Is there such a thing as a universal religion?

[Soandso]

Unfortunately, attempts at universal religions have tended to go one of two ways: they either attempt conformity through peaceful dialogue that convinces few, then just kind of linger around and die a slow death, or they attempt conformity through force and destruction of the old ways, then solidify culturally through indoctrination and elimination of competing/heretical ideas. There seems to be variations within those two ways, but for the most part that's how it tended to proliferate and exist in the past - from what I've noticed

With us now in the information age, they have to contend with the fact that more people than ever have access to answers whenever we want without the need to rely on religious leaders and authorities to dole them out as things used to be. I'm not sure any religion that claims to be universal will be able to contend with that fact without seriously changing. Not only that, but people have become less communal over time, and I only see this persisting as time goes on

I just don't see how a universal religion can succeed post information age; at least, not in the long run. What answers can a universal religion offer that the combined knowledge of all mankind at the push of a button doesn't already give? Things have changed irrevocably for religions that claim a monopoly on truth

 

[Balthazzar]

As in, not attached by language, concept, geography etc to any one culture/people.

I'm asking a rhetorical question. The answer is no, obviously not.

So can a universal religion exist, or would it just be a philosophy. For instance, even legends have to take place somewhere, be written in some language with certain concepts etc.

Samson only makes sense in the Middle East, for instance, as does Abraham. No Japanese would have written these stories.

I can't disagree with your use of the term philosophy. Here's a theory: Way back when the earth was still flat, they tested the opposing theories.

1. flat.
2. spherical

Hosea stood at the shoreline to watch his friends on a newly built and very large ship drop over the edge of our then flat earth, verifying that it was in fact flat. They were utilizing newly developed telescopes for the accuracy.

Then other tech advances came to be, and they discovered it was spherical after all. Apparently, Hosea was experiencing a lack of information, or knowledge concerning what truly happened due to limited ability, so after these new truths came to light, Hosea's study became obsolete and was denied. New tech tools and the new findings made this possible. Hosea 4:6

 

[Rival]

Unfortunately, attempts at universal religions have tended to go one of two ways: they either attempt conformity through peaceful dialogue that convinces few, then just kind of linger around and die a slow death, or they attempt conformity through force and destruction of the old ways, then solidify culturally through indoctrination and elimination of competing/heretical ideas. There seems to be variations within those two ways, but for the most part that's how it tended to proliferate and exist in the past - from what I've noticed

With us now in the information age, they have to contend with the fact that more people than ever have access to answers whenever we want without the need to rely on religious leaders and authorities to dole them out as things used to be. I'm not sure any religion that claims to be universal will be able to contend with that fact without seriously changing. Not only that, but people have become less communal over time, and I only see this persisting as time goes on

I just don't see how a universal religion can succeed post information age; at least, not in the long run. What answers can a universal religion offer that the combined knowledge of all mankind at the push of a button doesn't already give? Things have changed irrevocably for religions that claim a monopoly on truth

You're not getting it either.

 

[Soandso]

You're not getting it either.

Could you expand on what exactly I'm not getting for me?

 

[JustGeorge]

Maybe I won't get it, but I think... no.

I think its impossible to have a system that appeals to all people.

I think the best we can do is focus on peace between us all.

 

[Rival]

Is it possible to have a religion that doesn't carry with it any cultural baggage.

Such as language, names from certain cultures, a history that doesn't apply to another country (King David has nothing to do with Ireland), dress codes, etc.

We all agree that Islam is Arabic generally and often requires you speak Arabic and read texts in Arabic.

I think Westerners are just too used to the idea that religion is foreign, imported, translated and academized.

That we have to learn why xyz because culture xyz did it. Not a culture we are in.

We only understand Christianity by reading a book from a foreign culture.

Not sure why people are struggling with this?

 

[1213]

Is Christianity a universal religion?

I think it is universal, because it is directed to all nations:

Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teach-ing them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Matt. 28:19-20

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As in, not attached by language, concept, geography etc to any one culture/people.

I'm asking a rhetorical question. The answer is no, obviously not.

Okay. It wasn't clear to me from your OP that your question was rhetorical.

So can a universal religion exist, or would it just be a philosophy. For instance, even legends have to take place somewhere, be written in some language with certain concepts etc.

Some legends aren't attached to real locations on Earth. Some religions focus on things that happened in Heaven, or before the Earth was formed, for instance.

On the language side, sure: the first time something gets written, it will be in one specific language. I think this can still allow for something to be "universal" if translations are equally authoritative as the original language (which I guess excludes revealed religion).

The bigger obstacle I see are concepts and cultural norms. For instance, I've noticed stuff in Confucianism about the relationship between the individual and society that it just takes as given that makes no sense to me at all.

Samson only makes sense in the Middle East, for instance, as does Abraham. No Japanese would have written these stories.

So to you, a universal religion requires intellectual buy-in from its adherents? This kinda ties into orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy; some religions take an attitude of "it doesn't matter if you agree to the tenets; just do the practices."

 

[Soandso]

Is it possible to have a religion that doesn't carry with it any cultural baggage.

Such as language, names from certain cultures, a history that doesn't apply to another country (King David has nothing to do with Ireland), dress codes, etc.

We all agree that Islam is Arabic generally and often requires you speak Arabic and read texts in Arabic.

I think Westerners are just too used to the idea that religion is foreign, imported, translated and academized.

That we have to learn why xyz because culture xyz did it. Not a culture we are in.

We only understand Christianity by reading a book from a foreign culture.

Not sure why people are struggling with this?

Oh I gotcha. I guess the closest universal religion we have to this is Scientology, but even then the historical and contextual roots of L Ron Hubbard's writings are rooted in the world that he established himself in: 1950s post WW2 America. I feel that any religion will eventually solidify and become a relic of a past time and location even if it's intentions are to be relevant to peoples from all nations for all times. Over time the cultural baggage surrounding a religion's founding stays locked in time and becomes more perceivable as the world around continues to change and evolve. The religion itself then has to change to try and catch up, or it just digs it's feet in more deeply and entrenches itself in spite of that change

So I think no, it's not possible for a religion to exist without cultural baggage. If anything, religion is itself an expression of a specific culture it's created within. That's not a bad thing in itself necessarily, but it becomes more apparent when it's intentions are supposed to be universal. Seems impossible to have one without the other, imo

 

[Rival]

Okay. It wasn't clear to me from your OP that your question was rhetorical.



Some legends aren't attached to real locations on Earth. Some religions focus on things that happened in Heaven, or before the Earth was formed, for instance.

On the language side, sure: the first time something gets written, it will be in one specific language. I think this can still allow for something to be "universal" if translations are equally authoritative as the original language (which I guess excludes revealed religion).

The bigger obstacle I see are concepts and cultural norms. For instance, I've noticed stuff in Confucianism about the relationship between the individual and society that it just takes as given that makes no sense to me at all.



So to you, a universal religion requires intellectual buy-in from its adherents? This kinda ties into orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy; some religions take an attitude of "it doesn't matter if you agree to the tenets; just do the practices."

You got lost at the last paragraph.

I mean why would a Welshman theoretically care for a religion from a culture that died 2000+ years ago, in a language he can't read, with concepts he isn't familiar with, from a land he knows nothing about which geopolitics mean nothing to him, with Gods from places in those lands that also mean nothing to him, with books in translation that aren't accurate. Why should he pick that over a native religious expression that best encapsulates his familiar concepts, dress codes and understanding of seasons, politics etc?

How can it ever be universally applied to all cultures everywhere at all time?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Or will every religion always be considered from a particular culture and carry those marks?

Is Christianity a universal religion? Islam? Given their Middle Eastern focus, their almost exclusive interest in a limited geographical area, Semitic language and concepts not known by those outside that culture, limited view of history etc.

Is it possible to have a truly universal religion that doesn't just end up being a bland, sterile philosophy?

Yes, Christianity maybe.

Inculturation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Quintessence]

Setting aside that using the term "universal" to describe what is "global" and specifically human is just plain weird?

Hypothetically, if you reduced the human species to identical clones of one another plugged into some digital matrix where every human had the exact same experiences at the exact same pace? In other words, if you stripped out absolutely all variation and diversity? That's the only way I could see for there to be a "universal" (aka, global) religion shared by all members of the human species. And maybe not even then. Mutation happens.

 

[Fool]

Or will every religion always be considered from a particular culture and carry those marks?

Is Christianity a universal religion? Islam? Given their Middle Eastern focus, their almost exclusive interest in a limited geographical area, Semitic language and concepts not known by those outside that culture, limited view of history etc.

Is it possible to have a truly universal religion that doesn't just end up being a bland, sterile philosophy?

there is a universal thing that all religions feed off of, it's called love. and with love, comes light, understanding.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Setting aside that using the term "universal" to describe what is "global" and specifically human is just plain weird?

Hypothetically, if you reduced the human species to identical clones of one another plugged into some digital matrix where every human had the exact same experiences at the exact same pace? In other words, if you stripped out absolutely all variation and diversity? That's the only way I could see for there to be a "universal" (aka, global) religion shared by all members of the human species. And maybe not even then. Mutation happens.

Cultural diversity can be maintained. See inculturation (link in post above).

 

[Quintessence]

To add, this is one of my favorite takes I've come across on why it is impossible for there to be only one religion (or, by extension, a "universal" one):

A World With Many Religions Is Better Than A World With Only One

Even if there is One True Way, we have no way of knowing which one it is. If your standard is certainty, your only honest alternative is to be an agnostic and accept that you can know nothing. Or perhaps, choosing the “right” religion isn’t what’s most important.

www.patheos.com

 

[Quintessence]

Cultural diversity can be maintained. See inculturation (link in post above).

Replacing components of someone else's culture with your own is not maintaining cultural diversity, it is fundamentally transforming it into another culture.

 

[Alien826]

But then again perhaps the reason God/Jesus is absent from earth, and Christians waiting centuries for his return, is because he has been cheating on us with the people of some other planet. Maybe he likes them better.

I would guess that they would be truly more likeable. Difficult to be less so.

 

[F1fan]

I think it is universal, because it is directed to all nations:

Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teach-ing them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Matt. 28:19-20

But not all planets, yes?

Would you be surprised if we discovered life elsewhere in the universe and they had no religion? Would you acknowledge that Christianity has no relevance to them?

And let’s note that many nations are secular.

 

[Alien826]

So "universal" as in "accessible to everyone"?

Maybe "acceptable" to to everyone? And therefore impossible. Even the blandest least dogmatic religion would be unacceptable to people that want their religion to tell other people what to do.

 

[Alien826]

Yes, the human Jesus was Jewish (primary language probably Aramaic). But the only Begotten Son, part of the triune Godhead, carried a universal message (see above), written down by others in Greek.

And here we have the universal answer. The universal religion? My religion!