Socrates Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 [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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 17, 2006 Author Share Posted November 17, 2006 We do not have to agree on dogma to agree that we should feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and stop killing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Or feed the homeless to the hungry and stop killing cows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 [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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirklawd Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rick777 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 What a horrible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now