Does one idealogy solve all problems?

[sledheavy]

From what I've gathered over my short lived years I've come to realize there's a point to every lifestyle or unconscious belief system that doesn't agree with the general consensus. Someone could tolerant another religion for example, but only to the extent that they find something disagreeable.

The idea I want to propose here is that though a lot of people are tolerant and considerate of other religions, yet neither are truly provable (including the belief in evolution some might say) then how can we honestly expect to solve problems that aren't relative or positively influential of or outside the religions themselves?

One aspect of this I've been dwelling on today is the idea that people tend to revolve around the persons emphasizing current issues. This actually seems at a rare occurence to me, but when everyone feels strongly about a particular subject, the ones that seem to speak most loudly (and not intelligently) seem to get heard the most.

I've been told by evolutionist, on top of all this confusion, that this culture has become as selected as these apparent birds in africa, who's females choose the males with the evolutionary disadvantage (longer more elegant tales) rather than the males who will bare the most adequate offspring.

They propose the idea that, like the sensible woman dating the redneck, these creatures are more interested in hollow appeal than in intelligent choice. lol. Or maybe our women are more interested in finding daddy reincarnated. Idk.

I could even propose further that this generations self ideals are more concerned with their own time in existence, rather than the next generation's. And that's too obvious of an answer for this topic.

All these ideals, beliefs, mentalities, established on the foundations of apparent truth, which are self defining of these individuals; is it not possible their choice in (probable) wrongs have dictated and stunted the actually mentalities needed for the positives we look so dearly to and for?

Or do you believe that there's one idealogy solving, or capable of solving all problems?

[Greatest I Am]

As stated "A central government may need a centralized religion to give it birth because only that power presently crosses borders without loosing power".
The Churches need to smarten up and amalgamate, especially Christianity.

In 1776 and the years following, a new upstart nation, united many of the English colonies in North America. The new central government had no centralized religion yet it grew from the original thirteen to fifty, expanded from a loose confederation to the world's only superpower without the unifying force of established religion. Since then, many other countries have followed in their path, following the principle of the separation of religion from governance.

Yes but it needed a civil war to solidify the nation.
If religion leads then I think war can be bypassed.

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

Yes but it needed a civil war to solidify the nation.
If religion leads then I think war can be bypassed.

There were a great number of Christian religionists on both sides of that war. Perhaps all of those particular brands/denominations of Christianity should be abandoned.

[Greatest I Am]

Yes but it needed a civil war to solidify the nation.
If religion leads then I think war can be bypassed.

There were a great number of Christian religionists on both sides of that war. Perhaps all of those particular brands/denominations of Christianity should be abandoned.

God said something about many looking for Him but were running to and frow.
We were let loose to the false gods.
We must return to the real God to bring world problems under control.
Governments pit religions against each other. They like to blame their incompetence on others. We could stop this.

We will know that we are ready for this when someone of stature within a large Church starts what will basically be a revolution or civil war, without combat, with another large Church.
Christianity would be the best choice because of it's base.
Many sects of Christianity fell away for relatively small reasons.
I guess in the past there have been to many Indians who wanted to be chiefs.

I hope someone sounds the horn soon.

Regards
DL

[sledheavy]

but why? It seems like such a waste of time to theoretically have an apocalypse. I don't see the logic in 'god's' place in the situation.

[Greatest I Am]

but why? It seems like such a waste of time to theoretically have an apocalypse. I don't see the logic in 'god's' place in the situation.

Your right it would be a waste of time.

God does not treat souls like yo-yos. We die once and go to heaven.
Anything else is writen to fill space on a page with artistic liberty.

Regards
DL

[sledheavy]

but why? It seems like such a waste of time to theoretically have an apocalypse. I don't see the logic in 'god's' place in the situation.

Your right it would be a waste of time.

God does not treat souls like yo-yos. We die once and go to heaven.
Anything else is writen to fill space on a page with artistic liberty.

Regards
DL

Now that I need some help understanding.

Mortality aside, we're talking about a foundational, ethical, unified government. The very peak of human existance. Why would anyone want to take that away?

It almost conveys to me that it would be that particular reason. Within the borders of a unified government it would probably be most effective as McCulloch had said. Neutrality of religion, where religion is practiced and not factored into politics. That I'd agree with, because this kind of unity involves putting aside religious issues to better worldly conditions through honest politics.

Would it be without 'sin'? No, but morality would be far more in check of these worldly conditions. Why the hell would anyone want to end something that great?

It's like saying "(sigh)....finally, my creation understands what it means to be in harmony. Oh well, time to put the chess board away."

no, I don't agree with that at all. That seems completely opposite in character of the god figure.

In fact, I read revelations again last night just for S&G, and the entire book seemed rather psychadelic. Like no other book had been written that way.

It really leads me to question the predictions of most religions as I have before.

[melikio]

Idealogy has the "potential" to solve problems, but most any thinking person realizes that it isn't NECESSARILY equal to the total and/or sole solutions to the problems we face.

In my view, religion has its "place" and "time" for each of us, but those aspects which many see as being universal, are necessarily the same for ALL human beings.

The Founding Fathers of America weren't 'perfect' men, but their wisdom concerning religion and civil government is evident. The U.S. Constitution is a near-perfect MODEL by which the most functional types of governments in the world can be created and maintained.

Religion or one set view of reality cannot resolve ALL human problems. But I agree that there are positive things about being HUMAN that can and should be emphasized/encouraged (as they very often are in America). The notion that "Christianity" or some other belief system is THE answer, is not supported by historical record (overall). Religion has had MANY problems, to which the solutions were/are SECULAR; so to me, it appears that a 'balanced' approach to things is the BEST way to deal with human problems.

Both religion AND more secularized thinking have important applications; many people living together in a community (or the world), have literally enough common ground in being 'human' period. There is little to no need to set up or accentuate the kinds of divisions which we NATURALLY tend to, using religion, politics and law. Most of the solutions to mankind's MOST pressing issues, will come as a result of people recognizing the more universal problems, and working together to solve them. As I implied above, religion has a part in this, but it should never be applied to SEPARATE human beings (as it too often is used).

-Mel-

[sledheavy]

Idealogy has the "potential" to solve problems, but most any thinking person realizes that it isn't NECESSARILY equal to the total and/or sole solutions to the problems we face.

In my view, religion has its "place" and "time" for each of us, but those aspects which many see as being universal, are necessarily the same for ALL human beings.

The Founding Fathers of America weren't 'perfect' men, but their wisdom concerning religion and civil government is evident. The U.S. Constitution is a near-perfect MODEL by which the most functional types of governments in the world can be created and maintained.

Religion or one set view of reality cannot resolve ALL human problems. But I agree that there are positive things about being HUMAN that can and should be emphasized/encouraged (as they very often are in America). The notion that "Christianity" or some other belief system is THE answer, is not supported by historical record (overall). Religion has had MANY problems, to which the solutions were/are SECULAR; so to me, it appears that a 'balanced' approach to things is the BEST way to deal with human problems.

Both religion AND more secularized thinking have important applications; many people living together in a community (or the world), have literally enough common ground in being 'human' period. There is little to no need to set up or accentuate the kinds of divisions which we NATURALLY tend to, using religion, politics and law. Most of the solutions to mankind's MOST pressing issues, will come as a result of people recognizing the more universal problems, and working together to solve them. As I implied above, religion has a part in this, but it should never be applied to SEPARATE human beings (as it too often is used).

-Mel-

Very well put.

[Greatest I Am]

A God of inclusion is the answer to all world problems. Unification of religion is key because it determines and decides to a great extent was is a problem and what is not.
A prime example would be the Bible and homosexuality. If the Vatican decided to remove the homophobic references from the Bible, then unification becomes much easier. To allow a Bible to teach this type of hate should not be allowed.
In a world Church, it could not.
The same with references to Jesus being the only way. These should be made to disappear as useless unproductive and divisive statements.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

but why? It seems like such a waste of time to theoretically have an apocalypse. I don't see the logic in 'god's' place in the situation.

Your right it would be a waste of time.

God does not treat souls like yo-yos. We die once and go to heaven.
Anything else is writen to fill space on a page with artistic liberty.

Regards
DL

Now that I need some help understanding.

Mortality aside, we're talking about a foundational, ethical, unified government. The very peak of human existence. Why would anyone want to take that away?

It almost conveys to me that it would be that particular reason. Within the borders of a unified government it would probably be most effective as McCulloch had said. Neutrality of religion, where religion is practiced and not factored into politics. That I'd agree with, because this kind of unity involves putting aside religious issues to better worldly conditions through honest politics.

Would it be without 'sin'? No, but morality would be far more in check of these worldly conditions. Why the hell would anyone want to end something that great?

It's like saying "(sigh)....finally, my creation understands what it means to be in harmony. Oh well, time to put the chess board away."

no, I don't agree with that at all. That seems completely opposite in character of the god figure.

In fact, I read revelations again last night just for S&G, and the entire book seemed rather psychadelic. Like no other book had been written that way.

It really leads me to question the predictions of most religions as I have before.

Do not read the Bible literally. It was not writen to be taken that way.

A unified world Church would solve all of the problems of the world.
It would be the body that would ultimately determine what these problems are and work across political borders to do what governments cannot do.
A world Church would force a world government to be born.

Man has always sought a division of church and state and in a fragmented world this is wise.
In a unified world this is impossible and unwise. A melding of the two systems would benefit the whole world and create the situation where the voice of the one true God might be heard. The one prediction that must come to pass from Revelation is that we must elect ourselves a God. Revelation indicates that Jesus is to be the candidate but if so or not, the election must happen before we can reap the benefits of a unified world.

Regards
DL.