What is a religious extremist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could have been a false god, which, despite being designed and engineered for omnipotence, landed him in prison for rest of his life.

In his worldview, he may have been fighting for his freedom.


“It’s idolatry, putting trust in weapons. And weapons are made like gods. … Weapons are always false gods because they make money. It’s profiteering.”

---Sister Megan Rice---

The Prophets of Oakridge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/wp-style/2013/09/13/the-prophets-of-oak-ridge/?tid=ptv_rellink

Yeah... sell your "everyone has a god" nonsense somewhere else. I don't need any.

 

[stevecanuck]

Yet religions are common

By "common" do you mean that all religions are similar?

and basic lore are norms.

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[F1fan]

By "common" do you mean that all religions are similar?

I mean they are prevalent.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Meaning the religious lore in any given culture, like Christianity in Western nations and Islam in the Middle East are well known by citizens.

 

[Secret Chief]

probably qualify under the definition of extremist because they believe that "that the path to enlightenment is through nonviolence and reducing harm to living things (including plants and animals) as much as possible."

How the heck is that extremist?

In your eyes I am an extremist and I hope a lot more people are.

 

[Spice]

I have no idea what 6th Century "mumbo-jumbo" you're talking about. I'm talking about what's actually in the Gospels.

The "mumbo-jumbo" were all the councils and arguments who decided for the world and in the eyes of many, decided for all time, what "we" are allowed to believe.

BTW - my memory was off. I thought that the "seven woes" were part of the Sermon on the Mount; turns out they're later in Matthew.

Yes, "the woes" were emphasizing commonplace mis-practices of the times. As Jesus explained, do as the Pharisees say, not as they do.

That being said, the Sermon on the Mount have enough threats of violence on their own. They refer to "fiery hell" (Matt 5:22), "hell" (5:30), "destruction" for non-followers (Matt 7:13), and throwing people "into the fire" (Matt 7:19).

In both instances, as throughout scripture, the reader must take into consideration the culture and the era. The Gospels are 3 sets (Matthew and Mark being of the same voice) of talking points for 3 differing audiences, written to get some form of uniformity, not between the 3 audiences, but within each audience. These were written after Paul started his churches with his rules and his voice of opinion setting in place the practices of the Gentiles.

Matthew & Mark were the "pulpit POV" for the Jewish populace of which the Apostles would have belonged. But again, written AFTER the revolts began, so the violent flavor was to draw attention to what was growing in their hearts as the Zealots also drew the attention of the common men. Luke was the POV of the Roman educated such as Paul's former colleagues. And John was penned for the Hellenists.

They refer to judgment for an audience that would have understood what running afoul of God's judgment entails.

And for an audience that was hard pressed in rebellion which made a difficult audience for "love your neighbor" on it's own goodness.

I'm not 100% sure what the most common phrase in the Gospels is, but "wailing and gnashing of teeth" has to be in contention (8 times).

My guess would be "Verily, verily." :-D

There is no "pure and abiding form" of Christianity. There's just what it is, which changes somewhat over time.

Oh, but I believe very deeply that there is. And that's the Christianity that needs to be discussed and fed yo spread, even with all the variables that undoubtedly would cling.

Christianity is a diverse religion; I don't think there's any specific tenet of Christianity that every Christian believes and denomination proclaims, but there are some things that are so common that they're almost universal. My general impression is that, among Christians, a belief in violence for dissenters is probably not as common as Trinitarianism, but more common than belief in the Virgin Birth. Do you have a different impression?

I believe Christianity is constantly changing, and this century will continue to see massive change that began in the second half of the 20th.

Even the voices of the most conservative branches are loosing their congregations or are having to change their ministry focus.

In Baptist, Methodist, Congregational, etc., church nurseries have been turned to storage rooms. Many churches have shut completely down, and more still are having to share pastors as they can no longer support their own. Pentecostal and Assembly of God's are revving up their music programs, adding more electronic support with big screens, live on-line services, etc., to keep and grow their attendance. And yet, fewer and fewer congregants "know their scriptures." That keeps the "fear of God" in them. They carry with them conspiracy theories more readily than scripture, and they tie the two together to validate both in incorrectness.

The more people research, study, think, and discover for themselves, the more the true Christianity will grow. It's a forward process in setting the words of past millennia into timeless context.

However, Christianity as you view it, does exist and that is why so many of us have set it aside formally, if not entirely.

The true and abiding Christianity can be found in all the world's religions, for it is to live in peace, love, and brotherhood.

 

[danieldemol]

Would you consider allowing a ban on abortion demonstrable harm?

Depends on the context, if I voted against it and society voted for it it may do more harm to go to civil war to dissalow it, however a ban on abortion does do demonstrable harm in my view.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The "mumbo-jumbo" were all the councils and arguments who decided for the world and in the eyes of many, decided for all time, what "we" are allowed to believe.

Which of the Biblical passages I've referred to do you think was altered in the 6th Century?

Yes, "the woes" were emphasizing commonplace mis-practices of the times. As Jesus explained, do as the Pharisees say, not as they do.

"Woe to you, ____" is either a promise or threat of suffering.

In both instances, as throughout scripture, the reader must take into consideration the culture and the era. The Gospels are 3 sets (Matthew and Mark being of the same voice) of talking points for 3 differing audiences, written to get some form of uniformity, not between the 3 audiences, but within each audience. These were written after Paul started his churches with his rules and his voice of opinion setting in place the practices of the Gentiles.

Matthew & Mark were the "pulpit POV" for the Jewish populace of which the Apostles would have belonged. But again, written AFTER the revolts began, so the violent flavor was to draw attention to what was growing in their hearts as the Zealots also drew the attention of the common men. Luke was the POV of the Roman educated such as Paul's former colleagues. And John was penned for the Hellenists.

Whether or not these are the reasons why Christianity incorporated violence so completely, it seems like you're conceding that Christianity is violent while trying to explain why.

And for an audience that was hard pressed in rebellion which made a difficult audience for "love your neighbor" on it's own goodness.

Again: this addresses the "why" while conceding that Christianity is violent.

My guess would be "Verily, verily." :-D

But you get my point, right? Promises of suffering to be inflicted aren't just one-off aberrations from minor, ignorable characters. They come from Jesus - the main guy of Christianity - over and over.

Oh, but I believe very deeply that there is. And that's the Christianity that needs to be discussed and fed yo spread, even with all the variables that undoubtedly would cling.

I believe Christianity is constantly changing, and this century will continue to see massive change that began in the second half of the 20th.

Even the voices of the most conservative branches are loosing their congregations or are having to change their ministry focus.

In Baptist, Methodist, Congregational, etc., church nurseries have been turned to storage rooms. Many churches have shut completely down, and more still are having to share pastors as they can no longer support their own. Pentecostal and Assembly of God's are revving up their music programs, adding more electronic support with big screens, live on-line services, etc., to keep and grow their attendance. And yet, fewer and fewer congregants "know their scriptures." That keeps the "fear of God" in them. They carry with them conspiracy theories more readily than scripture, and they tie the two together to validate both in incorrectness.

The more people research, study, think, and discover for themselves, the more the true Christianity will grow. It's a forward process in setting the words of past millennia into timeless context.

However, Christianity as you view it, does exist and that is why so many of us have set it aside formally, if not entirely.

What I've described has always existed. If anything, Christianity's earlier apocalyptic nature has become toned down over the years.

And it's still there. I don't doubt that you can create a peaceful version of Christianity just like someone can create a version of Christianity without the Trinity... but still, the Christian groups who praise violence are in a strong majority.

The true and abiding Christianity can be found in all the world's religions, for it is to live in peace, love, and brotherhood.

... and the promise of a future judgment that will result in unimaginable suffering and violence for many people, right?

 

[SalixIncendium]

A Jain who avoids accidentally stepping on ants would probably qualify under the definition of extremist because they believe that "that the path to enlightenment is through nonviolence and reducing harm to living things (including plants and animals) as much as possible."

I'm a Hindu who does this. Does this make me a Hindu extremist?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Could have been a false god, which, despite being designed and engineered for omnipotence, landed him in prison for rest of his life.

In his worldview, he may have been fighting for his freedom.


“It’s idolatry, putting trust in weapons. And weapons are made like gods. … Weapons are always false gods because they make money. It’s profiteering.”

---Sister Megan Rice---

The Prophets of Oakridge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/wp-style/2013/09/13/the-prophets-of-oak-ridge/?tid=ptv_rellink

Yeah... sell your "everyone has a god" nonsense somewhere else. I don't need any.

OK, that was weird.

 

[Quintessence]

In most cases, I notice the term being used to point an accusatory finger at someone who is doing something you don't like. It's a snarl word. Doesn't often mean much beyond that and says more about the finger pointer than the one being pointed at.

But just for fun...

Regular Druid -> plants trees in their yard
Extremist Druid -> plants trees in your yard too (without asking)

 

[Secret Chief]

I'm a Hindu who does this. Does this make me ... extremist?

You and me both. I'm under 24/7 police surveillance.

 

[stevecanuck]

i've been too busy with my real life to read much of this so far. Today will be no different. Those patio stones will not move themselves.

However, from what I have read so far, it seems most responders have taken the word 'extremist' in its negative denotation of being one who inflicts harm. I used in it's connotation of being one who follows the tenets of his religion without deviation.

I see using 'extremist' when describing people who they feel have gone beyond the bounds of the their religion's tenets to 'read in' commands that don't actually exist.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I used in it's connotation of being one who follows the tenets of his religion without deviation.

I see using 'extremist' when describing people who they feel have gone beyond the bounds of the their religion's tenets to 'read in' commands that don't actually exist.

You do realize you just provided two entirely different definitions for 'extremist,' yes?

One of these is incorrect. Would you like to take a stab at which one?

 

[stevecanuck]

You do realize you just provided two entirely different definitions for 'extremist,' yes?

Do you not realize that's the point of the thread? I'm asking which definition people follow?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you not realize that's the point of the thread? I'm asking which definition people follow?

Sorry. In reading your posts, it appears to me that you are suggesting that those that take 'extremist' to mean someone who carries their religion to the extent that it brings harm to another are wrong.

Of your two definitions provided in your OP, one is entirely wrong, and the other may be correct in certain circumstances, but does not apply to all religions. Not all religions have "commands."

Is the point of the thread to demonstrate your ignorance of what religion is? Or is it to demonstrate your narrow perspective of religion based on your limited knowledge?

 

[Spice]

Which of the Biblical passages I've referred to do you think was altered in the 6th Century?

You spoke of the Apostles Creed

"Woe to you, ____" is either a promise or threat of suffering.

It's an attention getter for sure

Whether or not these are the reasons why Christianity incorporated violence so completely, it seems like you're conceding that Christianity is violent while trying to explain why.

The practice of Christianity has most definitely been violent -- without question

Again: this addresses the "why" while conceding that Christianity is violent.

Yep

But you get my point, right? Promises of suffering to be inflicted aren't just one-off aberrations from minor, ignorable characters. They come from Jesus - the main guy of Christianity - over and over.

For the audience of the time, in a manner they would relate to, as you said. Think of the punishment given Jesus based on a judgment of hearsay. It was a very violent time for all.

What I've described has always existed. If anything, Christianity's earlier apocalyptic nature has become toned down over the years.

Slowly but surely

And it's still there. I don't doubt that you can create a peaceful version of Christianity just like someone can create a version of Christianity without the Trinity... but still, the Christian groups who praise violence are in a strong majority.

They're the "heard" majority.

... and the promise of a future judgment that will result in unimaginable suffering and violence for many people, right?

Future judgement -I would say so.
Unimaginable suffering and violence - not unless that is what has been given. Karma is persistent, I believe.
And both equally--universally.
But no literal fire and brimstone for eternity. But figuratively for honing a strength of righteous spirit.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Do you not realize that's the point of the thread? I'm asking which definition people follow?

The title of the thread is this:

What is a religious extremist?

Your expressed viewpoint was this:

“To me, there are only two choices to consider:”

Others disagreed.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Perhaps I misunderstood you, I thought you were saying Mennonites were extreme for following a tennet of their religion to the letter. In that respect rejection of the supernatural such as gods seems to be a tennet of secular humanism.

Well why do you call driving a horse and buggy instead of a car extreme? I would think that unless its the cause of demonstrable harm calling it extremism just seems to be accidentally at risk of conflating it with religious tennets that require government response such as terrorism in my view.

It’s extreme because it’s outside the norm.

Harm seems like a separate issue to me, although some do wrap that up in the definition, if this thread is any indication.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Okay, but I am slow and not that smart.
Explain the point of the posts you have made about this in as simple words as possible.

Ha!

Not possible.

I’m not an anthropologist nor a historian.

I’m afraid that I’m stuck reading what the experts in the subject have to say, so we’re both pretty much in the same boat, here.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yeah... sell your "everyone has a god" nonsense somewhere else. I don't need any.

I’m rereading the thread, and I still can’t figure out what you are trying to say here.

It doesn’t appear to have any relation to anything that I posted.