Overall, Would a Single World Religion be More Beneficial than Not?

[Vinayaka]

Not to be argumentative, but when the model T Ford rolled out, most everyone had the same car in the same color and were thrilled. There are times when we are willing to accept uniformity.

Yes, indeed they were. So too with the first computers. That happens with 'firsts'.

 

[Augustus]

I can't think of any religion that would fit everyone on the planet, just like I can't think of a single shoe size that would fit everyone on the planet. But maybe I'm being naive.

Even if there was, it wouldn't last long.

While religions can unite people, our identity is formed as much by a sense of who we are not, as by a sense of who we are. We can't help but identify against some groups.

Religious schisms are often the result of existing ethnic/social/cultural/linguistic divisions, rather than religious schisms causing these divisions.

Even if we could institute a single religion, it wouldn't remain unified for very long as it would split along existing divisions using theology as a pretext.

There will always be a diversity of beliefs and cultures in human society, and the temporary imposition of a universal religion would not change this.

 

[ppp]

Not to be argumentative, but when the model T Ford rolled out, most everyone had the same car in the same color and were thrilled. There are times when we are willing to accept uniformity.

Only when we have no other choice. As soon as I can move through time at different rates and directions, I will no longer accept the uniformity of 1 second/per second.

 

[ppp]

Even if there was, it wouldn't last long.

While religions can unite people, our identity is formed as much by a sense of who we are not, as by a sense of who we are. We can't help but identify against some groups.

Religious schisms are often the result of existing ethnic/social/cultural/linguistic divisions, rather than religious schisms causing these divisions.

Even if we could institute a single religion, it wouldn't remain unified for very long as it would split along existing divisions using theology as a pretext.

There will always be a diversity of beliefs and cultures in human society, and the temporary imposition of a universal religion would not change this.

Pretext? You seems to be implying that religious divisions are rarely or never the product of differences in views on what a god is or what that god wants. Is that what you meant to imply?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not to be argumentative, but when the model T Ford rolled out, most everyone had the same car in the same color and were thrilled. There are times when we are willing to accept uniformity.

True, but do you think that if all car production halted except Ford Festivas and everyone had to drive only black Ford Festivas, how thrilled do you think most everyone would be?

I think it’s hard to move backward from diversity.

 

[MikeF]

True, but do you think that if all car production halted except Ford Festivas and everyone had to drive only black Ford Festivas, how thrilled do you think most everyone would be?

I think it’s hard to move backward from diversity.

Indeed. And there is always that eventual boredom from the same old, same old. Can we ever subdue boredom? Perhaps that is the source of all our troubles!

 

[Augustus]

Pretext? You seems to be implying that religious divisions are rarely or never the product of differences in views on what a god is or what that god wants. Is that what you meant to imply?

Someone may come up with a theological point of difference, but most people don't sit there considering whether the monophysitism, dyophysitism or miaphysitism correctly define the nature of Jesus, they communally adopt one view as their 'enemy' holds the other view and they want to differentiate themselves.

You see it in the rise of Protestantism in Holland and England in opposition to Catholic Spain, whereas Ireland stayed resolutely Catholic in due to British protestantism. The Sunni/Shia divide today largely results from Turkish Ottoman/Persian Safavid rivalry in the 16th C. Islam itself was an 'Arabised' version of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Look at religious fault lines today and you see they generally map on to preexisting divisions.

 

[Heyo]

Even if there are no religions whatsoever people will still divide and conquer.

Yep. They just have to be honest about their motives and can't hide behind a god willing it.

 

[MNoBody]

agriculture shows us the folly of monocultures [lack of diversity]....great way to go extinct...go lemmings go

 

[Heyo]

True, but do you think that if all car production halted except Ford Festivas and everyone had to drive only black Ford Festivas, how thrilled do you think most everyone would be?

And it would stay that way until someone finds a brush and a can of paint.

 

[SalixIncendium]

And it would stay that way until someone finds a brush and a can of paint.

Brush painted cars are scxii.

But all cars have to be black.

 

[The Hammer]

What if the sky was made of concrete?

Hey, that's my fantastical "what if" scenario rebuttal! Thief.

 

[firedragon]

Yep. They just have to be honest about their motives and can't hide behind a god willing it.

Not really. This borders on sociology of religion.

 

[The Hammer]

Overall, would a single world religion be more beneficial than not?

What if one of its norms/commandments/principles was that @SalixIncendium had to hire a personal fashion consultant and follow their directions, rather than attempt to pull together a wardrobe himself?

Definitely, Not. Plurality is necessary so that we keep a diversity of opinions and ways of looking at the world. Just like we shouldn't have one Language, or one form of Government, worldwide. It narrows our focus too much.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Which would put us back to where we are now.
But let's say that original religion in your hypothetical was 'good'. And that it took some time for the world and people to fracture and schism.

Doesn't that make the single religion possibly beneficial (even if we're ultimately doomed to return to current state)?

I think it would be far more beneficial to teach people how to think for themselves while giving them the best tools they can utilize to better themselves than to have them mindlessly follow dogma.

Even if the dogma was 100% flawless, over time the cracks would form and we would be right back where we are now, and the reliance on that dogma would make it harder for us to deal with that fall. It'd be chaotic.

Now, I realise not all religions have that reliance on dogma, but I have a hard time thinking that a world religion would be absent of it.

As for me, I'll take self reliance and an ever evolving knowledge set over dogma any day.

 

[ppp]

Someone may come up with a theological point of difference, but most people don't sit there considering whether the monophysitism, dyophysitism or miaphysitism correctly define the nature of Jesus, they communally adopt one view as their 'enemy' holds the other view and they want to differentiate themselves.

Well, that is just false all around. While one may not discuss Jesus' nature in sophisticated terms, both that and soteriology were both topics of Sunday school classes, VBS, and youth group seminars in the church I grew up in. And I grew up in a poduck NC town of 6000 people.

Look at religious fault lines today and you see they generally map on to preexisting divisions.

And yet the people in the church I grew up with believed the religious stuff that they said they believed. Historical reasons from previous centuries were irrelevant. And I mean that literally. No one cared enough to teach is about the real history of the Baptist Church. They just taught the religious stories about its connections to Jesus and John the Baptist. Which is what the church elders were taught when they were kids.

The fact of the matter is that people believe the religious stuff that they claim they do. Whether those beliefs be "sophisticated" or not.

 

[74x12]

Overall, would a single world religion be more beneficial than not?

What if one of its norms/commandments/principles was that @SalixIncendium had to hire a personal fashion consultant and follow their directions, rather than attempt to pull together a wardrobe himself?

No, a nihilist would think one world religion is a good idea.

It's not beneficial because it will certainly be the wrong religion. So I'm against it 100%.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Reading the bible, satan does far less damage than the main man

We indeed do.

Regards Tony

 

[exchemist]

Hey, that's my fantastical "what if" scenario rebuttal! Thief.

I got it from a guy calling himself Seattle on another forum.

Evidently it is not as original as one might have thought.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is interesting the amount of replies thus far that are hesitant to find a common goal, or say it can not be done.

I see a world in need of a universal cause and this advice following, I see will unfold;

".....The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world's Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquillity of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him...."

The events of our current day are adding to the convulsions that will lead to a world that seeds the need for such actions.

All the best to all.

Regards Tony