Religious Zealotry

[JudgeRightly]

I think you may have hit on the key difference as being 'internal' or 'external' in expression. I had not thought of it in those terms but perhaps that is the delineation I was looking for.

The zealot is seeking to make the world comport with his ideology, whereas the fervent believer is focusing and expressing his devotion within himself, and his own life.

So was Jesus a zealot? Good kind or bad kind?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Is there an objectively moral and therefore divinely approved political ideology?

It's called theonomy.

The other guy has the same right to the pursuit of happiness as me,

Correction: It's the right to worship. There is no such thing as "a right to happiness."

and we both are morally obligated to avoid violating anybody else's fundamental rights in whatever we do.

Agreed.

God has a religion.

Terrible way to say this.

 

[annabenedetti]

Do you think that the Jews who were zealous for the law in Acts 21:20 were sinning, or wrong in some way?

Zealous isn't zealotry. Zealotry requires an excess of zealousness.

Merriam-Webster:

Zealotry: excess of zeal : fanatical devotion

Zealous: marked by fervent partisanship for a person, a cause, or an ideal : filled with or characterized by zeal

Dictionary.com:

Zealotry: undue or excessive zeal; fanaticism.

Zealous: full of, characterized by, or due to zeal; ardently active, devoted, or diligent.

Having zeal is part of being fervent, Anna.

In fact, fervent and zealous are synonyms.

We're not talking about zeal. We're talking about zealotry.

You've stumbled upon what makes it right or wrong: Willingness.

Convincing someone of a particular belief is not inherently wrong.

Forcing someone to adhere to a particular belief is.

I didn't stumble on it, JR.

How about apart from politics?

In what sense? The question is too vague.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But almost no one actually plans to improve society or the world.

Bob Enyart did.

Even the most devoutly religious among us [k]now better then to presume such a thing.

Correction: Even "the most devoutly religious among us" know that it's entirely possible that our particular improvements may not come about until long after we're dead.

And those who do have such grandiose desires are often the most dangerous among us, even when they have the best of intentions.

Dangerous for whom?

In this sense, I would attribute 'ideology' to being a specific trait of zealots. And especially to religious zealots. Because they not only want to "fix" the world,

Wanting to fix the world doesn't make someone a bad person.

they think they are anointed/appointed by God to do so.

ARTL's Vigilante Worksheet Qs 1-4 | KGOV.com

kgov.com

There's nothing more dangerous than a man who thinks he's the 'correcting hand of God'.

Agreed.

The idea of a "divinely approved political ideology" is a VERY, VERY dangerous idea for we humans to be entertaining.

Again, dangerous for whom?

There is such a thing as an objective moral imperative.

And that would be, what, specifically?

And if we follow it, we will become aware of a divine (transcendent) agency at work within existence.

That sounds like new age garbage.

And I do believe that we humans are being moved by these facts to pursue political and social solutions based on these divine (transcendent) values. BUT, we will get ourselves into all kinds of trouble if we presume that we have "divine approval" of how we think we are to go about doing this.

The Bible is all the "divine approval" I need to promote a Biblical worldview.

And our founders were keenly aware of this danger. It's why they tried to build in so many checks and balances to the process of self-governance.

Man cannot devise a system of checks and balances likely to produce just leadership.

The problems arise, of course, in our defining exactly what our fundamental rights are within a given circumstance. Abortion being a classic example.

Simple. The rights of man are:

The right to Life and Liberty; to Worship; to Free Speech; to Purchase and Use Property; to Purchase, Own, and Carry Individual Defensive Weapons including Firearms; to Protect the Innocent; to Corporally Punish his Children; to Due Process of Law; and to Fail.

 

[ok doser]

But almost no one actually plans to improve society or the world.

Everybody I have been involved with in scouting has.
Everybody I have been involved with in church has.
Everybody I have been involved with in my forays into education has.
Everybody I have been involved with in my forays into healthcare/medicine has.
Everybody I have been involved with in my forays into volunteerism has.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Devout atheists, secularists, hedonists, Darwinists, Marxists, abortionists, and the like are intolerant people who think the only religion the government should recognize and support is theirs.

But almost none them are actively trying to force the world they live in, and the people they live in it with, to comply.

Atheists: Hitler, Xi Jinping, and Anthony Fauci
Darwinists: Darwin, Dawkins, and Krauss
Marxists: Quite a few in the American government.
Abortionists: All pro-aborts who push abortion

We're all ideologically selfish, and think we know best how the world should be.

Good thing we have the Bible then.

But very few of us are actually willing to try and force that result.

Which is sad, when it comes to Christians.

The religious zealots are among those who are. And are often willing to go to greater extremes to gain that result because they believe they have been mandated by God to do so. And so never question the morality of their own methods.

When one is on God's side, morality is guaranteed.

There are no . . . abortionists willing to . . . kill . . . others in pursuit of their idea of righteousness.

As @ok doser pointed out, this is flatly false.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I didn't stumble on it, JR.

"Upon." Not "on." Try again.

In what sense? The question is too vague.

You asked: How to protect ourselves? Politically, at the ballot box first and foremost.

I'm asking, "How to protect ourselves? Not politically..."

 

[annabenedetti]

"Upon." Not "on." Try again.

As in: I thought it out, I didn't happen 'upon' it by accident, as stumbling implied.

You asked: How to protect ourselves? Politically, at the ballot box first and foremost.

I'm asking, "How to protect ourselves? Not politically..."

Still too vague. Do you have a particular scenario in mind?

 

[marke]

Current Trump-endorsed zealot Idaho Lt. Governor, who lost her primary bid for governor:

More and more Americans from both sides of the aisle are turning away from God and toward the lying deception that sin and corruption will make them happier.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I consider myself a Christian zealot. Problem?



Supra.



To appeal to the definition of "zeal," it's because they have "great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective."

Not all zealotry is toxic.

Most of it is however. For example, your ideal of society would be one ruled by a king and one whereby every citizen - regardless of their beliefs - would be ruled under a set of laws that comported with your notion of what should be crimes, correct?

You're on record here for stating that homosexuality and adultery should be capital crimes (you're not alone on that obviously). that unmarried couples having sex should be forced into wedlock with no possibility of divorce and children as young as five being tried and even executed if found guilty of committing a capital crime.

 

[Idolater]

Everybody I have been involved with in scouting has.
Everybody I have been involved with in church has.
Everybody I have been involved with in my forays into education has.
Everybody I have been involved with in my forays into healthcare/medicine has.
Everybody I have been involved with in my forays into volunteerism has.

Yup. To elaborate a little bit on the term ideology. It is a plan to improve the world, but in more detail, an ideology has a particular view of what a better world looks like, and (iow, it doesn't stop there) there is also a plan for how to make it happen.

This inevitably involves politics, which is in very broad strokes about power, not only who should have what power in particular, but also any limits placed upon that power, and how those limits are imposed. Already in just defining politics, political ideology is implied.

Republicans believe in "Originalist" ideology, which is why it's so important that President Trump sat three "Originalist" justices on the Supreme Court, because this is the core of Republican ideology as distinct from Democratic ideology. The core Republican ideology goes like this: win the White House and win the Senate, and then hope and pray opportunities arise to nominate and confirm SCOTUS justices; and then do it.

Republican "Originalist" justices outnumber Democratic utilitarian legal positivist (basically libertarian) justices right now 6-to-3, an enormous advantage. I'm already starting to see chirping among commentators about how basically radical the current Court is, when this commentary is just veiled electioneering by Democrats who are sore losers, but also who are electioneering.

The reality is that according to "Originalism" it is the basically libertarian justices who are the radicals, and when this Court goes about nullifying prior radical Courts' decisions, it looks radical in a vacuum, because the changes will sometimes be so stark, but it is because they are undoing previous radicalism.

The Republicans are in charge in the most important part of our government right now (SCOTUS 6-to-3 edge!), and all signs right now are pointing also to a "red wave" this November. We were the good guys in 1862 and we're the good guys in 2022, and don't let anyone argue otherwise. Utilitarian legal positivism is anti-American. And it's also the only thing that can enable the more radical types of Democratic policy from ever taking root in our republic.

 

[PureX]

I consider myself a Christian zealot. Problem?

Supra.

To appeal to the definition of "zeal," it's because they have "great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective."

Not all zealotry is toxic.

It's nearly always antithetical to the right of other people to deviate from the zealot's "objective". And to the degree that this right is considered a social imperative, the zealot then becomes a toxic entity relative to that imperative, and within the society in which he seeks his objective.

 

[PureX]

Most of it is however. For example, your ideal of society would be one ruled by a king and one whereby every citizen - regardless of their beliefs - would be ruled under a set of laws that comported with your notion of what should be crimes, correct?

You're on record here for stating that homosexuality and adultery should be capital crimes (you're not alone on that obviously). that unmarried couples having sex should be forced into wedlock with no possibility of divorce and children as young as five being tried and even executed if found guilty of committing a capital crime.

The religious zealot, as opposed to other kinds of zealotry, is peculiar and especislly dangerous because they believe they are being mandated by God to achieve their moral obectives, so they cannot/will not even entertain the idea that they may be wrong in doing so. Or that others have a right to reject or oppose their objectives.

 

[marke]

The religious zealot, as opposed to other kinds of zealotry, is peculiar and especislly dangerous because they believe they are being mandated by God to achieve their moral obectives, so they cannot/will not even entertain the idea that they may be wrong in doing so. Or that others have a right to reject or oppose their objectives.

Some people believe God mandates that all men everywhere repent and come to Jesus for salvation. Fools do not believe that.

 

[PureX]

Some people believe God mandates that all men everywhere repent and come to Jesus for salvation.

Some do, and they could certainly be wrong. Especially when they assume that force is acceptable in that quest. Yet it's precisely because they believe this that it will not accur to them that they might be wrong. A man that cannot be wrong is a man that thinks he is a god. Or an extension of God. Which is exactly why such an man is so dangerous and toxic to everyone around him. The man-god has no conscience at all. He thinks he is righteous in everything he does.

 

[PureX]

Convincing someone of a particular belief is not inherently wrong.

That all depends on how you try to do it, and why.

Forcing someone to adhere to a particular belief is.

Like forcing women to adhere to the particular belief that abortion is murder? Or forcing homosexuals to adhere to the particular belief that homosexuality is a sin?

 

[annabenedetti]

The religious zealot, as opposed to other kinds of zealotry, is peculiar and especislly dangerous because they believe they are being mandated by God to achieve their moral obectives, so they cannot/will not even entertain the idea that they may be wrong in doing so. Or that others have a right to reject or oppose their objectives.

They have black and white thinking, anything in between is compromise and compromise is anathema.

 

[Jefferson]

This isn't about Christianity. It's about religious zealots.

Are you excluding the religion of Secular Humanism?

 

[annabenedetti]

The man-god has no conscience at all. He thinks he is righteous in everything he does.

Particularly the Christian who believes they cannot sin because all their sins have been covered by Christ's redemption. I don't know their exact terminology, I don't usually follow those conversations, but they literally think they cannot sin.

 

[Idolater]

They have black and white thinking, anything in between is compromise and compromise is anathema.

I have extreme black and white thinking.