Given that humans (mainly males) have a propensity towards...

[(Q)]

Yes, they are. Dictionaries usually are quite limited, narrow, and biased.

Ah, that would explain it then. I'll burn my copies immediately and just make it up as I go along.

 

[lightgigantic]

Warring with one another - regardless of which religion they practice,

... or more correctly, regardless of if they openly subscribe to any religion at all ...

IF you were interested in forming a religion that decreased war, this was your goal, what sorts of things would you include and emphasize and what sort of things would you not include - in the basic structure of your religion?

Would it be Monotheistic? Monastic? Polytheistic?
Based on Aliens? Based on Gods? Goddesses? All or Some?

call me crazy, but actually I would look at the foundation of the conflict in question.

If you have at the crux of the matter puppet regimes, oil racketeering and a phenomenal drugs and arms trade it doesn't really matter whether you introduce buddhism or the FSM

:shrug:

What about killing? What would your advice be:
- Never ever kill (knowing that they will do so anyway, but going for the long term good)
- Sometimes it's OK to kill?
- Kill but only these people.

Once again, discussing these issues divorced of any political/social context is pointless

What attitude should people take towards people not of your belief? They are wrong, they are right, both may be right?

Google "henology"

So, in the game: Build your own Religion that evolves towards Peace what's it going to be?

First of all you have to look at where a population is at before you can introduce a means.

Kind of like discussing whether its better to study nanotechnology or nautical engineering when its more than likely your candidates will be preschoolers

:shrug:

 

[Hapsburg]

Ah, that would explain it then. I'll burn my copies immediately and just make it up as I go along.

Rather, you should use multiple dictionaries, encyclopaedias, and online sources to determine the broadest and most accepting definitions.

 

[Xylene]

No, it's not. It's a requirement for theism and spiritualism.
Religion is simply a coherent, systematic way of life or pattern of opinion. Assuming the supernatural to be a necessary part of defining a religion is, to say the least, a narrow and limited view of religion and philosophy.

As you've described it above--a coherent, systematic way of life or pattern of opinion--that's philosophy defined to a T, surely? Philosophy inclusive of the idea of some sort of divine, otherworldly power is religion; religion without god is philosophy.

 

[Hapsburg]

I see very little difference between religion and philosophy. To put it briefly: I see religion as applied philosophy. Belief in the divine is optional.

You're free to have whatever opinion or definition you want about it. But, just be aware that this is how I define religion. For future reference.

 

[Enmos]

you don't i guess. but i see god in nature. the balance, and the laws, and the beauty. it's just so perfect. and then when you consider it's not ours to exploit...that it belongs to god...and to have respect for that balance...

It belongs to no one.

gee, i guess we wouldn't be destroying it huh?

Huh.. what ? :fright:

 

[Enmos]

You don't have to. But I do anyway.

But only as a symbolism though, right. I think you told me that once ?

 

[Hapsburg]

But only as a symbolism though, right.

How do you mean?
I don't see the gods as corporeally existing as nature itself; but I do see them as spiritually emanating through it. Part of this is that certain things in nature are their symbols and icons, which ancient polytheists can attest to. But part of it is raw spiritual presence.

I think you told me that once ?

I might have; I might not. In any case, my opinions change here and there, so not all of my old statements are accurate to my current beliefs.

 

[Enmos]

How do you mean?
I don't see the gods as corporeally existing as nature itself; but I do see them as spiritually emanating through it. Part of this is that certain things in nature are their symbols and icons, which ancient polytheists can attest to. But part of it is raw spiritual presence.


I might have; I might not. In any case, my opinions change here and there, so not all of my old statements are accurate to my current beliefs.

I thought you saw certain aspects of nature as being gods or as a god emanating through them as you put it, but not as reality ?
Kind of like choosing to believe something because you like the idea while knowing it's not really so.

 

[Lori_7]

It belongs to no one.

Whether it belongs to everyone or no one, either way we have no right to exploit it like we do.

Huh.. what ? :fright:

Certainly this is no surprise to you.

 

[(Q)]

Rather, you should use multiple dictionaries, encyclopaedias, and online sources to determine the broadest and most accepting definitions.

I did. You should have seen the huge bonfire I made with them yesterday, really quite terrific. They all had the supernatural as a requirement, so I burned them, based on your logic.

 

[(Q)]

I see very little difference between religion and philosophy. To put it briefly: I see religion as applied philosophy. Belief in the divine is optional.

Nope, didn't see the supernatural in any of the definitions for philosophy. The only word that appeared relative to both was 'belief.'

You're free to have whatever opinion or definition you want about it. But, just be aware that this is how I define religion. For future reference.

Fair enough. It's wrong, but fair.

 

[Enmos]

Whether it belongs to everyone or no one, either way we have no right to exploit it like we do.

Involving rights just makes it weird.

Certainly this is no surprise to you.

Huh.. but I didn't understand what you meant..

 

[Lori_7]

Involving rights just makes it weird.


Huh.. but I didn't understand what you meant..

We're destroying the planet with our exploitations without any right to.

 

[Enmos]

We're destroying the planet with our exploitations without any right to.

I agree. But I meant that I didn't understand this bit: "gee, i guess we wouldn't be destroying it huh?". Post 51.

 

[(Q)]

We're destroying the planet with our exploitations without any right to.

What do you mean? God gave us the right to exploit the planet.

 

[Enmos]

What do you mean? God gave us the right to exploit the planet.

That's actually true. Well.. according to the bible at least.

 

[Hapsburg]

I thought you saw certain aspects of nature as being gods or as a god emanating through them as you put it, but not as reality ?

Depends on how you mean "reality". As in, physical existence?

 

[Enmos]

Depends on how you mean "reality". As in, physical existence?

Hmm yes, what else is there ? By reality I mean everything in existence.
You are probably going to say that there is such a thing as spiritual existence, but then my question would be how do you know ?
For spiritual existence and physical existence to interact with each other there must be some sort of overlap, for which there is no evidence at all.

Edit: Spiritual existence also seems like a misnomer to me. They are contradicting terms.

 

[Hapsburg]

Well, I do believe there is something beyond the physical. That the physical universe is not the totality of existence, and that there is a spiritual realm or plane of existence (no, I do not see it as contradictory). And I do think there is some overlap; which consists of the gods existing spiritually throughout physical existence.

I'm not saying that I know this 100%; that would be arrogant of me. Nor am I saying you have to think the same thing as me. That would also be arrogant. I'm merely stating my point of view that you know where I am coming from, philosophically.

PS) Keep in mind, I never claimed to have empirical evidence for this. These are merely my thoughts and personal gnosis. If I were claiming to have proof of this, you could legitimately use an empirical argument against me. But I have done no such thing. My thinking is based on faith tempered with reason.