Talk:Developing A Universal Religion

Structure
I was wondering why you would want to structure such a thing. Don't you think its not something that could be standardized? Do you think religion is something that should be universal, or are we in need of a universal set of moral values? P.S. Surprised to see no one has said anything on this idea. It's a great subject for dispute. --Special:Contributions/68.168.206.55, 09:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is a great subject for dispute. Because Wikibooks is a resource, however, it's only function is to convey pertinent information in the most concise manner possible.  The information in this book is certainly pertinent to many readers, but the format of questions, dispute, and persuasiveness requires the reader to come up with their own answers in many cases.  This would be inconsistent with the "textbook" mission of Wikibooks.  If we are to turn this persuasive writing into a textbook, we will have to rewrite it as a resource, which will require additional research and a focus on filling existing needs rather than attempting to create perception of a need in the reader.  --Zephram Stark 14:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Globalisation and moral code
Hello: In my opinion, globalisation, global moral questions (e.g., use of fetal stem cells, pollution, global warming, loss of rain forests, and many other examples) necessitate a "universal moral code." Such a code might be used by global leaders to make important decisions, the kind that will affect our grand-children's future. I think that a suitable "universal religion" need not replace any individual's own personal religion, but it might be something that communities might use to seek/obtain consensus. However, if this kind of discussion could be useful to students/adults, is there a place in the Wiki entity where it might be placed, please? David H 22:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Zephram Stark's objection
I think that Zephram Stark's objection to the format would rule out many established works that have been regarded as valid textbooks for centuries, in some cases millennia. The most obvious being Plato's Dialogues. Socratic dialogue is almost by definition in the form of 'questions, dispute, and persuasiveness' and of course 'requires the reader to come up with their own answers'. If Plato or Socrates were alive today and proposed to write a textbook of morals would we exclude the Phaedo? A textbook is not the same thing as a manual. When I was studying physics the books I used certainly did not contain all of the answers. I suspect that narrow definitions of textbooks would also exclude such works as Antony Flew's 'An Introduction to Western Philosphy' which is certainly a textbook even though it has no exercises. --kwhitefoot 19:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Oprhanded page
I found some orphaned pages that seem to be connected with this book:
 * Conclusion To Part Three
 * Conclusion To Part Two

--Derbeth talk 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Derbeth. Yes, these are un-needed copies of Conclusion To Part Three and Conclusion To Part Two. Can you delete the orphaned pages, please? David Hockey 19:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A Different Perception of Religion
Hi all. Just some thoughts to chew on. Most people who would be attracted to a new (old made new) idea of human behaviour to help create a moral ethos, would turn off the second "religion" is mentioned. Unfortunately a growing part of the human race equates religion to disturbance, hate and war. The misdoings of all the religions and power brokers that drive them, have tarnished the unconscious connection we have with our perception of a God. This applies equally to any entity that presents such a being or moral code. My backgound is in psychotherapy, with a 45 years dedication to the human mind. A while ago I began a program to create an on-line organisation named the Fellowship of Peace, to try to overcome the issues I raised above. It is based on having people take responsibility for their own actions based on there affect on others, as well as themselves. It invites people of all religious beliefs, including non-believers, to adopt a different way of thinking towards others and to work towards a world peace through creating peace internally. Part of that process in involving cause and effect in their decision making, creates a non invasive way of modifying moral codes. If you are interested take a look at http://www.fellowshipofpeace.net to get the idea. Maybe this will help contributions to this book. I am also more than willing to contribute if anyone thinks this line of thought is a valid part of the book. Garyj —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garyj (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Garyj:
 * Yes, I think that there must be many ways to solve the problems that memories-of-old-religious-happenings create in one’s mind!
 * But, the Fellowship of Peace’s belief in the existence of “an intelligence that encompasses all things human, animal, vegetable and mineral” prevent me from investigating all of the group’s ideas. What evidence is there to support this belief? Why is it stated? How does such a view effect your group’s ideas?
 * Why, as stated in the group’s Principles, must “the greediest, the most powerful must follow . . . (your) peace”? I think that this is a nice thing to hope for, but I do not think that all human beings would follow “peace.” Some need power, control over others, even to hurt others, more than they need peace, surely? For instance, how would the group handle the dictators of the world?
 * I wish The Fellowship of Peace success, but I think that the world needs more than I suspect that your organisation may be able to provide.
 * David Hockey 14:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback David.
 * The suppositions used here are based on a view of the way individual unconscious programs inpact on the collective unconscious, and visa versa. Dictators like Hitler, and others, would not get the power unless they had a solid support base. The support base comes from the emotional connection to the collective unconscious which is simply the "average" emotional and content memory of the entire population. I know it sounds simplistic, but Hitlers power came from the disatisfaction of the German population at soaring inflation and poor economic management at the time. It was a simple process to blame this (rightly or wrongly) on the financial manipulations of Jewish money, and presto, youu have a strong, and very angry, following that allowed one man to take control. Dictators seem always to come from perceived oppression of a population or group.
 * Let's now take a look at the reverse scenario. If individuals work to find internal levels of personal peace, the emotional impact on the collective unconscious is lessened gradually so that the stresses and strains in a society are reduced. Under those conditions a dictator has less ability to gain status. By expanding this across borders, there is less chance of war occuring. And make no mistake, it will take generations to start to have a workable effect.
 * The above theory is based on my 40 years of studying the way populations and individuals function, both on a wide scale and at an individual clinical psychotherapy level. One gets a very clear understanding of how people respond in a penetrating clinical role that looks only the the processes and unconcious mind uses to protect an individual!
 * As for the concept of a universal intelligence. I am not referring to an entity. It refers to the total intelligent energy of all matter, solid or otherwise. Ultimately all things are just pure energy. That energy forms solids based on the localised content of the energy, including us. In a study of the basis and core of all religions it is this energy that humans tend to give a human form to.
 * We don't see it that way. We see everything as being that intelligent energy. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, light or dark, or even morals. Morals and ethics are purely a human concoction to enhance the power of the churches. If a universal religion (and I hate that word because of the perception it creates) is to work, it must be formed from rules of behaviour accepted by the mass of individuals, sometimes after an education process so that individuals understand the desired outcome in an unselfish way. I have said elsewhere in this book that that initial education needs to come from authority figures (parents) in the first five years of life to create a solid base.
 * Would love to have your further feedback.
 * Gary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garyj (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just as an aside, the Fellowship of Peace is only one avenue and does not claim to be the whole solution. You are very right in this. It's just that someone needed to do something to start and I couldn't find anyone doing anything. I am excited that you have kicked these discussions off and I take my hat off to you. We MUST not let this die!
 * Gary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garyj (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 January 2006  (UTC)


 * Hello Gary:
 * Sorry to be so late in replying; we've been on vacation.
 * I agree that all things we know about are "made from energy." I don’t know what giving a “human form to… energy” means.
 * Sure, churches elaborated morals and ethics, but language-users need some purpose to allow them to say what is the “right” way to behave when “moral” questions are asked. For example, to say whether it is “good” or “bad” to use fetal stem cells, one must have in mind what one hopes to achieve by using them. The hope to get into heaven might prompt one to say “no, don’t use them.” Wishing to advance civilisation might tell one to say “yes, do use them.”
 * David Hockey 21:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, im new here. I believe that the concept of God cannot be separated from the religions. The idea of an universal religion should gather the positive values of them and not an atheistic view of them. The main scope must be to gather most of their believes in order to make them universal.

For example the religions that are more known are the Theist religions. However Buddhists dont workship an especific God, Nevertheless they workship the enlightement. The Enligthement or the supreme knowledge, can be consider as God. In this way Buddhists could workship God considering him as the total Enlightement, therefore God could be an universal concept within all the religions.

Also the concept of the afterlife is something extremly important in several religions. One can name it with different names such as Heaven, Nirava, Paradise, enlightenment etc. But there is one afterlife. therefore all this ideas could be grasped and mixed, in order to be aware that there is an afterlife, and that will enhace the importance of the practice of moral values.

In order to develop an universal religion you must combine the ambiguous cultures of their ancient values, with the philosopical knowledge, in order to make an universal religion without any funtamentalist believes.

I personately disagree about what you said about people fighting over who will be a prophet. I think that men are sinners, and therefore they can make awfull religious wars, however that dosent spoils the religion. people like that are just behaving in a fundamental way, and they are acting against most of the true values o their own religions. Ledzeppelin21 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

the totality of what people are doing
a universal religion, will have to look at the totality of what people are doing ie suffering www.Dhamma.org Yes, I agree. David Hockey 13:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well isn't this opinionated
I believe religion is a personal thing, but it's only my view. But the main fact is this is doing the same thing as giving out Christian leaflets... In my opinion it isn't theology at all - it really should be removed from wikibooks Wikisquared 20:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A revised Introduction
The following was moved from the Introduction to this discussion section. I think that it has not fully considered points addressed in the four Parts. David Hockey 12:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is pro se that a universal religion must be developed based on widely held values and wisdom. Although this religion should be rational, it should not be treated or viewed as science.  However, like science its assumptions should be minimal.  As such there is no need for a belief in God.  The function of religion is to reaffirm the communities belief system and values.  It is also self-evident that no single "prophet" or magical revelation should shape the core beliefs.  The world is exhausting itself with fights over the question: "Who is God's prophet?"

proposal to merge sections
I propose that we merge the four sections of the book into one book, using this as the main page of the book and then turning the section titled "developing a universal religion" simply into "Development". If discussion does not ensue before around a week resulting in a contrary consensus, then I will go ahead and "be bold". Emesee (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I am going to start "being bold" unless someone waiting to pounce on this starts up a discussion with within the next hour or so, give or take an hour. Emesee (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This could perhaps be split into four different books... sort of one more than a trilogy... a tetralogy. Emesee (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

tangentially more for later (perhaps)
Being human is a subjective experience, no? There are certain parts that may be objective. However, by the vary nature of the term (subjective), we do experience subjective aspects of reality.

What aspects of the things that we experience subjectively could we put into the realm of the objective? Suppose we say that happiness is a preferable state to unhappiness. Is this not an objective truth based on the very nature of definitions of happiness and unhappiness?

Different things make different people happy and unhappy.

Could we connect certain things with theological truths? ...

Just getting it out there. Emesee (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

more text for later inclusion or not
Let us start by examining the basic tenets of various religions to determine if they are logical and acceptable.

Suppose there is one God. Does that seem realistic? Can you see this God with your eyes? Can you infer the God is there by the effects that occur around you in the same way they infer some mysterious dark energy exists?

Suppose there is one God, and suppose this God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful.

Is there anything this God could not do? By definition... Emesee (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Emesee.

I should let you know that the four Parts were/are from a book I published in 2003. I can send you a .pdf file of it, if you want. (Email me if you do want it.) Your suggestion for “more text for later inclusion or not” sounds like a new exploration. Are you going to start a new book using it?

David Hockey (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured books at Wikibooks is not static and never actually frozen. This does bring up an interesting issue. Emesee (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

an article with interesting logic
http://bethinking.org/who-am-i/intermediate/the-practical-impossibility-of-atheism-in-the-meaning-value-and-purpose-of-life.htm Emesee (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

more...
By Catholic Church Ignatius designated the Christian Church in its universal aspect, excluding heretics, such as those who disavow "the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Smyrnaeans, 7). He called such people "beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with" (Smyrnaeans, 4). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic)

... Emesee (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be a terrible thing to have a Universal Religion
I don’t think it is possible artificially create a universal of anything. People are different and have different test and values and different opinions.

It would make more sense to create a “customized” religion that fit for a particular individual or help people to choose the right religion for them.

I am assuming though that the purpose of finding the right religion is to help a person to live a happier life. Ervinn (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it? Emesee mobi (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What is "religion?"
A common view today, among rationalist and empiricist religious revisionists, is to shoehorn the broad phenomenon of religion into a singular mass self-deception which may have a mix of beneficial and harmful personal and social consequences. While this may be comforting and conducive to hasty conclusions for some, it is in fact quite delusional.

Example. "According to the meta-science of evolutionary psychology, religion is a survival tool, an attempt to develop those 'feelings' that help us survive - dealing with our neighbours, accepting certain constraints and holding certain opinions, working together for some purpose such as world peace international justice, or the glory of God is as much an emotional response to things that we find life-threatening as much as a rational response to 'making the world better'."

First, evolutionary psychology may be a meta-science or it may just be a hypothetical construction. Tagging something as "science" affords ideas a certain sense of veracity and realness only to a somewhat careless audience. The premise that religion should, at most, be accepted with a wink and a nod, by "realists," as a social and personal coping mechanism is nothing but an additional careless assumption which only indicates the prejudiced mind of the author.

Empiricism and rationalism are two more religions which preach creation myths to the "faithful" about where consciousness, life and the universe all have their origin. Intoxicating terms like "complexity," "emergence" and "singularity" are invoked by this clergy to rouse a irrational exuberance in the intellectual true believers.

Such a project as this would do well to reconsider the role and reality of religion in human civilization as well as a complete reevaluation of the extent to which science offers true teleological and eschatological conclusions. Science works within a certain domain and within that domain, it is useful. Beyond that domain, the practitioners and enthusiasts of science have trouble admitting their limitations. This should be remedied.

With respect to religion, appreciate the diversity and don't hesitate to refer to people such as William James and Emile Durkheim, for starters, for a better understanding of the deep ocean one is wading into while expecting a kiddie pool.

Yes, please keep💜
Please keep the book up TheTruthstoria (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)