Religious Conflict

[nebulaJP]

Out of these three, what is religious division, conflict or violence about mainly and why?

Edit: Or I guess "humans' relationship to it" for A.

 

[Arthra]

Out of these three, what is religious division, conflict or violence about mainly and why?

Edit: Or I guess "humans' relationship to it" for A.

My view is that much of the conflict comes about from those who try to exploit religion for their advantage in some way... and seek to use it to control people.

 

[nebulaJP]

I vote for B. A and C are derived from B. What you believe to be factual history greatly influences how you conceive of God, your relationship to God and also your worship or religious practices. If others adopt your view of history, chances are they will also adopt your conception of God and practices.

 

[awitch]

B is true, but staking a claim on history is a means to an end; an attempt to establish credibility when it doesn't exist for outrageous claims about the nature of god.

I think much of the violence and conflict is the result of exclusivity. The "I'm right and everyone else is wrong and probably evil" mindset is a big culprit. These people are most likely the ones who want to impose their beliefs on others.

 

[nebulaJP]

B is true, but staking a claim on history is a means to an end; an attempt to establish credibility when it doesn't exist for outrageous claims about the nature of god.

I think much of the violence and conflict is the result of exclusivity. The "I'm right and everyone else is wrong and probably evil" mindset is a big culprit. These people are most likely the ones who want to impose their beliefs on others.

I think if there were only the two components A and C, there wouldn't be as much exclusivism in religion. I can personally accept that two different religions with radically different conceptions of the divine are each focused on different aspects of the same deity, even if they seem to contradict each other on the surface. But when it comes to beliefs about history there is less of a grey area. It's just a yes or no question, "did this happen or not?".

 

[ViaCrucis]

Violence usually results because of power. I want power so I'm going to take it, or I have power and I don't want you to have it.

Combine religion with power, and religious violence is probably not far behind.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dlamberth]

I'd say "ego". None of the options apply so I didn't vote.

 

[nebulaJP]

Violence usually results because of power. I want power so I'm going to take it, or I have power and I don't want you to have it.

Combine religion with power, and religious violence is probably not far behind.

-CryptoLutheran

It's not always violence though. Sometimes it's just a sense of "us vs. them" or division. What is a Christian more likely to think when he hears the word "Hindu," "other" or "fellow person of faith?" Probably the former. It's even true when the conception of deity is identical, such as in the case of the division between Catholic & (Trinitarian) Protestant.

 

[LoAmmi]

Probably the former. It's even true when the conception of deity is identical, such as in the case of the division between Catholic & (Trinitarian) Protestant.

In my experience, people react worse to those who are close to their beliefs but differ on major points rather than people who are part of belief systems alien to their own. Christian and Muslim, for example.

 

[awitch]

I'd say "ego". None of the options apply so I didn't vote.

Not to brag (well, maybe a little) but in the Neopagan circles, there isn't much conflict amongst ourselves even with large differences in beliefs. We have soft polytheists, hard polytheists, and pantheists here yet there is no name calling or cries of "not being a true Neopagan", or even "I'm right and you're wrong".

I've heard of witch wars but I suspect that's just a lot of childish, blustering ego. I think we like to distinguish ourselves from New Agers, Satanists, and "fluffy bunnies", but it's not like we don't get along just based on belief.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've heard of witch wars

Just saying, but Witch Wars would be an awesome name for a movie or video game.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[nebulaJP]

In my experience, people react worse to those who are close to their beliefs but differ on major points rather than people who are part of belief systems alien to their own. Christian and Muslim, for example.

This has been my experience too. I think it's because 1. You have to understand something before you can have huge a problem with it and most people only have a good grasp of a single religion, usually the one that is most popular in their society. So they react to different versions of their religion more than they do to other religions because they understand the different version of their own religion better than they do the alien religion. And 2. People don't like other people giving their religion a bad name. For example, a liberal, universalist Christian would probably be more opposed to a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian than to a Buddhist or Muslim because of the way the fundamentalist represents Christianity to the world, which is not how the liberal Christian wants Christianity portrayed.

However, when people do understand something from an alien religion then perhaps they react to THAT worse, e.g. Catholic Spaniard reaction to Mesoamerican human sacrifice in the 16th century.

Edit: I'm not sure if you meant Christian and Muslim are close belief systems or alien. I was going with alien for this post, but maybe you meant close as in monotheistic, Abrahamic etc.

 

[nebulaJP]

In my experience, people react worse to those who are close to their beliefs but differ on major points rather than people who are part of belief systems alien to their own. Christian and Muslim, for example.

Yeah, Christians and Muslims are probably more strongly opposed to each other than either of those groups is to say practitioners of a Native American religion.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Not to brag (well, maybe a little) but in the Neopagan circles, there isn't much conflict amongst ourselves even with large differences in beliefs. We have soft polytheists, hard polytheists, and pantheists here yet there is no name calling or cries of "not being a true Neopagan",

No true pagan!

 

[lupusFati]

Humanity's own fell nature is responsible. Therefore, all three are separate parts of the main cause, being symptoms.

 

[SanFrank]

Out of these three, what is religious division, conflict or violence about mainly and why?

Edit: Or I guess "humans' relationship to it" for A.

i didnt see my choice so no vote. Violence is barbaric whether religious or not.

In my experience, people react worse to those who are close to their beliefs but differ on major points rather than people who are part of belief systems alien to their own. Christian and Muslim, for example.

i never viewed differing christian denominations with disdain but perhaps my exposure to such differences has been limited. I have a good grasp of jewish and muslim religions and i sympathize with one and feel disgust towards the other. I could care less what christian denomination you belong to so long as Christ is your pastor.

 

[lupusFati]

Violence is at times necessary. I will not deny it is barbaric, and obviously it should only be used as a last resort when all other avenues have failed.

But to deny it is to deny everything we have because of it. Better to accept it, rather than deny it.
I am not encouraging people to go out and destroy each other. I am merely saying we should accept our nature, and accept that because of violence we enjoy certain liberties and, oh, the existence of most countries if not all.

But if your signature is any indication, I should not have to tell you these things. You more than likely have realized them to some extent, at least.

 

[Zoness]

I think his signature mostly comes from the fact that there are people who hold beliefs as strongly as he does, but he doesn't agree with them.

I'd vote C, at least that's the most visible albeit ancillary. Throughout history religions have been used as tools of war and if you can SEE people doing strange things for their gods, what better weapon?

 

[SanFrank]

Violence is at times necessary. I will not deny it is barbaric, and obviously it should only be used as a last resort when all other avenues have failed.

But to deny it is to deny everything we have because of it. Better to accept it, rather than deny it.
I am not encouraging people to go out and destroy each other. I am merely saying we should accept our nature, and accept that because of violence we enjoy certain liberties and, oh, the existence of most countries if not all.

But if your signature is any indication, I should not have to tell you these things. You more than likely have realized them to some extent, at least.

Ok. I understand what youre saying.

Violence is permissible for christians but it may not be advantageous to the situation. 1Cor 6.12 Most christians and nonchristians dont agree with that statement however.

 

[lupusFati]

Ok. I understand what youre saying.

Violence is permissible for christians but it may not be advantageous to the situation. 1Cor 6.12 Most christians and nonchristians dont agree with that statement however.

I don't care about most Christians and non-Christians so it works out. Let's face it: most of humanity, if not all, is absolutely pathetic. But I do agree on this. It's why I mentioned it as a last resort; it's not always in our best interests to be violent, but sometimes it is necessary to accomplish some end.

I think his signature mostly comes from the fact that there are people who hold beliefs as strongly as he does, but he doesn't agree with them.

How biased. I can't speak for this person of course since I have yet to see them form some sort of argument, but the signature is the truth as I've also discovered it. The only difference is that I no longer care.

If anything, the signature is insightful as to the nature of these forums. So I respect them for telling it how it is, despite not sharing in those beliefs anymore.