It seems to me that, due in part to modern economics, today's disputes are less a result of territory and more a result of idealogical differences.

Could not a partial solution be a unification of the monotheistic religions? The majority of humanity holds religion in light of a single infinite god. In a sense, other points in contention in the major religions are slight after this.

Agreed, in another sense there are slill enormous difficulties in such a proposed concordance, including theological dogma and long historical contention. A union would mean forgeting the past, disregarding the factual validity of each word of their holy texts, even sacrificing ego and politico-religious aims. But if accomplished, consider the numerous advantages. Are there any disadvantages?

It seems to me that such a reality will never come about through gradual process, but will require dramatic, even catastophic, circumstance to precipitate. Some vast set of events that shocks us out of our petty disputes and forces the collaboration of the entirety of humanity. Perhaps then.

um, the theologies don't allow for this, and aren't really petty. You can't get past them.

I agree that the world would be a better place with less religious issues. However, you sound like you would be pro one world government. If that is the case, i respect your beliefs but must disagree.

Unfortunately, I think you are right about there being a castrophic event that scares people into giving up their rights.

I am most definately not pro one world government. The thought scares me- at least it would if anything scared me these days. I've been a bit numb lately. I would propound, not the current patchwork nor a unified political whole, but instead regions of sufficient size to be economically and politically stable, united globally only in that all agree on common moral and legal foundations. But I stray off topic.

Zman: Personally I disagree with the majority of modern interpretations for any religion. Regardless, taking the words (and thus the majority of the interpretations) of the theologies at face value, they are completely incompatible. Thus we must dicard them, at least in part.

Scares them into giving up their rights? Perhaps. Would not any peaceful time better allow the upholding of personal rights, and vice versa? Necessity dictates how well we are able to do what is right.

A thought: Religious controversy seems to stimulate thought toward religion itself. Should said contention be eliminated, and religion become a non-issue, would religious zeal spiral down? I think so. I see this as a good thing, however, once the distinction is made between religion and spirituality. Times of peace seem to stimulate the personal search for spiritual truth just as times of conflict stimulate rote memorization of religious dogma. Or so it seems to me.

quote:Originally posted by Mojo-monkey:



Zman: Personally I disagree with the majority of modern interpretations for any religion. Regardless, taking the words (and thus the majority of the interpretations) of the theologies at face value, they are completely incompatible. Thus we must dicard them, at least in part.



Face value doesn't mean much since that is a representation of deeper issues. A catosrophic event will only cause a return to faiths' respective core. Reradicalization.