. They accused Judaism and Christianity of betraying the Covenant to Abraham and bowing down to idolatry and making a man into a god, which to some degree was correct. But they fell into the pit holes of militancy.
In all, we have all made a proper mess out of religion and it seems that we have to return to grass-roots if there is going to be any chance for us. The problem is that we fail to recognise the importance of religion in the way I described it. We need the symbolism of myth, legend and allegory. If we don’t use a common symbolism, we make up our own. Look at the young kids of today – they have rejected the old symbolism to a great degree and made their own.
But it is a common symbolism that helps us become a community that pulls together. That is why America still functions the way it does, there is still a conditioning of the people in place that makes them shout “hooray†at the right symbol – even if some of them are downright obstinate 
Shalom
I agree with what you said.
Bob, I suspect that no one has or ever will call you “stupid” any time soon. Always interesting.
JT,
We all take responsibility. Each and every one of us. In that way we inspire each other and walk the path hand in hand. When one of us lags behind, we slow down and take the time to understand them, with understanding we are able to quickly continue our journey together. Unconditional love in the true sense. No?
A
I’m not so sure
Shalom
liquidangel,
So, how come you haven’t apologized to me for telling me to “fuck off†yet?
Maybe, I should be the one to be unconditional first?
So, we seem to have an inkling of the size and complexity of the problem, but the question remains, who, how, and what can be done to encourage people to stop and consider their spirituality? What is that galvanizing force that would begin such a journey?
As LA mentioned, it does begin with us, and perhaps that is all that is possible, but it seems to me that the us/them mentality will engulf us, and much sooner than later. Who will pin the bell on the cat?
JT
instead of pointing out differences, let’s bring on the similarities like a two ton brick.
I think that religious people have to imagine that maybe they are wrong about holding fast to their beliefs.
How can X number of gods, like say a MONKEY god, from Hinduism get alone with Jesus or Mohamed?
The Golden Rule: Most religions preach and try to practice the Golden rule, love each other, because we all are brothers in God:
Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 3id… Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. - Leviticus 19:18, NIB
Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets… All the Bible Matthew 7:1… Do to others as you would have them do to you, Luke 6:31 NIB
Islam, No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. - Hadith recorded by al-Bukhari, Sunnah
Hinduism, This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. Mahabharata 5,1517
Buddhism, Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Udana-Varga 5,18
Taoism, Regard your neighbour’s gain as your gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss.Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
Jainism, Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so. - Acarangasutra 5.101-2
Confucianism, Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. Analects 12:2
Zoroastrianism, Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others. - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29.
Baha’i Faith, He should not wish for others what he does not wish for himself. - Baha’u’llah, Bahá'à Faith.
Humanism, don’t do things you wouldn’t want to have done to you. - British Humanist society
Wicca: Bide the Wiccan Rede ye must, In Perfect Love and Perfect Trust; Live ye must and let to live, Fairly take and fairly give, the opening statement
Socrates, Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others
Epictetus, What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others
Ancient Egypt, Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause him thus to do.- The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, tr. R.B. Parkinson.
Shalom
I think that’s a good start, maybe know we can start laying down the mortar and start the path towards getting along.
Yes, that stuff needs to be used as ammo to blow out all of the overt and covert infidel stuff.
he who has the gold makes the rules.
that is the only golden rule that applies.
-Imp
“Elohim, the plural of the Hebrew word eloha, “god,” a lengthened form of the Canaanite word el (Aramaic alaha; Arabic ilah), is most frequently used for the God of Israel in the Old Testament. … The Israelites probably borrowed the Canaanite plural noun elohim and made it singular in meaning in their cultic practices and theological reflections (The New Encyclopaiedia Britannica, Micropaedia, Vol. III, 15th Edition, p. 863).”
Shalom
Hey, co’mon Imp. It is true the coercion is always a short term ‘solution’, but we need long term solutions that don’t rely on coercion which ultimately fails. The solution has to come from within each of us, not from without. How do we encourage this to happen?
(thinking ahead) And no, stringing together a whole bunch of short-term solutions doesn’t count.
JT
but it the long term solution as well…
why does coercion fail?
because some peace love wave sweeps humanity?
no
because universal harmony is achieved?
no
because the true goodness of human nature is allowed to shine through?
no
coercion only fails when some one is more coercive…
-Imp
Even the “golden rule” still has a bit of a selfish slant, i.e. “You don’t do what you wouldn’t like done to you.” It’s still primarily focused on the “you” involved. (Of course, the golden rule should be followed because it at least would keep people (hopefully) from harming one another). But the mindset has to be altered from this dualism of you vs. me, as completely seperate entities. I think the Taoist formulation comes closest to what really needs to happen, where we start really seeing the other person as ourselves.
As to the practical application, I believe educators have a responsibility to teach students to question the world, not just look for answers (this can in theory be done in any field of study). I had a religion prof. who emphasized questions over answers. He also said, “if you only know one religion, you know no religion.” So, while teachers cannot (and should not) endorse religion, they can certainly try to encourage questioning in their students that goes beyond their previous mind-sets. That can be one place to begin this dialogue. I guess that’s part of my theory on the “how, who” part.
Great idea about teachers. However, they have to be able to teach with their head still fixed onto their shoulders.
This excludes atheist that only care for themselves.
Also, some of the ideals Bob included could be twisted…
Clearly, there is no problem with adultery if you do not find it hateful. Besides, I no longer love the wife. Why get divorced? She’ll take half of everything. Adultery is fine! Who could find it hateful?
Clearly, if you desire to be a believer you must desire your brother to be a believer. Go forth and make believers of your brothers.
I have ten acres of land, I would have you take five of them. All men with ten acres will should give up five.
Religion endorses communism. They will steal your land and your wealth.
I do not find it disagreeable to steal because I do not have enough… thus I can steal.
Yes, it is ridiculous… but so is killing for god, so is suicide and these things exist in our world today. Mankind does what is in his own best interest, there is no end to his rationalizations to do what he can to get what he wants. It then falls to might makes right…
-Thirst
answer me this (hypothetical)
would you want your daughters husband to cheat on her?
I think your using semantics there, “desire” in the strictest terms doesn’t always translate well from other languages.
I honestly don’t see how this example applies… maybe it’s poorly worded?
nah that’s the government… remember eminent domain?
I do not find it disagreeable to steal because I do not have enough… thus I can steal.
[/quote]
ah, but you will find it disagreeable when you do have enough after stealing everyone else’s stuff. Then people will be at the place you were at and steal your stuff and you’ll have an endless cycle of people finding an exception that isn’t actually an exception because your not fully thinking it out.
these rules are about doing what is in mankind’s best interest not your own best interest.
thirst4empathy.
strive for empathy.
new rule:
meditate on a rule before you find a lame exception.