The Us vs Them dogma within a religion

[Estro Felino]

hello, guys.
I just wanted to analyze whether religions tend to treat followers as individuals or if all followers are considered an indissoluble monolith.
I would like to start from Christians.
We Christians are called to treat all human beings as fellow human beings.
There has never been a Christians\non-Christians narrative.
So...in other words the theology of atonement, for example, I guess it is not meant to exclude non-Christians from salvation.
What do you guys think?
I am also asking because of the numerous episodes of incomprehension between Atheists and Christians.

 

[Estro Felino]

I would like also to point out that I think certain religions tend to dogmatize the Us vs Them narrative.
That is "all followers of a religion X are good" and "whoever criticizes one follower, criticizes the entire religion".

I think it is a wrong dogma.
If a single follower is a rotten apple, it doesn't mean that the entire religion is bad.
So if I criticize one follower, I am not criticizing the entire religion.

I think that so many Catholics don't like the Vatican, but that doesn't make them non-Catholics.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We Christians are called to treat all human beings as fellow human beings.

But resurrection and heaven are reserved for those who accept Jesus as the son of God. "I am the gate ..", etc.

 

[Estro Felino]

But resurrection and heaven are reserved for those who accept Jesus as the son of God. "I am the gate ..", etc.

No. To everyone.

 

[PureX]

Many human and animal groups create and sustain themselves by developing that "us vs them" perception. The "us" is defined by not being "them", and likewise. Especially within the same species where difference would not otherwise be apparent.

I suspect it occurs because it maintains optimal group sizes.

 

[Estro Felino]

Many human and animal groups create and sustain themselves by developing that "us vs them" perception. The "us" is defined by not being "them", and likewise. Especially within the same species where difference would not otherwise be apparent.

I suspect it occurs because it maintains optimal group sizes.

That is true. But at the same time...a religion should be something that brings many people from different cultures and backgrounds together.

 

[PureX]

That is true. But at the same time...a religion should be something that brings many people from different cultures and backgrounds together.

Religions are a collection of intellectual tools and practices that are intended to help the adherent live according to their chosen theological position. They only become dictatorial and divisive when humans group together under a specific religious banner. And with that, of course, comes the "us vs them" mentality. It's not the tools that divide us, it's the natural inclination of the users.

 

[Truth in love]

hello, guys.
I just wanted to analyze whether religions tend to treat followers as individuals or if all followers are considered an indissoluble monolith.
I would like to start from Christians.
We Christians are called to treat all human beings as fellow human beings.
There has never been a Christians\non-Christians narrative.
So...in other words the theology of atonement, for example, I guess it is not meant to exclude non-Christians from salvation.
What do you guys think?
I am also asking because of the numerous episodes of incomprehension between Atheists and Christians.

1. There often are differences between what is taught and what people tend to do. Not judging leaps to mind as one of the more common gaps in this.

2. While I don’t see an us vs. them mindset there are differences in behavior. I have friends from many faith traditions and try to help my kids understand what those beliefs are and where ours are similar or different. Put another way my teaching my kids the importance of regular exercise is not about fat shaming. Teaching them to eat vegetables and not much junk food is not hostile to to neighbor who does eat a lot of junk food. Do I think eating healthy matters? Very and I make no apology for it. Also I see no value in being unkind to those who don’t understand that.

 

[Estro Felino]

Religions are a collection of intellectual tools and practices that are intended to help the adherent live according to their chosen theological position. They only become dictatorial and divisive when humans group together under a specific religious banner. And with that, of course, comes the "us vs them" mentality. It's not the tools that divide us, it's the natural inclination of the users.

It is understandable...but for example, if I point out that a certain individual is from a particular religious or cultural background, I am not targeting the entire religious community.
Which does happen if such religions with that mindset.
That is, if you target one of them, you are targeting all of them,
That is why I think that the Us vs Them mindset is particularly flawed.

 

[PureX]

It is understandable...but for example, if I point out that a certain individual is from a particular religious or cultural background, I am not targeting the entire religious community.
Which does happen is such religions with that mindset.
That is, if you target one of them, you are targeting all of them,
That is why I think that the Us vs Them mindset is particularly flawed.

I agree. But the religions don't teach that, it's just human nature. If anything, the religions try to discourage that. But the tools are only as good as the desire to use them properly.

 

[PureX]

I can give you a practical example.
Once I was discussing the Epstein case with a person on social media, I guess it was Twitter.
And in the discussion, someone tweeted something, bringing up he was Jewish (which I didn't know).
And more than one person tweeted that it is anti-Semitic to point that out...
Which I find absurd.
Does this mean there are no Jewish criminals?
It is irrelevant to point that out because if I point out that a criminal is Catholic, I am not insulting all Catholics.

I think you missed the point that person was trying to make. Two men rob a gas station, and the newspaper writes it up as; "Gas Station Robbed By Two Blacks". The fact that the men were black is irrelevant to the fact that they robbed a gas station. Yet the news writer tries to imply that it's relevant by relating the two facts, unnecessarily. And that's racism. The same goes for Epstein. To insert unnecessarily that fact that he was Jewish is to imply that his being Jewish had some correlation with his being a criminal pedophile. Thus, it was antisemitic to insert that fact in that context.

 

[Muffled]

hello, guys.
I just wanted to analyze whether religions tend to treat followers as individuals or if all followers are considered an indissoluble monolith.
I would like to start from Christians.
We Christians are called to treat all human beings as fellow human beings.
There has never been a Christians\non-Christians narrative.
So...in other words the theology of atonement, for example, I guess it is not meant to exclude non-Christians from salvation.
What do you guys think?
I am also asking because of the numerous episodes of incomprehension between Atheists and Christians.

I believe one is either in or out. There is no halfway point.

I used to believe Jews were Jewish in religion and it took a while for me to learn that Jews often have migrated to other religions or none.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think you missed the point that person was trying to make. Two men rob a gas station, and the newspaper writes it up as; "Gas Station Robbed By Two Blacks". The fact that the men were black is irrelevant to the fact that they robbed a gas station. Yet the news writer tries to imply that it's relevant by relating the two facts, unnecessarily. And that's racism. The same goes for Epstein. To insert unnecessarily that fact that he was Jewish is to imply that his being Jewish had some correlation with his being a criminal pedophile. Thus, it was antisemitic to insert that fact in that context.

It happens all the time, they even write articles saying that being against Soros means to be anti-Semitic.

 

[Muffled]

I would like also to point out that I think certain religions tend to dogmatize the Us vs Them narrative.
That is "all followers of a religion X are good" and "whoever criticizes one follower, criticizes the entire religion".

I think it is a wrong dogma.
If a single follower is a rotten apple, it doesn't mean that the entire religion is bad.
So if I criticize one follower, I am not criticizing the entire religion.

I think that so many Catholics don't like the Vatican, but that doesn't make them non-Catholics.

I believe immoral popes proved the infallibility of the papacy is a bogus concept. I believe it is possible for one to be infallible but not because the system guarantees it.

 

[Left Coast]

hello, guys.
I just wanted to analyze whether religions tend to treat followers as individuals or if all followers are considered an indissoluble monolith.
I would like to start from Christians.
We Christians are called to treat all human beings as fellow human beings.
There has never been a Christians\non-Christians narrative.
So...in other words the theology of atonement, for example, I guess it is not meant to exclude non-Christians from salvation.
What do you guys think?
I am also asking because of the numerous episodes of incomprehension between Atheists and Christians.

I made a similarly themed thread today!

What do you make of the parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25)?

 

[Muffled]

But resurrection and heaven are reserved for those who accept Jesus as the son of God. "I am the gate ..", etc.

I believe I differ on that. I believe resurrection and rapture depend on whether a person has accepted the forgiveness offered by God on the cross. I believe Heaven can be for anyone who knows how to get there.

 

[FredVB]

There is no monolith of Christian followers. There are the big segments of those all saying they are Christians, who are adamantly against those of the other big segments. There are those groups of Christians who won't include other Christians among them, over some doctrines that seem really important to them. There are some small churches that even might think they are the only Christians. And for any new controversy with something in question, Christians will divide over it.

This is with one book for God's people, that many of them will claim as their basis of faith. Some still though think they have the only right translation.

This said, the same holds for many groups and movements among humanity. It seems to be a trait characterizing humans, to divide from each other over something or other.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe resurrection and rapture depend on whether a person has accepted the forgiveness offered by God on the cross.

I am not a beggar. I do not beg for resurrection and rapture.

 

[paarsurrey]

#18 FredVB

hello, guys.
I just wanted to analyze whether religions tend to treat followers as individuals or if all followers are considered an indissoluble monolith.
I would like to start from Christians.
We Christians are called to treat all human beings as fellow human beings.
There has never been a Christians\non-Christians narrative.
So...in other words the theology of atonement, for example, I guess it is not meant to exclude non-Christians from salvation.
What do you guys think?
I am also asking because of the numerous episodes of incomprehension between Atheists and Christians.

Isn't it daydreaming, else, kindly quote from (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah in this connection, please? Right?

Regards
______________
#19 Aup

 

[pearl]

So...in other words the theology of atonement, for example, I guess it is not meant to exclude non-Christians from salvation.

I believe this is correct. The Church acknowledges the salvation of those who are faithful in their own covenant are saved even if they do not acknowledge Christ as their savior.