Syncretism and Social Conversion:
Does the idea of syncretism water down the tenets of universal relgions, or does it strengthen the religions by bringing in other cultures' views and incorporate them into these religions? Do most people convert to religions through social conversion? Is there anything wrong with that? Is social conversion a product of parenting? Could it be from geography? What are the strengths and weaknesses of social conversion?
posted by bcoffman | 7:23 AM
24 Comments:
Religious syncretism, or the fusion of religions to become more universal, has in my opinion, weakened and dilluted individual religions. Honestly, I believe that if everyone quit complaining that other people had a problem with their religion, or that people dislike their religion, then the situation would settle.
If people would just generally accept other religions for what they are, then we wouldn't have to make acceptions for everything, and try to mesh it all together. While the idea of keeping it all together is good, it's not effective in maintaining the original beliefs or morals of a religion.
Now I wouldn't say that it's wrong to convert religion through social conversion, basically because everyone has to do what they do to survive where they live. But, I will agree that most people that aren't at least 90% true to their religion, and were raised in a home that wasn't really that religious, will convert through social conversion.
People will go with the flow, and generally it's for the better. It makes life easier on those within the community. If your town primarily Buddhist, and you were always being invaded, then wouldn't it be much more ergonomical to switch to something that can kill? The same would go for a town located in the middle of a field. If you have a small Buddhist town in a field, then you would maybe want to build some walls. And with those walls, an army. And if you want your army to be able to kill the invaders attacking your town, you might want to switch your primary religion, in order to avoid a revolt from the people who are against the slaughter of those trying to destroy your town.
In other words, social conversion has its pros and cons. The pros that it's much easier to survive in the place you want, and the cons being that it goes against what you originally believed in.
I can see how syncretism could both weaken and strengthen universal religions. It can weaken it in that i doesnt hold all the exact values/ morals as in the begining, yet syncretism can also strengthen- it wouldnt be universal had it not been tweaked to fit the needs of the other religions to grow and flourish. Think about how huge of a religion Christianity is- and all our stories arent purely ours. If we hadn't incorporated some of these stories and beliefs, we wouldnt be anywhere near as large. Nowadays, I do not think that most people convert to a different religion through social conversion. Usually a person is raised in that religion so they will continue to believe it and raise their children in that religion, or if they dont believe in the religion they will remove themselves. Typically though, it is not to gain status, I wouldnt call it a majority thing. I do not see anything especially "wrong" with social conversion, yet there is a catch- I am okay with it as long as the person truly converts. If they only SAY that they believe in a certain religion just to get people to like them, but they secretly continue practicing their old religion, i do not agree. Social conversion could be from where you live. Now- the way in which you convert can be different. If you are a muslim running for office in America- you might become Christian, however if you are a Christian running for office in a muslim country- you might switch to muslim. I believe that social conversion can lead to corrupt politicians and government. I goes back to "say what you mean and mean what you say". If a person does not wholeheartedly believe in the religion that they say they do- how are we to know what other things they have lied to us about? How are we to follow someone who is just trying to be a people pleaser and not a strong, confident, and truthful leader? Social conversion definatly has more weaknesses than strengths in my opinion, but an example of a strength could be a larger majority of followers for a specific idea or person.
Overall I believe that syncretism is better for religion than social conversion.
Syncretism definitely waters down the tenets of universal religions. As slight adjustments are added to religions, to fit in with various cultures, distortions of the religion's underlining principles occur. These distortions become especially relevant when social conversion comes into play. Generally speaking, the new believers don't truly have faith in their new religion. For instance, someone who says they are Buddhist, but defies the core Buddhist beliefs and morals contributes to spoiling the religion's reputation and seen values. Of course, geography plays a large role in both syncretism and social conversion in that people generally believe what they do because of where they live and their government. Some may also argue that parenting plays a role in social conversion, because children generally base their beliefs off of their parents. The difference however is that the children's beliefs may be more genuine in that they aren't converting for power or status.
I think syncretism waters down the tenets of universal religons because it may disregards morals of the religon's base and replaces the morals with values of the culture rather than expressing the actual religon.
Refering to "most people" as citizens of a civilization, yes most people do convert their religon through social conversion. This is true because the over power of a ruller in the classical period was very strong. The ruler had the authority of many things, one being religon. In some cases the citizen must follow the religon or they would be put to a punishment for not following the ruler's orders. Many rulers used social conversion to increase their own status in order to bring more superiority to them selfs.
Yes, I do think it is wrong to change a whole empire's belief system for a ruler or emperor. It isn't fair to the citizens to have to change their morals they have and change for the simple reason that the ruler wants more power from his citizens. I suggest the ruler should simply form more laws and make the citizens abide to the laws versus changing their religion.
Although this answer can also be stated the opposite at well. No, there isn't anything wrong with social conversion because once the citizens convert to the religion of the ruler's choice then there may be less chaos in the envoriment due to superiority and loyalty to the ruler.
Yes, in a way social conversion is a part of parenting. Some parents use religion to give their children a base of morals and a higher power whom has control over everything. This belief would give the feeling to the children that there is someone watching them all the time who has control over their life and consequences that can affect their life in a big way. Parents also may use the base of a religion to demand respect from the children, (depending on the religon, most state respect for elders/ parents). This respect will be expected not only from the parents but also from the higher power.
No, social conversion is not from geography. I say this because may empires or cultures express social conversion all over the world. Many countries use social conversion, no matter where they're located.
Social conversions strength is respect to the ruler from the citizens. The respect results in a loyal society and less crime rates. Social conversion is also good because it can unite the civilization as one through religion.
Social conversion can be negative as well. A negative outcome of social conversion can be respect and loyalty to a ruler who does not have what's best for the people in mind. The citizens would feel obligated to follow a ruler who is leading them on a bad path while the path leads them to a bad outcome.
To address the first portion of the question, that which concerns the effect of syncretism on universal religions, I would (and do) contend that the effect syncretism has is not so much a watering down of principles as it is a fragmentation thereof. The ultimate result of syncretism is a religion which is no longer universal; the adoption of local practices and beliefs, and the incorporation of other religious ideas must ultimately yield a new religion, perhaps bearing a similarity to the old, but also possessing a unique identity. In this respect, syncretism does not water down the tenets of universal religion, it overwhelms them.
The second question concerns the primary motivation behind conversion, specifically: is that motivation social? I believe that it is, for a number of reasons, most of which are linked to the fourth question; is social conversion a product of parenting? In my opinion, it is, as it can be seen that the religion of the parents is often also that of the children, thus implying that either
a) All parents believe in the
one true religion, to which
their offspring convert
or
b) Children almost always
believe in the same religion
that their parents espouse
for reasons purely of
convenience, such as
societal advancement or
habit.
Since option a) is exceedingly unlikely, not to mention contradictory, it seems clear that b) is the logical choice; social conversion derives from the religion imparted by parents to their children.
More in next post.
This theory would indicate that most, though not all, religious beliefs are a product of social conversion.
Mr. Coffman will, of course, contend that all things stem from geography, and if one holds geography to include all things in a certain place, including government, language, culture, societal mores, and religious identity, as his creed does, it is virtually impossible for anything to occur which is not, ultimately, a product of "geography." I would like, however, to register my opinion on the subject, which is that culture does not derive solely from geographical position, and thus must be considered on its own terms: holding such a doctrine to be true would indicate that, while social conversion is influenced by physical location, this is not the sole reason why it occurs.
Onto the final question, one which concerns the strengths and weaknesses of social conversion. Having run out of ornate prose, what follows is more or less a list.
The strengths of social conversion lie in the people who convert; the most powerful aspect of social conversion is the sheer number who become adherents. Social conversion is what allows religions to become established, to build a strong base of believers, and become known. The process of social conversion results in a far larger group of devotees than would otherwise have been possible. In this respect, social conversion is hugely beneficial for the religion which it concerns.
Still more later.
As far as weaknesses are concerned, social conversion also possesses a plethora of these. While social conversion does result in a massive conversion to this religion, the majority will have done so for now other reason than that it was socially acceptable, encouraged by the government. What this means is that the universal religion has gained a large number of insincere, potentially temporary, converts. This brings me to my second point; social conversion does not guarantee devotion; social converts have the potential, and quite possibly the inclination, to revert to their previous religion or convert to a newer one, as soon as the previous religion falls out of favor. Therefore, a religion may garner no long-term benefits from social conversion.
As for myself, I must admit that I do not approve of social conversion, which seems to me to be entirely contrary to the canon of most major religions; the idea that actual belief is necessary. While social conversion may increase the political power of a religion, it almost surely leads to a larger proportion of so-called believers who in fact hold no specific attachment towards the religion. In addition, social conversion, to a greater extent even than many religions, encourages the abandonment of moral principles and sound thought in determining the religion in which one believes.
Syncretism, though can be good, dilutes the religion from what it originally was. Most religions have not been the same for many years because emperor after emperor have changed the religion from what it originally was. Even small, unnoticeable, changes could have made a lasting impact, and now the religion that once was is no more.
Many people come into a religion through social conversion. For the most part there is nothing wrong with this. Sure they do not really want to be in the religion, they just want the power or status, but it makes the religion more popular. They people that converted have family that will follow them, and maybe friends, this will help strengthen the religion as the people grow to accept the values and beliefs of the religion they joined.
Social conversion could be partly because of parenting. Children will grow up believing in what their parents believe in. The children do not get a chance to believe in what they want. If the parents are religious then the beliefs would be forced upon them at birth. If not then some may socially convert themselves.
The strengths of social conversion is that you more people will join the religion, because people will only convert to religions that will be easy to join. Also the emperor of the country that has the religion in it will gain respect because of all his followers
The weeknesses of social conversion is that people are not joining because they want to but because they want to gain respect or power. This results in people not actually believing in what the religions core beliefs are.
Social conversion and syncretism both can help a religion grow and gain more followers, but they are not "true" followers of that religion.
I believe that the idea of syncretism strenghtens religions because if everyone includes want they believe should be in a religion then everyone has something apart of them in the religion and it's more relatable to everyone. When it's more related, it will spread throughout the world becoming a bigger universal religion. I also think people do convert to a different religion through social conversion because the higher the ones status is, the faster they can get money and have a better life depending on where they go and if they have a better life then their children will have better lives and everyone will want to convert to that religion because it is such a good religion. No, I don't think there's anything wrong with that because the poor and middle class, men and women both were not really excepted, especially women because they didn't even have a role in life so if they move higher in life then maybe they can be more excepted in life. If I lived back then, I wouldn't know of a different life but I probably wouldn't be very happy in life because my life would be miserable. Social conversion is a result of parenting because children don't have a choice and their parents have to decide what religion they think is best for them and their family. So when the parents decide the children just have to follow what their parents decide. I believe that social conversion could be from geography because if the people around you believe in the same religion then you are going to probably in that religion to because most people are followers and not leaders so you would be in the religion as others around you. The weeknesses of social conversion are there could lead to an overpopulation of one area because everyone wants to be in that religion and it could lead to violence because people could become mad at others because of the overpopulation and violence. The strengths of social conversion is it brings a whole lot people that wouldnt nessesarily be with one another and it can create more trade because there's more people in one area.
Syncretism has both positive and negative effects on religions. On one hand syncretism allows a religion to grow and spread and increase the number of followers by making conversion easier for them. On the other hand the religion looses a lot of its original intent and is changed from what it was originally.
A lot of people have converted religions due to social conversion but I think that it is not as common today. Although there will always be the people that will switch religions because their favorite movie star has done so, many people stick with their religion for most of their life. Social conversion helps a religion spread and grow quickly and is one of the main causes that universal religions have become universal. On the other hand when people covert due to social conversion they do not necessarily believe the religion's views or have a strong faith.
Syncretism and social conversion both dilute and change a religion form its origins. But they also helped spread the religions and allowed them to be universal. Overall I think that social conversion and syncretism are overall beneficial to religions even though they change them. After all, where would Christianity be with out them?
I think that in the right type of situation, suncretism could actually strengthen a religion. Granted, most times it will water down the actual beliefs and customs of a certain religion, adding more input and letting the religion adapt to the cultures around it can help it grow.
The reason that I think syncretism could help religion is that the original is not always the best form. It's like a product that is brand new, its not always quite right on the first try. Other cultures may contribute greatly to a religion, shedding new light onto a subject that hasn't been talked about much before. Christianity has gone through several reforms that could be considered syncretism, and resulted in all of the different branches of the faith that we have now.
In contrast, I don't think that Social conversion is a productive way to change a group of people's point of veiw. Everyone has an oppinion and that oppinion is formed throughout their life and what they know. Someone who comes from a deeply spiritual family might have different veiws than someone who doesn't. Forcing the views of one person onto a group of subjects is a form of tyrany and will just make the subjects unhappy. As soon as there is an opportunity to convert back to the way it was before the ruler that changed things, people will grab it and the change will have been countered out. People believe what they are taught growing up and changing it and just saying 'because I say so' will not go over well with the masses.
Relgious syncretism has had wide effects on several relgions all across the world. When new relgions are introduced into a new culture, they are often tweaked to fit in with the ideals of the new place. If people don't agree with a certain part of a religion, then the religion can be morphed into something it wasn't.
Social conversion is also a huge part of different relgions. A lot of people are brought to new relgions through friends, families and where they were raised. Social conversion wouldn't really be considered wrong though, as that is how most people are brought to find the relgion. Without people communicating it, then it would never spread.
The culture and community they are surrounded with greatly effects their beliefs as they grow older. Children raised in a relgious household will most likely find their parents beliefs as they are being brought up in their home.
Geography plays a large part in relgions also. Countries take great pride in their relgion. In the United States, the majority are Christian. In other places such as Thiland, it is Buddhism. The place where you live will always play a large factor in what one will belive.
The strengths of social conversion include values in a community. This could be good or bad depending on the relgion. For a lot of relgions it will prevent murder and promote equality between people. Social conversion can also unify a community under a ruler which brings peace.
Social conversion might not always be too great though. In some cases it doesn't give women equal rights to men. Some also include caste systems which can develop issues and division within a community.
Overall, social conversion has good and bad things to it. It results in a lot of conformity and unfairness, while also it could bring together a community and develop a nation.
Depending on who you are asking, the first part of the question could go either way. Take Christianity for example. If you are a hardcore Christian who does everything exactly as the Bible says, naturally you would be opposed to the changes of syncretism, since it isn't really the same values, etc. However, as for the religion itself, with each change, it becomes more and more universal, and so more and more people will join. Essentially, strength in numbers. The religion as a whole, as diluted as it might be, will have a lot of power due to its large amounts of followers.
As for whether people convert for social reasons or a genuine religious experience, I again think it's split both ways. This isn't exactly the best example (I don't mean to say that athiesm is a religion, but merely something that one can convert to), but in the newest generation, more and more kids are questioning their religions. This could be because of the amazing things science has given us that, depending on how you look at it, could make religion obsolete, or it could just be because going to church, etc. just "isn't cool."
So is church "not being cool" a good enough reason to become athiest? No. One who was really prepared to make that decision would have to do a lot of research on all sorts of religions, and once they had gathered the facts, then they could choose athiesm if that's how they felt. But that's just that example. With, say, Buddhist to Islam, whether social conversion is wrong or not again really depends on who you're asking. From one perspective, social conversion only leads to a bunch of phony believers who don't really care about the religion itself. But from a different perspective, conversion is conversion, no matter what, and any type of growth will make the religion more powerful. As to whether parenting can lead to social conversion, I would say no. But it can lead to just plain 'ole conversion. Say you have tough Mormon parents, and they don't let you drink pop, have a girlfriend, etc., and you really think that sucks. Some kids might see that as a reason to not be Mormon when they're older.
Yes, I feel that geography can have an impact on social conversion. If you're a muslim in a southern hardcore right-wing christian conservative neighborhood, needless to say, you would probably be ostracized, or at least there would be a lot of pressure to abandon your faith.
As stated before, social conversion has a positive and a negative impact. Social conversion can lead to a bunch of phony believers who don't really care about the religion itself, but one must understand that conversion is conversion, and any type of growth, no matter what, will make the religion more powerful.
<3 Ryan Anders
Depending on who you are asking, the first part of the question could go either way. Take Christianity for example. If you are a hardcore Christian who does everything exactly as the Bible says, naturally you would be opposed to the changes of syncretism, since it isn't really the same values, etc. However, as for the religion itself, with each change, it becomes more and more universal, and so more and more people will join. Essentially, strength in numbers. The religion as a whole, as diluted as it might be, will have a lot of power due to its large amounts of followers.
As for whether people convert for social reasons or a genuine religious experience, I again think it's split both ways. This isn't exactly the best example (I don't mean to say that athiesm is a religion, but merely something that one can convert to), but in the newest generation, more and more kids are questioning their religions. This could be because of the amazing things science has given us that, depending on how you look at it, could make religion obsolete, or it could just be because going to church, etc. just "isn't cool."
So is church "not being cool" a good enough reason to become athiest? No. One who was really prepared to make that decision would have to do a lot of research on all sorts of religions, and once they had gathered the facts, then they could choose athiesm if that's how they felt. But that's just that example. With, say, Buddhist to Islam, whether social conversion is wrong or not again really depends on who you're asking. From one perspective, social conversion only leads to a bunch of phony believers who don't really care about the religion itself. But from a different perspective, conversion is conversion, no matter what, and any type of growth will make the religion more powerful. As to whether parenting can lead to social conversion, I would say no. But it can lead to just plain 'ole conversion. Say you have tough Mormon parents, and they don't let you drink pop, have a girlfriend, etc., and you really think that sucks. Some kids might see that as a reason to not be Mormon when they're older.
Yes, I feel that geography can have an impact on social conversion. If you're a muslim in a southern hardcore right-wing christian conservative neighborhood, needless to say, you would probably be ostracized, or at least there would be a lot of pressure to abandon your faith.
As stated before, social conversion has a positive and a negative impact. Social conversion can lead to a bunch of phony believers who don't really care about the religion itself, but one must understand that conversion is conversion, and any type of growth, no matter what, will make the religion more powerful.
<3 Ryan Anders
I believe the idea of syncretism can both hinder and help the tenets of universal religions. I think this because although syncretism is the idea of adding culture into a religion, that is what makes the religion become universal. Having more beliefs in common with the culture in a country can really draw attention to the religion and appeal to more.
I believe that many people do convert to religions through social conversion. It may not be because a political leader is a such religion, but because parents cause the children to believe in what they believe. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. People help others decide what to believe. I think that social conversion is a product of parenting, but is not a bad product. Parents often raise their children to become the religion that the parents are. When a child is born, the child does not really get to decide what religion he wants to be. Although parenting contributes in social conversion, it could also be from geography. An example would be in a place that holds many Muslims. Pakistan, which holds people that are of the Muslim religion would probably rub off on others that are born into the country. The parents of the child were probably born into the country and have been raised to do so. I would say social conversion is a mixture of geography, parenting, and family history.
There are strengths of weaknesses of social conversion however. Some strengths would be common beliefs within the family instead of arguing who is right about what beliefs. Social conversion also brings people together, such as those who practice universal religions. Some weaknesses would be that some people may not believe in the religion they were born into and may try to change it to fit their beliefs.
Social conversion, is a type of religious act that means that your not a true believer and all you want to do is better your status even if it's not that great of a status boost. Asking me, I don't think that social conversion is all that it seems to be because if your a true believer in your belief you wouldn't even let a passing thought go through your head thinking that you would want to better your status and betray the one you have believed in for your whole life.
Also, syncretism isn't that big of a deal to mess with because all the people that are doing is changing their own religion/customs by taking in other aspects of different peoples lives and making them their own. Thats what the United States did with a lot of the stuff we do now adays, like the Christmas tree (German originality) the whole Christmas event with Santa Claus and the tree and getting present came from the germans.
Jacob Beam
Syncretism is taking some of the culture around you and adding it to a religion to make it more appealing. I understand how people would think that Syncretism waters down religions, but I think more over, it increases popularity in the category of religion and improves it as well. Just because a religion was created before Christ does not make it better than a different religion that was based off of that same one. Syncretism is not making different religions worse, it is using your culture to help themselves so that they can believe as others have done before. They are not creating a whole new religion they are just mixing a little bit of their culture with it. Syncretism gives the people a different way to look at how they presieve their God. In my opinion that is a great addition you can make to your society. That new religion you have to go to, is not only appealing to you, but most likely appealing to many others as well.
Social Conversion is changing faith to increase status. Converting yourself to another religion just so you can be higher in your caste system, does not make you faithful. You should believe in one religion and stick with it because then you are being faithful to your own God. Switching to another religion just because your leader/emperor changed to that religion does not help you as a believer or fallower. Now, on the other hand it is understandable to see people do this because it brings themselves to a higher level than other people. Back in the Foundations people were always fighting for power. So, relevantly people could easily change their religion to better themself and their family. Just because they changed to make it easier on themselves, did not make it right though. People today really don't have to worry about changing religions so that they can give themselves a higher level. Society has tried to give itself an equal base so that everyone is treating like everybody else.
Overall Syncretism from my point of view is a great asset to different religions because it is creating new ways for people to believe in God. Social Conversion on the other hand is not a faithful way to believe and serve as a human being. It is just a way to help yourself in your culture's caste system.
The idea of syncretism completely waters down the tenets of universal religion. It navigates the whole religion away from the ground values that were set when the religion was created and towards the new “modern” tenets that have been introduced. I think that there are a good number of people that come to a religion through social conversion. There is nothing wrong with this because it is their choice in what they believe. But I think that most people are born into their religion. Geography is a part of what religion you are. But I think that the most influence is fro your parents and the people that you are around most of the time. A strength of social conversion is that it brings more people into the religion so it becomes more widespread throughout the world and so it becomes more respected. A weakness of social conversion is that it makes it had to tell who actually believes in that religion and who is a part of it and “says” that they are doing it just because everyone else is doing it.
The idea of syncretism completely waters down the tenets of universal religion. It navigates the whole religion away from the ground values that were set when the religion was created and towards the new “modern” tenets that have been introduced. I think that there are a good number of people that come to a religion through social conversion. There is nothing wrong with this because it is their choice in what they believe. But I think that most people are born into their religion. Geography is a part of what religion you are. But I think that the most influence is fro your parents and the people that you are around most of the time. A strength of social conversion is that it brings more people into the religion so it becomes more widespread throughout the world and so it becomes more respected. A weakness of social conversion is that it makes it had to tell who actually believes in that religion and who is a part of it and “says” that they are doing it just because everyone else is doing it.
Social conversion is purely used for gaining political power, in my opinion, which morphs the basic values of that religion. Syncretism, I believe, can also morph the religion's basis because in order to unify a wider variety of people, the religion is broadened to please everyone and create a universal religion, which never really is a true religion at all.
I wouldn't necessarily say that majority of people socially convert to their religion, or at least not consciously any way. I think that their geography and parenting are the real influence of most people's religious beliefs. Most people with strong religious beliefs tend to think narrow mindedly and not pay attention to what other religions may say, and so they don't get a lot of diversity within their beliefs. They are so crammed full of right and wrong and sin and heaven and hell by their churches and parents that they forget that there is so much more going on in the universe besides us.
I personally believe that some one can be spiritual and have beliefs without labeling it with a religion. Why do I have to be called an athiest just because I can't say, "I'm Christian" or "I'm Catholic"? And even if I were to call myself one of those religions, my own god would not be the same in my mind as in the person sitting right to me in church, just as their god wouldn't be the same as the person next to them. No matter if they label themselves with the same religion, no two people have the same God, and our society is made out to tell us that we have to belong to something or else we're wrong, whether it is a religion or it is athiest. Our world is lacking independent people, and I feel that social conversion and syncretism are just more ways to smear everyone together and try to make everyone the same. So really "unity" is just another way of saying "prejudice".
I believe that the idea of syncretism, while having a few good effects, has degraded and weakened many of the universal religions. It does help bring us into perspective of the religions that are not our own, but other than that, it completely tweaks and shapes the certain religion to one that is not what it was meant to be. It replaces the true beliefs and morals of the original religion with those of another one. It is not what was originally intended to be practiced, and therefore disregarding what really matters in that religion.
I do think that most people have converted to a different religion using social conversion. In a civilization, people followed their ruler and did whatever he did. If he were to convert to, say, Buddhism, the majority of that society would follow his actions to show respect for him, but not necessarily because they believe what that religion is practicing.
I personally do believe that something is wrong with that. It's morally wrong to pretend to follow a religion that you don't necessarily believe, just to gain status or show respect to your leader. It degrades that religion from its true purpose, and therefore can cause its true believers to start an uprising.
Social conversion can become a product of parenting, seeing as the parents raise their children to believe what they believe, in order to attain order and give their offspring the belief of a higher power.
No, social conversion is not a product of geography, or where a person lives. People all over the world use social conversion, regardless of the location.
Some strengths of social conversion are that more people will convert to the said religion, therefore creating peace among the civilization. Some of its weaknesses, however, are that the conversion is more than likely insincere, and the person converting is doing so only out of respect for their leader, and not because they truly believe it.
Religous syncretism has strenthgned and weakend religons. As relgions get spread people tend to add there own ideas into the relgion. Example, christianity has over 50 diffrent. From Baptist to Luthern even catholic. Some people can get confused with this and in return this weakens the relgion because people can talk it down. Now religions being spread is the strength. When relgions spread that means it is lessoning the chance of another relgion to be spread. If only relgions werent a popularity contest, it seems like people bash on other religions to make theres seem more right.
Social Conversion is a huge part of people converting to certain relgions. Say a persom is 20 and through there wqhole life they havent even messed with relgions until a person comes along and tells them all about it. He or she may convert which would be socail conversion.To me this is not wrong at all it is just another way to spread your personal beliefs. It is no diffrent then gorwing up in a home and your parents pounding the relgion into your head. Now social conversion can be good because it is spreading the relgion. The only bad thing is that relgions can be changed through the person who is telling them they can take it and twist it all around to make it wrong.
Religious syncretism has strengthened and weakened religions. As religions get spread people tend to add there own ideas into the religion. Example, Christianity has over 50 different. From Baptist to Lutheran even catholic. Some people can get confused with this and in return this weakens the religion because people can talk it down. Now a religion being spread is the strength. When religions spread that means it is lessoning the chance of another religion to be spread. If only religions weren’t a popularity contest, it seems like people bash on other religions to make there’s seem more right.
Social Conversion is a huge part of people converting to certain religions. Say a person is 20 and through there whole life they haven’t even messed with religions until a person comes along and tells them all about it. He or she may convert which would be social conversion. To me this is not wrong at all it is just another way to spread your personal beliefs. It is no different then growing up in a home and your parents pounding the religion into your head. Now social conversion can be good because it is spreading the religion. The only bad thing is that religions can be changed through the person who is telling them they can take it and twist it all around to make it wrong.
Honestly, I don't really agree with Social Conversion because, in a way, it seems as if people should learn to accept that generally, religious views are highly diverse. Many peole didn't understand that back then that people should be able to think for themselves as far as beliefs. Back then, there was no mercy in many circumstances, innocent people got killed or persecuted because of the society they were living in and that wasn't right. Therefore, we should socially accept different points of views.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home