Those who would convert and those who would eradicate religion

[gzusfrk]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

A group of people that would want to eradicate religion, could be considered a religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

How so?

 

[sandandfoam]

For instance, I'm big into secularism: I would prefer that religion not have any special status, and I don't think churches should have special political powers. This is something I'm actually willing to take steps to make happen.

At the same time, I would prefer that parents not indoctrinate their kids in their religious beliefs. I'm not about to interfere with anyone to make this happen, but if people were to choose it on their own, I would think it was a good thing.

I think these are the two main things that religion uses to sustain itself, so I think that if these two things, which I see as both positive, were to happen, then religion would most likely gradually wane until it reaches a point where if it hasn't disappeared altogether, it's at least negligible.

Given all that, would you lump me in with your "zealots"?

Nope, i wouldn't.
For as long as we have government I believe that there should be complete seperation between government and religion so I'm with you on the secularism.
Regarding how other people bring up their children it would be more odd if you didn't have an opinion. As it happens my view is not in line with yours but you allow me freedom to live as I see fit and I return the compliment. That's what I aspire to -live and let live.

 

[kejos]

A group of people that would want to eradicate religion, could be considered a religion.

A compelling view.

 

[LuisDantas]

So religion is characterized by intolerance? Really?

 

[kejos]

So religion is characterized by intolerance? Really?

Yes, and no. A particular religion identifies not just the distress of human condition, but also a cause for that distress. It then proposes a remedy to address that cause. In so doing it excludes other solutions, and cannot help but be intolerant of them. That does not mean that its adherents are necessarily intolerant of the rights of others who do not accept their faith, though it does in some cases.

 

[LuisDantas]

I must say, that is a very crude and poor view of religion.

 

[kejos]

I must say, that is a very crude and poor view of religion.

Is there a single reason to believe that?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure. For one thing, that premise excludes the possibility of understanding among faiths. It does happen, but not particularly often. And it is certainly not to be assumed.

Besides, religion is better defined as the effort to deal with conflicts and contrasts. I guess refusing to acknowledge and attempting to destroy such conflicts and contrasts could be considered such an effort, but it is about the worst possible way of doing so.

 

[kejos]

Sure. For one thing, that premise excludes the possibility of understanding among faiths.

Why does it do that? How many times does one have to post to you before a genuine explanation is provided?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why does it do that?

That is your premise, if I understood this fragment correctly:

A particular religion identifies not just the distress of human condition, but also a cause for that distress. It then proposes a remedy to address that cause. In so doing it excludes other solutions, and cannot help but be intolerant of them. That does not mean that its adherents are necessarily intolerant of the rights of others who do not accept their faith, though it does in some cases.

Emphasis mine.

How many times does one have to post to you before a genuine explanation is provided?

I thought I had provided such an explanation already. I've been quite direct, even. But maybe if you try asking the question to be explained again, in other words. It has been known to help.

 

[MurphtheSurf]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

No person can "convert" another. Only God can do the converting;

1Corinthians 3:
6 I planted, A·pol′los watered, but God kept making [it] grow; 7 so that neither is he that plants anything nor is he that waters, but God who makes [it] grow

John 6:
44 No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him; and I will resurrect him in the last day

2 Thessalonians 2:
13 However, we are obligated to thank God always for YOU, brothers loved by Jehovah, because God selected YOU from [the] beginning for salvation by sanctifying YOU with spirit and by YOUR faith in the truth


Who will stampout all religion? The Kingdom will. There can only be one Truth, all the rest are mere religions.

Daniel 2:44

“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite

Revelataion 17:
. 12 “And the ten horns that you saw mean ten kings, who have not yet received a kingdom, but they do receive authority as kings one hour with the wild beast. 13 These have one thought, and so they give their power and authority to the wild beast. 14 These will battle with the Lamb, but, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those called and chosen and faithful with him [will do so].” 15 And he says to me: “The waters that you saw, where the harlot is sitting, mean peoples and crowds and nations and tongues. 16 And the ten horns that you saw, and the wild beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her with fire. 17 For God put [it] into their hearts to carry out his thought, even to carry out [their] one thought by giving their kingdom to the wild beast, until the words of God will have been accomplished.


The "harlot" or "Babylon the Great" is the world empire of false religion, and not just the Catholic church as so many believe.

 

[kejos]

That is your premise, if I understood this fragment correctly

Ah. We have here a manufacturer of straw men.

 

[Storm]

Ah. We have here a manufacturer of straw men.

Hardly. If Luis misunderstood you, which he made room for, that's not a strawman. It's miscommunication.

Furthermore, if he misunderstood you, it's because you made a blanket statement. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

i can tell youn know that i have found god he came to me in a dream and tocuhed me on the head and sent me on a mission to smite the jews for the sins they have committed

i had a dream the other day that a crow with primate arms and fingers that was four feet tall bit me and then we became friends. isn't religion fun?

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Yes, and no. A particular religion identifies not just the distress of human condition, but also a cause for that distress. It then proposes a remedy to address that cause. In so doing it excludes other solutions, and cannot help but be intolerant of them. That does not mean that its adherents are necessarily intolerant of the rights of others who do not accept their faith, though it does in some cases.

i feel like you're very correct about this. in-group and out-group thinking is important for people who assign themselves into categories, and as primates we require categories to make things easiest. yet it's a part of our duty as social animals to find the boundaries of this kind of thinking and maintain a balance. if we're so preoccupied with the in-group stability that we infringe upon the rights of other groups to experience what we're experiencing then we have put even our own freedom in jeopardy.

Why does it do that? How many times does one have to post to you before a genuine explanation is provided?

i also feel like if you weren't so testy about things, you would have better discussions. and be heard more clearly.

 

[jmvizanko]

"Live and let live." Anything less is zealotry.

That's a nice thought and all, but is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance? For example, is it justifiable to let extremist Muslims live as they want to, bent on taking over the world using violent means? At some point you can't really "let live" when some people's idea of living involves not letting other people live as they want to. In that sense let living can be self defeating.

 

[jmvizanko]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

I do not see trying to convert/deconvert people you do not agree with as zealotry unless it is accompanied by excessive intolerance. If you think an idea is bad for the world, I do not see it as "extreme" to try to take people away from it, as long as it is done respectfully. After all, "The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." Sitting back and letting people believe whatever they want to, such as thinking they have the right to blow up infidels, or pray for their child with epilepsy instead of taking them to a doctor, is a level of pacifism that is dangerous for the world.

 

[jmvizanko]

There can only be one Truth, all the rest are mere religions.

Apparently you've never read the definition of religion: "the belief in andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worship worship of a god or gods, or more in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Just because you think your religion contains the truth, or is more special than the others, in no way makes it not meet the above qualifications.

 

[dust1n]

There's many more than two sides to this.
I would like to see religion fade away on its own failings, though it won't happen in my lifetime.

'
Agreed.