Religios Question

[FootballCardFreak]

Why do people admit to being imperfect, but whenever anyone has a different translation of religion than they do it results in wars and fighting. People admit to being imperfect, yet, when it comes to religion many people pretty much have no tolerance whatsoever for anyone or anything that contradicts their beliefs.

[WilyWestbrook0]

I haven't started any wars or fighting with people whose beliefs differ from mine, and don't plan on doing so.

In fact, as I have stated here many times, I am happily engaged to a nonbeliever. We're aware of our differences and can discuss them rationally and cordially.

People fighting over different beliefs may be common, but it isn't inevitable, nor should it be.

[themanishere]

People fighting over different beliefs may be common, but it isn't inevitable, nor should it be.

I disagree with this. Self-interest and survival (whether biological, institutional, or social) will always cause fighting, and since those are inevitable, fighting over differing beliefs is inevitable for separate lives, institutions, or functions to continue. Not that it is "right," but in the course of society, fighting as such is a necessary inevitability.

[FootballCardFreak]

I disagree with this. Self-interest and survival (whether biological, institutional, or social) will always cause fighting, and since those are inevitable, fighting over differing beliefs is inevitable for separate lives, institutions, or functions to continue. Not that it is "right," but in the course of society, fighting as such is a necessary inevitability.

But why over something that we cannot prove exists or doesn't exist?

[themanishere]

But why over something that we cannot prove exists or doesn't exist?

For influence, power, and authority.

[WilyWestbrook0]

Disagreements are inevitable, but fighting is not, at least on the individual level.

[themanishere]

Disagreements are inevitable, but fighting is not, at least on the individual level.

Fighting is the means to influence, power and authority as ends. Always has been. On the precipice of such issues, people/countries/societies/institutions (on the behalf of ideologies) will fight each other to have and sustain more power, authority and influence - to eliminate the threats to a person's/country's/society's/institution's survival and perpetuation as powerful, influential or authoritative.

I'd like to believe truer altruism is possible, but it never has been, and I don't see it being possible in the future.

[WilyWestbrook0]

You're right - quiet, pacifist people like me never gain power. We live happier lives and have happier personal relationships, though. Something often envied.

[themanishere]

You're right - quiet, pacifist people like me never gain power. We live happier lives and have happier personal relationships, though. Something often envied.

Making generalizations are we?

Such a life wouldn't be possible if people didn't fight for the power to develop or create (whether directly or indirectly) a society which allows for relative conditions of fulfillment and happiness. But that doesn't mean there are no longer any dysfunctions in such fights - ideological battles (hint hint) are the worst offenders.

Many people have good intentions (whether founded on illogical or logical grounds) when they want to influence others, but the only ones who make it to the top are those concerned with maintaining and nourishing their power rather than the cause. Which is why they will fight to keep their power before fighting for the issue (and even then, they will fight for the issue because it means they will maintain their influence).

Seems like this aspect of the discussion has run its course...

[WilyWestbrook0]

Making generalizations are we?

I never thought you had a problem with generalizations given that you admit to not understanding women "in general" here:

https://www.sportscardforum.com/showp...0&postcount=25

So, I don't see why you'd have a problem with me generalizing if you allow yourself to do the same, even if on a different topic. Perhaps you find my generalizing here more egregious than that example, but I am not sure why.

Such a life wouldn't be possible if people didn't fight for the power to develop or create (whether directly or indirectly) a society which allows for relative conditions of fulfillment and happiness. But that doesn't mean there are no longer any dysfunctions in such fights - ideological battles (hint hint) are the worst offenders.

Fighting as it is brought up in this thread is based on religious issues, not fighting for country freedom. I don't see religious fighting as necessary.