Can proselitist monotheism justify itself?

[LuisDantas]

I have just understood that in my opinion it is inherently unable to do so.

To proselitise for a monotheistic faith is, in essence, to make a bet that said faith is in some way sufficiently better than other religious stances. So much so that it would make sense to present it to people who manifested no natural inclination to develop it on their own.

To the best of my understanding, that implies both that God exists, that He cares about which beliefs we hold, and that still, for whatever reason, He keeps quiet about what those would be, illogical as that would seem to be.

Maybe it is just me, but such a premise strikes me as self-contradictory or at least very weird. It would mean that while there is no particular need for people to have such a faith (since people do not develop it on their own, after all), the adherents nonetheless feel the need to correct that non-existent problem.

That can't be justified on theological, moral or philosophical grounds. It is a plain, direct attempt at convincing others that one knows better on religious matters than they do themselves, and I doubt it can be motivated by much more than some sort of disconfort with diversity of beliefs and/or a desire to be influential over other people.

Do you understand that situation to be anything else but such a bet? If so, how?

Do you see any reason to give such proselitism more attention than my analysis would advise (which is to say, next to none)?

 

[George-ananda]

Do you see any reason to give such proselitism more attention than my analysis would advise (which is to say, next to none)?

I don't give it attention but I understand it. But maybe I don't understand what you are asking? Some people can be so convinced of their faith by experiences, and are so certain that it is mandatory for salvation, that they can feel it their human duty to proselytize. In that case it is justified (to them).

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't give it attention but I understand it. But maybe I don't understand what you are asking? Some people can be so convinced of their faith by experiences, and are so certain that it is mandatory for salvation, that they can feel it their human duty to proselytize. In that case it is justified (to them).

Doesn't that strike you as somewhat odd? God chose not to make us all instinctively aware of that need, yet somehow it exists anyway? And it is consistently very suspiciously close to manipulative indoctrination?

 

[George-ananda]

Doesn't that strike you as somewhat odd? God chose not to make us all instinctively aware of that need, yet somehow it exists anyway? And it is consistently very suspiciously close to manipulative indoctrination?

It strikes me as odd, yes, but the proselytizer would have his answers to those questions.

 

[savagewind]

I have just understood that in my opinion it is inherently unable to do so.

To proselitise for a monotheistic faith is, in essence, to make a bet that said faith is in some sufficiently better than other religious stances for it to make sense to present it to people who manifested no natural inclination to develop it on their own.

To the best of my understanding, that implies both that God exists, that He cares about which beliefs we hold, and that still, for whatever reason, He keeps quiet about what those would be, illogical as that would seem to be.

Maybe it is just me, but such a premise strikes me as self-contradictory or at least very weird. It would mean that while there is no particularly need for people to have such a faith (since people do not develop it on their own, after all), the adherents nonetheless feel the need to correct that non-existent problem.

That can't be justified on theological, moral or philosophical grounds. It is a plain, direct attempt at convincing others that one knows better on religious matters than they do themselves, and I doubt it can be motivated by much more than some sort of disconfort with diversity of beliefs and/or a desire to be influential over other people.

Do you understand that situation to be anything else but such a bet? If so, how?

Do you see any reason to give such proselitism more attention than my analysis would advise (which is to say, next to none)?

I understand you. And I think this is a wonderful thesis! If there is only one way, then why won't The God make it clear? Because there isn't just one way. That is the only conclusion possible.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah... God sure doesn't go out of His way to announce the True Faith, assuming that both He and It do exist.

 

[savagewind]

Yeah... God sure doesn't go out of His way to announce the True Faith, assuming that both He and It do exist.

I can't be sure that there is a true god but I think it is that a true faith is possible. I have the faith that everything will settle in its own right place. Justice will be served. And happy is always possible.

 

[Scott C.]

Doesn't that strike you as somewhat odd? God chose not to make us all instinctively aware of that need, yet somehow it exists anyway? And it is consistently very suspiciously close to manipulative indoctrination?

You seem to be assuming that if a loving and benevolent God exists and if he has truths to share, that he would not share those beliefs via other people. In my view of God, he uses his children (us) to bless and to serve one another. That service includes delivering the news of the gospel and the relieving of suffering, etc. If God simply revealed himself 100% to all people in the same way, from birth forward, that would negate his purposes for life.

 

[LuisDantas]

You seem to be assuming that if a loving and benevolent God exists and if he has truths to share, that he would not share those beliefs via other people.

Not as proselitism, anyway. Not by such an unlikely path as that of having several competing scriptures and prophets.

People are the most precious of religious resources. Potentially, at least.

In my view of God, he uses his children (us) to bless and to serve one another.

I can respect that.

That service includes delivering the news of the gospel and the relieving of suffering, etc. If God simply revealed himself 100% to all people in the same way, from birth forward, that would negate his purposes for life.

Would it, though? It seems to me that there is plenty of constructive purpose to be found without necessarily having to deal with proselitism and arguments about scriptures and prophets. Relief of social injustice, for instance.

 

[bobhikes]

I have just understood that in my opinion it is inherently unable to do so.


To the best of my understanding, that implies both that God exists, that He cares about which beliefs we hold, and that still, for whatever reason, He keeps quiet about what those would be, illogical as that would seem to be.

That can't be justified on theological, moral or philosophical grounds. It is a plain, direct attempt at convincing others that one knows better on religious matters than they do themselves, and I doubt it can be motivated by much more than some sort of disconfort with diversity of beliefs and/or a desire to be influential over other people.

I believe God can exist and care about our beliefs but has communication problems. A being that has existed eternally communicating through the mind of being less than 100 years old. Our interpretation is based off of our intelligence and experiences unique to us.

I do believe the problem is not with God or the Communication but like you posted people trying to influence other people with their interpretation. This seems to stem from our need of social interaction which God would never have.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe God can exist and care about our beliefs but has communication problems. (...)

This seems to stem from our need of social interaction which God would never have.

So you believe that God cares about our beliefs yet has a hard time understanding our social nature and its consequences?

Doesn't that mean that God is not particularly wise, at least by human standards?

This seems to stem from our need of social interaction which God would never have.

I'm not personally sure there is a point to religion without social interaction.

 

[Augustus]

To proselitise for a monotheistic faith is, in essence, to make a bet that said faith is in some way sufficiently better than other religious stances. So much so that it would make sense to present it to people who manifested no natural inclination to develop it on their own.

Not really.

It simply means that it is a belief system in which some people find happiness and you believe could bring benefit to others (which in many cases it does btw).

That can't be justified on theological, moral or philosophical grounds. It is a plain, direct attempt at convincing others that one knows better on religious matters than they do themselves, and I doubt it can be motivated by much more than some sort of disconfort with diversity of beliefs and/or a desire to be influential over other people.

That's what humans do, try to convince others round to their way of thinking. Politics, religion, diet, lifestyle, etc.

Do you hold people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to be equally morally bankrupt motivated by a dislike of diversity? Newspaper columnists? Politicians? (ok maybe you can have the last 2 ) Why does religion get special treatment?

 

[bobhikes]

So you believe that God cares about our beliefs yet has a hard time understanding our social nature and its consequences?

Doesn't that mean that God is not particularly wise, at least by human standards?

.

God is not human. Human standards are the pinnacle of standards?

 

[LuisDantas]

God is not human. Human standards are the pinnacle of standards?

They seem to be challenge enough for the Gods I am most often reminded that I need to accept, so apparently yes.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not really.

It simply means that it is a belief system in which some people find happiness and you believe could bring benefit to others (which in many cases it does btw).

That is just not accurate.

That's what humans do, try to convince others round to their way of thinking. Politics, religion, diet, lifestyle, etc.

Do you hold people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to be equally morally bankrupt motivated by a dislike of diversity? Newspaper columnists? Politicians? (ok maybe you can have the last 2 ) Why does religion get special treatment?

Because it (when it proselitises) demands such special treatment. It must accept the price that comes with it.

 

[rusra02]

"To the best of my understanding, that implies both that God exists, that He cares about which beliefs we hold, and that still, for whatever reason, He keeps quiet about what those would be, illogical as that would seem to be."

I think the idea that the true God "keeps quiet" about what we should believe and practice is erroneous.I believe "what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them." (The Bible- Romans 1:19)
There are two reference works made available to mankind, IMO. The things created, or book of nature, testify to the existence, power, and wisdom of their Creator. The Bible explains what are God's purposes and standards, and his interactions with mankind. I think these 2 books speak eloquently about God, whether we choose to listen or not.

 

[bobhikes]

They seem to be challenge enough for the Gods I am most often reminded that I need to accept, so apparently yes.

Sure because you can manipulate them any way you want. You can rule out human standards you don't want to except. You are human, they are your standards. Judging by your own standards is being closed. Here's a little challenge the standard for Human intelligence is measure by IQ how many social questions are part of the test.

 

[LuisDantas]

"To the best of my understanding, that implies both that God exists, that He cares about which beliefs we hold, and that still, for whatever reason, He keeps quiet about what those would be, illogical as that would seem to be."

I think the idea that the true God "keeps quiet" about what we should believe and practice is erroneous.I believe "what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them." (The Bible- Romans 1:19)
There are two reference works made available to mankind, IMO. The things created, or book of nature, testify to the existence, power, and wisdom of their Creator. The Bible explains what are God's purposes and standards, and his interactions with mankind. I think these 2 books speak eloquently about God, whether we choose to listen or not.

A valid stance, although IMO a self-defeating one.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure because you can manipulate them any way you want. You can rule out human standards you don't want to except. You are human, they are your standards. Judging by your own standards is being closed. Here's a little challenge the standard for Human intelligence is measure by IQ how many social questions are part of the test.

Maybe you misunderstood me? I am saying that God as presented in the Bible or the Quran is rather unimpressive even by human standards.

 

[bobhikes]

Maybe you misunderstood me? I am saying that God as presented in the Bible or the Quran is rather unimpressive even by human standards.

Whatever God you present, please present reliable, acceptable humans standards to judge God by. Not your own standards. You know official Intelligence, Social or Emotional standards excepted by a valid organization and show how God does on these tests. You can use the Bible, Quran or any holy book to define your God for these tests. The whole book not just excerpts.