1,000,000 Years: Political and Religious Unification of the Planet

[RonPrice]

ONE MILLION YEARS

POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS UNIFICATION

DOMINANT PRINCIPLE OF OUR CYCLE

 

Last night I watched “As It Happened: 1929-The Wall Street Crash.”1 I could not help but reflect on the letters of Shoghi Effendi published in The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh in 1938. These letters had a different aim and a far larger scope than his first letters to the North American Baha’is from 1922 to 1929. These letters, these communications, from 1929 to 1936 unfolded for the Baha’is a much clearer vision than they had previously possessed of the relation between the Bahá'í community and the entire process of social evolution under the dispensation of Bahá'u'lláh. This body of letters were first written eight months before just the Wall Street crash and they continued during the depression. they were finally published in 1938 as war approach and the depression was finally ending. The period was one of the nadir’s of civilization.

 

The distinction between the Bahá'í community and the sects and congregations of former religions were made apparent in these letters. These world order letters established in one volume, among other things, the Baha'i Administrative Order as the nucleus and pattern of the world civilization that was then emerging. In the introduction, Horace Holley, the then secretary of the American Baha'i community wrote: "In light of the existing international chaos, these letters reveal the most significant Truth of this era, namely that the old conception of religion, which separated spirituality from the fundamental functions of civilization, compelling men to abide by conflicting principles of faith, of politics and of economics, has been forever destroyed."2 -Ron Price with appreciation to 1SBS TV, 3 July 2009, 8:30-9:30 p.m. and 2Wikipedia, 4 July 2009.

 

The dominant principle of this cycle

is the political and religious unity of

the human species--since the great...

dispersal, radiation, homo erectus...

hominid....Out-of-Africa 2 million

years ago...establishment of sapien

human lineage, genus homo, stone

tools, a rudimentary technology....

homo heidelbergensis, 500,000 ya

& homo neanderthalenis-physical

anthropology’s branch and cultural

and social anthropology telling us

of clans, tribes, chiefdoms, then—

city-states, nations and now global

......yes....going global since perhaps

early explorers, say, a 1000 years of

travel on the waters of the earth now

.......

overnight it’s one world on our way

for another 500,000 years of political

and religious unification—that’s the

trip we are now on day by day in the

midst of a tempest, fiery and furious.

 

Ron Price

4 July 2009

[lemit]

Sorry to pick out a single phrase from your post, but I'm intrigued by the term "former religions." I suppose you mean religions that are now extinct. If not, you might cause some excitement around here and probably should get that out of the way. I probably won't be the last one asking about that, although I might be one of the more friendly ones.

 

--lemit

[Moontanman]

If we are still pursuing religion 100 years from now much less 500,000 I think the human race is doomed to live and die out on this planet leaving no legacy what so ever other than it would been better if we never existed at all.

[Thunderbird]

If we are still pursuing religion 100 years from now much less 500,000 I think the human race is doomed to live and die out on this planet leaving no legacy what so ever other than it would been better if we never existed at all.

 

Drama Queen :hihi:

[Pyrotex]

My Imaginary Invisible Friend With Magic Powers is gonna beat the crap out of your Imaginary Invisible Friend With Magic Powers!

 

So, there!

[pamela]

overnight it’s one world on our way

for another 500,000 years of political

and religious unification—that’s the

trip we are now on day by day in the

midst of a tempest, fiery and furious

 

this is probably one of the most disturbing concepts that i have come across.

[InfiniteNow]

The OP also seems to fail in terms of time scale. Humans have not existed for a half million years, only if you use a VERY liberal definition of human. Humans have only been around for 200,000 years. All humans... less than 1/5th the proposed time scale.

 

Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[RonPrice]

Thanks for all those responses, folks. I could write a great deal about them, but let me make one brief comment. Darwin, in his Origin of the Species in 1859 and many other scientists now argue that man was there--in potential--right at the start of the first DNA which now is found in Greenland and in the Pilbara in Australia at approximately 3.8 billion ya. Of course homo sapiens sapiens has a timeline going back to 35,000 B.P.(circa)....the whole field of study is an interesting one. I will return to this thread, all being well, later when time permits.-Ron

 

PS units of social organization: clan, tribe, chiefdom, city-state, nation and--now--in the years ahead: federation, inter-galactic federation---who knows what lies ahead in the future of humanity? We can but speculate

[Pyrotex]

...Darwin, in his Origin of the Species in 1859 and many other scientists now argue that man was there--in potential--right at the start of the first DNA which now is found in Greenland and in the Pilbara in Australia at approximately 3.8 billion ya. ...

This is pure fabricated nonsense.

 

The existence of DNA, indeed the very process of genetic heritance, was unknown to Darwin and to all other scientists in 1859. In fact, the initial clues as to genetic heritance weren't discovered until half a century later.

 

Two. We have fossils from Greenland and Australia that are 3 BYr old or more, but we do NOT have any DNA that old. The oldest DNA I have heard of is far, far less than 1 million years old. DNA decays very quickly under all but the most extreme conditions of intense cold.

 

Three. The concept that man was "there, in potential" at some early stage of life on this planet is both true and meaningless.

It's also true and meaningless for all other existing animals.

It's also true and meaningless for an infinite number of non-existent animals that never lived.

It's true and meaningless for any plant or animal you can imagine.

They ALL could be said to have been "there, in potential" to one degree or another.

 

It's a trivial and meaningless statement.

Because it is trivially true for any and all organisms, whether they ever lived or not.

[RonPrice]

With the input of Pyrotex, this thread has moved to mega-themes which one can not possibly cover in these small boxes at this Science Forum--and without readers being overcome with prolixity. I like the phrase "both true and meaningless." That phrase alone could develop into many a paragraph if explored in its implications.

 

Yes, of course, you are right, Pyrotex, DNA was not discovered until 1953 and homo sapiens sapiens came on stream, so goes the mainstream argument of anthropology, about 35,000 years ago. I would not argue with these points, but my argument and Darwin's goes far beyond these points.

 

As far as the first DNA is concerned it can be said to be found in association with two cellular processes which are considered to be the major driving forces leading to the explosive evolution and diversity of living organisms throughout the history of the Earth. Two of these processes can be found in two of the following: DNA replication, anaerobic respiration, aerobic respiration, mitosis and photosynthesis.

 

I leave these complex subjects for now, but thank you for your interest, Pyrotex, and your imaginative and concerned response. -Ron in Australia

[lemit]

Hey Pyro,

 

Don't worry about it. I was trying to figure out how I could back off in the opposite direction. Maybe we could meet in the middle.

 

The Baha'i members I've known have been some of my favorite people, and their treatment in the first half of the Twentieth Century is one of the most compelling human rights stories I've ever heard.

 

But that doesn't matter now.

 

I'm sorry, Ron. I'd love to help you, but I just can't make sense out of a lot of the things you've written. I've tried, but it always ends up looking like what some guy on a street corner might be shouting. That doesn't remind me of anything I've ever heard about Baha'i, so I have to assume your invoking of Baha'i shouldn't be taken to mean that what you've written represents that faith.

 

I hope that's the case anyway.

 

So don't worry, Pyro. Old midwestern country boys should be able to say what they think. If they can't, I'm in even more trouble than I already thought.

 

--lemit

[Pyrotex]

Hi Ron,

It was not my intention to be rude or unnecessarily rough in my response to you.

 

I was trying to show you that carelessly expressed statements about "science" can mislead, or undermine your credibility. Perhaps you meant by "Darwin, in his Origin of the Species in 1859 and many other scientists now argue", something other than the literal meaning of your words.

 

But a science-oriented discussion MUST assume that people mean the literal meanings. Having personally read "Origins of Species", I am pretty sure Darwin did not make the argument you suggested. Then we have to go 'round and 'round to establish what you REALLY meant, and that can feel like a waste of time to some folks. It can also sound like you haven't actually read Darwin's books.

 

So, I'm sorry if I barked too loud, but please be aware that most of us regulars on this website listen very literally. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

 

;)

[Pyrotex]

...I'm sorry, Ron. I'd love to help you, but I just can't make sense out of a lot of the things you've written. ...So don't worry, Pyro. Old midwestern country boys should be able to say what they think. If they can't, I'm in even more trouble than I already thought....

Sorry lemit,

 

I guess Ron left for good. Maybe he will come back.

 

In 1,000,000 years. :cup:

[RonPrice]

Readers of great works like: the Bible, the Koran, Darwin's books, Einstein, etc.etc. argue/discuss what their authors meant--ad nauseam. The process, the discussion of the meaning of printed texts, has been going on for at least three millennia among those who read and even among those who don't. The meaning of great works is often misinterpreted that, too, is part of the process--at this site and elsewhere. And so it is that, if my understanding of a work is different than yours, or yours is different than mine, it should not come as a surprise.

 

In the vast and complex process of human evolution, a process that both you and I at this site agree on "the scientific view," it should not trouble us if one man's way of putting it is different than another's. We are not Biblical literalists; we don't think it happened in 7 days. It was an incredible process right from the Big Bang at 13.6 BYA.

Darwin refers in his introduction to "the difficulties of transitions, or how a simple being or a simple organ can be changed into an elaborately constructed organ." These difficulties are presented to students of the process as far back, as I said, to the first DNA that we know about at some 3.8 BYA.

 

The story is long, incredibly complex but fascinating. I trust you will be patient with my ignorance on this subject. My first post was a poetic rendering from 500,000 YA with homo heidelbergensis an extinct species of the genus Homo which may be the direct ancestor of Homo neanderthalensis in Europe to a hypothetical time 500 thousand years hence.

 

Poetry is often a problem for readers and, so it seems, is science. But still, I remain, yours sincerely.-Ron Price, Tasmania

[Theory5]

Ron your arguments are interesting... But when you extracted that part about darwin saying man was in the DNA from the very begining, couldnt I make the same argument that the banana was always with us from the start? Banana's have an amazing amount of similar DNA sequences. Or couldnt I argue that man was around since the big bang because many moleucles formed that now make up our very bodies?

 

I mostly take issue with your title. Mainly the religious unification part. There can never be a unification of religion. "religious unification" is pretty much an oxymoron. Everbody who belives in religion belives that theirs is the best and greatest. I especially like Pyro's post:

 

My Imaginary Invisible Friend With Magic Powers is gonna beat the crap out of your Imaginary Invisible Friend With Magic Powers!

I think that sums it up right there. For any type of unification I belive that religion must be removed from the equation. Religion is one of the many obsticles keeping the world from peace.

[Pyrotex]

Thanks Theory5 :)

 

It's nice to know that somebody reads my drivel.

 

But as for "religious unification" -- there may actually be a realistic and rational way for this to be achieved: merely arrange for one religion to massacre, slaughter and exterminate everybody who is NOT a member of their religion!

 

See how easy that is? :cup:

 

And then there will be peace and righteousness over the face of the Earth. [/sarcasm]

[RonPrice]

Since there are so many questions raised and issues discussed concerning people’s basic assumptions about life, about their philosophy, about their religious beliefs, indeed, about people’s very approach to reality and the way their society goes about organizing things, it seemed like a useful exercise, useful at least to me and hopefully to some others, to say a few things about: "My Position and Beliefs: My Religion." Religion, in the sense I am using it here, is the set of values, beliefs and attitudes each of us has as we go about our daily life at a particular moment in time—at the time of this writing in my case and at the time of the response of a reader in your case. I hope this opening note of some 1300 words provides a general, a useful, a helpful context for any continuing discussion we may have on this very complex subject.

 

But complexity should not put us off: the physical and biological sciences are extremely complex but the complexity is far less than that present in the social and behavioural sciences. If the note I strike is too long, I advise readers to just click me off, a simple enough exercise of the hand and the mind.-Ron Price in Australia.

________________________________________________________

Apologetics is a branch of systematic theology, although some experience it’s thrust in religious studies or philosophy of religion courses. Some encounter it on the internet for the first time in a more populist and usually much less academic form. As I see it, apologetics is primarily concerned with the protection of a position, the refutation of the issues raised by that position's assailants and, in the larger sense, the exploration of that position in the context of prevailing philosophies and standards in a secular society, a religious society, indeed, any society past or present.

 

Apologetics, to put it slightly differently, is concerned with answering critical inquiries and with criticism of a position and dealing with the process, the exercise, in a rational manner. Rationality is difficult to maintain when so much emotion is wrapped up in people's positions and often their very raison d'etre is part of these posiitons. Apologetics can help explore the teachings of a religion or of a philosophy in the context of prevailing religions and philosophies as well as standards in a secular society. Apologetics tries to answer critical inquiries, as I say, in a rational manner. Although critical self-reflection on the fundamentals of some position is a prerequisite of this task, apologetics derives much of its impetus from a commitment to a position. Given the role of apologetics in religious and philosophical history and in the development of its texts and ideas, it is surprising that contemporary religious communities generally undervalue its importance.

 

Naturally in life, we all take positions on all sorts of topics, subjects, religions and philosophies. Often that position is inarticulate and poorly thought out if given any thought at all. With that said, though, the apologetics I engage in here is a never ending exercise with time out for the necessary and inevitable quotidian tasks of life: eating, sleeping, drinking and a wide range of leisure activities. The apologetics that concerns me is not so much Christian or Islamic apologetics or one of a variety of what might be called secular apologetics, but Baha'i apologetics. There are many points of comparison and contrast, though, between any form of apologetics which I won't go into here. Christians and Muslims will have the opportunity to defend their respective religions by the use of apologetics; secular humanists--atheists, theists, agnostics--can also argue their cases if they so desire here. I in turn will defend the Baha'i Faith by the use of apologetics.

 

In the process each of us will, hopefully, learn something about our respective Faiths, our religions, our various and our multitudinous positions, some of which we hold to our hearts dearly and some of which are of little interest. At the outset, then, in this my first posting, my intention is simply to make this start, to state what you might call "my apologetics position." This brief statement indicates, in broad outline, where I am coming from in the weeks and months ahead. -Ron Price with thanks to Udo Schaefer, "Baha'i Apologetics?" Baha'i Studies Review, Vol. 10, 2001/02.

_________________________________________________________

I want in this second part of my first posting on this subject to finish outlining, as best I can, my basic orientation to Baha’i apologetics. Critical scholarly contributions or criticism raised in public or private discussions, an obvious part of apologetics, should not necessarily be equated with hostility. Questions are perfectly legitimate, indeed, necessary aspects of a person's search for an answer to an intellectual conundrum. Paul Tillich, that great Protestant theologian of the 20th century, once expressed the view that apologetics was an "answering theology."-Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, U. of Chicago, 1967, Vol.1, p6.

 

I have always been attracted to the founder of the Baha'i Faith's exhortations in discussion to "speak with words as mild as milk," with "the utmost lenience and forbearance." This form of dialogue, its obvious etiquette of expression and the acute exercise of judgement involved, is difficult for most people when their position is under attack from people who are more articulate, better read and better at arguing both their own position and the position of those engaged in the written attack than they are. I am also aware that, in cases of rude or hostile attack, rebuttal with a harsher tone may well be justified, although I prefer humour, irony and even a gentle sarcasm to hostile written attack in any form. Still, it does not help an apologist to belong to those "watchmen" the prophet Isaiah calls "dumb dogs that cannot bark."(Isaiah, 56:10)

 

In its essence apologetics is a kind of confrontation, an act of revealing one's true colours, of hoisting the flag, of demonstrating the essential characteristics of one's faith, of one's thought, of one's emotional and intellectual stance in life. Dialogue, arguably the greatest of Catholic apologists Hans Kung once puts it, "does not mean self-denial." The standard of public discussion of controversial topics should be sensitive to what is said and how. Not everything that we know should always be disclosed; to put this another way, we don't want all our dirty laundry out on our front lawn for all to see or our secrets blasted over the radio and TV. Perhaps a moderate confessionalism is best here, if confession is required at all—and in today’s print and electronic media it seems unavoidable.

 

I want to thank Udo Schaefer, "Baha'i Apologetics," Baha'i Studies Review, Vol.10, 2001/2) for some of what I write here. Schaefer, a prominent Baha’i writer, scholar, lawyer and man of many intellectual seasons, emphasizes that one's views, one's faith, "should not be opportunistically streamlined, adapting to current trends, thus concealing their real features, features that could provoke rejection in order to be acceptable for dialogue." To do this puts one in the danger of losing one's identity, if not one’s honesty and integrity.

 

It is almost impossible, though, to carry the torch of truth, of light, of any set of words in any colour, through a crowd without getting someone's beard singed. if one has no beard one’s emotions can be equally fried and hung out to dry. In the weeks and months that follow, my postings will probably wind up singing the beards of some readers and, perhaps, my own in the process. Emotions are often found behind barricades of self-defence and that is natural because what is being considered is at the centre of a person’s life. Such are the perils of dialogue, of apologetics.

 

Much of Baha'i apologetics derives from the experience Baha'is have of a fundamental discrepancy between secular thought and the Baha'i teachings on the other. In some ways, the gulf is unbridgeable but, so too, is this the case between the secular and much thought in the Christian or Islamic religion or, for that matter, between variants of Christianity or within what are often the muddy and pluralistic waters of secular thought itself.

 

Anyway, that's all for now. It's back to the winter winds of Tasmania, about 3 kms from the Bass Straight on the Tamar River. The geography of place is so much simpler than that of the spiritual geography readers at this site are concerned with, although even physical geography has its complexities as those who take a serious interest in the topic of climate change are fast finding out. Whom the gods would destroy they first make simple and simpler and simpler. I look forward to a dialogue with someone. Here in far-off Tasmania--the last stop before Antarctica, if one wants to get there by some other route than off the end of South America--your response will be gratefully received.-Ron Price, Tasmania, Australia.:)