One Ring to Rule Them ALL???

Which is better for humanity

  • Total voters
    8
M

Michael

歌舞伎
Valued Senior Member
Which do you think is better for humanity:

1) One monotheism that encompasses all people of the world
2) Multiples of different religions - including many different modern and old polytheisms (including ancient Greek and Arab, as well as modern Japanese polytheisms) and traditional and modern monotheisms as well as new Alien-based beliefs and new age religions and even nature religions.

So, which is better - one religions for everyone OR many multiples of beliefs systems?
 
Michael said:
1. One monotheism that encompasses all people of the world.

2. Multiples of different religions - including many different modern and old polytheisms.

So, which is better - one religion for everyone OR many multiples of beliefs systems?
Click to expand...

Definitely number two...makes it easier for people to realize theyre ALL wrong.
 
These are bad choices. The question doesn't even specify why people might adopt one religion (because they want to, or men with guns will shoot them if they don't). It also fails to consider the obvious "no religion" answer.

I think obviously if everyone willingly adopted a sungle belief system it would be one less soprce of friction, which would be good. If we forced them to accept the orthodoxy and any heterodosy (even within the religion) were punished than that's not, much different, or if anything worse than the ciurrent free-for-all.

So I made my choice. I choose to wait for a better designed poll question.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of: What would humanity look like. OK, maybe a one religion would reduce conflict (probably not) but even if so, does this come at the cost of diversity? Isn't it nice to have many different beleif systems?

So that;s the angel I was thinking about.
 
Michael said:
Which do you think is better for humanity:

1) One monotheism that encompasses all people of the world
2) Multiples of different religions - including many different modern and old polytheisms (including ancient Greek and Arab, as well as modern Japanese polytheisms) and traditional and modern monotheisms as well as new Alien-based beliefs and new age religions and even nature religions.

So, which is better - one religions for everyone OR many multiples of beliefs systems?
Click to expand...
are you talking about religious orthodoxy (ie philosophical conclusions) politics ?
 
I do not believe in anything that can "rule" everything so therefore I cannot vote because it doesn't have that option.
 
It has yet to be proven that all people can be ruled by one religion, just as not all people can be ruled by one government. There will always be dissenters, and always a new ideology. So, I guess what I'm saying is, of the two options given, only one of them is plausible.

But even then, I'm not sure clinging to multiple ancient religions is healthy. So I don't like either option.
 
Look, it's the ambition of many monotheists that I know of, namely Xians and Muslms, that one day in the far off future people will "wake up" to God and love Jesus or Mohammad and the world will peacefully be all Xian or all Muslim (or even Baha'i etc..). Probably even Scientologists think one day the world will be all Scientologists.

They all seem to think that at this time peace will reign and life will be great.

SO, I'm wondering, IF such a thing were to pass, would it really be all that great? Do we think a one world monotheism is better than multi-religionism?
 
Michael said:
Look, it's the ambition of many monotheists that I know of, namely Xians and Muslms, that one day in the far off future people will "wake up" to God and love Jesus or Mohammad and the world will peacefully be all Xian or all Muslim (or even Baha'i etc..). Probably even Scientologists think one day the world will be all Scientologists.

They all seem to think that at this time peace will reign and life will be great.

SO, I'm wondering, IF such a thing were to pass, would it really be all that great? Do we think a one world monotheism is better than multi-religionism?
Click to expand...
there is a suggestion that beyond all religious designations there is an ultimate reality (or tattva) that surrounds both the living entity and god - IOW if one accepts that god exists (summum bonum cause of all causes, etc etc), then there must be an irreducible element to both the living entity and god that finds its expression in the language of eternity (sanatana dharma). This may stand as distinct from expressions of religious activities that are more pertinent to one's social status, gender, etc etc (sva dharma).

It could be argued that nobody gets free from the constraints of this conditioned world without being properly socialized around issues of sanatana dharma ..... but, in light of the current state of affairs, I don't think that there is a very good argument for the suggestion that everyone will wholeheartedly accept such a status of living simultaneously, like a one world religion as you suggest (after all, we come to this world for the pursuit of a status of living very much non-sanatana dharmic)
 
Michael said:
So, which is better - one religions for everyone OR many multiples of beliefs systems?
Click to expand...

Everyone should adhere to the same religion.

That this is the best option can easily be observed in existing social groups/societies: A social group where all its members adhere to the same principles has better chances of survival and happiness for all its members, as opposed to a versatile group.
For example, when a family is deciding about where to go on vacations, it helps very much if everyone has the same ideas about what they should do and where they should go. Otherwise, someone is always going to be unhappy - and as it is with humans, especially those who are close to eachother, it is difficult to be happy when those close to you are unhappy.

But of course, what these principles are plays an important role, too: If a group's principles lead them to exploit the natural environment in which they all live, their chances of survival and happiness diminish drastically.
 
Clearly, the situation we are in today is that of belief in multiple gods, which of course doesn't work as anyone can plainly see as it only serves to demonstrate the non-existence of a single god and the fact all gods are images of man.

If a god MUST exist, it must be a god who delivers a single message to all mankind; clear, concise and impartial to interpretation. We would all know this god intuitively and unequivocally.
 
(Q) said:
If a god MUST exist, it must be a god who delivers a single message to all mankind; clear, concise and impartial to interpretation. We would all know this god intuitively and unequivocally.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe this?
 
S.A.M. said:
Why do you believe this?
Click to expand...

Don't you know? Q claims to know exactly what a god would do if one existed. Apparently he's a blood relative...or an idiot. Actually, I'm pretty sure he's just an idiot.

Everyone should adhere to the same religion.

That this is the best option can easily be observed in existing social groups/societies: A social group where all its members adhere to the same principles has better chances of survival and happiness for all its members, as opposed to a versatile group.
Click to expand...

Such groups don't exist. They are always in the presence of other groups. Why? Because it isn't possible for everyone to believe in one thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top