Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, what he is saying that people that believe in one from of God, don't usually believe in all the others. Like you may believe that the trinity in catholicism is the god. Or you may believe that Egypt's Ra is a god. Or Allah. But usually not all.
After I have described the theological implications of others gods or spiritual beliefs, of devout and evangelical Christians', being manifestations of the same God, not a single person has disagreed with me. OP, from my perspective, is explicitly wrong. 🙂
Edit - I also think people go out of their way to polarize religious or a-religious beliefs when it is not intellectually, philosophically, theologically, or theosophically sound. I will be the first to admit that Christians are usually the offenders, in this case.
I think the people that frequent this forum are not a sample representing the masses. Generally if you ask "So you think Zeus exists and actually did what he is said to have done" you will get a "no", probably even here.
In abstract terms we like to agree "yeah, one life force, god, universe" but when it comes to specifics, not so much.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, you think peacefully convincing individuals of a group that their believes were incorrect is similar to what authoritarian regimes do?
Identical? No. Similar? The intellectual violence of imposing ones culture to others for the sake of a theory has already wrecked havoc in the 20th century.
Originally posted by Bentley
Identical? No. Similar? The intellectual violence of imposing ones culture to others for the sake of a theory has already wrecked havoc in the 20th century.
Ridiculous! The similarity is so superficial you may as well say they are similar because they are both comprised of people. Organisations as I describe it are vital to, and encouraged in, democratic discourse, comparing them to authoritarianism is silly hyperbole.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Ridiculous! The similarity is so superficial you may as well say they are similar because they are both comprised of people. Organisations as I describe it are vital to, and encouraged in, democratic discourse, comparing them to authoritarianism is silly hyperbole.
If you're imposing a mindset into the population because of some abstract theory, you're not really using democracy. Otherwise people would get to choose their own groups of influence, religious or not. How are you convincing them again?
Also, if people were as evolved as you present it when enforcing laws and making choices, religion wouldn't be a problem anyway.
If you are using force rather than reason, then yes. However nowhere did I say anything like that. I said "convince". Your comparison with authoritarianism is completely unfounded.
And even if you believed that, you would have to apply it to every other group as well. People who want better roads, people who want health care, people who want tax breaks...
If anything the part that Astner proposes is the more authoritarian part, working on policy change (but even then it is a cornerstone of free democracy). I just said that it can also be worthwhile to convince people of your beliefs.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If you are using force rather than reason, then yes. However nowhere did I say anything like that. I said "convince". Your comparison with authoritarianism is completely unfounded.
Convincing is fine and dandy, but politics aren't exclusively speech, there is also action. Without action you'll always be limited by consensual solutions, which can be limited in scope. When I say action I'm not talking about revolution either, but to assume a democracy can work without some kind of active participation from the population is naïve -for me-.
But not to stray from the point, I don't believe you can tackle a "problem" such as religious influence with a top down perspective. Laws don't change how people live, they catch up with the reality of each population after years of transformation. To impose an uncalled change is similar to the reasoning behind authoritarian regimes.