One God, One Book

[Michael]

In modern multicultural societies, what good comes from the twin concepts of One God and One True book?

We live in multicultural societies with many people (including many of the Indigenous people) believing in multiple Gods and Goddesses, some believe in Alien Overlords, some are atheists. In multicultural societies what good comes from teaching children that there is only One God and only One True Book?

I don't see what good comes from teaching children this. Why would we want to encourage teaching these ideologies to children? Wouldn't it be much better to teach kids there may, or may not, be lots of different Gods and Goddesses and Alien Overlords? And that all of these religious books are equally as valid as the next?

 

[786]

"I don't see what good comes from these children this"

I do... so whats your problem now? You don't see a lot of things..

And you just agreed that brainwashing is a right so whats your problem?

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

OK, enlighten me, what's the good for the multicultural society?

 

[786]

OK, enlighten me, what's the good for the multicultural society?

Why should I enlighten you... I don't want to exercise my right to brainwash you. You already seem to be brainwashed.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

Whatever floats your boat 786.

 

[jpappl]

Michael,

In multicultural societies what good comes from teaching children that there is only One God and only One True Book?

Fortunately, in most multi-cultural societies that is not the case.

 

[Michael]

Michael,
Fortunately, in most multi-cultural societies that is not the case.

I agree.

Actually, I think more and more, people living in Western nations are coming to similar conclusions - whether they sit down and think about them or not. It's sort of the natural progression of thought for people living amongst a multitude of cultures. When some of your fiends are Buddhists and others Shinto and still others Hindu, well, you kind of have this inclination to respect their beliefs.

You wouldn't very well tell them they're going to burn in Hell for worshiping a false God. So, you think, well, they just don't know any better. IMO this apathy leads to a generation of: Well, it's all good. Which is perhaps a bit too Buddhist for God's liking? :shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

In modern multicultural societies, what good comes from the twin concepts of One God and One True book?

We live in multicultural societies with many people (including many of the Indigenous people) believing in multiple Gods and Goddesses, some believe in Alien Overlords, some are atheists. In multicultural societies what good comes from teaching children that there is only One God and only One True Book?

I don't see what good comes from teaching children this. Why would we want to encourage teaching these ideologies to children? Wouldn't it be much better to teach kids there may, or may not, be lots of different Gods and Goddesses and Alien Overlords? And that all of these religious books are equally as valid as the next?

If not even you are capable of accepting that atheism is just as valid as Scientology, it should be clear to you that you have an impossible ask.
:shrug:

 

[Michael]

If not even you are capable of accepting that atheism is just as valid as Scientology, it should be clear to you that you have an impossible ask.
:shrug:

Who said I wasn't capable of that?

If there were a "Religious" Atheism that says only Atheism is correct then I'd disagree. I may think it's correct, however, I may indeed be wrong. I think it's this last little part that we (so-called) atheists would like to see "The Church" agree with on in regards to their own beliefs. They should stop and say: You know, those guys over there may be right and we may not be.


I thought I've made this clear many a times?


That aside, what GOOD does teaching children there is only One God and only One True God-Book bring to a multicultural society? Anything?

 

[lightgigantic]

Who said I wasn't capable of that?

If there were a "Religious" Atheism that says only Atheism is correct then I'd disagree.

oh, but there is. The new atheists.

While you might officially distance yourself from them, you should be aware that many of your posts bear an ideological resemblance to their camp.

I may think it's correct, however, I may indeed be wrong. I think it's this last little part that we (so-called) atheists would like to see "The Church" agree with on in regards to their own beliefs. They should stop and say: You know, those guys over there may be right and we may not be.

the difference is however that one camp is making a claim based on certain experiences and the other is simply trying to contextualize such claims and experiences through mental speculation

I thought I've made this clear many a times?

so have I

I guess its endemic of sci

That aside, what GOOD does teaching children there is only One God and only One True God-Book bring to a multicultural society? Anything?

If its also part of the teaching that god is the reservoir of all sorts of variety (even the variety likely to be encountered in a multicultural society), quite a lot.

Such things form the basis of henological discourse

eg

Though men in various countries, on various continents, have a wide variety of natures, the principal nature is only one. Only the secondary characteristics are many. But though the principal nature is one, there will not be found any two people in the world who have identical secondary qualities. As even twins born of the same womb have some difference in form and quality, one cannot expect that people born in different countries can ever have exactly the same qualities. Different countries have different water, air, mountains, forests, eatables and clothing. Because of this, the people of these places have naturally developed different physiques, complexions, customs, clothing and food. Similarly, the peoples' mentality will differ. And thus various people's ideas of God, though being basically similar, will differ in details. When men in various countries surpass the uncivilized stage and progress to the civilized stage, the scientific stage, the moral stage and the devotional stage, they will develop differences, in language, dress, food, and mentality. This gives rise to difference in the mode of worship of God. Considering the matter objectively, there is no harm in secondary differences. If there is agreement concerning the essential nature of God and His worship, there should be no obstacle in attaining the same result. Thus Mahaprabhu has instructed that we should instruct everyone to worship the pure form of the Lord, but at the same time we should not criticize others' modes of worship.

Because of the above reasons, we see the following differences amongst the religions of different countries.

1. difference of teachers or prophets
2. difference in worshipper's mentality and consequent expression of reverence.
3. difference in procedures of worship
4. difference in conceptions of God
5. difference in God's name and statements due to difference in language

 

[Michael]

oh, but there is. The new atheists.

While you might officially distance yourself from them, you should be aware that many of your posts bear an ideological resemblance to their camp.

Is this something like New Coke :bawl:

Yeah, I know atheists who are just as fanatical as the theists (mostly Christians) they bitch about. Usually they feel like they were brainwashed, or in some way harmed, as children and so they subsequently hate theism. But, I don't think this is the case. I personally think they'd be crazy theists if it weren't for their epiphany and crazy polytheists - in a time long ago. Which is why I think theism, when properly organized to be peaceful, might not be too bad at this stage.

 

[Michael]

the difference is however that one camp is making a claim based on certain experiences and the other is simply trying to contextualize such claims and experiences through mental speculation

Yes, true, but other people experience "Xenu". I'm not saying that the experience is invalid just the interpretation that the experence comes from The Gods - is probably not the case.

 

[Michael]

If its also part of the teaching that god is the reservoir of all sorts of variety (even the variety likely to be encountered in a multicultural society), quite a lot.

Such things form the basis of henological discourse

eg

Though men in various countries, on various continents, have a wide variety of natures, the principal nature is only one. Only the secondary characteristics are many. But though the principal nature is one, there will not be found any two people in the world who have identical secondary qualities. As even twins born of the same womb have some difference in form and quality, one cannot expect that people born in different countries can ever have exactly the same qualities. Different countries have different water, air, mountains, forests, eatables and clothing. Because of this, the people of these places have naturally developed different physiques, complexions, customs, clothing and food. Similarly, the peoples' mentality will differ. And thus various people's ideas of God, though being basically similar, will differ in details. When men in various countries surpass the uncivilized stage and progress to the civilized stage, the scientific stage, the moral stage and the devotional stage, they will develop differences, in language, dress, food, and mentality. This gives rise to difference in the mode of worship of God. Considering the matter objectively, there is no harm in secondary differences. If there is agreement concerning the essential nature of God and His worship, there should be no obstacle in attaining the same result. Thus Mahaprabhu has instructed that we should instruct everyone to worship the pure form of the Lord, but at the same time we should not criticize others' modes of worship.

Because of the above reasons, we see the following differences amongst the religions of different countries.

1. difference of teachers or prophets
2. difference in worshipper's mentality and consequent expression of reverence.
3. difference in procedures of worship
4. difference in conceptions of God
5. difference in God's name and statements due to difference in language

maybe you'll have to explain this one a bit better. I mean, could you expound on the One Book idea as well?

Most monotheist simply take it as this: One God and this is "His" perfect little Book. Done and Done. If you don't like it, into the drink with you!

 

[lightgigantic]

Is this something like New Coke :bawl:

Yeah, I know atheists who are just as fanatical as the theists (mostly Christians) they bitch about. Usually they feel like they were brainwashed, or in some way harmed, as children and so they subsequently hate theism. But, I don't think this is the case. I personally think they'd be crazy theists if it weren't for their epiphany and crazy polytheists - in a time long ago. Which is why I think theism, when properly organized to be peaceful, might not be too bad at this stage.

Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitshens.

these are the new atheists

Yes, true, but other people experience "Xenu". I'm not saying that the experience is invalid just the interpretation that the experence comes from The Gods - is probably not the case.

hence ... simply trying to contextualize such claims and experiences through mental speculation

maybe you'll have to explain this one a bit better. I mean, could you expound on the One Book idea as well?

Most monotheist simply take it as this: One God and this is "His" perfect little Book. Done and Done. If you don't like it, into the drink with you!

Thats a neophyte understanding that doesn't bear any relationship to a god that is the abode of all variety.

To say that there is one book is to say that there is one means that is most direct. IOW its the nature of variety that just because one method is the best, doesn't mean that all the others are automatically completely useless (it also doesn't mean that all the others are automatically valid either)

 

[spidergoat]

I also consider myself a new atheist. I think the difference between them and religious fundamentalists is that new atheism depends on emerging scientific evidence, and religion depends on a book.

 

[Michael]

Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitshens.

these are the new atheists

Who are these people again? They're talking heads. Most atheists couldn't give two craps about religion anyway. Let alone some "celebrity" atheists

hence ... simply trying to contextualize such claims and experiences through mental speculation

And?

I've never said the experiences are invalid - just that the interpretation there's a God or Goddess (or Alien) involved in any aspect of said experience is in all likelihood very minimal and that there's no good evidence so even suggest that such this is the case.

I did mention I don't mind religion - so long as it follows the rules like everyone else.

hence ... To say that there is one book is to say that there is one means that is most direct. IOW its the nature of variety that just because one method is the best, doesn't mean that all the others are automatically completely useless (it also doesn't mean that all the others are automatically valid either)

Ah, but it does. As soon you say there's only One True Book you invalidate aspects of all other books. If your One True Book says there's One God. Then of course any other book that suggests otherwise is invalid. As a matter of fact, as soon as you think there's only One True Book - literary innovation ends here and now. It's not long before heads roll for even suggesting there's a new path or another way. Gods forbid you criticize the One Book. Into the drink with you!

So, why even postulate it? It leads to no good.

 

[Photizo]

I also consider myself a new atheist. I think the difference between them and religious fundamentalists is that new atheism depends on emerging scientific evidence, and religion depends on a book.

Both are products of man....[self] deception is inevitable. Choose your poison. :shrug:

 

[Michael]

I also consider myself a new atheist.

If they start asking for 10% tithes .... don't do it

 

[spidergoat]

Both are products of man....[self] deception is inevitable. Choose your poison. :shrug:

That's fine, science is open to doubt.

If they start asking for 10% tithes .... don't do it

I might, just to get one of those cool bus ads up.

 

[lightgigantic]

I also consider myself a new atheist. I think the difference between them and religious fundamentalists is that new atheism depends on emerging scientific evidence, and religion depends on a book.

others beg to differ

However, historians now broadly concur that any simple story of the supposed conflict between science and religion (and for that matter any simple story of their harmony) is problematic.[6] As John Hedley Brooke has pointed out, for every nineteenth century person considering these issues who followed figures such as Thomas Henry Huxley or Francis Galton in regarding evolution as devastating for religious belief, there were others, such as the Oxford theologian Aubrey Moore, who regarded Darwin's evolutionary theory as an opportunity for religion.[7]

At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism. Thus the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism. This is evident in each of the main branches of science, both natural and social, which have some relevance to the issue of the truth or falsity of atheism/religion.