by greendawn 37 Replies latest jw friends
I suspect the topic is a run on the WTS idea that if everyone were JWs (now there's a scary thought) the world would be a better place.
The "two laws" are a far simpler framework, and I believe would be useful if universally applied. Pigs might fly, though...
Terry,
that was a great post. it's in my faves now.
hmike,
i appreciate your sentiments that true theocratic government should be run by god and not man, and that this faith in christ can not be forced, but rather, is found in the hearts of believers. and that's all well and good, since i am all for separation of church and state.
however, i do feel compelled to make a small comment on the following:
That's the point behind the Tower of Babel and the breakup of mankind.
i'm sorry, but this is most likely a total myth. the study of ancient and pre -ancient linguistics, shows the evolution of the language the bible was written in was in fact in the indo - european tradition of all the languages that they were aware of at the time. indo - european linguists can trace the natural evolution of languages. there is no need for a miracle to account for them. there is evidence for indo-european linguistics, and none for the babel account.
i'm sure that one day, the writer of that passage was sitting around, wondering "gee, i wonder why there are so many tribes with their own dialects? and why none of us can ever get along and get anything done together?"
and like all religious writers, he (or even she), had a revelation after sitting around all alone for a long period of time making up a story and becoming more and more convinced of it "deep inside".
the reason i feel compelled to touch on this topic, is because it also fits in with the theme of the thread.
the gospels provide no reason for the modern mind to believe. there is no evidence for their inspiration from god. so accepting the gospel, however one interprets it, would not change the world any better that believing that Gilgamesh was inspired by god.
There's millions of folk tales in history. Some complicated some not so complicated. Many folk tales in the bible are duplicates of other folk tales (ie flood story). If you accept these folk stories it would only be logical to accept the other ones since they have the same possibility of existing in the world of a mystic.
And just to extend on Tetra's statement about no evidence in God. In reality, there's good evidence not to believe in God (mankind in general) from the easy manipulation that comes from irrational religious thought, to the black and white world it seems to paste on many of it's members. Just doesn't seem good for humanity imo.
...there's good evidence not to believe in God...
And there, my young friend, would be where you step over from scientific objectivity into the realms of speculation.
If I can be as candid as to suggest that the "God-experience" is subjective, then I'm afraid I must also be equal to the task of suggesting your stance to be erroneous.
Oh I know LittleToe. When I say that I do not mean it objectively, my arguement would be just as good as a person saying it helps prove religion's affectiveness. Mostly just my opinion with a few personal experiences bunched up with them. Should not be taken as litterally as say gravity eh.
Would acceptance of the gospel change the world?
Back to the original question. It has changed my little corner of the world. My morals, attitudes and actions on a daily basis have been influenced by the 'gospel' that is the 'good news' about Christ.
Subjective interpretation makes a universiality impossible though doesn't it?
Jeff
Hi Tetrapod,
Whether the account of the Tower of Babel and the dispersion of the populace is literal history or not, it contains what I consider an enormously insightful statement:
Gen 11:6..."The LORD said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.' "
As languages around the world differ, so do cultural practices and types of governments. What if the entire world was united in language, culture, and economy under a centralized government? What if all the great minds of the world were able to work together, unhindered by differences in not only their own political and social views, but also the ideologies of heads of governments? What if everyone was united in common goals and unhindered by cultural, political, and communication barriers? What if there was no war or competition between nations? As I read it here, Genesis says, "nothing will be impossible for them." Diseases would be cured, quality lifespans would be lengthened, perhaps indefinitely, all the frontiers could be explored and understood, even controlled--mankind would become its own god. That may sound wonderful, like utopia. That's assuming, of course, we get and remain on the right track. But what if we take a wrong turn? What if we go in a destructive direction without realizing it? And, of course, in this kind of world, there would be no place for non-conformist thinking. So, the very things that hinder man's progress can also serve as a check against self-destruction.
People, when working together without barriers, are capable of great things. But without proper direction, "great" in what way? Ultimately, who's going to decide?
I enjoyed your post hmike. It would be great if everybody would work together in harmony and I feel that it's everybody's personal duty to help in some way shape or form in their own way to see to this. However, uniting in culture just won't happen. There's too many cultural differences. By everybody going into one culture it would take years of dismantling people's cultures and origin, and nobody wants this at all. So let's try to work together to think of a course of action to reach this goal.
Throughout history people have been known to not "accept" things all too well. Millions if not billions of individuals have lost their lives because they refuse to accept another person's ideology. I propose that we keep our innate cultural customs but accept the possibility that we can be wrong and other people can be right and they have the freedom to choose this right or wrong without undue persecution to them. Reason and Logic breeds this habitually however, worldwide most people will not critically question their original belief systems or even consider the possibility that it is wrong. Therefore it brings me to my main proposal to the solution of this problem... Education.
Education even in developed countries are somewhat sub-par in my opinion. They put knowing the quadratic equation over understanding how to critically think about whether this person is indirectly (or directly) controlling you physically, mentally and even spiritually. They teach the spin of an atom and never even think about understanding the nature of human sexuality. It is fine that they are teaching academic solutions to these problems but we are pushing out many individuals who can not critically think for themselves without some looming authority forcibly suggesting their viewpoints. I feel that true world understanding (World peace is a little farfetch, some people view heated debates as not being peace, and I would hate aworld without debate) rather than imagining a world outside of our means and not even actively working towards that solution using real life experiments and study to see that it happens.
Our educational system should be the foremost asset to all of us, because that educational system is what makes us, it's what makes our future. Future diplomacy issues means nothing if a future populace can not critically think of a reasonable solution to things (rather than "God" told me so. I'm talking to you Bush). This irrational way of thought has put us through heck and back in a circular repetition of what the generations before us did. If we would stop making the same claims as before and work towards a goal worldwide then we can finally think about solving the real problems that's hindering humanity from being great. And all this can only come from the education of the youth.
The "two laws" are a far simpler framework, and I believe would be useful if universally applied.
Only one of them has any relevance to society. The other is not a bad idea but open to exploitation. My preferred philosophy of behaviour would be something like: "Treat others initially as you would like to be treated, and afterwards as they treat you." Similar to the Golden Rule, but with less cheek-turning.
I believe the Bible is the crux of all evil in the world. Look at how many have died in the name of Jesus. Pathetic if that is supposed to be our example. Where is our great king when humanity is falling apart? Definitely not paying attention, and certainly not giving a crap. That's just my opinion.
