Religion vs. Religion

[ughaibu]

Christianity and islam, at least, have in common with the likes of EST and Landmark, that proselitising is a meritorious activity within the religion's philosophy, these cults are by nature competitive and I dont see any co-operative solution other than deprogramming the victims and allowing them access to a society based on commonality.

[Pyrotex]

I shall try very hard to stay on topic here. It IS a given that our major religions are irreconcilable and competitive. This problem wasn't so bad in the days of Rudyard Kipling because the non-Christian religions were still, in those days, geographically isolated from proper Europeans, and the few colonies of Christians in heathen lands were too small to generate much friction. And yet... RK had this to say on the issue:

 

Macdonough's Song

Whether the State can loose and bind

In Heaven as well as on Earth:

If it be wiser to kill mankind

Before or after the birth--

These are matters of high concern

Where State-kept schoolmen are;

But Holy State (we have lived to learn)

Endeth in Holy War.

...

Whatsoever, for any cause,

Seeketh to take or give

Power above or beyond the Laws,

Suffer it not to live!

Holy State or Holy King--

Or Holy People's Will--

Have no truck with the senseless thing.

Order the guns and kill!

...

 

Amazingly prescient for a poem written just after the turn of the 20th Century. But not an optimistic one. RK says (from his 19th Century vantage point) that all attempts to reconcile religious (Holy) extremism with tolerant society are doomed to failure. But he missed the lesson of the 16th Century.

 

The 80 Years War was the first and worst military conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism. Three generations of soldiers and civilians were slaughtered, reducing (what would become) Germany's population by a third. For both sides, there was NO compromise possible, because God does not compromise.

 

Nowadays, Cath and Prot get along side by side. They mostly ignore each other--AND--they both respect the power of Law. Neither holds themselves above the law, as RK warned us about. Both sides learned that all-out Holy War ends in slaughter and not much else. For four hundred years, this lesson has been imprinted in our culture, if not our DNA.

 

What we would like is for Islam and Christian, Islam and Jew to co-exist in a fashion similar to, say, the Baptist Church and the Unitarians. (I have been both). They certainly don't "love" each other, and potshots from the pulpit occur on a regular basis. But "Thou shalt not kill" trumps all theological arguments. That's the "line in the sand" that RK spoke of.

 

There needs to be an authority, agency, or "natural selection" mechanism (such as the wholesale slaughter of the 16th Century) that will deter or weed out those who cross that line. I would prefer not to depend on RK's solution.

[Buffy]

The only solutions are 1) to fight it out as some have seen fit to do evangelicals and muslims alike,

Don't you think that many religious leaders have taken an active stance that such fighting is counter-productive? While orthodoxy provides an argumentative basis for conflict, is it not a tremendous risk to advocate actual war, even when seen from the viewpoint of the interested parties? Isn't advocacy of war morally and popularly unsupportable? Don't you think that the raw images of war that are so much more visible in today's era of instant communications outstripping the viability of this viewpoint? What will happen to religions that see their membership declining due to unpopular beliefs/doctrine/truth? These are practical issues that all religions are being forced to at least think about if not actually address.

2) discuss the difference here and try to show which one is truly right by reasoning (against forum rules, and very difficult as many are unwilling to be reasonable, some would even say I myself am unreasonable).

No, that's not the topic here at all, because these differences are simply datapoints in the quest for *general approaches* to addressing the many conflicts that can occur. I'm asking you to stop looking at the trees and look at the forest, and I've scolded the atheists for the same tactic. Bogging down in the details is a clever way of avoiding the bigger picture, because as I say the bigger picture is scary (makes you think about the nature of truth and makes the atheists think about the role of religion in society, thus scaring the crap out of both of you).

3) wait for the God or the gods to solve the issue for us.

This is the same argument I scolded Turtle for above. In my book, you're Didi and he's Gogo. Hell may freeze over first. This is a complete and total cop-out.

These are the only three solutions I can see and none of them can be done here on Hypography.

Disagree with your premise and therefore your argument is moot.

 

I'm not telling you not to participate here, in fact, being a member of the "loyal opposition" that only pokes holes in the proposals that come up is quite useful to the discussion. If you don't have a proposal, that's cool. If you want to attack proposals, that's cool too. But saying "there can't be any proposals" is not cool, and will meet with some resistance here: for the atheists, that should not be a supportable statement, and from a religious viewpoint--as I said above--its not morally supportable either.

 

Intractable Problems 'R Us,

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

Christianity and islam, at least, have in common with the likes of EST and Landmark, that proselitising is a meritorious activity within the religion's philosophy, these cults are by nature competitive and I dont see any co-operative solution other than deprogramming the victims and allowing them access to a society based on commonality.

Speaking as an EST graduate, it behooves me (don't you just love that word?) to point out that EST doesn't consider those who resist proselitization as "heathen", "enemies" or "agents of Satan"; nor do they countenance the use of force or intimidation to get recruits.

 

Would that all religions were as tolerant of non-members. EST speaks not of recruiting, but of "enrolling". If religions did the same, what would we have?

 

For one, members would be encouraged to "enroll" new members for the good it would do the enroller, as well as the enrollee. The very process of enrollment reflects the integrity and respect-of-law of the organization. Conversion by the sword would be forbidden as inauthentic and lacking integrity. So would conversion by fear of infinite pain infinitely prolonged in Hell (or its equivalent).

 

For two, it would be understood that the survival of the religion depends on the real-world benefits it bestows on its members, not on dogmatic theology or threats of punishment. The religion survives in the free marketplace of ideas, not entrenched behind bayonets.

 

For three, members would be educated to see that "interpretation" (of scripture or of the organization itself) always takes place within the context of personal experience and culture. Unavoidable. Likewise, the organization's (religion's) interpretation of self and texts also is relative to culture and history. The instant an organization preaches otherwise, it begins a treacherous journey through fantasy. This may be a working definition of "evil".

[ughaibu]

Pyrotex: I'm not sure what distinction you're aiming at, beyond the social context. Accumulation of merit by acts of "enrolling" ensures the continuance of the meme.

[Boerseun]

In the political world, theocracies have (to a large extent) made way for democracies and the Rule of Law. People should similarly make a division between civil life and religious life, where matters deemed criminal are handled by the State, and certain rights are passed from the churches to the State. These rights, for instance, include the taking of a life. Although religious texts might instruct the believer to kill under certain circumstances (homosexuals to be stones, adulterers to be stoned, etc.), religions should accept the fact that the taking of a human life has been classified as illegal by the State, and the right to take life has been passed to the State under circumstances agreed upon by the electorate (capital punishment where applied, etc.).

 

This would lead to religions being able to exist side by side, when a division between civil life and religious life is achieved - but at the cost of eroding the specific religion's power; that power is to be ceded to the State.

 

Which brings me back to an old point I raised (much to Cwes's chagrin), that religions came to existence to fill the void where no strong central government existed. As secular governments and states evolve, they will assume more and more of the Church's powers until religions are merely an empty powerless shell. And this is necessary in order to keep them off each other's throats.

[Pyrotex]

In the political world, theocracies have (to a large extent) made made for democracies and the Rule of Law.

Hunh?

...Which brings me back to an old point I raised (much to Cwes's chagrin), that religions came to existence to fill the void where no strong central government existed. As secular governments and states evolve, they will assume more and more of the Church's powers until religions are merely an empty powerless shell. And this is necessary in order to keep them off each other's throats.

At first glance, you may be right. Weak civil power does leave a vacuum that 'sucks in' either the military, religion, economic radicals, or other extremists. People have to be governed, after all, or available resources are squandered and folks die en masse. Not good.

 

Chagrin is good. :hihi:

[cwes99_03]

I won't bother addressing most of that last post except to say its off-topic. To be different, I'll just call it a pot-kettle issue.

 

part of the issue is that according to most members on hypography, there are tens or even hundreds of "christian" religions, and many "muslim" factions, etc. So, I asked people to post whether or not some of these should even be considered religions at all, or if they really were human philosophies under the guise (name) of religion. This is already another thread and is still active, and for one to discuss this thread here, one must understand the difference between philosophy and religion.

 

Of course I consider the way that you frame this "philosophy vs. religion" issue as a perfect example of how religions dismiss their competition: "you practice a false Christianity" is one of the most common epithets used. But if it makes it easier for you, FORGET that one of the possible points of conflict is granting that there is more than one branch of Christianity, just focus on the conflicts with fundamentally different religions. Your tactic here simply seems to be to try to make the problem go away by saying "its all differences in human philosophy" which simply avoiding the issues associated with the abstract but demonstrably real notion that religions are in conflict and the results of that conflict have negative consequences that should be addressed by society, possibly to the *benefit* of religious belief.

 

Thus is your problem. You feel so highly of your own views that you dismiss others. By doing so you commit the same action that you are trying to find a solution to in this very thread. Remove the rafter from your own eye first before attempting to remove the straw from your neighbor's.

 

I will focus on this part for a while, because I think you miss the implications. I see no difference between those who in my view practice christianity falsely and those who practice other religions. They are equally false in my eye.

That being said, I believe that some have a right to call themselves Budhist, because they follow teachings handed down by the gods through Budha. Likewise, those who call themselves Muslims I would expect to follow the teachings of the Q'uran. I do not believe that people have a right to call themselves these things if they do not follow those teachings, and that has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

Additionally, if we can show that those who claim to practice a religion do not actually follow a religion, then we may have no more religion vs religion (if there isn't a holy writing demanding religion on religion violence.)

 

I will reserve quoting on the rest of your two posts for later, particularly on the cop out strawman-cop-out argument you made. I would like you to concentrate on this one first.

[Pyrotex]

Pyrotex: I'm not sure what distinction you're aiming at, beyond the social context. Accumulation of merit by acts of "enrolling" ensures the continuance of the meme.

Perhaps we should continue this in another thread. If you have more to say, let me know by PM and I will start the initiation of beginning the creation of a new thread.

 

Life is all about "enrolling". You want a girlfriend, lover, wife, husband? You have to know how to enroll someone. Want a better job? You have to enroll someone during the interview. Enrolling may continue the meme (I agree) but the process of learning how to enroll (with integrity) makes YOU a better, more successful person, and a bigger contributor to society.

 

Probably.

[cwes99_03]

Which brings me back to an old point I raised (much to Cwes's chagrin), that religions came to existence to fill the void where no strong central government existed. As secular governments and states evolve, they will assume more and more of the Church's powers until religions are merely an empty powerless shell. And this is necessary in order to keep them off each other's throats.

 

I will admit chagrin, and accept that you have a right to think in such a way, even though I feel you are wrong.

 

However, I do not see how you came back to the old point.

 

Furthermore, you are asking people to be religious whenever you feel they should be. You are suggesting that they have no right to be religious when their religion says they should be, but only when the state says they should be. Furthermore, you ask them to recognize that state as a higher authority than their god. This is perhaps your biggest mistake in that you assume your ideas (or your state's ideas) are higher and better than theirs. I'm not saying that they are or aren't, but you must realize that truly religious people obviously are going to disagree with you. They recognize God as a higher authority.

Likewise, the first century christians, particularly the apostles stood before the Jewish court when it demanded the stop preaching in the name of the resurrected Jesus. Their answer was to say that they must obey God's law rather than men's.

[Pyrotex]

Thus is your problem. You feel so highly of your own views that you dismiss others. By doing so you commit the same action that you are trying to find a solution to in this very thread. ....

My view is that Buffy's argument was laser-like in its clarity, purpose and aim. She laid out the goal of her thread succinctly, and demonstrated clearly why several common responses were evasions and off-topic. After careful reading, I see no evidence at all for your baseless accusation. She hasn't "dismissed" anybody, merely clarified the boundaries of the thread.

[Buffy]

Additionally, if we can show that those who claim to practice a religion do not actually follow a religion, then we may have no more religion vs religion (if there isn't a holy writing demanding religion on religion violence.)

Which is actually what I'm trying to get across here: if you define Religion as tightly as you do, we're left with almost no one who can "rightly" claim to be religious, which does indeed define away the problem. There certainly will be no religion vs. religion conflict if Mother Teresa and Mahatma Ghandi are the only truly religious people in the world. I believe that your definition of Religion is not widely accepted, and lack of refutation in existing forum threads is not validation of your argument. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but all I hear is that "there is no conflict between religions because where there is conflict it is due to 'false interpretation' of religion," including the notion that any interpretation of incitement to violence in the Koran or Bible or elsewhere is fallacious (and that is only one point of conflict). If that's your point, I get it, but at the same time, it simply ignores the issue to be addressed here which is what to do about very real conflict that is fomented by widely accepted and officially sanctioned religious leaders.

 

I appreciate your notes on this topic here, because I think they are excellent examples of how the conflict is carried out, but it doesn't really help propose anything. It might be helpful to simply replace all occurrences of "religion" with "human philosophy," but regardless of truth/falsity or superiority/inferiority of particular "religious beliefs" the standard definition in this thread of "Religion" is the more generally accepted and more expansive one. I know you believe this distinction has tremendous implications, and I'll suggest that bringing them up here might actually help: although many will disagree with your arguement that the "false beliefs" are "not religion", from your viewpoint, that may help you to contribute ideas that are in the theme of this thread: if they are false beliefs, solutions you propose *will not require* dismissal of the truth, only dismissal of the false religious interpretations. You might want to think about that a bit.

 

So if she floats, she's made of wood, and therefore, :hihi:

Buffy

[Boerseun]

...you are asking people to be religious whenever you feel they should be.

No. I'm simply saying (as a possible solution to the question posed by Buffy in the first post) that in order to get mutually exclusive religions to exist side-by-side, certain powers will have to be ceded by religious groups to the central secular state. This have already happened in the West, and the more power ceded, the more peaceful (relatively) the country becomes. The church doesn't have the right or the power to kill anymore. That right have been ceded to the State. The church cannot appoint the leader of the country anymore, that right have been ceded to the State via the electorate. And I'm willing to bet that we haven't seen the end of the erosion of the church's power.

You are suggesting that they have no right to be religious when their religion says they should be, but only when the state says they should be.

That is not what I've said at all. Don't put words in my mouth. The State is secular, only there to serve the needs of the people on a non-religious, objective, secular manner. Churches can go around being all 'religious' if they want, whenever they want. Up to the point of transgressing law (like stoning homosexuals/adulterers/adherents to competitive religions). And, yes - the Rule of Law is a higher authority than any church when it comes to civil matters.

Furthermore, you ask them to recognize that state as a higher authority than their god.

You missed the whole point of my post. I'm saying that people should make a conscious division between their personal lives which can be as religious as they want, and their civil lives where they might get to deal with other taxpayers of different religions.

This is perhaps your biggest mistake in that you assume your ideas (or your state's ideas) are higher and better than theirs.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm merely trying to come up with a possible solution to the problem Buffy stated. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

I'm not saying that they are or aren't, but you must realize that truly religious people obviously are going to disagree with you. They recognize God as a higher authority.

This is where we disagree. God might be a higher authority, but like the writers of the American Constitution realised in the 1700's, there is a time and a place for everything. There is no place for God in government, because we have, amongst others, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish taxpayers too. Similarly, this approach should be taken by religious folks, and a clear division should be made between private and public life in order to assure peace and good-neighbourlyness between different religions. The only alternative would be that the adherents of these different religions should either stay very far apart from each other (impossible in today's world), or they will evangelize each other to death.

Likewise, the first century christians, particularly the apostles stood before the Jewish court when it demanded the stop preaching in the name of the resurrected Jesus. Their answer was to say that they must obey God's law rather than men's.

...and see where it brought the world for the following 1,000 years:eek2:

[cwes99_03]

I didn't miss the point of you post. You missed the ramifications of your ideas on the religious community. I'm simply trying to point out those ramifications.

[cwes99_03]

.... a clear division should be made between private and public life in order to assure peace and good-neighbourlyness between different religions. The only alternative would be that the adherents of these different religions should either stay very far apart from each other (impossible in today's world), or they will evangelize each other to death.

 

...and see where it brought the world for the following 1,000 years:eek2:

 

You again fail to have the knowledge that allows you to see the whole picture. I believe you to be peering through a keyhole at a tiny portion of the picture on the other side of the door.

 

A clear division cannot be made. You ask these people to lead two lives. In one life, they live as though they are not a religious person. They follow the laws of a nation that allows for homosexuality, deceit, adultery, etc. Then in private they live a life of piety, "worshipping" a god that finds all of these things disgusting.

 

I have repeatedly pointed out, as have numerous others, including Pyro and Alexander, that those early christians did not fight wars, nor did they disobey human laws, nor did they do anything else illegal except when the government tried to pass laws stating that they couldn't worship the way they believed God intended them to.

To say "see where it brought the world" is attributing 1000 years of strife and war (actually nearly 2000 years) to those peaceful early christians who had nothing to do with the political affairs of the country, did not participate in war, and were completely peaceful in their efforts to teach what they believed to be the true religion. Thus you have little or no knowledge of that religion or time period.

 

Since then people have done things in the name of that religion that those 1st century christians practiced, even though those new practicers did not hold to the ways that were held by 1st century christians. Are those people christians or philosophers? This question must be asked and answered because you lump them all together.

 

I certainly don't want to be associated with the murderous Tutsi tribal men who killed Hutus, or Adolph Hitler, or any one of the various "christians" who assassinated, murdered, and lied throughout the past 2000 years. They are not christian people, they are false christians.

 

I will give you this much Boer. As a christian, I intend to practice as the Bible prescribes for a christian to act. As such, I am told to obey the government and it's laws, "paying back Caeser's things to Caeser" and "honor to those who call for honor" so long as it does not conflict with how God wishes to be worshipped. As far as murder, fighting in wars, and some other things go, I will do none because the Bible teaches that a true Christian will not do these things.

[Buffy]

And to take this out of the religious vs. non-religious context:

Furthermore, you ask them to recognize that state as a higher authority than their god.

I'm saying that people should make a conscious division between their personal lives which can be as religious as they want, and their civil lives where they might get to deal with other taxpayers of different religions.

What is being asked also is to place other Gods at a comparable level of authority. In line with what Boerseun is saying, its necessary for believers in different religions to figure out how to agree to disagree, and agree on the laws of the society. It is misleading to set up a conflict between the church and state here, when so many of our laws came from and continue to be influenced by religion.

 

Laws are not unfairly shufted upon the religious by evil atheists. We *all* contribute to defining the Laws. If we can agree to laws by *either* changing the law or changing the religious interpretation, then the law is not "above" God, it is in fact a personification of Her teachings. Those who insist that there is inherent disenfranchisement in agreeing that the Law is the final arbiter in societal decisions are engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

Us and Them,

Buffy

[Turtle]

My point being that this thread is about actually finding possible solutions or at least the catagorize some essential elements of the problems to be overcome.

Pushing people out of the box,

Buffy

 

 

...They follow the laws of a nation that allows for homosexuality, deceit, adultery, etc. Then in private they live a life of piety, "worshipping" a god that finds all of these things disgusting.

 

Here is a categorization of elemental differences which are problematic. CW is only concerned with his interpretation of his God, and discounts the others on no basis but that. What he calls 'adultery', Hindus may not; what he calls deceit Muslims may not; what he claims is condemnation of homosexuality, other religions may not.

Part of the solution in my view is vigorously challenging the hypocricy, circular reasoning, and irrational claims of religion as we encounter them on a case by case basis. :phones: