From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2000 - 22:38:23 MDT
Emlyn O'Regan wrote:
> Well, I don't think you do it with rational arguments and science. Probably
> you need to use a purpose built dogmatic doctrine, designed to basically
> keep these people feel calm and comfortable. A purpose built religion would
> do a good job, although we are not really in the business of religion.
> Better to create a startup venture, new economy style, by partnering with an
> established religion; maybe one of the older versions of Xtianity which is
> suffering declining numbers. We could work with some mainstream religious
> scholars to put a high-tech twist on Jesus' better stuff, and turn
> armageddon into a singularity in messianic clothing. It could possibly go a
> long way, and I bet you'd get some funding (corporate?) to help build such
> an institution.
> I think the religion is a goer myself. All this marketting guff is not
> specific enough; people want something solid to believe, something which
> tells them what clothes to wear when they get out of bed in the morning, the
> best way to brush their teeth, what side of the street to walk on. A manual
> of the right way to live your life. It's doable.
>
> Emlyn
> (I hate myself. Aargh. But this is, like, a joke, you know?)
Careful. Remember what happened with a certain other created religion:
Scientology is not our friend.
That being said...perhaps there is possibility in this. There are
priests of major religions who grow weary of what they and their flocks
see as increasingly incorrect or irrelevant proclamations from those
above them, who may well be open to preaching the truths of our secular
world as divine truths. The field may be ripe for a meme that
understanding ourselves and the universe is God's will, such that we
might better act as agents of the Diety's desires, and that we might
better understand the Diety's desires. Perhaps also a meme that our
understanding of holy wishes is evolving: in biblical times, we thought
that slavery was ok, but now we understand that it is not...so, which of
our current practices are incorrect? Perhaps we can partially tell what
is true and right from what works; if something is systematically
broken, might that not be a sign that something is wrong either with the
implementation or the basic concept?
Mankind has the ability to think. If some supernatural force caused
homo sapiens to evolve this ability for a reason - and if one is willing
to believe in heavenly guidance, this becomes quite plausible - then is
it not quite likely that we were intended to *use* this ability to the
best of our capability?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:58 MST