If you had to choose a world wide religion that everyone would have to follow...

[HannahBanana]

Yes, I did answer your question. Going to church every Sunday, taking communion, and doing various other 'Christian' things doesn't make you a Christian. Even if you force someone to 'walk through the actions' that does not make them a Christian on the inside. I do not think that religion in the full sense can be forced on anyone at all. Actions are not what determines ultimate salvation. If your heart is not in the right place, forcing the actions will do nothing.

So you think that just because "going through the actions" doesn't make a person a Christian, that means that forcing Christianity on them is perfectly fine?

 

[heavensangelwv]

So you think that just because "going through the actions" doesn't make a person a Christian, that means that forcing Christianity on them is perfectly fine?

Do you enjoy twisting words??? I have never said it was ok to force a religion on anyone.

 

[cantata]

Um... Budhists? Budhist societies? (Budhism being a philosophy, not a religion)

Ask a lay Buddhist. Many would describe Buddhism as a religion. And if they did not, they'd usually call it a way of life, not a philosophy.

Incidentally, communism, Maoism &c. are described as "worldviews" or "religions" by some students of religions (cf. Ninian Smart, Worldviews or The World's Religions). "Religion" is a hard word to define, and the best bet we have at the moment is a "family resemblance" model which describes several characteristics, only some of which each religion displays, and none of which is shared by all religions. But these worldviews have "holy" texts, "saintly" figures, core beliefs, and so on, and therefore some people would argue that they share enough in common with religions to be classed as such.

 

[cantata]

So you think that just because "going through the actions" doesn't make a person a Christian, that means that forcing Christianity on them is perfectly fine?

The OP presupposes that whatever religion is chosen will be forced on people. I don't think you can blame heavensangelwv for simply responding to the OP.

 

[David Brider]

from the religions already established. Which would you choose?

I don't think I would, to be honest. You can't force people to follow a particular religion, and neither can you expect all people to freely follow a particular religion either.

I think, though, that the world would be a considerably better place if people could be encouraged to follow the "golden rule" (treat other people as you'd like them to treat you) and within that, to at least be open to the possibility of spirituality, whatever path they may choose to explore.

David.

 

[Paulos23]

Can you name a society without a religion of any kind which isn't or wasn't Communist?

Finland, Sweden, Norway....

 

[Mling]

It isn't a religion, but if I stretch the definition to include philosophical mindsets, I would go with humanism.

I define humanism as the pursuit of human-centric solutions to humanity's problems, using human-centric means, and for human centric reasons.

So, you find a hungry, homeless man (problem), you feed him (solution) yourself (means) because you genuinely want him to not be hungry (reason).

You don't pray for somebody else to feed him, or for God to feed him (a divine solution using divine means.) You don't use exploit his vulnerability in order to try to convert him (seeing a diving problem instead of a human one) and earn an extra notch in your bible case. And you don't think "I was ordered by God to feed him, so I will, in order to obey God" (human solution, but divine reasoning).

You simply do what is necessary, because it is necessary, because you care.

 

[Isambard]

Pastafarianism.

 

[WatersMoon110]

If you had to choose a world wide religion that everyone would have to follow...


The idea that everyone has to follow one particular religion is a seriously flawed hypothetical right off the bat...

I guess I'll pick Unitarian Universalism. There's no doctrine. You can believe in one God, a trinity of Gods, thousands of Gods, or no God. You can believe in a Savior or not. You can believe the Bible is history, folklore, or fiction. You can believe in Satan, in karma, or in bad luck. You can believe in a spiritual afterlife, in reincarnation, or when you're dead, you're dead. You have choices.

If everybody is gonna be forced to have one religion, then it should have as many options as possible.

I agree. If I were going to have to force a religion on everyone, I would want it to be Unitarian Universalism. It would allow people to believe in just about any religion, mix of religions, or no religion, and would only "force" them to learn about all different religions (and current events).

Also, Flower Communion is an amazing thing!

 

[Aeris]

I agree. If I were going to have to force a religion on everyone, I would want it to be Unitarian Universalism. It would allow people to believe in just about any religion, mix of religions, or no religion, and would only "force" them to learn about all different religions (and current events).

Also, Flower Communion is an amazing thing!

Hmm maybe that would be good then, because then people would be more open to other peoples beliefs since when people are strongly against something it is often because they know very little about it, or because it is new/different and they dont want to accept change.

 

[Paulos23]

Pastafarianism.

With or without mozzarella?

 

[Isambard]

With or without mozzarella?

Better make it without. Want to be inclusive to all, including the lactose intolerant

 

[Eudaimonist]

from the religions already established. Which would you choose?

Would have to follow? I'm going to assume that you don't mean that they are being forced to follow by law, but have somehow been converted in that direction.

I'm not sure why you are limiting this to established religions, and I'm not quite sure what you consider "established" (e.g., is Wicca an "established" religion?), or even what you consider a "religion". If you could clarify these, it would help.

Naturally, I would choose Eudaimonism as the world "religion", if it could count as one. It's a nontheistic philosophical path, and perhaps not what you mean by "religion", but there you go.

If I can't choose that, I suppose that I would choose either Thelema or Buddhism. Or Stoicism, if that would count. (Stoicism is techincally a philosophy, but advocated belief in an intelligent panentheistic orderer of reality.)

Generally speaking, I would choose a religion that was strong on the advocacy of rational inquiry, personal insights, and charting one's own path.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sitswithamouse]

I wouldn't take any if it were forced. I have a right to choose my religion or beliefs as long as they hurt no one.

But if forced I would have to go with Deism.

 

[quatona]

Then you get Communism by default.

Then so be it.

However, I fail to see the logic in your conclusion, and, in fact, it directly clashes with reality: There is no religion everyone has to follow, yet we don´t have communism.

Whatever - I´d surely prefer communism over a theocracy any day.

 

[Polycarp1]

Interesting discussion. Ironically, I too would have to pick UUism -- but because I want as many people as possible to come to Christ and grow in His grace.

And Heavensangelwv is right; you can't force anyone to be Christian, just to go through the motions. So given the, um, odd setup of the question in the OP, I'd have to choose to force on people the one faith path (other than the broadest possible definition of Hinduism) that leaves the door open to choose Christianity.

What's your answer, Autumnleaf? And why?

 

[Mling]

I interpreted the question as "If you could press a magic button and have everybody in the world magically convert and mean it."

 

[funyun]

Can you name a society without a religion of any kind which isn't or wasn't Communist?

Then you get Communism by default.

This argument is unsound on several levels.

Firstly, factually: as pointed out, Buddhism as a philosophy is atheistic.

Secondly, semantically: non-religiousness is not the same thing as atheism.

Thirdly, logically: you're argument is both an argument from ignorance ("There are no simultaneously non-religious and non-communist permutations of societal organization.") and a case of affirming the consequent ("If all communist societies are atheistic, all atheistic societies must therefore be communist.")

 

[SallyNow]

What would be the point of forcing everyone to follow one religion? There would be people just going through the motions, not being true to themselves? That is a proven method of creating a failing society.

Forcing religion on a person is counterproductive. One's faith, or lack thereof, must come from one's mind and heart, and not be forced on a person from outside.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

The idea that people would 'have to' follow a religion seems to be a flawed hypothesis to me. No-one can be forced to really believe, so it's impossible.

Unless the OP means a world where we can create all the individuals to inherently choose to follow a specific religion...? If that is what is meant, then it's a really difficult idea. Asking us as human beings to step above ourselves and decide our own make up seems perverse because ultimately we've forced people where we feel we shouldn't.