To the World's Religious Leaders

As I read the news this morning, I am amazed at what the religious leaders are getting away with. The Catholic Church needs insurance to cover all the sexual abuse cases. Islamic leaders promote suicide bombing which kill and maim innocent women and children going about their lives.
I am reminded of this letter which so elegantly tries to remind the religious leaders of their great responsibilities. Please take a moment to read it and perhaps we can discuss it.

http://www.uga.edu/~bahai/wrldldrs.html

Originally posted by Varqa
As I read the news this morning, I am amazed at what the religious leaders are getting away with. The Catholic Church needs insurance to cover all the sexual abuse cases. Islamic leaders promote suicide bombing which kill and maim innocent women and children going about their lives.
I am reminded of this letter which so elegantly tries to remind the religious ...[text shortened]... ke a moment to read it and perhaps we can discuss it.

http://www.uga.edu/~bahai/wrldldrs.html

Who are the Islamic leaders promoting suicide bombing?

Originally posted by ahosyney
Who are the Islamic leaders promoting suicide bombing?

OK, so maybe you don't consider Bin Laden a religious leader, but those who carry out the bombings do.

Please let us not go off on a tangent. Focus, focus, focus. Read the letter first. Thank you.

Originally posted by Varqa
OK, so maybe you don't consider Bin Laden a religious leader, but those who carry out the bombings do.

Please let us not go off on a tangent. Focus, focus, focus. Read the letter first. Thank you.

I'm sorry,

Originally posted by Varqa
As I read the news this morning, I am amazed at what the religious leaders are getting away with. The Catholic Church needs insurance to cover all the sexual abuse cases. Islamic leaders promote suicide bombing which kill and maim innocent women and children going about their lives.
I am reminded of this letter which so elegantly tries to remind the religious ...[text shortened]... ke a moment to read it and perhaps we can discuss it.

http://www.uga.edu/~bahai/wrldldrs.html

The reason is simple.

99 % if the worlds population are like sheep.
They need to be led.
They need to have someone to look up to.
Not God or Jesus or Mohammed. Someone in the flesh.

But these leaders are human.
They can become corrupt, vain, evil, sex-maniacs. money hungry.

So its the stupid sheep that have caused such sick leaders to prosper.

Originally posted by Rajk999
The reason is simple.

99 % if the worlds population are like sheep.
They need to be led.
They need to have someone to look up to.
Not God or Jesus or Mohammed. Someone in the flesh.

But these leaders are human.
They can become corrupt, vain, evil, sex-maniacs. money hungry.

So its the stupid sheep that have caused such sick leaders to prosper.

Well said.

Part of sheepy-ness is to claim no responsibility for allowing your self to be led. In being only a follower, the sheep thinks he can shift all responsibility on the leader. That is part of the attractiveness of being a sheep.

But when the sheep gives—to whomever—the right of authority over him, on whose authority does the sheep do that? Whose, if not his own? No matter on what basis the sheep relinquishes moral authority, that decision is made on the sheep’s own self-authority.

Most of us, I think, have to recognize vestiges of sheepy-ness in ourselves, and the need to keep vigilance. After all, becoming sheep of one kind or another was likely part of our familial, tribal, and social conditioning in up-bringing. The struggle to break from that may never be complete. Sheepy-ness can be a kind of comfortable complacency.

A way of vigilance? To keep reminding myself that I am completely responsible for what I think, feel and do. (“Feel” as in emotions—recognizing that some of what we call emotion stems from the survival response in the face of imminent danger; I try never to use words such as anger or fear to refer to that.) Absent coercion—and sometimes, perhaps, even then, depending on what you mean by coercion..

If I say, “You make me feel angry,” I have tried to escape my responsibility for choosing (even subconsciously, even habitually—sheep are very habit-bound creatures) to feel angry in reaction to something you have done, by shifting the authority for making that feeling onto you. Another person may not have made anger at all in reaction to you. Another person might have laughed.

People have said that with authority goes responsibility. The reverse, I think is also true. When I claim my own responsibility, I am claiming my own authority. One goes with the other.

Sheep try to relinquish their authority in order to evade—perhaps not only moral, but also existential—responsibility. But let us remember again: a sheep may merely be someone who has learned her lessons well.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well said.

Part of sheepy-ness is to claim no responsibility for allowing your self to be led. In being only a follower, the sheep thinks he can shift all responsibility on the leader. That is part of the attractiveness of being a sheep.

But when the sheep gives—to whomever—the right of authority over him, on whose authority does the sheep do [i]that ...[text shortened]... y. But let us remember again: a sheep may merely be someone who has learned her lessons well.

what do you call somebody who doesn't follow anybody but doesn't want any part of being a leader and just sorta watches things go by?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
what do you call somebody who doesn't follow anybody but doesn't want any part of being a leader and just sorta watches things go by?

An intelligent bystander ?

Originally posted by Rajk999
An intelligent bystander ?

ty
edit: or a philosopher?

Originally posted by Varqa
As I read the news this morning, I am amazed at what the religious leaders are getting away with. The Catholic Church needs insurance to cover all the sexual abuse cases. Islamic leaders promote suicide bombing which kill and maim innocent women and children going about their lives.
I am reminded of this letter which so elegantly tries to remind the religious ...[text shortened]... ke a moment to read it and perhaps we can discuss it.

http://www.uga.edu/~bahai/wrldldrs.html

My initial impression: elegantly written, yes, but extremely naive. It is naive to think that mankind can overcome his sinful nature through propaganda and ingenuity. It is also naive to think that this point in history is somehow special, "At this greatest turning point in the history of civilization." I don't buy it. What makes it a 'great turning point'?

There is indeed a force which is pushing for a one world religion, but it isn't God (at least not the Father of Jesus Christ). It is the spirit of anti-Christ seeking to rise up against God. It is a Satanic spiritual power which convinces people that all faiths are equal, and that all people worship the same God; which is a lie.

Jesus will always be a thorn in the side of the 'one world' religion.

Only in Christ "lives all the fullness of God in a human body" (Col. 2:9). Jesus Christ, who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me" (John 14:6), "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matt. 10:34-35).

The letter to the world's religious leaders is in essence pre-Babel, which is why it is so naive (when it is not an outright lie).

"AND THE whole earth was of one language and of one accent and mode of expression. And as they journeyed eastward, they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they settled and dwelt there. And they said one to another, Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly. So they had brick for stone, and slime for mortar. And they said, Come, let us build us a city and a tower whose top reaches into the sky, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered over the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, Behold, they are one people and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do, and now nothing they have imagined they can do will be impossible for them. Come, let Us go down and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from that place upon the face of the whole earth, and they gave up building the city. Therefore the name of it was called Babel--because there the Lord confounded the language of all the earth; and from that place the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of the whole earth" (Gen. 11:1-9).

The rebellion of our ancestors at Babel, who pridefully attempted to rise against God by their own efforts, caused God to scatter us and confuse our language. The implication being, only when Jesus Christ is sitting on the throne of glory will all nations be gathered before him as one. But such oneness will never be achieved through human ingenuity, and neither will it be achieved at the expense of Christ's preeminence; he is God's only Son.

Of course, for asserting this you will no doubt accuse me of religious bigotry, being so at odds with the prevailing world sentiment as I am. To this I can only say: such is the exclusivity of faith which Christ has called me to, and, with God's help, I will stay true to Christ to the end.

"Don’t be so easily shaken or alarmed by those who say that the day of the Lord has already begun. Don’t believe them, even if they claim to have had a spiritual vision, a revelation, or a letter supposedly from us. Don’t be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God [remember Babel] and the man of lawlessness is revealed—the one who brings destruction . . . This man will come to do the work of Satan with counterfeit power and signs and miracles. He will use every kind of evil deception to fool those on their way to destruction, because they refuse to love and accept the truth that would save them. So God will cause them to be greatly deceived, and they will believe these lies. Then they will be condemned for enjoying evil rather than believing the truth . . . With all these things in mind, dear brothers and sisters, stand firm and keep a strong grip on the teaching we passed on to you both in person and by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:2-3, 9-12, 15).

That's my two cents... Please forgive the excessive use of scripture.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
My initial impression: elegantly written, yes, but extremely naive. It is naive to think that mankind can overcome his sinful nature through propaganda and ingenuity. It is also naive to think that this point in history is somehow special, "At this greatest turning point in the history of civilization." I don't buy it. What makes it a 'great turning ...[text shortened]...
That's my two cents... Please forgive the excessive use of scripture.

Thank you very much for reading the letter and giving your opinion. We may not agree, but at least you have read the letter and know what you are disagreeing with.

The Earth is very big, and it is hard for me to believe that God would only talk to one small area. He loves all and He talks to all. Just as the Bible is meant for the Israelites, other holy books are meant for other areas and for other circumstances.

Before we get side tracked, let's see if anyone else is actually going to read this letter to the religious leaders.

Originally posted by vistesd
Part of sheepy-ness is to claim no responsibility for allowing your self to be led. In being only a follower, the sheep thinks he can shift all responsibility on the leader. That is part of the attractiveness of being a sheep.

I have always found it interesting how many people blame all the atrocities in WW2 on Hitler, all terrorism on Osama Bin Laden and the Iraq war on Bush (and sometimes Blair). The truth is that none of those terrible things would have happened without massive support from a significant number of people and in many cases the leader was not actually responsible for some of the acts. For example I doubt very much that every Jew killed in WW2 was ordered directly by Hitler but rather some German solider or General decided to do it of his own volition.
Many americans say "Bush deceived us" and yet before the war it appeared that nobody outside america believed that Saddam was a threat to the US or that he had significant WMDs. Were the americans who supported the war ignorant sheep or did some of them have ulterior motives that they do not wish to admit?

Originally posted by vistesd
Well said.

Part of sheepy-ness is to claim no responsibility for allowing your self to be led. In being only a follower, the sheep thinks he can shift all responsibility on the leader. That is part of the attractiveness of being a sheep.

But when the sheep gives—to whomever—the right of authority over him, on whose authority does the sheep do [i]that ...[text shortened]... y. But let us remember again: a sheep may merely be someone who has learned her lessons well.

Well said yourself .. better in fact.

I know many people are capable of rising above the sheep syndrome and capable to exercising more authority over their own beliefs, but many cannot. They just dont know better. They just cant think for themselves. Its no fault of their own. Any thoughts on what will be their fate on judgement day? Bear in mind that the Bible says " Christ knoweth the heart" and the parable of the talents - if you are given one talent you wont be expected to produce 10 with it.

Edit : Sorry dont know what caused the italics

Originally posted by Varqa
The Earth is very big, and it is hard for me to believe that God would only talk to one small area. He loves all and He talks to all. Just as the Bible is meant for the Israelites, other holy books are meant for other areas and for other circumstances. .

God did in fact talk to one area/people only in the earlier days. He was displeased with the conduct the many people and instructed the Jews to wipe out all the surrounding natives. Men, women, children, livestock ... everything.

This is why I cannot understand why people keep saying God is love, or, God loves us all, without explaining what they mean. It is more accurate to say that God loves us in that He is giving us a chance to get salvation if we conform to His expectations. Ifwe do not conform we are doomed. Now thats not typical of love they way we know it. So saying that God loves us all is plain wrong. God would love for all us to be good and refrain from evil.

ALso the bible was meant for both the Jews an followers of Christ. The Bible, gives the reader the impression that there is only one way to salvation ie through Christ. Im sure the Koran does something similar. Hence the confusion and division among people.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Well said yourself .. better in fact.

I know many people are capable of rising above the sheep syndrome and capable to exercising more authority over their own beliefs, but many cannot. They just dont know better. They just cant think for themselves. Its no fault of their own. Any thoughts on what will be their fate on judgement day? Bear in mind that the you wont be expected to produce 10 with it.

Edit : Sorry dont know what caused the italics

These seem to be the “cosmic judgment” possibilities:

(1) Nobody gets away with anything.

(2) Nobody gets away with everything. (Or some people get away with something.)

(3) Some people get away with everything.

(4) Everybody gets away with everything.

Setting aside for the moment questions of punishment fitting the crime, or taking account of mitigating circumstances and the like, this seems to lay out the “mercy versus condemnation” possibilities.

I have yet to meet anyone who believes in an individual after-life, except for those who think (1) is the correct answer, who thinks that s/he isn’t going to “get away” with something (e.g., receive no retribution for their sins). Just for example—

Christians generally believe that by accepting Christ, they will get away with their sins (past ones anyway)—that is, they generally seem to believe that (3). Karmic Hindus may believe (1), but that we have an endless round of reincarnations in order to attain salvation. Muslims seem to reject (4), and leave the rest to God’s mercy/judgment.

What I have not come across is someone who is, say, a Christian who adheres to the tenets of Christianity (as he sees them) because he thinks they are true, but who also believes that he will not be saved.

Frankly, only those who adhere to (1) seem to me to be in a position to reasonably complain about the “injustice” of possibility (4). But such complaints seem to generally take the form of what I call an “argument from terribleness”—i.e., “But it would be just terrible if everybody got away with everything!”

___________________________________

One can take one’s pick—for whatever reasons—among those four possibilities. Note that I am speaking here of ultimate “cosmic” judgment; someone who believes in justice (however they define it—I leave that open here) in this existence could certainly try to ensure that nobody gets away with anything in this life, even if they think that there is no judgment in an after-life.

Since my personal view is that death is simply dissolution of this one-time individual existence and return into the whole from whence we arose (and of which we are), I see (4) as the likely case—terrible or not. This does not mean that I try to “get away with” as much as I can, since I do not see that attitude as consistent with living a serene, joyful and flourishing life. I make errors, rectify them when I can, and move on. If there is someone who thinks that rape, for example, is consistent with a serene, joyful and flourishing life, I will try to prevent them from exercising that choice. (I also think they are deluded, to say the least.)

If my view is wrong (that is, (4) does not hold), then I unconditionally trust God or the Tao or Nature or whatever with regard to the ultimate disposition of whatever individuality survives death—whether that means that I get away with anything or not (which is part of why it’s unconditional). That is a deep existential “decision” that I cannot explain, except to say ... No, I’ll just let that go. The personal history involved is too complex, and is not up for debate here.

As for my own personal “moral theory,” I have grown quite weary of debating such questions on here, and will simply refrain.

__________________________________

None of that likely answers your question.

BTW, italics sometimes carry over from the post you're responding to (same with bold). If it happens, you can can edit it out by putting [ / i ] or [ / b ] (without the spaces) at the very beginning of your post.