Religious treaty

ScumLord · 10-07-2006 2:15pm #1

Most world conflicts seem to revolve around the hebrew offshoot religions Jew, Christian and Muslem. Do you think these faiths could ever sit down and form a peaceful treaty that recognises they all worship the same God in different ways and that maybe it was Gods intention that there be different ways to worship, maybe he likes variety?

The biggest problem I can see is people feeling like their sinning by acepting that other ways of worship are just as valid as their own but I think if they looked to the ten commandments they'd see it's really required of them.

robindch · 10-07-2006 3:14pm

> Do you think these faiths could ever sit down and form a peaceful treaty

No, because while peace and love is what religions talk about, that's not what they're actually "for". See my postings anon for the sociological reasons for the existence of religions in primitive societies.

The only time that I'm aware that the unelected representatives of the major (and a few minor) Abrahamic religions sat down and agreed anything was that time last year when they got together in Jerusalem and agreed that none of them wanted gays marching in favour of tolerence in their city. The irony of a group of religious leaders joining to condemn gays as a threat to society when they can't bring themselves to condemn state-wide lawlessness, suicide bombings and murder seems to be lost on these great men:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/international/worldspecial/31gay.html?ex=1269925200&en=194621e128746bbc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

That story has a wonderful lead photo as well, by the way

ScumLord · 12-07-2006 9:40am

I'm actually a little surprised this thread went completely unanswered. Christians are so aposed to peace with other religions they won't even consider the idea?

Cantab. · 12-07-2006 10:53pm

ScumLord wrote:

Most world conflicts seem to revolve around the hebrew offshoot religions Jew, Christian and Muslem. Do you think these faiths could ever sit down and form a peaceful treaty that recognises they all worship the same God in different ways and that maybe it was Gods intention that there be different ways to worship, maybe he likes variety?

The biggest problem I can see is people feeling like their sinning by acepting that other ways of worship are just as valid as their own but I think if they looked to the ten commandments they'd see it's really required of them.

smells like a load of religous relativism baloney to me...

robindch · 13-07-2006 2:27pm

Reminds me of the Orange Catholic Bible from Frank Herbert's Dune series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Catholic_Bible

...and about as likely to happen.

pbsuxok1znja4r · 14-07-2006 4:30am

ScumLord wrote:

I'm actually a little surprised this thread went completely unanswered. Christians are so aposed to peace with other religions they won't even consider the idea?

Yes, because the pope himself/other prominent christian figures didn't get on the internet and reply to this thread on boards, obviously christians are "opposed to peace with other religions" - this thread has proven it. Conclusion successfully jumped to. Thread mission accomplished.

Talliesin · 14-07-2006 9:05am

ScumLord wrote:

Most world conflicts seem to revolve around the hebrew offshoot religions Jew, Christian and Muslem. Do you think these faiths could ever sit down and form a peaceful treaty that recognises they all worship the same God in different ways and that maybe it was Gods intention that there be different ways to worship, maybe he likes variety?

Okay, great, the peoples of the book get together, they draw this up and they all sign it.

Now, we come along to some Jewish, Christian and Muslim families that all claim the same piece of land in Palestine and all say it's been theirs for generations. All of them sincerely believe their claims. All of them feel that land is their home. Most of them don't give a damn what pieces of paper a bunch of Holy Joes signed. How is your treaty going to make a lick of difference?

Dades · 14-07-2006 9:47am

robindch wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/international/worldspecial/31gay.html?ex=1269925200&en=194621e128746bbc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

That story has a wonderful lead photo as well, by the way

Brilliant!

That is the best picture I have seen in a long, long time.

It reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where so many different offshoots of society and history are lining out for the lynching.

ScumLord · 14-07-2006 11:09am

How is your treaty going to make a lick of difference?

So we shouldn't even try for peace? It would be a step in the right direction IMO at the very least. If the leaders of the religions are seen to do these things the faithful should follow or at least they'd be highlighted as going against their faith.

Why do people always laugh whenever peace is mentioned, "their'll never be peace in the north" well not if you don't try for it. Now we see Northern Ireland is actually on the road to peace.

Isn't it a shame when an agnostic has to try and remind religious folk of the importance of love thy neighbour.

Talliesin · 14-07-2006 10:36pm

ScumLord wrote:

So we shouldn't even try for peace?

Oh look! This man you've made of straw falls over at the slightest breeze!

Now try answering the point I made, rather than the one you're pretending I made.

15-07-2006 9:55pm

feckin israelies takin the palestinians land, and screwin up the middle east more than it is. dont you think the americans could have stolen land from another country, thats NOT surrounded by muslim countries.

Talliesin · 15-07-2006 9:59pm

See ScumLord, that demonstrates my point. What would your treaty do to stop simplistic drivel like the post above?

pbsuxok1znja4r · 16-07-2006 4:31am

^Well either a hollow gesture toward peace is better than nothing, or else is just another half-measure prolonging the problem. Take your pick.
I suppose maybe everything must come to a head for anything to really change.

ScumLord wrote:

Isn't it a shame when an agnostic has to try and remind religious folk of the importance of love thy neighbour

Not really. It's a shame when one person tries to lord what he supposes is his 'worldly' piety over another though. It's funny, how in this day, age and society it is so often 'secular' people such as yourself who carry the 'Holier Than Thou' attitude when dealing with "religious folk". Perhaps 'More Down-to-Earth Decent Than Thou' is a more adequate phrase.

Anyway, peace will become a possibility when enough people simply feel they want it, not when some treaty gets signed.

Asiaprod · 16-07-2006 8:19am

scouser.tommy wrote:

Anyway, peace will become a possibility when enough people simply feel they want it, not when some treaty gets signed.

And that is probably one of the wisest comments I have seen posted. Treaties are usually made to be broken. It was people power that brought down the Berlin wall, people power will bring peace to our world.

ScumLord · 17-07-2006 10:10am

Well Talliesin it's not going to do anything but change the rules. If people want to argue and bicker with eachother (and it seems they do going from responses in here) then nothing can change that but they shouldn't ever think it's ok and that their church supports them. There has to be a way to kick off some sort of religious peace movement. It looked like the world market and international trade might do it but some people still hung onto their hatred.

people power will bring peace to our world.

Governments and media have become experts at ignoring people power these days. People will march for anything these days it's almost ruined the effectiveness of it.

Religious treaty

Comments