Sometimes I struggle to put my thoughts in words and it helps to use analogies. Here is my view on religion. Please tell me what you think.

 

Two men walk down a road until they come to a fork. They have a map and after studying it, determine that one side leads to their destination, the other leads into a wilderness and disappears. Unfortunately, they can not agree on which path leads home and which leads to darkness. Both are sure their way is correct and both are distressed their friend may be taking the wrong path, so they begin trying to convince each other to take the other path.

 

Is this hatred? Is this concern?

 

Is this the ravings of someone who has had too much BGP P&R?

Sometimes I struggle to put my thoughts in words and it helps to use analogies. Here is my view on religion. Please tell me what you think.

 

Two men walk down a road until they come to a fork. They have a map and after studying it, determine that one side leads to their destination, the other leads into a wilderness and disappears. Unfortunately, they can not agree on which path leads home and which leads to darkness. Both are sure their way is correct and both are distressed their friend may be taking the wrong path, so they begin trying to convince each other to take the other path.

 

Is this hatred? Is this concern?

 

Is this the ravings of someone who has had too much BGP P&R?

For genuine people it is concern.

 

For others, they use religion as an excuse to express how much better they are then non-believers, or at least do so in a manner that is not conducive to changing someone's mind.

 

Political conservatives do the same thing- we poorly present our ideas. Same way with the way some religious people try to teach God's word- they do it in such a condescending and condemning method, that no one wants to respond to it.

Disagreement and trying to convince is one thing, physically fighting, manipulating, slandering, and misrepresenting the opposed is hatred.

 

In most religious arguments I see underling causes, mostly economic and racial, and very little genuine concern about saving the other side. It would be nice if that were the case but I think it is a false justification.

Sometimes I struggle to put my thoughts in words and it helps to use analogies. Here is my view on religion. Please tell me what you think.

 

Two men walk down a road until they come to a fork. They have a map and after studying it, determine that one side leads to their destination, the other leads into a wilderness and disappears. Unfortunately, they can not agree on which path leads home and which leads to darkness. Both are sure their way is correct and both are distressed their friend may be taking the wrong path, so they begin trying to convince each other to take the other path.

 

Is this hatred? Is this concern?

 

Is this the ravings of someone who has had too much BGP P&R?

 

There is a problem with your premise. Your premise assumes that there is only one path home. Why could they not both be right? Or, what if they hae a different opinion of what home is? One may think it is someplace far far away where everything is changed the other may think it is right here and it is his or her duty to do the changing so that THIS PLACE looks more and more like home.

 

And lastly, both or building their opinion on Faith, which means that they cannot KNOW what is the right path but they trust they are right. The problem is that some of those traveling down the path are so adamant that they appear to be saying to the others - you are a heretic and a heathen because you are not as smart or as right as me.

If you physically beat up your friend to drag him down your path, that is hatred. If you tell him he's going the wrong way, and that there will be nothing you can do for him when his skin his seared with burning pustules from the hellfire and brimstone, that is concern.

The problem is that some of those traveling down the path are so adamant that they appear to be saying to the others - you are a heretic and a heathen because you are not as smart or as right as me.

I agree with what you are saying here.

 

But the point of this thread (to me atleast) is not how to obtain salvation. Here is a theoretical:

 

Say I believe that my way of living is the best and only way to get to heaven. (try to put aside your disagreement with that statement for this hypothetical). Am I being hateful by trying to convert others? You may think that I am wrong, but is it hate that drives me? If I TRULY believe that my way is the only way, and I only want the good for others, than it is my duty to try to lead others on the path.

 

I will elaborate if I am being unclear.

Disagreement and trying to convince is one thing, physically fighting, manipulating, slandering, and misrepresenting the opposed is hatred.

 

In most religious arguments I see underling causes, mostly economic and racial, and very little genuine concern about saving the other side. It would be nice if that were the case but I think it is a false justification.

 

 

It's two guys walking down a pathway to home, RRR. You all are adding things that are not there. Just two guys trying to get home.

If you physically beat up your friend to drag him down your path, that is hatred. If you tell him he's going the wrong way, and that there will be nothing you can do for him when his skin his seared with burning pustules from the hellfire and brimstone, that is concern.

 

 

I was just going to have him lost in the woods, but that'll work.

There is a problem with your premise. Your premise assumes that there is only one path home. Why could they not both be right? .

 

 

My premise is that they both believe there is only one way. You all are trying to bring in the inquisition and crusades and every old lady who scared you with Hell.

 

My premise is simply two guys trying to get home. Hopefully together.

Disagreement and trying to convince is one thing, physically fighting, manipulating, slandering, and misrepresenting the opposed is hatred.

 

In most religious arguments I see underling causes, mostly economic and racial, and very little genuine concern about saving the other side. It would be nice if that were the case but I think it is a false justification.

 

I have to agree.:thumb:

It's two guys walking down a pathway to home, RRR. You all are adding things that are not there. Just two guys trying to get home.

The problem is the analogy omits realities of hate regarding religion. In the specific case, it is just concern, but that case doesn't exists for the issue you are comparing it to.

The problem is the analogy omits realities of hate regarding religion. In the specific case, it is just concern, but that case doesn't exists for the issue you are comparing it to.

 

Are you saying love and concern don't exist in a religious context? Really, why would I hate someone who chooses the other path? I may be sad, concerned, disappointed, alarmed, indifferent, or even angry, but if I hate him, I'm glad he's going the other path and I hope he gets lost forever.

 

Doesn't make sense. Maybe what you all are describing is not really a religion but simply an excuse.

Are you saying love and concern don't exist in a religious context? Really, why would I hate someone who chooses the other path? I may be sad, concerned, disappointed, alarmed, indifferent, or even angry, but if I hate him, I'm glad he's going the other path and I hope he gets lost forever.

 

Doesn't make sense. Maybe what you all are describing is not really a religion but simply an excuse.

Lets rewind a second

 

You said the story is an analogy of your belief on religion.

 

"Both are sure their way is correct and both are distressed their friend may be taking the wrong path, so they begin trying to convince each other to take the other path.

Is this hatred? Is this concern?"

 

In this specific example, it clearly is concern, there is no hatred involved.

 

The problem is that this analogy, is NOT analogous the the situation of hatred in religion. Meaning that the answer derived from this situation can not be compared to religion and what is religious hate. What your analogy does is tries to exclude the realities of hate on the basis that the person has good intentions.

In this specific example, it clearly is concern, there is no hatred involved.

 

The problem is that this analogy, is NOT analogous the the situation of hatred in religion. Meaning that the answer derived from this situation can not be compared to religion and what is religious hate. What your analogy does is tries to exclude the realities of hate on the basis that the person has good intentions.

 

 

I tried to reduce religion to it's purest form. Good intentions has nothing to do with it. I fail to see the hate. Disagreeing on the path does not and should not define hatred.

Disagreeing on the path does not and should not define hatred.

Agreed, but I don't think when people make accusations of hate they are referring to such a scenario.