alright, time for another religion thread, and its the burr0 bringing it to you!

so, here's my thought: do major religions have a natural course that they tend to follow? What do I mean? Well, here's the course I am suggesting...

You've got the initial period of being an unknown, during which time a lot of your holy texts and traditions are established. During this phase, you are persecuted heavily.

Then you go into an expansion phase, where you are spreading your religion. This phase sees your followers as fairly proseperous.

Then, you go into a super fervent phase, what we might describe as radical extremists today, only its not a few people who are fervent. Rather, you have governments of countries being completely based on the religion. The religion is the law. During this time, you likely have extremely reduced tolerance for other religions, and you likely have most of the really heinous acts and atrocities commited in the name of the religion. Holy wars, jihads, etc. You also might have decreased cultural and scientific expansion as well.

After this period of fervor, the religion gradually becomes more tolerant and "progressive." The religion maintains its tenents and beliefs, but the message stops being "do this or else" and starts becoming "hey, this is a good way to live." the religion becomes more friendly. you probably resume your cultural and scientific expansion and "exploration," and governments based on that religion tend to fall away.

What do yall think? does it make sense? if it does, does this idea explain the current trend in Islamic terrorism, namely that militant islamic extremist are little more than today's version of the Crusaders or the Jewish destruction of Jericho and other cities?

12/23/2005 12:45:41 AM

I don't think most religions in the world are on that tolerant and progressive side yet. Throw a gay, non-Christian (probably a good bit of us Christians too), liberal, or someone who doesn't believe the world is 6,000 years old in front of Falwell and see what happens. Take a veil off a woman in Riyadh and see what happens. I could go on, but I think you get my point. I don't think a religion as a whole can be on one set level of your course. I do think that a majority of followers in a religion could.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 12:56 AM. Reason : didn't sound right]

12/23/2005 12:55:38 AM

there are entire huge demoninations of christians who would have no problem with a liberal, gay person that doesnt think the world is 6000 years old

12/23/2005 1:10:55 AM

I don't think that makes sense. I think it seems to make a little sense, because the main religions (except Hindus... you never hear of anything violent they do) grew up in the same era, and followed that trend. But, that trend was caused by technology, not some natural life span.

If you look at new religions today (like scientology, and other new-age esque ones), they are not really violent or persecuted in the way classical religions were. From here on out, no true religions are going to pop up and go on any crusades. The existing religions are mostly going to be refined to the point they are mostly insignificant.

12/23/2005 1:12:50 AM

^^What I meant is part of that last two sentences I typed. There are many who would condemn, and many who would accept. I know that if someone, like I described came into the church I go to from time to time, then they would probably be looked at differently. As a Christian and liberal, I know that alone angers some in the church (but like I said, not all). I agree with what you're saying with many denominations being more accepting. But it's not a universal, which is what I was trying to say.

12/23/2005 1:35:22 AM

its not christianity's fault you go to a crappy church

12/23/2005 1:37:16 AM

^ Who's fault is it? Christianity suffers for it.

12/23/2005 1:40:41 AM

the people in your church, you included

12/23/2005 1:42:57 AM

The main monotheistic religons dont even follow those trends, just christianity.

Mohammed had built a nation before his death so islam hardly falls under the category of being persecuted heavily in its inital phase.

And the jews have been persecuted heavily many, many times since their initial phase.



[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 1:51 AM. Reason : ]

12/23/2005 1:50:17 AM

Quote :

"the people in your church, you included "

I disagree. I do agree that a single entity known as Christianity can't be blamed, but that's because it doesn't exist. Christianity has no one specific meaning, which is its own fault (but it applies to most religions too). It's an inherent flaw in the system. If it doesn't have 1 absolutely right meaning (by design, I would guess), then you can't solely hold individuals who are promoting a "wrong" reason responsible. Some of the blame goes to the general organization of Christianity itself.

12/23/2005 2:36:08 AM

no, my correct view is right

12/23/2005 12:01:25 PM

I think I'll be suprised the day aaronburro makes a post thats at least 45% true.

12/23/2005 12:02:39 PM

one should try and look at the differences between the Abrahamic religions and those of the East

12/23/2005 12:10:49 PM

differences in the "natural course" that is...

12/23/2005 12:11:22 PM

All religions are based on some kind of book/teaching which was in turn conjured up by one/group of us humans who wanted more attention. That's a crude explanation of what I think about all religions.

12/23/2005 12:12:47 PM

^ haha, the Chit Chat version of theology, "they're all just attention wh0res"

12/23/2005 12:15:24 PM

How can God be a human? It is a paradox. God has to be a superior being. Definitely not a human.

12/23/2005 12:18:07 PM

^ don't tell that to Vishnu

12/23/2005 12:22:56 PM

well, Vishnu isn't human.

12/23/2005 12:23:35 PM

his incarnations were

12/23/2005 12:24:32 PM

you know what i've learned from the history channel

that the israelites were some BAD MOTHERFUCKERS

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

12/23/2005 12:24:42 PM

^ wrong thread

12/23/2005 12:24:59 PM

well, incarnations are a different thing. I don't really support any religion, but to me Hiinduism makes much more sense because a Hindu God is basically a human form re-incarnation of an "alien" or super-natural life form. All the other religions are basically teachings by a HUMAN, and they consider a human to be god. I don't agree with that.

12/23/2005 12:26:34 PM

oh

my bad

what i meant say was that the israelites and their GOD were some BAD MOTHERFUCKERS

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

12/23/2005 12:26:48 PM

^^ sure, its not like you're biased or anything

12/23/2005 12:28:14 PM

Like I said, I don't respect the idea of worshipping another Human being. That's preposterous.

12/23/2005 12:29:22 PM

i do

i practice ancestor worship

12/23/2005 12:30:14 PM

The description looks like an attempt to make generalizations that could be applied to christianity and islam. There are many many religions that don't fall in line.

Quote :

"except Hindus... you never hear of anything violent they do"

Except, oh I don't know, kill Gandhi.

12/23/2005 12:30:50 PM

ahahhaha

nice

12/23/2005 12:31:30 PM

the dude that killed Gandhi was not a Hindu

12/23/2005 12:31:45 PM

Hinduism is based on some teachings given during time of war. But I guess they have a better understanding of when to wage a Holy war than some lunatics in this age.

12/23/2005 12:32:13 PM

gargs, you really should take REL 331

12/23/2005 12:33:15 PM

why don't you give a synopsis?

12/23/2005 12:33:42 PM

I thought humans were created in the image of God.

My religous knowledge is very limited but don't christian-jewish-islamic discriptions of God very from Him having very human qualities to Him being an all knowing diety?

12/23/2005 12:35:34 PM

d00d.

Nathuram Godse was a Hindu. WTF are you talking ?

12/23/2005 12:37:06 PM

^ ok my bad

12/23/2005 12:39:54 PM

nm.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ^^]

12/23/2005 12:39:55 PM

Gandhi divided India killing more a million people but we aren't talking about gandhi here.

We're talking about worshipping other humans.

12/23/2005 12:40:52 PM

Merry Christmas nerrbody...

later

12/23/2005 12:42:26 PM

Quote :

"The description looks like an attempt to make generalizations that could be applied to christianity and islam."

yes, those are the main ones I was drawing upon, as well as judasim. They are the ones I know the most about "historically." I posited the question as "what do you think of..." though, instead of "hey guys, check out what I just figured out!" I tried to make the "course" seem longer and have more parts, but really it boils down to "do religions tend to head towards an almost fanatical and tyrannical form of intolerance and then veer away from that into a time of tolerance which winds up "not ending."

the evidence for this general form seems to be convincing on the surface, especially for major religions. Then again, major religions end up being used as the basis for governments, which allows for extreme perversion of the faith and message, which can easily lead to intolerance as those in power use the religion to manipulate the masses.

Minor religions, however, are not are likely to reach such a stage where the religion can be used for manipulation. Thus, maybe its not actually the religion that matters (religion in general, not "they have this religion instead of that religion"), but rather that human nature is what is leading to the intolerance, and religion is just a tool that makes the intolerance so much easier to foment.

Or, maybe it is religion, and there's just something I am overlooking... thus the reason I started the thread

I am actually now inclined to look at this topic from the perspective of "humans use religion as an instrument for attaining power." Doing so might naturally lead to intolerance, though. Or, is intolerance something that humans just naturally "like."

12/23/2005 3:37:56 PM

Quote :

"but really it boils down to "do religions tend to head towards an almost fanatical and tyrannical form of intolerance and then veer away from that into a time of tolerance which winds up "not ending.""

Ebb and flow. I think that the societal circumstances at the time are the driving factor.

12/23/2005 4:30:04 PM

This is somewhat unrelated, but it turns out there's only four Shakers left in the world, and they're all pretty old now.

12/23/2005 6:43:44 PM

haha
THATS A SURPRISE

12/23/2005 7:06:27 PM