One World Religion Will Solve All The World's Problems

Post Reply New Topic

Mohammed the Son God topic

Already a dysfunctional religious family! But an interesting idea for Aspies (and those who wish they were!) to explore.

I don't think having one religion would help at all. There are so many people on the planet that even if one religion was for all sooner or later it would splinter and sub-groups would form. Just look at all the different churches of christianity. And Hinduism has to be the most fractured belief system we have. It is natural for humans to differ and stick to a group that best fits their own personal belief system.

Plus what is being proposed is contradictory. How could atheism and theism be merged into one belief system?

And why does Jesus have to be god? All the former muslims will object and say Allah should be god.

It would not work.

The only thing I think that would work is if the world ditched religion once and for all.

I meant QFT... dagnabbit! The one time I get to use an acronym I mess it up. Three letters, sheesh!

Do not forget race, people go to war to ethnically cleanse their enemy of a different color. Should we strive for one race? Who should be the master race and what races should be culled. Your reasoning is not thought out very well and would lead millions of people dying when they are forced to conform to your new one world religion when they fight against it to save their beliefs. If you are an Aspie you would be using more logic in your thought process.

Worse case scenario topic

I have an ominous suspicion that the world is poised for more war, and that war will involve a fanatically politicized religious sect trying to cleanse the world of diversity and democracy. The peaceniks on those aidships are deluded into thinking that they will be spared should this one politicized religious sect be the victor in this conflict. On the contrary, non-democratic religious politicized regimes have no love or respect for the diversity of the deluded peacenicks. This is just a ruse to convince more and more people and governments to toss out diversified democracy, which is a heck of a lot more difficult to manage than a singular religious state. How naive some peoples are. Now of course, in a democracy, people can adopt any position they desire, which is not the case in a country or region like Gaza. The peaceniks would do well to remember this freedom that they have. And if Israel fell, and the poor Palestinians got every bit of land, that would spell the end of diversity and democracy in the Middle East. (And Israel is a democracy, though it has had to toughen up because at no time in its 62 year history has there been peace.) The land grabbing would not stop. Anyone not belonging to a certain religious sect would be eliminated/expelled by a non democratic government. This has happend many times in history, and all of it has been bloody.

Peacemaking and keeping have got to be a multinational global effort for it to succeed, and not left to inflammatory and deluded "peace" groups, whose agenda is far from peaceful.

If i had a few tons of gold bullion, that would solve all MY problems....
So.. if the world had only one religion, that would solve the world's problems.. yup. (well, specifically, if everyone in the world thought exactly the same thing... ie, everyone being clones of a single individual)

But... welcome back to the real world.

I agree that a global religion would eliminate many unnecessary conflicts. It would be very difficult for terrorists to use religion as an excuse and for groups to get brainwashed into becoming terrorists in the first place. The source that I have been referring to that I think it would be beneficial for the rest of the world to know about is bigpicturequestions.com. Somehow it just makes more sense than anything else that I have heard of or read religion and philosophy wise.

Its the same esperanto, facebook-libra kind of risible thought . People dont want that.

According to Christian prophecy, the antichrist would start one world religion (and to those who don't know, antichrist is supposed to come before Jesus' second coming, rule for 7 years -- while enforcing his one world religion -- and then Jesus will come and defeat him).

Anyway, when I saw the title, I thought thats what it was about. But when I read the actual text I think it is a satire on that theme. I mean, nobody says antichrist's religion would claim that "Mohammad is Jesus' son and Moses is his grandfather" -- nobody would believe that -- and antichrist's religion is supposed to be really persuasive. But then again, if antichrist will pick just one religion out of many, then how will he persuade the ones that don't already subscribe to it to believe? I tend to think that antichrist will probably conduct some miracle (Bible mentions he will send fire from heaven to earth) and that is what will persuade people. So I guess -- if he does the miracle -- then he might as well say "Mohammad is the son of Jesus" and people will still believe. But then again, he doesn't have to say that. He can do a miracle and tell everyone to subscribe to religion such and such and they will do that too. So who knows what his religion will actually be. We can all speculate.

I hope that you are aware that this thread is nine years old. You are replying to folks who have all left the site ages ago.

I didn't notice it -- but that is a good thing. I often wish I could go back to the past, this is one way to do it.

Another way to go back to the past is to say how orange juice is healthy -- thats what they used to believe back in the 90-s.

Umm...Okay.

Didn't realize that the attitude of society towards orange juice had changed radically since the Nineties. But when I think of the Nineties one of the first things I do think of is of the "trial of the century" - and about the already then retired football star knicknamed after "orange juice": Orenthal James Simpson. Funny how both of us associate that decade with "juice".

Google "is orange juice healthy?" and you will see most people arguing how orange juice is bad for you due to the fact that when you get rid of pulp the concentration of sugar will be higher (even though you don't add any sugar of your own) and so when you drink one cup of orange juice you get the equivalent of sugar from several oranges.

But back in the 90-s nobody was saying that. Back then people thought orange juice is good for you because oranges are good for you and it came from oranges.

I never heard of "trial of the century". What is it? And what does Orenthal has to do with orange juice -- are you referring to some other language?

Am talking about O.J. Simpson. NFL star of the Seventies. In the early Nineties he was charged with gruesomely murdering his ex wife and a male friend of his ex wife. The resulting trial was a media circus. Seems like yesterday to folks my age. But may be prehistoric to you. But years before that .. when he was a football player in the Seventies there were TV ads for "O.J." (orange juice), so O.J. Simpson got dubbed "the juice" by his millions of fans.

But yeah...if you take out the pulp in orange juice it would take out fiber, and also intensify the sugar delivery speed. It is kinda like shooting up fructose into your system like shooting up heroin.

The conflicts in the world are not "all the world's problems". Not even by a long shot.

What they were saying is that -- even if you take orange juice with pulp -- it is still a lot less pulp than in the actual orange -- as evidenced from the fact that actual orange is solid and orange juice is liquid: thats why they applied that argument to every single kind of orange juice you might have, both with and without pulp.

In any case, you said you didn't know that the view on orange juice changed between 90-s and now. So does it mean that you thought it was unhealthy back in the 90-s too? That is surprising: from what I saw, everyone in the 90-s thought it was healthy, thats why I was so surprised to hear otherwise more recently. But perhaps in the country you are from the views were different?