What is a religious extremist?

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, I did. Therefore my response to his post was 100% on topic.

I will not respond further to this stupid diversion. Bye.

*smiles* You do realize you just contradicted yourself, yes?

 

[stevecanuck]

From a religious point of view, a religious extremist is someone who has been blinded to the core values of their own faith.

Apologies for missing this the first time around.

To me, this sounds like you favor option two from the OP. Is that correct?

For example; someone who is radicalised into being willing to kill (usually -if not a [mortal] sin- a very wrong thing to do) for their religion,

I agree that for a person to be willing to kill, he must be 'radicalized'. In my opinion 'radicalized' and 'extremist' are synonyms in this context. Do you agree with that?

as opposed to being willing to die for it.

Humbly
Hermit

I'm sure martyrdom is highly overrated.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

To me, there are only two choices to consider:

1. A person who simply follows the tenets of his religion in great detail, and without deviation.

2. A person who has to 'read in' commands to the extent that they do not comply with the actual message. (This is an edit to try to make it more clear.)

My vote goes for number 1.

Comments and quibbles welcome.

I would argue any extremist is one who won’t let evidence bother them in the slightest.

 

[stevecanuck]

I would argue any extremist is one who won’t let evidence bother them in the slightest.

To me, that's a lot closer to option 2 than 1.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

In my opinion 'radicalized' and 'extremist' are synonyms in this context. Do you agree with that?

I understand your sentiment, though linguistically, they are not really synonyms.

You don’t in English say that someone is “extremised” to kill, nor that so and so is a “radicalist” (they’d simply be radical and that has a different connotation altogether).

Radicalism is used of course but it normally refers to politics. Albeit, these things change somewhat through time.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

To me, this sounds like you favor option two from the OP. Is that correct?

Hmm… I don’t know.

One cannot really read scripture without interpreting. If one tries, one soon concludes it to be rather nonsensical.
But for scripture to be of spiritual value, one needs to read it in a spiritual frame of mind.

If one finds oneself being filled with hatred towards people of different spiritual beliefs because of reading scripture, I’d say stop reading scripture - at least in the light that you’re reading it in.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[stevecanuck]

Hmm… I don’t know.

One cannot really read scripture without interpreting. If one tries, one soon concludes it to be rather nonsensical.
But for scripture to be of spiritual value, one needs to read it in a spiritual frame of mind.

If one finds oneself being filled with hatred towards people of different spiritual beliefs because of reading scripture, I’d say stop reading scripture - at least in the light that you’re reading it in.

Humbly,
Hermit

Have you read the Qur'an? It requires very little interpretation, at least in terms of gleaning the overall message.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Have you read the Qur'an? It requires very little interpretation, at least in terms of gleaning the overall message.

Sorry, I’ve not studied the Quran but I’ve read some nice verses.
I tend to approach any religious scripture in a contemplative state though.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[stevecanuck]

Sorry, I’ve not studied the Quran but I’ve read some nice verses.
I tend to approach any religious scripture in a contemplative state though.

Humbly,
Hermit

I would be very interested in seeing those verses if you could find them. If not, could you paraphrase them for me? Thanks.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I would be very interested in seeing those verses if you could find them. If not, could you paraphrase them for me? Thanks.

I’ll try to find them, yes.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[stevecanuck]

I’ll try to find them, yes.

Humbly,
Hermit

Perhaps I can help. Does "however kills one person is as though he has killed all of mankind" sound like what you've heard?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Perhaps I can help. Does "however kills one person is as though he has killed all of mankind" sound like what you've heard?

No, but did you wish to say something about that one?

I could not find what I was thinking of but it may have been a verse from 85 (surah?). Apologies for my lack of knowledge here.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[stevecanuck]

No, but did you wish to say something about that one?

I have written a rebuttal to it, but since nobody is claiming it, I won't post it here. I'll send it to you via DM.

I could not find what I was thinking of but it may have been a verse from 85 (surah?). Apologies for my lack of knowledge here.

Humbly,
Hermit

Another commonly quoted verse is 2:256, which starts "There is no compulsion in religion...."

 

[loverofhumanity]

To me, there are only two choices to consider:

1. A person who simply follows the tenets of his religion in great detail, and without deviation.

2. A person who has to 'read in' commands to the extent that they do not comply with the actual message. (This is an edit to try to make it more clear.)

My vote goes for number 1.

Comments and quibbles welcome.

So religion teaches love thy neighbor and love thine enemies and you are saying that terrorists obey this law of love? Isn’t it rather their disobedience of the laws of love and kindness which all religions teach?

 

[stevecanuck]

So religion teaches love thy neighbor and love thine enemies

Not all of them do. Islam absolutely does not. But, I've given you quotes to prove that in the past, and you just wave them away.

and you are saying that terrorists obey this law of love?

Islamic terrorists have no such laws to concern themselves about. But, you already know that.