When people 'battle' over religion you can draw some fairly accurate conclusions.
If A is thumping B and B concedes that A's religion is the true religion, A wins something.
A wins a convert.
A wins validation, my group is the 'right' group and more importantly 'I am right.'
A wins a following.
What does B get? B gets a warm welcoming into the flock which can include opportunities for business, marriage, well anything in the world that doesn't offend the religion. B gets a community life with all the trimmings. This is often exactly what B needs if B is struggling socially, emotionally, and economically. It's what is called a win/win situation when it works out.
But what if it is not working out? We can draw some of the same conclusions in reverse.
A does not win a convert, he loses the lost sheep.
A does not get validation which puts into question whether or not As group is the right group and even if it might be, it puts into question whether or not A has gotten it right. This type of A would have a very difficult time with being wrong, especially about something so fundamental to his life.
As leadership is a failure.
The whole thing can become such a compulsion that A might start using the promise of opportunities coercively to get B to proclaim himself a convert and when all else fails threaten B with loss of his humanity/soul. Preachers even do this to each other to glean weak flock members from each other. I think a clever con man could probably make a living just converting to one religion and then another, sticking around each one until the honeymoon period is over.
The real problem with all this is that people do convert from one worldview collective to another for the worldly benefits. Beliefs change or become refined because of internal change not because of the window dressings of a religion. So such battles never, IMO, produce the desired results in any genuine manner. |
