Would you agree with plurality of belief systems?
By cannibal
@cannibal (650)
India
August 17, 2009 12:11pm CST
I ain't talking in terms of religion strictly. My question is, would you support a society that would be pluralistic in its beliefs, i.e. some believing in monotheism, some in polytheism, some in consciousness, some in rationalism, some in natural forces, some in none of these and so on. All this with a necessary precondition that no one would be allowed to call others' mode/s wrong or a sin.
I personally would strongly vouch for such a society since obviously pluralism is the law of nature. It is common sense that each one of us has a different understanding of everything and definitely the complex concept of God.
It is also true that such a society would be possibly susceptible to conflicts, but then conflicts occur even within single belief systems. Show me one religion which does not have internal strife/s. It is pretty natural to have differences of opinion and in fact it would indicate the existence of a healthy society (provided the differences are resolved peacefully)
Now I know, the religious nuts would be sharpening their swords against me since I didn't subscribe to their crude view of the whole world surrendering to their only 'true' God.
4 responses
@nzalheart (2338)
• India
18 Aug 09
The white ray of light when falls on a prism, it gets dispersed into seven colors. And this seven colors is due to the variation of the wavelength. Similarly the belief of the people as different that makes then bound to different beliefs or religions. While the most important part is that, they are all the same thing. i.e Everything in this world is the samething. And the difference we see in this world is due to our perceptions. The one who can separate oneself from all these colors and see the light in its original form that is the source of all the colors of light is getting enlightened.
1 person likes this
@ulalume (713)
• United States
18 Aug 09
No, not personally. The idea seems to much like that of a utopia, which I am not in favor of. However much I despise some view points, I would rather people be allowed to tell me that I am going to burn in hellfire just so I can know who to avoid if necessary. You can't really know people if they are not allowed to express their perspectives fully.
It seems like a nice idea initially, however when you throw in fanatical religious people with down to Earth people who want to be left alone (religiously at least) then you instantly create the same problem that already exists. If a person believes what they do whole heartedly, they will avoid any sensible reason to act properly; even in a society where these different views are tolerated. Hell, this "society" is similar to the modern day USA.
Your last two sentences basically sum up my point. In a perfect world (AKA: utopia) these things would seem good, but in the reality of this world; no one would abide by these rules (except perhaps those who's beliefs don't need to be enforced on others, such as paganism and Satanism). Seriously, it is the peaceful religions that cause most of our problems. Even in the context of this fake scenerio I would assume they would cause the most problems with the law. Thats not to say people of other beliefs can't be crazy, but its pretty noticeable in our own society how some people can be.
@cannibal (650)
• India
18 Aug 09
I wouldn't outright deny your comments, Ulalume. I'm aware that the hypothetical society I'm talking of is nothing new and is very much a, say redefined utopia.
I also agree that the approach you've put forth is pretty practical and perhaps recommendable; but I wish to draw your attention to the fact that such a society has existed, internal of Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) For example I'm an atheist and no learned Hindu will ever call me a sinner, unless of course my Karma (deeds) are wrong, which is quite acceptable to any rational mind. Heck, I never faced any issues from any of them learned or naive! (Pardon me if you feel I'm blowing my own trumpet unnecessarily.)
Again, I agree with you that actually the peaceful religions are more to be blamed for the mayhem. (If I've understood you correctly) For instance, the tolerance of Hinduism to accept any mode viz. monotheism, polytheism, monism, atheism and the like is actually viewed as a weakness by many. But trust me, it actually is the USP of this religion.
Aside, I'd last heard from you that the brand of Satanism you follow (or whatever) is similar to Hinduism. Mind enlightening me how?
@ulalume (713)
• United States
18 Aug 09
Indeed, Hinduism is relatively peaceful. I personally can't stand that belief on account of all the religious customs that come along with it, though. I will not say I am the most knowledgeable as far as Hinduism is concerned, but I do know the basics through some private studying and public Philosophy classes.
Another reason I do not really like Hinduism as a whole is also because of the "karma" system. Many Hindu virtues just do not correlate to a free life. I would inadvertently need to restudy some of this stuff to have a sensible discussing on Hinduism, so I will reserve any other comments for later.
I kind of view Satanism and Hinduism as similar, at least on a basic level. The idea that all and one are god is very appealing, and a primary aspect of both beliefs. In general freedom is a big aspect of these beliefs also. In Satanism, of course, they are more open ended and most actions are not really punishable. Some Hindus focus on abstinence. Satanists have the tendency to go the other road, however still it is open to what you desire to do. That said, it is mostly the core belief of "god" and what "god" is that makes them both appealing to me. That is because most religions focus on a specific, personal god; while these beliefs focus more on an impersonal god (which is mostly the compilation of all things). I am god, you are god, my dog is god, the trees are god. Or, at least, a part of god.
@cannibal (650)
• India
18 Aug 09
Now I kinda get it. So according to you freedom is the most prominent point of commonality. Fair enough!
On abstinence, true that almost all Hindus will resort to it. However, how does the Satanist community decide when there are obvious conflicts? Or do you follow the golden rule?
Regarding Karma, I'm myself in dual minds on its applicability. There're a few questions left unanswered but otherwise I find it sensible, since without it there would be no reason why a baby was born to die immediately; or why it was crippled. If we confine Karma to the inherent qualities and deficiencies, and the conditions to which one is subjected to, I reckon it does not make much of an interference with free will.
It's only on the basis of Karma that Hindus and Buddhists et al hold everyone including plants and animals as a manifestation of the divine/consciousness.
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
26 Nov 09
I think a society is poorer if it does not allow different belief systems to prevail. A society that does not allow freedom of speech, which must be preceded by freedom of conscience, will not grow intellectually as there is no room to challenge the prevailing viewpoint. And since prevailing view point is not perfect, whichever society one belongs to, and so it needs to evolve or else it will fossilize. I think certain Islamic society is facing this problem now.
However, I also think that to be able to challenge a prevailing intellectual or religious belief ( or belief of any kind) the notion that such a position is unhealthy/wrong/not so good/outdated/bad etc must be allowed. If all positions are equally right then there is no reason to give any other intellectual position.
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
26 Nov 09
Yet challenging a prevailing position must be done in a humble way. Otherwise it can create problem too. Arrogance as well as intellectual dictatorship are equally damaging to human civilization. University (Uni + versity; Unity in Diversity) which again is a product of the West( in Italy, France, England etc) is actually a place meant for discourse of diverse belief systems to weave reality into a unified truth.
I may add that it is sad that our Nalanda University kind of thing just did not sustain. Had it sustained East would have gone ahead of the West. I wish I knew why it did not sustain!
@cannibal (650)
• India
26 Nov 09
There's nothing to refute too in your posts. Everything with the basis of conscience and common sense.
Talking about the grand Nalanda university, I too do wish we had more of them; and the lone one of those times was brutally destroyed by Turkish invaders. Sigh!
