• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Exclusivism

SoliDeoGloria

Active Member
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusivism :

Exclusivism is the practice of being exclusive; mentality characterized by the disregard for opinions and ideas other than one's own, or the practice of organizing entities into groups by excluding those entities which possess certain traits (for an opposite example, see essentialism).
(The part of this definition I want to concentrate on is the underlined part)

What is generally wrong with this? Despite claims, everyone with cognitive abilities practices this in one form or another. We practice it in every day life in the simplest form of identifying one's self by name and in a more complex form of practicing one's religion or beliefs and claiming them to exclusivate ourselves from those who do not share the same beliefs. Ofcourse, I would argue that when this is practiced with a hatefull intent(racism, sexism, etc.) it should be dealt with as it deserves, but to claim that all exclusivism is wrong is not only directly self contradicting in the sense that the one making the statement exclusivates themselves from those who practice exclusivism, but it is a denial of reality and individualism. Exclusivism can be practiced without hate and is not in itself generally wrong.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
SoliDeoGloria said:
Exclusivism can be practiced without hate and is not in itself generally wrong.

The problem I have with the concept is that it rarely is practiced without hate. The concept of religious exclusivism seems to more often than not breed a hateful and/or self-righteous attitude towards anyone else who doesn't agree with you. I can count on one hand the number of Christians I've met (in person) who believe in this concept that have not been nasty to me about it. Personally I just think it's pretty rude to assume on a religious level that your way is the best way for every single person in the world.
 

SoliDeoGloria

Active Member
The problem I have with the concept is that it rarely is practiced without hate

While this is indeed true, I would personally advoctate a "let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater" cliche here.

The concept of religious exclusivism seems to more often than not breed a hateful and/or self-righteous attitude towards anyone else who doesn't agree with you. I can count on one hand the number of Christians I've met (in person) who believe in this concept that have not been nasty to me about it. Personally I just think it's pretty rude to assume on a religious level that your way is the best way for every single person in the world.

The opposite extreme of this is to try to imply that all religions are the same which is a denial of reality.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
SoliDeoGloria said:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusivism :

Exclusivism is the practice of being exclusive; mentality characterized by the disregard for opinions and ideas other than one's own, or the practice of organizing entities into groups by excluding those entities which possess certain traits (for an opposite example, see essentialism).
(The part of this definition I want to concentrate on is the underlined part)

What is generally wrong with this? Despite claims, everyone with cognitive abilities practices this in one form or another. We practice it in every day life in the simplest form of identifying one's self by name and in a more complex form of practicing one's religion or beliefs and claiming them to exclusivate ourselves from those who do not share the same beliefs. Ofcourse, I would argue that when this is practiced with a hatefull intent(racism, sexism, etc.) it should be dealt with as it deserves, but to claim that all exclusivism is wrong is not only directly self contradicting in the sense that the one making the statement exclusivates themselves from those who practice exclusivism, but it is a denial of reality and individualism. Exclusivism can be practiced without hate and is not in itself generally wrong.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria




Bold emphasis mine.



I part ways with you on this one, Soli. I can see where you are going with this, however, this view only supports placing boundaries on our true essential nature, and places more emphasis on what discriminates us than on what binds us together. The more I am allowed to see *you* as being different than *me*, the further away from enlightenment I become. This view may seem harmless, but it leads to suffering.




Peace,
Mystic
 

SoliDeoGloria

Active Member
I part ways with you on this one, Soli. I can see where you are going with this, however, this view only supports placing boundaries on our true essential nature, and places more emphasis on what discriminates us than on what binds us together. The more I am allowed to see *you* as being different than *me*, the further away from enlightenment I become. This view may seem harmless, but it leads to suffering

(bold emphasis is mine)

And yet look at how you start this statement out.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
 

BrandonE

King of Parentheses
SoliDeoGloria said:
I part ways with you on this one.
(bold emphasis is mine)

And yet look at how you start this statement out.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
That's a clever semantic point, but what does it MEAN? I'm with MaddLlama on this. It's a matter of the tenor of execution. I agree that we all participate in exclusivism. The question is, is it done with kind regard for those excluded or not? "Loving thy neighbor" is the most important part. To paraphrase Paul, "Though you belong to the right sect, but have not love, it does not matter."
 

SoliDeoGloria

Active Member
That's a clever semantic point, but what does it MEAN? I'm with MaddLlama on this. It's a matter of the tenor of execution. I agree that we all participate in exclusivism. The question is, is it done with kind regard for those excluded or not? "Loving thy neighbor" is the most important part. To paraphrase Paul, "Though you belong to the right sect, but have not love, it does not matter."

Well, as I stated in the OP
Ofcourse, I would argue that when this is practiced with a hatefull intent(racism, sexism, etc.) it should be dealt with as it deserves,
Besides that, I must confess that I like your execution of the context of 1 Cor. 13. well done.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
 
Individualism is not a truth. We are all the same. All of the world religions are essentially at the mystic core the same. We all want the same thing. We are defined not by names, creeds, sexs, or colors. We are defined by the prevading conciousness.
 
God is imagination. He is the product of our dreams- of our desires for something better. For something like us, but better than us. We are God, We are Christ, We are Muhammad, we are Buddha. The ability to love and show compassion is truth. Without these fundamental characteristics the human body is only a vessel for tyranny. Without love we are nothing we are the void.
But while we wait in the illusion the altruism that are heaven and hell exist, because we are living both. We are what our fortune and will power make us. The most important human ability is the ability to make what was into what is. Whether it be our over stimulated minds into peaceful meditation or the ability to change iron into steel. Create new atoms new formulas in particle accelerators. The illusion is a phenomena without it we wouldn’t be able to do to think to be. Its necessary but not to reach a new life nirvana, heaven, or be reconnected somewhere else, but to do our best while we can. For good and evil will return to the void without mind.
But the key is the ego in all. The key is to disestablish the ego the ability to say that there is nothing, not even I. Because thats what’s in store for us nothing. So learn your life learn your love. Know your life because without it your nothing, without nothing to begin with. We are interconnected whether one admits this or not.
What you eat what you see what you love even hate wont allow you leave the circle, the balance. No matter how you love, no matter your position you will die you will return to the void, without. For once every billion years you may retain another composition of a being that has the ability to think, but even then your ego will be forever lost. Why wait lose it now prepare yourself. Without the ego you are literally invincible, omniscient. You are capable of anything. If the ego stays intact it can be destroyed, then you are vanquishable.

Better described by these words I(the ego we must all fight in order to conquer this exclusivism as you have put it)
wrote a long time ago.
 

SoliDeoGloria

Active Member
Individualism is not a truth. We are all the same. All of the world religions are essentially at the mystic core the same. We all want the same thing. We are defined not by names, creeds, sexs, or colors. We are defined by the prevading conciousness.

In order to deny individualism, this statement affirms individualism by using the word "we" four times. If individualism did not exist, the word "we" would not have to be used here making this statement directly contradictive of itself.

*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
We \We\ (w[=e]), pron.; pl. of I. [Poss. {Our} (our) or {Ours}
(ourz); obj. {Us} ([u^]s). See {I}.] [As. w[=e]; akin to OS.
w[imac], OFries. & LG. wi, D. wij, G. wir, Icel. v[=e]r, Sw.
& Dan. vi, Goth. weis, Skr. vayam. [root]190.]
The plural nominative case of the pronoun of the first
person; the word with which a person in speaking or writing
denotes a number or company of which he is one, as the
subject of an action expressed by a verb.
[1913 Webster]

God is imagination. He is the product of our dreams- of our desires for something better. For something like us, but better than us. We are God, We are Christ, We are Muhammad, we are Buddha.

The only logical conclusion of this statement is that "we" are also a product of our own imagination. But being as how phenoumuna can not logically produce phenomena, this can not be true. In other words noumenal statements were made to affirm the phenomenal by trying to turn phenomena into into noumena making this statement also directly contradictive.

The ability to love and show compassion is truth. Without these fundamental characteristics the human body is only a vessel for tyranny. Without love we are nothing we are the void.

I can agree with this

But while we wait in the illusion the altruism that are heaven and hell exist, because we are living both. We are what our fortune and will power make us.The most important human ability is the ability to make what was into what is. Whether it be our over stimulated minds into peaceful meditation or the ability to change iron into steel. Create new atoms new formulas in particle accelerators. The illusion is a phenomena without it we wouldn’t be able to do to think to be. Its necessary but not to reach a new life nirvana, heaven, or be reconnected somewhere else, but to do our best while we can. For good and evil will return to the void without mind.
But the key is the ego in all. The key is to disestablish the ego the ability to say that there is nothing, not even I. Because thats what’s in store for us nothing. So learn your life learn your love. Know your life because without it your nothing, without nothing to begin with. We are interconnected whether one admits this or not.
What you eat what you see what you love even hate wont allow you leave the circle, the balance. No matter how you love, no matter your position you will die you will return to the void, without. For once every billion years you may retain another composition of a being that has the ability to think, but even then your ego will be forever lost. Why wait lose it now prepare yourself. Without the ego you are literally invincible, omniscient. You are capable of anything. If the ego stays intact it can be destroyed, then you are vanquishable.

Here are some major essential differences, I as a Christian and Calvinist, would have with what you beleive, affirming essential differences in religious beliefs. My only regret is that I do not have the time right now to list the many essential differences in religious beliefs.

Sincerely,
SolideoGloria
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
SoliDeoGloria said:
Exclusivism can be practiced without hate and is not in itself generally wrong.

Save that some scriptures, the Baha'i scriptures in particular, implicitly disparage exclusivism, stressing unity and concord, and explicitly stating that all the great religions are legitimate and of God! . . .

Best,

Bruce
 
we implies a collection not of individuals but of say water in the ocean. its an entity not a collection of individuals. however there is not an english word that i can use to describe this entity.

The only logical conclusion of this statement is that "we" are also a product of our own imagination. But being as how phenoumuna can not logically produce phenomena, this can not be true. In other words noumenal statements were made to affirm the phenomenal by trying to turn phenomena into into noumena making this statement also directly contradictive.

we are also a phenomena not that was created through concious thought, but rather the never ending cyclical nature of the universe. the human race is an anomaly. Concious being are anomalys that are created out of the universe that has always been. Since your argument as a Christian is that God has always been I would agree. The fact that the Universe has always been in essence God being the universe because he is everywhere at the same time being omnipotent simply means that he knows everything because he is everything. He does create the weather not by some stroke of his mighty paint brush, but rather by the conflicting forces at the very start of the this expansion of the universe that prevade throughout it. The next expansion might have different rules that don't even compare to ours. It may not even allow concious thought nothing is for sure only that in the chaos a balance is always found.
 
a good word for it would the conciousness that has always been that we, as concious beings, can realize if exercise our minds because it flows through everything. But not the judo-christian view of a all powerful entity that rules from afar. But if you interpret the bible literally it doesn't matter. Even heaven is often described as the heavens in the bible a word that can be interpreted and has been used to describe the sky rather than heaven the mention of God in different parts the Torah actually can be interepted as gods. The bible also says that God is everywhere which applys to naturalistic religions such as the aborgenies. I could go on and on about how aborgenies migrated to India and Christ studied eastern religion in India.


Sorry for the ranting.
 

Fluffy

A fool
There is nothing wrong with the concept as you have defined it in the OP even when combined with hateful purpose. Exclusivism on race or gender is simply common sense. Saying that one category is superior or inferior to another is nothing to do with exclusivism since superiority is not an attribute but a subjective judgement with regards to a specific purpose.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
SoliDeoGloria said:
The opposite extreme of this is to try to imply that all religions are the same which is a denial of reality.

And then there's happy medium. :D
 

SoliDeoGloria

Active Member
alifetimetowaitfor said:
we implies a collection not of individuals but of say water in the ocean. its an entity not a collection of individuals. however there is not an english word that i can use to describe this entity.
we are also a phenomena not that was created through concious thought, but rather the never ending cyclical nature of the universe. the human race is an anomaly. Concious being are anomalys that are created out of the universe that has always been. Since your argument as a Christian is that God has always been I would agree. The fact that the Universe has always been in essence God being the universe because he is everywhere at the same time being omnipotent simply means that he knows everything because he is everything. He does create the weather not by some stroke of his mighty paint brush, but rather by the conflicting forces at the very start of the this expansion of the universe that prevade throughout it. The next expansion might have different rules that don't even compare to ours. It may not even allow concious thought nothing is for sure only that in the chaos a balance is always found
a good word for it would the conciousness that has always been that we, as concious beings, can realize if exercise our minds because it flows through everything. But not the judo-christian view of a all powerful entity that rules from afar. But if you interpret the bible literally it doesn't matter. Even heaven is often described as the heavens in the bible a word that can be interpreted and has been used to describe the sky rather than heaven the mention of God in different parts the Torah actually can be interepted as gods. The bible also says that God is everywhere which applys to naturalistic religions such as the aborgenies.

Untill I can see your lexicography badge, granting you the authority to be changing the english language like you are attempting to, My earlier conclusion stands that what you are attempting to communicate just doesn't translate properly in the english language. Even if I were to take your attempt at describing water in the way you did, I could just refute that water is a collection of individaul molecules. I can't even deal with your flawed Biblical exegesis due to this conclusion because I am not sure how you would translate what I stated. Basically, it comes down to proper communication, and I didn't make up the rules on that one.

alifetimetowaitfor said:
I could go on and on about how aborgenies migrated to India and Christ studied eastern religion in India.

I have heard this one before and have yet to see it have half as much objective historical backup as the Bible has.

alifetimetowaitfor said:
Sorry for the ranting.

No apology needed. I appreciate the participation and input.

Fluffy said:
There is nothing wrong with the concept as you have defined it in the OP even when combined with hateful purpose. Exclusivism on race or gender is simply common sense. Saying that one category is superior or inferior to another is nothing to do with exclusivism since superiority is not an attribute but a subjective judgement with regards to a specific purpose.

Very interesting and good point!!!

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
 
Untill I can see your lexicography badge, granting you the authority to be changing the english language like you are attempting to, My earlier conclusion stands that what you are attempting to communicate just doesn't translate properly in the english language. Even if I were to take your attempt at describing water in the way you did, I could just refute that water is a collection of individaul molecules. I can't even deal with your flawed Biblical exegesis due to this conclusion because I am not sure how you would translate what I stated. Basically, it comes down to proper communication, and I didn't make up the rules on that one.
I never attempted to change the english language. I said there wasn't a word for what I was trying to describe and obviously couldn't describe it using the english language or an analogy. I do not know if i could of in any other language. Essentially I would have to make up a new word to describe what I was trying to say. I have tryed to communicate my idea, but you have picked it apart on small trivial points instead of seeing it for what it is.

I don't recall Shakespeare having had a lexicography badge and many of his words have no logical roots in already established words and are used in common language and found in a dictionary to this day, but that isn't the point. I never made up a word! I was offering an explanation.

On his "lost" years.
http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm
http://smithbrad.nventure.com/unknownJC.htm

Basically you are saying in that last statement that anything is up for different interpertation. Which is true. Proper communication is simply for two human beings to talk and communicate their ideas as best as they can.
 
i will explain again maybe this will be easier to understand. we(for lack of a better term again) are part and are only part of this an eternal concious, the return of energy back to energy. this conciousness that prevades through everything is indistinguishable other than in the human condition. Now this human condition is what you have to fight to feel compassion and not see race, gender, sex- creed. Essentially reaching a place past the human condition. conquering any lines in your mind because you have realized this conciousness("God").
 
Top