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?

[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 written 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 written 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.

I honestly don't see christianity giving birth to a world government. As would I any religion. Now as much it would make sense on a fundamental level, we'd still have just as many problems world wide as we would today. Can I prove that, no. But I think that ties into the whole idea that I brought upon this post.

We are talking about an idealogy that would inturn be an absolute. That sounds totalitarian to me. Our current situation, though crap, is still diverse in its surroundings. Though we have world conflict, (and in my personal opinion, it might in some cases be necessary) it brings forth problems humanity needs to encounter and face head on.

Honestly as much as I'd like to agree with you on this topic, as much as I have stating that christianity is so fundamentally sound, I can't bring myself into believing this is the best course of action.

If christianity births a free government, based on a free world, there are still so many factors still effecting society.

If it does happen I guarantee I'll either be in sweden or in brazil eating cooked rat before I side with the idea. lol.

[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 written 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 written 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.

[spiritletter]

I don't believe a centralized government is possible. Human beings simply cannot do it. All utopian visions have failed: communism, fascism, capitalism. Further, the minute you have something like a centralized government, bureaucrats take over and you get something like Hitler and a bunch of sleeping, corrupt incompetents.

The answer, to me, is an enlightened pluralism that can only be achieved by education. This involves the good will of a lot of people, and the enlightened attitude of all media as well as parents and educators. Obviously, we are a long way from achieving this. I believe the part that religion can play in this is to stress that we simply do not know everything, and that we need to remain open to possibility.

[Greatest I Am]

Even today we see how religion can subvert governments. The middle east is a prime example.
Without a world government as indicated by Revelation, brought on by religion, we will never solve the world problems.

The Bible is a guide but also a template.

It's opening phrase is telling. It does not depict a god of power or might. It does not show his abilities. It says, He is the word.

Words are a philosophy. God is above all a philosophy. The inspired writers of the Bible knew this and gives it to us foremost at the beginning so that we will focus on the words.

Perhaps this is why they tend not to give God a name. He is above a mere name.

Unless of course you read it literally then you can name God, Homophobe.

Regards
DL

[melikio]

Further, the minute you have something like a centralized government, bureaucrats take over and you get something like Hitler and a bunch of sleeping, corrupt incompetents.

Correct.

And people aren't machines; they can't be treated like little "motors", designed to perform some little function in a corner of reality. They have to garner meaning from their existence, that typically goes beyond what any "government" might be alble to offer.

As long as "religion" does not become THE LAW by which governments are run, it will ultimately lead to what is generally good. But religion can be oppressive and deadly, when used as a weapon, drug or means of controlling large numbers of people.

-Mel-

[Greatest I Am]

Further, the minute you have something like a centralized government, bureaucrats take over and you get something like Hitler and a bunch of sleeping, corrupt incompetents.

Correct.

And people aren't machines; they can't be treated like little "motors", designed to perform some little function in a corner of reality. They have to garner meaning from their existence, that typically goes beyond what any "government" might be able to offer.

As long as "religion" does not become THE LAW by which governments are run, it will ultimately lead to what is generally good. But religion can be oppressive and deadly, when used as a weapon, drug or means of controlling large numbers of people.

-Mel-

I understand your point of view but man will ultimately be governed by the government of man or the government of God.

We will have to create one or the other because the conflict of both must at some point end.

Constantine, if memory serves, made Christianity the state religion for this reason.
The world will some day reach the same conclusion and allow the creation of a wold government powered by a world religion. This allows for a ready scape goat for man in whatever He cannot or will not want to control.

Regards
DL

[spiritletter]

Further, the minute you have something like a centralized government, bureaucrats take over and you get something like Hitler and a bunch of sleeping, corrupt incompetents.

Correct.

And people aren't machines; they can't be treated like little "motors", designed to perform some little function in a corner of reality. They have to garner meaning from their existence, that typically goes beyond what any "government" might be able to offer.

As long as "religion" does not become THE LAW by which governments are run, it will ultimately lead to what is generally good. But religion can be oppressive and deadly, when used as a weapon, drug or means of controlling large numbers of people.

-Mel-

Religion should never be imposed from the outside. Religions don't have a particularly good record with human rights. Observe the muslim theocracies. While I believe that Islam is a great and worthy religion, it's mullahs should allow people to choose, rather than forcing them. They have all but wiped out Sufism in the theocratic countries, which was a wonderful variant of Islam.

When I listen to idiots like Pat Robertson I am very grateful for a division of church and state.

Human beings will have to come to God on their own, with their own understanding. People are different, cultures are different, and these things must be considered.

I understand your point of view but man will ultimately be governed by the government of man or the government of God.

We will have to create one or the other because the conflict of both must at some point end.

Constantine, if memory serves, made Christianity the state religion for this reason.
The world will some day reach the same conclusion and allow the creation of a wold government powered by a world religion. This allows for a ready scape goat for man in whatever He cannot or will not want to control.

Regards
DL

[melikio]

I understand your point of view but man will ultimately be governed by the government of man or the government of God.

No. In this world, it will likely FLUX; it will NOT be exclusively one or the other.

We will have to create one or the other because the conflict of both must at some point end.

Love is the BEST soloution, but even that is not perfect with human beings. As long as we are "human", there will be conflicts of some type. But there is hope that we will learn to deal with those conflicts in a better way over time.

Constantine, if memory serves, made Christianity the state religion for this reason.

The world will some day reach the same conclusion and allow the creation of a wold government powered by a world religion.

I hope not. And history shows us fairly well, that a religion-powered government (in this world) is basically a bad thing.

This allows for a ready scape goat for man in whatever He cannot or will not want to control.

Some people will go FOR it, others will not; just as it has always been.

I can agree that in the end (if God truly exists), He will control things according to his will. Religion as we have known it, will likely never be the TOTAL answer.

-Mel-