Rabbi Calls For 'UN Of Religions'

[Red Knight]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1119407' date='Nov 13 2006, 10:30 PM']
Sitting around a table talking and hearing the others viewpoint is a lot better than shooting each other.
[/quote]

Agreed, however, the hand of Satan is still very active in the world, and I don't see this dialog amounting to much.

Maybe, I've seen too much...

[Akalyte]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1118908' date='Nov 13 2006, 12:16 PM']
creepiness... Things are coming along faster than I thought.
[/quote]

yeah I know what you mean.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1119250' date='Nov 13 2006, 07:26 PM']
Wholly unnecessary, and a bad idea.

In practice, such a "world body of religions" would be at best useless, and at worst could lead to some very serious evils. (much like the actual U.N.)

If this body were to have any actual power, it takes little imagination to see its abuses.
Why should the Catholic Church be beholden to what the Jews, the Muslims, or the Unitarians say? It could very easily become an attempt to undermine the autonomy and authority of the Catholic Church.

Stay out, I'd say!
[/quote]



yeah! and isnt this also the whole "one world government/religion thing". that's of the anti-christ.

[Resurrexi]

The Church need not sit around and do petty dialouge, she may use force as the Syllabus of Errors condemns the notion that the Church may not use force:

[quote name='The Syllaubus of Errors of Blessed Pius IX']

24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

[/quote]

[ardillacid]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1119407' date='Nov 13 2006, 10:30 PM']
Sitting around a table talking and hearing the others viewpoint is a lot better than shooting each other.
[/quote]
But not nearly as exciting

[Socrates]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1120112' date='Nov 14 2006, 07:22 PM']
The Church need not sit around and do petty dialouge, she may use force as the Syllabus of Errors condemns the notion that the Church may not use force:
[/quote]
Yeah, bring out the semi-automatics!

Why engage in that sissy "dialogue" stuff, when you can just blow their infidel heads off?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1120112' date='Nov 14 2006, 07:22 PM']
The Church need not sit around and do petty dialouge, she may use force as the Syllabus of Errors condemns the notion that the Church may not use force:
[/quote]
Having the power and utilizing that power are two different things.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1119796' date='Nov 14 2006, 01:56 PM']yeah! and isnt this also the whole "one world government/religion thing". that's of the anti-christ.
[/quote]

Again "Fr. Elijah" is becoming more realistic every day. This was basically the whole premise of the book.

[Groo the Wanderer]

But the REAL question is....will they all say Merry Christmas when they go shopping at WalMart?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1119407' date='Nov 13 2006, 09:30 PM']
Sitting around a table talking and hearing the others viewpoint is a lot better than shooting each other.
[/quote]
Are these our only two alternatives?

[benedictaj]

Ugh.... what a creepy idea... I think it's terrible. I don't trust the U.N and why do religions need an equivalent?? I can't see any good coming out of it. Also, who would represent the different religions? Isn't it only the Catholic Church that has one direct, God-given leader?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1121750' date='Nov 16 2006, 04:49 PM']
Are these our only two alternatives?
[/quote]
Well, personally, I'd rather have extreme cage-fighting matches between champions chosen from each religion!

[kujo]

Wait wait wait....

If everyone can come off of the high horses for a few seconds and answer a few questions...

1. What is the "evil" that could come of the leaders of the major religions in the world coming together to discuss current and past events?

2. What is the "evil" that could come of those same leaders coming together, pooling their resources (economic, political, diplomatic, etc.) and actually getting some good done?

In my humble opinion, this is a wonderful idea. So much of the hatred in the world stems from historical misunderstandings, wrong-doings, etc. If nothing else, wouldn't this body be helpful as a place where Islamic leaders could have honest, open dialogue with leaders of the Jewish and Christian community?

There is far too much hatred and haughtiness in our world today. And, call me an idealist, but I happen to think that perhaps dialogue and mutual-understanding would go a long way to alleviating the plagues of our time: terrorism, poverty, disease, hatred, war, etc.

[Winchester]

I don't think it's dangerous so long as we are not attempting to change our dogma. There will be those who will see this as syncretism, which indicate at the very least that we should proceed with caution.

[kujo]

Agreed. I would be adamantly opposed to any sort of dogmatic-compromise of any sort. I don't believe in the "melting pot" metaphor when it applies to religion; however, as I said before, the notion that this hypothetical-assembly would be "one world religion" or "new world order" is just silly.

[cmotherofpirl]

We do not have to agree on dogma to agree that we should feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and stop killing people.

[Winchester]

Or feed the homeless to the hungry and stop killing cows.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1122176' date='Nov 17 2006, 12:47 AM']
Wait wait wait....

If everyone can come off of the high horses for a few seconds and answer a few questions...

1. What is the "evil" that could come of the leaders of the major religions in the world coming together to discuss current and past events?

2. What is the "evil" that could come of those same leaders coming together, pooling their resources (economic, political, diplomatic, etc.) and actually getting some good done?

In my humble opinion, this is a wonderful idea. So much of the hatred in the world stems from historical misunderstandings, wrong-doings, etc. If nothing else, wouldn't this body be helpful as a place where Islamic leaders could have honest, open dialogue with leaders of the Jewish and Christian community?

There is far too much hatred and haughtiness in our world today. And, call me an idealist, but I happen to think that perhaps dialogue and mutual-understanding would go a long way to alleviating the plagues of our time: terrorism, poverty, disease, hatred, war, etc.
[/quote]
We tried that before with the U.N., and it doesn't work.

I've got no problem with the Catholic Church "dialoguing" with leaders of other religions, so long as no compromise is made regarding the Faith, but it's creating an official U.N.-type body that bothers me.

Such an official body would likely put pressure on "member" religions to follow certain "resolutions" or guidelines, much as the U.N. does (but fortunately doesn't have full power to enforce).

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1122806' date='Nov 17 2006, 11:06 PM']
We tried that before with the U.N., and it doesn't work.

I've got no problem with the Catholic Church "dialoguing" with leaders of other religions, so long as no compromise is made regarding the Faith, but it's creating an official U.N.-type body that bothers me.

Such an official body would likely put pressure on "member" religions to follow certain "resolutions" or guidelines, much as the U.N. does (but fortunately doesn't have full power to enforce).
[/quote]

The United Nations is a weak, corrupt assembly of nations that has no force (and, most times, no will) to back up it's on "resolutions."

This hypothetical body would not be a government and would not be in the business of condemning or governing anything; rather, they'd be a group of people getting together to try to get non-religious, non-political, non-partisan things done--alleviating poverty, supporting methods of curing/treating diseases, promoting understanding and dialogue between two conflicting parties, etc.

[Sirklawd]

its fine and good until that one thing that comes up that the different religions believe differently about. And then nothing gets anywhere. In this situation compromise is simply impossible as to people who truely believe in their faith (no matter what their faith) actions are indicative of their belief. no one is going go against their faith.

you cant go anywhere unless everyone can agree on the destination. This is hard enough for the political UN, but for religions?? Near impossible. You simply end up with dealing the least common denominator of things each religion cares about. (and we've already gotten there with saying itll help the poor) news flash: you dont need a UN of religions to help the poor. you just do it. you just go help the poor. Newsflash again: having many religions in the world is not what causes people to be poor.

[Guest Rick777]

What a horrible idea.