I must admit I am impressed by the extent of your post.
But writing religion isn't a pissing contest.
Being good to your fellow human beings, within reason, is an obvious rule to writing religion worthy of the gift of Existence. I am more concerned with the higher reasons for writing religion that being, explaining why religion as a tool is essentially useful. You would be surprised how few human beings even understand what an essential and useful tool religion is for human survival until the end of all forseeable spacetime.
This is understandable considering the fact there is no religion within the human sphere of Existence worth holding up as an example of a religion worth believing in aside from Universalism, however imperfect it is.
All the subsequent implications of that kind of development of moral philosophy is obvious to any vaguely enlightened mind and is the work of philosophers who wish to develop religion in that area of moral philosophy. I am a specialist. There is only so much religion I can write and there is only so much I can specialize in my particular area of religion without losing the essential message I am trying to convey. I cannot ever hope to encompass as an individual the entirety of the importance of religion to the human species. Moral philosophy is not my speciality, although I am good at it. I just find it an extremily dull area to write religion about. It is the job for philosophers gifted in moral philosophy to write that aspect of Universalism. I am just going to outline the obvious rules in relation to the moral philosopy of Universalism. I am going to leave the subtleties to the experts. Of which I am not.
Writing religion at the level I envision it is a collaborative effort in relation to a rather large constellation of individuals gifted in writing religion for the sole purpose of writing religion worthy of the gift of Existence.
Prommy you get an A for effort in relation to the clarity of information you have put forward but your attitude from a selfless point of veiw could be toned down a few levels to equal my own.
Humility is key to writing religion, even if I myself am paradoxically guilty of being less than humble at the best of times.
Let me get something straight though, at this point. Anything related to any human religion that I have studied is inferior to Universalism as a religion. That includes any use of the concept of Universalism or Universalist in christian termonology. I have personally sequestered the concept of Universalism and Universalist for a religion that has absolutely nothing to do with Christian religion aside from what Universalists in my own religion and what little I myself choose to salvage from the primitive philosophies of Earth such as Christianity.
Prommy I could point out obvious flaws in the links you have provided me. For example, is it okay to theive, to feed, one's own starving family. Moral philosophy is incredibly difficult to write. To tell the truth I don't like to write moral philosopy, unless it is of the most basic kind. For example. Homosexuality is condoned in Universalism, at least if one isn't being completely disgusting about it. Having copious sex with random partners in some public toilet somewhere. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual in Universalism if one sticks to one one partner or even a couple of sexual partners to whom one is totally dedicated to. But if one is homosexual and f***s everything in sight with no regard to the consequences, it begins to conflict with the moral philosophy of Universalism.
Moral philosophy is for philosophers of lower caliber than myself who wish to dedicate themselves to such things. I'm more interested in the higher, more, desperately important concerns of religion such as theory that relates to how religion should be written for the longterm stabilization of the future of humanity.
Don't get me wrong moral philosophy in every permutation that it is necessary to write it to the very extent of human ability is just as important as the aspects of religion that I am personally interested in. I just think moral philosophy is for people more gifted in that particular area of religious thought than I am myself.
I just find moral philosophy so terribly boring, when I can write about how important the fusion between Universalism and science is as an absolute is; or how the protocol of Universalism relates to war and peace between Universalists and everyone who isn't Universalist. I just find moral philosophy so freaken boring compared to writing religion that relates to what human survival means over the potentially billions of years of their Existence in relation to the question human beings have in relation to what happens to the personality of a person when they die; or what governs Existence.
Don't get me wrong, I'll probably throw moral philosophy in there somehwere, everynow and then so that humanity knows the basic about how I feel about the subject. I am only 33, I might even elaborate how I feel about moral philosophy to a degree I can't predicate right now.
But, you know, I have more immediate concerns. I am only one point in within the entire spectrum of Human neurodiversity. And I am a most certainly a specialist in relation to the neurodiversity. When it comes to religion as a subject in it's entirety I expect other peoiple at different points in the entire spectrum of human neurodiversity to do what they are especially gifted at. Of course that may not happen. If your so concerned about moral philosophy please write the moral philosophy you believe in and write it to me. Be careful though I am the most thouragh of critics. I am the most absolutely non bigoted person on the face on the Earth and if your moral philosophy is flawed I may have to correct you.
Transcention Universia....
19 Sep 2008, 3:34 am
