Bringing all religions together

[asherahSamaria]

Here's an idea.

For us atheists it's really very confusing as there are dozens of religions with hundreds of denominations, sects, cults, branches etc etc. all promoting something different even when some are nominally derived from the same holy book - or thereabouts. So it's really very difficult to take any claim of "truth" seriously when it's obvious theists can't agree among themselves on pretty much anything to do with dogma.

What about getting a representative from every religion and denomination etc and lock them up in a big room to actually agree what is "Truth". After all if there was a god or gods this would be in their best interest - to have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet (see what I did there). The real god/gods - if there are any - would definitely make sure the proper version with the proper rules etc, would win out at the end of the day.

Then everyone would know what the proper "truth" was and could follow that single religion.

Obviously this is purely hypothetical but would theists go for this?

 

[Steeno7]

LOL. You surely are a humanist.

 

[talitha]

What about getting a representative from every religion and denomination etc and lock them up in a big room to actually agree what is "Truth"....
Then everyone would know what the proper "truth" was and could follow that single religion.
Obviously this is purely hypothetical but would theists go for this?

Nope. The truth has been revealed by God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. It is finished.

 

[Albion]

Here's an idea.

For us atheists it's really very confusing as there are dozens of religions with hundreds of denominations, sects, cults, branches etc etc. all promoting something different even when some are nominally derived from the same holy book - or thereabouts. So it's really very difficult to take any claim of "truth" seriously when it's obvious theists can't agree among themselves on pretty much anything to do with dogma.

What about getting a representative from every religion and denomination etc and lock them up in a big room to actually agree what is "Truth". After all if there was a god or gods this would be in their best interest - to have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet (see what I did there). The real god/gods - if there are any - would definitely make sure the proper version with the proper rules etc, would win out at the end of the day.

Then everyone would know what the proper "truth" was and could follow that single religion.

Obviously this is purely hypothetical but would theists go for this?

What makes you think that locking them up together and asking them to reach agreement on a long list of beliefs would produce agreement, even if the parties tried their best?

 

[asherahSamaria]

Nope. The truth has been revealed by God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. It is finished.

Alas most of the rest of the world disagrees with you. And you haven't even said which sect, denomination etc it is.

Would it possibly be yours by any chance? What a co-incidence if so!

 

[asherahSamaria]

What makes you think that locking them up together and asking them to reach agreement on a long list of beliefs would produce agreement, even if the parties tried their best?

If there is a super powerful agency/deity/deities involved - anything is possible. Unless you think that isn't the case?

 

[talitha]

Alas most of the rest of the world disagrees with you.

Since when does most of the world disagreeing affect what is true or not true? There was a time when most of the world disagreed with the concept of a round Earth. Didn't mean the Earth was flat, and then became round when people decided it was. :-/

And you haven't even said which sect, denomination etc it is.

Would it possibly be yours by any chance? What a co-incidence if so!

Why would I say that someone else's idea of "truth" was true and mine isn't, and not switch to theirs? What a weird thought. Of course I am going to follow what I believe to be true. Duh.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Since when does most of the world disagreeing affect what is true or not true? .

It doesn't - but as everyone else also claims they have the truth were going to need a bit more than just a claim to find out what the truth actually is.

Why would I say that someone else's idea of "truth" was true and mine isn't, and not switch to theirs? What a weird thought. Of course I am going to follow what I believe to be true. Duh.

Good to know that you realize it's only your idea - not actually evidence based. So you at least recognize that it is impossible to determine truth by claim alone.

 

[Albion]

If there is a super powerful agency/deity/deities involved - anything is possible. Unless you think that isn't the case?

"Anything is possible". OK, who can argue against that?

The thing is that I was taking your suggestion seriously.

If not, we could just as easily say that we should get a bunch of monkeys together, put them in front of keyboards, let them pound away, and because "anything is possible," God could have one of them type up the answer to which religion is the right one.

Your suggestion was not "anything's possible," and it wasn't about God intervening. It was about human representatives of all religious POVs reaching agreement through normal scholarship. The likelihood of that happening is what I questioned.

 

[asherahSamaria]

"Anything is possible". OK, who can argue against that?

The thing is that I was taking your suggestion seriously.

If not, we could just as easily say that we should get a bunch of monkeys together, put them in front of keyboards, let them pound away, and because "anything is possible," God could have one of them type up the answer to which religion is the right one.

Your suggestion was not "anything's possible," and it wasn't about God intervening. It was about human representatives of all religious POVs reaching agreement through normal scholarship. The likelihood of that happening is what I questioned.

I think that the idea of that scenario frightens theists because they realize that their ideas are only that - ideas - and other peoples ideas may have more validity.

What if a consensus was reached that Zoroastrianism (insert other religion/denomination etc here) was correct? I think the majority would ignore that edict and continue on with the ideas that bring them comfort - regardless if they are actually true or not.

 

[Albion]

I think that the idea of that scenario frightens theists because they realize that their ideas are only that - ideas - and other peoples ideas may have more validity.

Are you serious? You've presented us with a scenario that allegedly s workable so that you can say there's something wrong with anyone who thinks it's shortsighted.

There have been INNUMERABLE interfaith discussions over the centuries seeking to find consensus if possible. But they fail because of several factors. For one, those who are not in the room compromising have no reason to agree to what the negotiators decide, and for another, the areas that need to be agreed upon are enormous and each of them is important. It's not as though a bunch of people from different religious faiths are expected simply to agree that there is a God who wants us to live right!

 

[durangodawood]

Here's an idea....

Youre starting with the wrong idea: that religion is about truth.
Religion is more about what works, for individuals and society.
For individuals, its about cultivating your soul.
For society, its about harmony, order, and cultural preservation.
What works is different for the various cultures and individuals.

 

[talitha]

It doesn't - but as everyone else also claims they have the truth were going to need a bit more than just a claim to find out what the truth actually is.

"A claim" is not a method for discovering truth. You are right about that.

Good to know that you realize it's only your idea - not actually evidence based. So you at least recognize that it is impossible to determine truth by claim alone.

Not at all. Truth exists quite apart from me. And I don't think anyone would say that truth can be determined "by claim".

 

[asherahSamaria]

But they fail because of several factors. For one, those who are not in the room compromising have no reason to agree to what the negotiators decide, and for another, the areas that need to be agreed upon are enormous and each of them is important. It's not as though a bunch of people from different religious faiths are expected simply to agree that there is a God who wants us to live right!

I think the main reason for failure is that it's all just based on peoples ideas - and different people have different ideas.

I was (hypothetically) wondering if theists would actually agree with whatever the outcome of such a meeting/conclave/coven )) etc decided - and I don't think they would. If a named representative for every belief system came out of such a meeting and said that "X" is the truth - it has been revealed to us all - the "faithful" wouldn't buy it - of any religion. (Ignoring the lucky ones that were already adhering to that particular dogma - if such existed).

I suspect they'd want ... Ohh I don't know... evidence perhaps?

 

[Albion]

I think the main reason for failure is that it's all just based on peoples ideas - and different people have different ideas.

OK, but if that's true, wouldn't it follow that the gathering together of representatives of a wide range of religious views and expecting anything other than this to come out of it doesn't have much of a chance of success in the first place?

I was (hypothetically) wondering if theists would actually agree with whatever the outcome of such a meeting/conclave/coven )) etc decided - and I don't think they would.

We're in agreement on that point.

If a named representative for every belief system came out of such a meeting and said that "X" is the truth - it has been revealed to us all - the "faithful" wouldn't buy it - of any religion.

That's true. But we shouldn't sell these representatives short. The hope would be that many of the reps would agree to abandon their sincerely-held beliefs simply for the sake of harmony. But the idea of religion is to pursue the truth, not to be united without it.

 

[Lukamu]

What about getting a representative from every religion and denomination etc and lock them up in a big room to actually agree what is "Truth".

So you define "truth" as something which everyone has agreed to call "truth"? If we all agreed that cats are actually dogs, does that make it true? No, there is only one truth - as Jesus says: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

 

[Lukamu]

I think the main reason for failure is that it's all just based on peoples ideas - and different people have different ideas.

I was (hypothetically) wondering if theists would actually agree with whatever the outcome of such a meeting/conclave/coven )) etc decided - and I don't think they would. If a named representative for every belief system came out of such a meeting and said that "X" is the truth - it has been revealed to us all - the "faithful" wouldn't buy it - of any religion. (Ignoring the lucky ones that were already adhering to that particular dogma - if such existed).

I suspect they'd want ... Ohh I don't know... evidence perhaps?

Christians would not agree with it. We don't allow each generation do decide it's own "truth", because a "truth" that keeps changing from one thing to another was never actually the truth to begin with.

 

[juvenissun]

Here's an idea.

For us atheists it's really very confusing as there are dozens of religions with hundreds of denominations, sects, cults, branches etc etc. all promoting something different even when some are nominally derived from the same holy book - or thereabouts. So it's really very difficult to take any claim of "truth" seriously when it's obvious theists can't agree among themselves on pretty much anything to do with dogma.

What about getting a representative from every religion and denomination etc and lock them up in a big room to actually agree what is "Truth". After all if there was a god or gods this would be in their best interest - to have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet (see what I did there). The real god/gods - if there are any - would definitely make sure the proper version with the proper rules etc, would win out at the end of the day.

Then everyone would know what the proper "truth" was and could follow that single religion.

Obviously this is purely hypothetical but would theists go for this?

Not at all. No theist would agree.
Do you know why?

 

[AV1611VET]

I've got an idea.

Let's lock all the top-notch scientists in a room and ask them a simple question:

How did we get our moon?

They can use all the physical evidence at their disposal -- written or otherwise.

Two can play that game.

 

[bhsmte]

Here's an idea.

For us atheists it's really very confusing as there are dozens of religions with hundreds of denominations, sects, cults, branches etc etc. all promoting something different even when some are nominally derived from the same holy book - or thereabouts. So it's really very difficult to take any claim of "truth" seriously when it's obvious theists can't agree among themselves on pretty much anything to do with dogma.

What about getting a representative from every religion and denomination etc and lock them up in a big room to actually agree what is "Truth". After all if there was a god or gods this would be in their best interest - to have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet (see what I did there). The real god/gods - if there are any - would definitely make sure the proper version with the proper rules etc, would win out at the end of the day.

Then everyone would know what the proper "truth" was and could follow that single religion.

Obviously this is purely hypothetical but would theists go for this?

If you gave them guns, no one would be left.