5 ms·

>> wholehearted conversion I'm not sure if you've looked around recently, but neither the Law nor fear of the Lord are exactly dominant features of 21st Centur

>> wholehearted conversion I'm not sure if you've looked around recently, but neither the Law nor fear of the Lord are exactly dominant features of 21st Century global civilization. I'm not speaking against the concept. But you could make a strong case that the groups most bound to that vision of the future are the extremists from the three Abrahamic religions, to whom life is to some greater or lesser extent disposable in service of "wholehearted conversion". One brought Law, one brought Salvation, and one brought Submission. The notion of monotheism was to destroy the old pagan gods and the wickedness that came wrapped in "superstition". We're back in the superstitious era. And in a superstitious era, conversion takes on the form conquest and in many cases murder and dehumanization. One has to be a zealot to believe that there is a God who wants humanity to follow certain mandates and rituals. The question you leave open is whether zealotry is justified, and I don't think you sufficiently answered that.

cgio 12d ago
As a non extremist believer, in the sense of believing extremely but not passionate about influencing others’ decisions, life is not disposable in service, “in service” is an available disposition for life. Take what you want of my statement, as I did of yours.
- noduerme 12d ago
  I get that. I'm Jewish. While I'm not an extreme believer, I believe in the framework for human life and dignity that the Torah creates. That Law isn't simply reducible to a "fear of God"; it's a living thing and a toolkit that teaches one generation after another methods to take wisdom and grounding from it and to seek something more, including the paths of rebels like Jesus and agnostics like Einstein. We don't try to convert people, or even get them to understand. What other people think isn't our responsibility. It's generally not "you must use these tools this way or you're wrong". It's "here's what we got from this". However, there is a fluctuating source of zealotry and revivalism in our own community that has parallels in Islam and in Christianity. The idea is a very ancient Israelite one, a desert religion tribal idea: There's one God and He's on Your Side. Everyone else is apostate, pagan. This took root way before there were Christian or Muslim concepts of Hell or Heaven. You don't even need those things to condemn other people. There is judgment in Judaism, it's just not generally on the level of converting or killing people who disagree with the beliefs. I'd submit that more people should be bothered by it if they have the idea that their belief is the only right one.
  - bcjdjsndon 12d ago
    > a toolkit that teaches one generation after another methods to take wisdom and grounding from it and to seek something more Its full of superstition from a couple thousand years ago.
    - noduerme 12d ago
      Sure, but what's nice about it is that you don't have to take it all literally. You can take the metaphors, and some of the prescriptions as to how to behave or to best deal with some situations. That's sort of what a lot of other religions are missing. The idea that it's not literal.
      - bcjdjsndon 12d ago
        > You can take the metaphors, and some of the prescriptions as to how to behave or to best deal with some situations. Then I've got better ideas. You kind of need the man in the sky or it's pointless noise.... Ie just a list of personal preferences invented by someone, followed by a bunch more. That's the number one reason god was invented.... To make it so peasants can't argue against the rules
        cgio 12d ago
        It looks like with religion not in the picture as predominantly as in the past, peasants still don’t argue against the rules. If religion is not needed for control, then your argument is weakened. It also looks like religion has been around before peasants and is present even in relatively flat hierarchy communities and proto-societies where control was less relevant or hard. Historically, power structures co-opt rather than invent religion.
        bcjdjsndon 10d ago
        > It looks like with religion not in the picture as predominantly as in the past, peasants still don’t argue against the rules. The priestly class has become less relevant, yes. I never said it was the only game in town, or the only way to justify force > It also looks like religion has been around before peasants and is present even in relatively flat hierarchy communities and proto-societies where control was less relevant or hard. I wouldn't equate that to today's religion. Pagan beliefs about the sun chasing the moon aren't what I'm talking about, I can forgive true misunderstandings about physics and astronomy etc... I'm talking about prohibitive moral codes originating from a ruling class concerning the domestic and mundane > Historically, power structures co-opt rather than invent religion. Couldn't have put it better myself.
TacticalCoder 12d ago
> But you could make a strong case that the groups most bound to that vision of the future are the extremists from the three Abrahamic religions, to whom life is to some greater or lesser extent disposable in service of "wholehearted conversion". I'm not a religious person but your message is very misleading and unfair to christians. Seriously: in the last 100 years how many terror attacks have been committed in the name of the christian god? Even if, in the past, we've had stuff like the crusades and the dark ages it's hard to deny that Jesus brings a message of peace and forgiveness. Save from a very few incidents with rare extremist christians fighting against abortion, the worst we've seen from christians are basically "people praying in their head in front of abortion clinics" (and the UK arrested christians for doing so btw: you're not free to "pray in your head" in front of an abortion clinic in the UK anymore). While we could talk about tens of thousands of deaths in terror attacks from religious cracknuts who love to kill as many non-believers as possible. "extremists from the three Abrahamic religions" doesn't hold up to scrutiny when christianity today has something like 0.01% of extremists while another religion, according to the latest published World FactBook from the CIA, has as many as 30% of its followers worldwide approving sharia laws.
- noduerme 12d ago
  I'm cushioning my statements as much as possible, if you read my other post here. I'm aware of where most of the zealotry comes from at the moment. I'm not trying to be unfair to Christians or to Christianity, which in large part has renounced violence as a means of converting people.
- alexgieg 12d ago
  Most Christians from before the early-20th century, would consider your interpretation of Christianity as mostly heretical. They very willingly forced Christianity into anyone who wasn't, as well as into anyone who wasn't of their particular branch. The text is the same, as is, presumably, the Jesus, so either they had understood it all wrong and current Christians understand it correctly, or the other way around. Which is it? IMHO, those are two distinct religions. Actual Christianity is the old one. The modern one isn't Christianity, but European Enlightenment in Christian clothing. And yes, the later is much better than the original. EE also provides Judaism clothing, Buddhist clothing, and other such clothings, which is why it works so well. In fact, it also has a relatively recently developed Islamic clothing, though adoption is still limited. Hopefully it'll expand over time.
logicchains 12d ago
>One has to be a zealot to believe that there is a God who wants humanity to follow certain mandates and rituals. There's a selection bias: the religions that survive today are the ones that had a reproductive advantage relative to other cultures. Natural selection applies to culture just like it does to genes. The same will hold in future as currently only the zealots have birthrates above replacement; the more secular people are, the fewer children they have, so the future belongs to the ones who believe God mandates they marry and multiply.
- noduerme 12d ago
  You're right, but the religious retort to that would be that secular people are miserable and therefore less likely to marry and reproduce. Whereas I'm not sure why that should be true. Sure, secular people don't have a command to reproduce, so maybe taking away the command structure just reduces the likelihood; and I guess that's the selection bias you're talking about. But prior to organized religion, people were reproducing like rabbits, so there's got to be something else.
  - mathgeek 12d ago
    > The religious retort to that… _A_ religious retort. Also it’s not a binary “lots of kids or no kids” spectrum.
    - TFNA 12d ago
      In many countries now, "over the replacement rate" or "under the replacement rate" is indeed a binary that closely tracks with religious observance. I would rather not out where I am, but here a couple having even a second child will cause some observers to at least ask if the family is part of a sect.
    - noduerme 12d ago
      Okay, _a_ religious retort. I feel like you focused on a nit instead of addressing my point?
deleted 12d ago
[deleted]
abrenuntio 12d ago
Disobedience to the Law and defiance of the Lord, in contrast to God's own faithfulness, are not just features of the 21st century, but of human history in its entirety. It is the theme of the Bible, right from the first pages. It ranges from simple stupidity and willfulness, "knuckleheaded" attempts to bring about God's promises on our own schedule using our own worldly means; to full-blown apostasy, idol worship and open rebellion; to the particularly sinister theme of a "counterfeit religion". All of it leads to bad outcomes, sometimes determining the rest of history, and none of it ever derails God's good promises coming to full fruition in their own time. To answer your question: in my understanding, Scripture sees a good-natured, obedient kind of zealotry in a positive light. But this zealotry rarely makes the headlines.
throw0101a 12d ago
> One has to be a zealot to believe that there is a God who wants humanity to follow certain mandates and rituals. Why does one 'have to be a zealot' to believe this?

cgio 12d ago

As a non extremist believer, in the sense of believing extremely but not passionate about influencing others’ decisions, life is not disposable in service, “in service” is an available disposition for life. Take what you want of my statement, as I did of yours.

noduerme 12d ago
I get that. I'm Jewish. While I'm not an extreme believer, I believe in the framework for human life and dignity that the Torah creates. That Law isn't simply reducible to a "fear of God"; it's a living thing and a toolkit that teaches one generation after another methods to take wisdom and grounding from it and to seek something more, including the paths of rebels like Jesus and agnostics like Einstein. We don't try to convert people, or even get them to understand. What other people think isn't our responsibility. It's generally not "you must use these tools this way or you're wrong". It's "here's what we got from this". However, there is a fluctuating source of zealotry and revivalism in our own community that has parallels in Islam and in Christianity. The idea is a very ancient Israelite one, a desert religion tribal idea: There's one God and He's on Your Side. Everyone else is apostate, pagan. This took root way before there were Christian or Muslim concepts of Hell or Heaven. You don't even need those things to condemn other people. There is judgment in Judaism, it's just not generally on the level of converting or killing people who disagree with the beliefs. I'd submit that more people should be bothered by it if they have the idea that their belief is the only right one.
- bcjdjsndon 12d ago
  > a toolkit that teaches one generation after another methods to take wisdom and grounding from it and to seek something more Its full of superstition from a couple thousand years ago.
  - noduerme 12d ago
    Sure, but what's nice about it is that you don't have to take it all literally. You can take the metaphors, and some of the prescriptions as to how to behave or to best deal with some situations. That's sort of what a lot of other religions are missing. The idea that it's not literal.
    - bcjdjsndon 12d ago
      > You can take the metaphors, and some of the prescriptions as to how to behave or to best deal with some situations. Then I've got better ideas. You kind of need the man in the sky or it's pointless noise.... Ie just a list of personal preferences invented by someone, followed by a bunch more. That's the number one reason god was invented.... To make it so peasants can't argue against the rules
      - cgio 12d ago
        It looks like with religion not in the picture as predominantly as in the past, peasants still don’t argue against the rules. If religion is not needed for control, then your argument is weakened. It also looks like religion has been around before peasants and is present even in relatively flat hierarchy communities and proto-societies where control was less relevant or hard. Historically, power structures co-opt rather than invent religion.
        bcjdjsndon 10d ago
        > It looks like with religion not in the picture as predominantly as in the past, peasants still don’t argue against the rules. The priestly class has become less relevant, yes. I never said it was the only game in town, or the only way to justify force > It also looks like religion has been around before peasants and is present even in relatively flat hierarchy communities and proto-societies where control was less relevant or hard. I wouldn't equate that to today's religion. Pagan beliefs about the sun chasing the moon aren't what I'm talking about, I can forgive true misunderstandings about physics and astronomy etc... I'm talking about prohibitive moral codes originating from a ruling class concerning the domestic and mundane > Historically, power structures co-opt rather than invent religion. Couldn't have put it better myself.

TacticalCoder 12d ago

> But you could make a strong case that the groups most bound to that vision of the future are the extremists from the three Abrahamic religions, to whom life is to some greater or lesser extent disposable in service of "wholehearted conversion". I'm not a religious person but your message is very misleading and unfair to christians. Seriously: in the last 100 years how many terror attacks have been committed in the name of the christian god? Even if, in the past, we've had stuff like the crusades and the dark ages it's hard to deny that Jesus brings a message of peace and forgiveness. Save from a very few incidents with rare extremist christians fighting against abortion, the worst we've seen from christians are basically "people praying in their head in front of abortion clinics" (and the UK arrested christians for doing so btw: you're not free to "pray in your head" in front of an abortion clinic in the UK anymore). While we could talk about tens of thousands of deaths in terror attacks from religious cracknuts who love to kill as many non-believers as possible. "extremists from the three Abrahamic religions" doesn't hold up to scrutiny when christianity today has something like 0.01% of extremists while another religion, according to the latest published World FactBook from the CIA, has as many as 30% of its followers worldwide approving sharia laws.

noduerme 12d ago
I'm cushioning my statements as much as possible, if you read my other post here. I'm aware of where most of the zealotry comes from at the moment. I'm not trying to be unfair to Christians or to Christianity, which in large part has renounced violence as a means of converting people.
alexgieg 12d ago
Most Christians from before the early-20th century, would consider your interpretation of Christianity as mostly heretical. They very willingly forced Christianity into anyone who wasn't, as well as into anyone who wasn't of their particular branch. The text is the same, as is, presumably, the Jesus, so either they had understood it all wrong and current Christians understand it correctly, or the other way around. Which is it? IMHO, those are two distinct religions. Actual Christianity is the old one. The modern one isn't Christianity, but European Enlightenment in Christian clothing. And yes, the later is much better than the original. EE also provides Judaism clothing, Buddhist clothing, and other such clothings, which is why it works so well. In fact, it also has a relatively recently developed Islamic clothing, though adoption is still limited. Hopefully it'll expand over time.

logicchains 12d ago

>One has to be a zealot to believe that there is a God who wants humanity to follow certain mandates and rituals. There's a selection bias: the religions that survive today are the ones that had a reproductive advantage relative to other cultures. Natural selection applies to culture just like it does to genes. The same will hold in future as currently only the zealots have birthrates above replacement; the more secular people are, the fewer children they have, so the future belongs to the ones who believe God mandates they marry and multiply.

noduerme 12d ago
You're right, but the religious retort to that would be that secular people are miserable and therefore less likely to marry and reproduce. Whereas I'm not sure why that should be true. Sure, secular people don't have a command to reproduce, so maybe taking away the command structure just reduces the likelihood; and I guess that's the selection bias you're talking about. But prior to organized religion, people were reproducing like rabbits, so there's got to be something else.
- mathgeek 12d ago
  > The religious retort to that… _A_ religious retort. Also it’s not a binary “lots of kids or no kids” spectrum.
  - TFNA 12d ago
    In many countries now, "over the replacement rate" or "under the replacement rate" is indeed a binary that closely tracks with religious observance. I would rather not out where I am, but here a couple having even a second child will cause some observers to at least ask if the family is part of a sect.
  - noduerme 12d ago
    Okay, _a_ religious retort. I feel like you focused on a nit instead of addressing my point?

deleted 12d ago

[deleted]

abrenuntio 12d ago

Disobedience to the Law and defiance of the Lord, in contrast to God's own faithfulness, are not just features of the 21st century, but of human history in its entirety. It is the theme of the Bible, right from the first pages. It ranges from simple stupidity and willfulness, "knuckleheaded" attempts to bring about God's promises on our own schedule using our own worldly means; to full-blown apostasy, idol worship and open rebellion; to the particularly sinister theme of a "counterfeit religion". All of it leads to bad outcomes, sometimes determining the rest of history, and none of it ever derails God's good promises coming to full fruition in their own time. To answer your question: in my understanding, Scripture sees a good-natured, obedient kind of zealotry in a positive light. But this zealotry rarely makes the headlines.

throw0101a 12d ago

> One has to be a zealot to believe that there is a God who wants humanity to follow certain mandates and rituals. Why does one 'have to be a zealot' to believe this?