What is the Role of the Outsider in Bringing about Changes in Religions?

[Sunstone]

What, if anything, are the roles of outsiders in bringing about changes to religions?

For instance, can or should willing atheists do to change a relatively violent religion into a peaceful one? Again, what can or should willing members of one faith do to change a second, relatively oppressive, faith into something less oppressive?

Do you take the position that outsiders have no role to play in other people's religions? And if so, would you still hold to that position if, say, members of a religion not your own in some way threatened your life and well-being and the lives and well-being of your co-religionists?

 

[LuisDantas]

What, if anything, are the roles of outsiders in bringing about changes to religions?

Many and important, often by challenging tribal perceptions in some way.

For instance, can or should willing atheists do to change a relatively violent religion into a peaceful one?

Offer challenges and reasons for questioning in the most skillful way they can. Atheists are perhaps a bit more equiped than most to show that belief can't trump reality.

Again, what can or should willing members of one faith do to change a second, relatively oppressive, faith into something less oppressive?

Mainly give the "enemy" a human face and human behavior. Oppression is usually sustained by dehumanization. Simply maintaining frequent and respectful contact goes a long way indeed at emptying it.

Do you take the position that outsiders have no role to play in other people's religions?

I most emphatically do not. Quite the opposite really.

 

[George-ananda]

No matter what your position is you should listen to and consider the positions of sincere intelligent people of other schools of thought. You might learn something. And a closed mind may really be a sign of insecurity about your own position.

 

[Vinayaka]

Do you take the position that outsiders have no role to play in other people's religions? And if so, would you still hold to that position if, say, members of a religion not your own in some way threatened your life and well-being and the lives and well-being of your co-religionists?

I take this position ... when the religion poses no real threats. It's basically, 'you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone.'

Unfortunately this hasn't been and still isn't the case. I think individuals and religions need to stand up for themselves when threatened. Courts of law, anti-proselytizing acts, and lots of attempts at communication should precede any thoughts of violence. I think it works better on an individual level though. So befriend your local non-peaceful religion member, and demonstrate by action that there is a better way.

 

[outhouse]

What, if anything, are the roles of outsiders in bringing about changes to religions?

All we can do is change the cultures.

The American/western culture's have changed, and with education and knowledge, we have people placing mythology into context.

Not near enough for my liking but its a start

For instance, can or should willing atheists do to change a relatively violent religion into a peaceful one?

Nuke em and start fresh!


No I keed I keed.


You have to change the violent culture to non violent and the religion will follow.


How you do that to people that outbreed and over populate their resources, is beyond me.


A society has to have the intelligence to take care of itself and its people. Most governments fail at this.

Again, what can or should willing members of one faith do to change a second, relatively oppressive, faith into something less oppressive?

same as above



It should be a fight against willful ignorance, as a first step.

 

[outhouse]

Mainly give the "enemy" a human face and human behavior. Oppression is usually sustained by dehumanization. Simply maintaining frequent and respectful contact goes a long way indeed at emptying it.

Agreed

But its more then that. Feed them first. A man with a full belly is not apt to pick up arms to make changes.

A starving man feeding his children cannot be stopped.

 

[LuisDantas]

A starving man feeding his children cannot be stopped.

Indeed.

 

[outhouse]

members of a religion not your own in some way threatened your life and well-being and the lives and well-being of your co-religionists?

Yes they all do. :slap:


They place limits on science, knowledge and education.


Key points in history, people and knowledge flourished because they had little restraints placed on them and they academic freedom.


Religions retard academic freedom, and it should be a crime against humanity. :yes:

 

[Riverwolf]

What, if anything, are the roles of outsiders in bringing about changes to religions?

For instance, can or should willing atheists do to change a relatively violent religion into a peaceful one? Again, what can or should willing members of one faith do to change a second, relatively oppressive, faith into something less oppressive?

Do you take the position that outsiders have no role to play in other people's religions? And if so, would you still hold to that position if, say, members of a religion not your own in some way threatened your life and well-being and the lives and well-being of your co-religionists?

To take the position that outsiders have no role to play is to take the position that all people and organizations exist in vacuums, entirely independent of each other. Such a notion is ridiculous to me. Whether or not outsiders "should" have any influence, they do.

The best way to combat violence and oppression is education. I say that a lot, but I feel like I should add a qualifier, since exactly what "education" looks like can vary wildly.

Problem is, I'm not sure what word to use as a qualifier. The concept I'm trying to express is this: education that recognizes the default mindset of the target students, and caters the lesson plan based on that rather than the teacher's mindset, which is likely to be foreign in this case. Furthermore, I strongly believe in education based on the students' interests and needs, and in the idea that it should not involve memorization of dry facts, but on how to think critically and do research.

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of, isn't melting the distinctions between "insiders" and "outsiders" a frequent self-assigned goal of religion?

 

[vskipper]

What, if anything, are the roles of outsiders in bringing about changes to religions?

For instance, can or should willing atheists do to change a relatively violent religion into a peaceful one? Again, what can or should willing members of one faith do to change a second, relatively oppressive, faith into something less oppressive?

Do you take the position that outsiders have no role to play in other people's religions? And if so, would you still hold to that position if, say, members of a religion not your own in some way threatened your life and well-being and the lives and well-being of your co-religionists?

I would deal with the individuals. For instance the emergence of ISIS, this is not a reflection of the teachings of the Qur'an or the sunnah. It is the reflections of a sect within Islam that has been allowed to spread because of its ties to the Saudi family who owe the Wahhabis their blood covered kingship. (The whole back story is just sickening if you believe in dignity, respect for sacred ground, etc.)

 

[Riverwolf]

Come to think of, isn't melting the distinctions between "insiders" and "outsiders" a frequent self-assigned goal of religion?

I wouldn't say so.

I would say that the distinction is a natural aspect of our Tribalistic nature.

 

[vskipper]

I wouldn't say so.

I would say that the distinction is a natural aspect of our Tribalistic nature.

I must be a freak then because I cant stand people. (Especially family) prefer to be alone

 

[ChristineES]

What, if anything, are the roles of outsiders in bringing about changes to religions?

For instance, can or should willing atheists do to change a relatively violent religion into a peaceful one? Again, what can or should willing members of one faith do to change a second, relatively oppressive, faith into something less oppressive?

Do you take the position that outsiders have no role to play in other people's religions? And if so, would you still hold to that position if, say, members of a religion not your own in some way threatened your life and well-being and the lives and well-being of your co-religionists?

The only time outsiders need to have any say at all in religious matters is if the said religious matters actually affect them in some way. ISIS is a poor example, the way I see it, since it is not truly a religious group, but a terrorist group.

In the USA, things do get passed in spite of what various religions say about it: For instance, abortion is legal and gay marriage is on its way to being legal in most states and already is in some states. If a rule is being passed due to religious belief, the USA can fight it if it affects people who have nothing to do with said faith.

Also, there is the problem of children and such being harmed. There are laws in place to protect children from abuse; they just need to be utilized.

 

[Thana]

What, if anything, are the roles of outsiders in bringing about changes to religions?

For instance, can or should willing atheists do to change a relatively violent religion into a peaceful one? Again, what can or should willing members of one faith do to change a second, relatively oppressive, faith into something less oppressive?

Do you take the position that outsiders have no role to play in other people's religions? And if so, would you still hold to that position if, say, members of a religion not your own in some way threatened your life and well-being and the lives and well-being of your co-religionists?

Yes and no, It all depends upon the situation and the people involved.

I try to stay away from absolutes, And saying that outsiders are always necessary/helpful would be a lie.

 

[sandandfoam]

Do you take the position that outsiders have no role to play in other people's religions?

Yes I do. It is the flip side of my view that other peoples religions should play no role in my government.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you see religion and government as needing or at least benefiting from a strong connection, Sandandfoam?

 

[sandandfoam]

So you see religion and government as needing or at least benefiting from a strong connection, Sandandfoam?

No. The exact opposite. There should be no religion in government. Religion shouldn't try and exert influence beyond its own adherents. Likewise religion should net have influence exerted from those on the outside.
For example. I think that a state should ensure that abortion is available to those who need it. I have no problem with the Catholic church laying the law down as far as their own members go and saying that abortion is wrong. I think it would be wrong to try and impose my values upon them . Equally I think it would be wrong for them to try and impose their values upon me.

 

[LuisDantas]

I wonder how you tell an outsider from an insider. I have long given up on perceiving any meaningful difference.

 

[sandandfoam]

I wonder how you tell an outsider from an insider. I have long given up on perceiving any meaningful difference.

When someone says, even in polite language, you have built your life around a backward superstition which is clearly nonsensical and are as such either (a) delusional or (b) stupid I would regard them as an outsider.