Starting a New Religion

[Dbtng.Thomas]

What do say we call for a dumping of all the current religions and start one without a single piece of dogma? It can be the intersection of ALL religions. The basic principles of love, goodness and mercy would be all that the New Religion espouses since those are the only areas where they all agree. There would be no myths that could be mistaken for historical events and no claim of ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND ULTIMATE TRUTH. There would be no discrimination against women, blacks, whites, Jews, Christians, Moslems, homosexuals, etc. as current religions allow.

The New Religions's Bible would be one page in length and easily memorized by all.

The New Religion would say that since we don't really know what god is or what god wants, let's stop pretending that we do.

We could use all the energy and dollars that are now spent on religions competing with each other for membership and everyone would be a member.

How about that! A religion that embraces everyone and excludes no one? Too radical?

[themuzicman]

You left out God.

[geebob]

The basic principles of love, goodness and mercy would be all that the New Religion espouses since those are the only areas where they all agree. There would be no myths that could be mistaken for historical events and no claim of ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND ULTIMATE TRUTH. There would be no discrimination against women, blacks, whites, Jews, Christians, Moslems, homosexuals, etc. as current religions allow.

Love has a history. Love requires particularity. You can't be loving and just forget the past without dealing with the problems because love doesn't run away from hardships. You can't love and neglect the grace and mercies of the past because love is not disrespectful.

also you left out God, as musicman mentioned.


BTW, please read the forum descriptions. This topic doesn't belong in theology 201.

[Ryokan]

Today @ 10:53 AM post located here
Dbtng.Thomas:

What do say we call for a dumping of all the current religions and start one without a single piece of dogma? It can be the intersection of ALL religions. The basic principles of love, goodness and mercy would be all that the New Religion espouses since those are the only areas where they all agree. There would be no myths that could be mistaken for historical events and no claim of ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND ULTIMATE TRUTH. There would be no discrimination against women, blacks, whites, Jews, Christians, Moslems, homosexuals, etc. as current religions allow.

The New Religions's Bible would be one page in length and easily memorized by all.

The New Religion would say that since we don't really know what god is or what god wants, let's stop pretending that we do.

We could use all the energy and dollars that are now spent on religions competing with each other for membership and everyone would be a member.

How about that! A religion that embraces everyone and excludes no one? Too radical?

MMMMM. New Age fuzzy bunny religion. With sprinkles.

[Pinky Pie of Doom]

How would this new religion be any different from Unitarian-Universalism?

[Leroy]

already been fabricated

Scientology

didn't go over the well though, and all the money lined the pocket of L. Ron Hubbard

also the basic principles of love goodness and mercy kinda seemed fake.

Oh and I almost forgot, those basic principles were thrown out the window if you spoke up against them.

[Jin-Roh]

Today @ 07:53 AM post located here
Dbtng.Thomas:

What do say we call for a dumping of all the current religions and start one without a single piece of dogma?

How do you presume to "dump all current religions?" What happens if somebody isn't fond of their religion being dumped?

It can be the intersection of ALL religions.

I can hear the trains crashing already.

The basic principles of love, goodness and mercy would be all that the New Religion espouses since those are the only areas where they all agree.

I thought you said no Dogma. Besides, religions tend to define these things diffrently.

There would be no myths that could be mistaken for historical events and no claim of ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND ULTIMATE TRUTH.

I don't know man that sounds pretty dogmatic to me.
Besides, if this religion makes no claim of ultimate truth, I think I just stick with one that does and continue to make a claim of ultimate truth. Is that okay?

There would be no discrimination against women, blacks, whites, Jews, Christians, Moslems, homosexuals, etc. as current religions allow.

Have you ever heard of the "Earth Charter?"

The New Religions's Bible would be one page in length and easily memorized by all.

The New Religion would say that since we don't really know what god is or what god wants, let's stop pretending that we do.

That's the third Doctrine! This is just to much Dogma for the no-dogma religion!

We could use all the energy and dollars that are now spent on religions competing with each other for membership and everyone would be a member.

But I don't want to be a member.

How about that! A religion that embraces everyone and excludes no one? Too radical?

It excludes the exclusivists. Also, if this religion isn't going to try to make any absolute claims, there is no reason why I should believe it to be true.

Think about why a lot of people on this board believe Christianity. Also check out why any mainstream religion holds to what it holds as true, then think about if this scenario would really work out.

[Stephen]

This religion sounds great. It only has 1 small problem. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard (anyone seen Murder By Death?)

Religion is about truth. Because of that, one cannot just create a religion for the benefit of all, and even if they did, it would work about as well as communism; great in a perfect society, horrible in the real world. A religion where everyone is included would lead to toterance of murderers, pedophiles, and all sets of morals no matter how horrible. It would be anarchy, and no one could succesfully remain in the religion and stop the crime.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

themuzicman:

You left out God.

Dear themuzicman:

No, I didn't. God is love!

[themuzicman]

You didn't mention God in your original post, so I assume that you REALLY mean that "Love is god".

Michael

[Dbtng.Thomas]

geebob:

Love has a history. Love requires particularity. You can't be loving and just forget the past without dealing with the problems because love doesn't run away from hardships. You can't love and neglect the grace and mercies of the past because love is not disrespectful.

also you left out God, as musicman mentioned.


BTW, please read the forum descriptions. This topic doesn't belong in theology 201.

Dear geegob:

Forgive me brother, I'm new at this. I didn't know that I had to place a new post in a particular forum.

As I said to muzicman, no, I did not leave out god. God is love.

I don't know what you mean by your statements about what love is and isn't capable of, what it "requires." I believe that love implies forgiveness. If you believe that past "problems" need to be dealt with in a manner other than love and forgiveness, that's your opinion. I believe Jesus was more on the mark when he told us to forgive our enemies. Just who or what do you feel requires something beyond forgiveness and love?

I never suggested a disrespectful love. I don't even know what such a thing would look like. And I never suggested neglecting grace and mercy!

I don't know what you are reading into my suggestions of love, but you should take it up with Jesus. I'm just in total agreement with him on this subject. Or do you feel that some people have to be "dealt" with before they can be forgiven and loved? I doubt that Jesus would agree.

Anyway, thanks for your response.

Peace and love.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Ryokan:

MMMMM. New Age fuzzy bunny religion. With sprinkles.

Dear Ryokan:

Thank you for your opinion.

Peace and love.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Ivo Shandor:

How would this new religion be any different from Unitarian-Universalism?

Dear Ivo Shandor:

I am not familiar with all of the Unitarian-Universalist dogma but I am sure that it exists. It is in the mere existence of dogma (besides love, goodness, etc.) that this New Religion would differ.

It is my humble opinion that God(Love, Goodness, etc) is all that is needed in a religion. When man injects his opinions (dogma) that is where all the trouble starts. That is why I suggest a New Religion without ANY dogma (including Unitarian-Universalist).

Peace and love

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Leroy:

already been fabricated

Scientology

didn't go over the well though, and all the money lined the pocket of L. Ron Hubbard

also the basic principles of love goodness and mercy kinda seemed fake.

Oh and I almost forgot, those basic principles were thrown out the window if you spoke up against them.

Dear Leroy:

The little I know about Scientology leads me to believe that it is chock full of dogma! Isn't that the religion that calls for "auditors" to use "scientific" equipment and "clear" the poor subject of all that ails her?


I am sorry that you believe my suggestions about "love, goodness and mercy" to seem "fake." I assure you that I am most serious about them. In fact, as I stated, I believe they are so important that a New Religion should consist of nothing but love, goodness and her other sister virtues.

Love and peace to you brother. And I'm not faking.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Jin-Roh:

How do you presume to "dump all current religions?" What happens if somebody isn't fond of their religion being dumped?



I can hear the trains crashing already.



I thought you said no Dogma. Besides, religions tend to define these things diffrently.



I don't know man that sounds pretty dogmatic to me.
Besides, if this religion makes no claim of ultimate truth, I think I just stick with one that does and continue to make a claim of ultimate truth. Is that okay?



Have you ever heard of the "Earth Charter?"



That's the third Doctrine! This is just to much Dogma for the no-dogma religion!



But I don't want to be a member.



It excludes the exclusivists. Also, if this religion isn't going to try to make any absolute claims, there is no reason why I should believe it to be true.

Think about why a lot of people on this board believe Christianity. Also check out why any mainstream religion holds to what it holds as true, then think about if this scenario would really work out.

Dear Jin-Roh:

Thank you for your response. I would answer your comments but I sense a tone that leads me to believe that no matter what I said, you're mind is closed to ridding the world of conflicting dogmatic religions. You seem to need an AUTHORITY to tell you what is TRUE. If you don't realize that Jesus' core message was to pay more attention to love and less to the LETTER OF THE LAW, I think you missed his most important teaching.

Anyway,
Peace and love