4/8 Elgard - Grand Final of Indonesia Open 2023
Summary
TLDRThe speaker critiques the oversimplified binary view of predeterminism versus individual choice in a religious context. They argue that a more nuanced perspective is necessary, one that balances divine intervention with human agency. The speaker discusses the harms of radicalism, suggesting that it stems from socio-economic factors like lack of education and poverty, rather than purely religious beliefs. They advocate for a focus on systemic issues rather than individual sin, encouraging religious institutions to address structural inequalities and push for policies that help the vulnerable, rather than only moralizing individual actions.
Takeaways
- 🤔 The opening government's argument relies too much on a black-and-white debate between predeterminism and individual choice.
- 🙏 The idea that God cannot intervene in a predetermined timeline weakens the opening government's benefits, such as praying for assurance.
- ⚖️ The debate should focus more on the gray area, where both individual choice and divine intervention coexist.
- 🧐 The key issue is determining which should be prioritized: individual choice or God's intervention, and how religion views sin.
- 📉 Opening government's arguments only appeal to a small, radical segment of religious followers, ignoring the larger, more moderate group.
- 💥 Radicalism is often the result of lack of education and economic hardship, not just random violence or extremist beliefs.
- 💼 The argument highlights how violence arises out of necessity when individuals face extreme conditions like poverty.
- 🙋♂️ Religion is used by some as a way to justify violence, especially when individuals feel disenfranchised by the actions of others.
- 😇 On the opposition side, there is more empathy, as sin is seen as a result of systemic issues rather than individual choices.
- 🌍 The opposition claims that focusing on systemic failures, rather than individual sin, leads to more sustainable solutions for society.
Q & A
What is the main debate presented in the script?
-The main debate revolves around predeterminism versus individual choice, exploring how these concepts interact in the context of religion and God's intervention.
How does the speaker criticize the position of opening government?
-The speaker argues that opening government runs a flawed position by advocating for strict predeterminism without considering the nuances of individual choice or God's intervention, which weakens their arguments.
What does the speaker mean by 'a gray area' in the debate?
-The 'gray area' refers to a more nuanced position where both individual choice and God's intervention are acknowledged, rather than seeing the issue in strict black-and-white terms.
How does the speaker suggest radicalism arises?
-Radicalism, according to the speaker, typically arises from a lack of education and economic hardship, which leads individuals to extremism as a desperate means of finding solutions.
What criticism does the speaker make regarding religion's impact on violence?
-The speaker argues that religion can justify violence by portraying certain groups as 'sinners' responsible for causing harm, thus enabling individuals to justify attacks against them.
What distinction does the speaker make between 'sin' in the context of individual actions versus systemic issues?
-The speaker distinguishes between seeing sin as a result of individual actions (focusing on personal responsibility) and as a consequence of systemic oppression or the sinful nature of the world.
What does the speaker suggest about religious messaging and its audience?
-The speaker suggests that religious messaging needs to be tailored to the majority of followers who live in the 'gray area,' rather than focusing only on extreme interpretations that appeal to a small radical group.
How does the speaker propose addressing violence within religious contexts?
-The speaker proposes that violence should be understood as emerging from external factors, such as systemic injustice, rather than being purely the result of individuals’ conscious choices.
Why does the speaker argue that focusing on systemic issues is more effective than blaming individual actions?
-Focusing on systemic issues allows for creating policies that address root causes, like poverty or lack of education, whereas focusing on individual actions leads to unsustainable solutions that don't address underlying problems.
How does the speaker believe religion should engage with policy-making?
-The speaker argues that religion should engage with policy-making by advocating for changes that address systemic oppression, such as pushing governments to regulate harmful industries or provide social support.
Outlines
🤔 Debate on Predeterminism vs Individual Choice
The speaker argues that the debate between predeterminism and individual choice should not be viewed as a black-and-white issue. If the opening government were to argue strictly for predeterminism without any divine intervention, their claims about seeking assurance from God would be undermined. Therefore, the debate must exist in a gray area, where both individual choice and divine intervention play roles. The focus should be on what religion prioritizes as the main cause of sin, leading to the discussion on which element (divine intervention or human choice) is more important.
📉 Analyzing the Harm of Radicalism in Religion
The speaker critiques the idea that radicalism in religion emerges randomly, arguing that it is often due to a lack of education or economic support. People may resort to violence out of desperation. While religion may offer solace, it can also justify aggression towards those who sin, especially if individuals are perceived as the cause of one's suffering. The speaker suggests that, in their view, violence stemming from religious radicalism is less likely because it is not seen as an active choice but rather the result of a sinful world. A degree of sympathy emerges when violence is attributed to external factors rather than individual decisions.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Predeterminism
💡Individual Choice
💡God's Intervention
💡Radicalism
💡Systemic Pressure
💡Sin
💡Sympathy
💡Violence
💡Religious Leadership
💡Systemic Solutions
Highlights
Opening government cannot defend pure predeterminism without negating the benefits of praying for divine intervention.
The debate must center on the balance between individual choice and divine intervention, rather than a binary view of predeterminism versus free will.
Radicalism often arises due to a lack of education or economic support, not because of religious motivations alone.
The harms of the opening government's argument affect a smaller, more radical portion of religious followers, while the majority exist in a 'gray area.'
Religious violence can be mitigated when individuals understand that their actions are influenced by external conditions rather than pure moral failings.
The opening government's focus on radicalism ignores the larger systemic issues that drive individuals toward extreme actions.
Systemic oppression and lack of resources play a significant role in fostering radical actions, rather than personal religious beliefs.
Religion can create a sense of empathy by focusing on how societal factors influence behavior, rather than attributing blame solely to individuals.
Opening government's radical interpretation of sin and individual responsibility leads to a justification for violence, unlike more empathetic views.
There is a potential for religious institutions to advocate for systemic change rather than focusing on individual morality alone.
Critical thinking and education are key to preventing religiously motivated violence, by allowing individuals to evaluate moral teachings in context.
Religion should engage in policies that address societal failings, like poverty or addiction, rather than merely focusing on personal sins.
The opposition argues that violence on their side is less severe because they acknowledge the influence of a flawed world rather than individual choice.
A religion that focuses on systemic change can pressure governments to implement policies that reduce harm and sin.
Focusing solely on individual sin as the opening government does leads to unsustainable solutions that ignore broader societal problems.
Transcripts
I don't think opening government can run
on the case in which individuals it's in
which the debate is a debate about
predeterminism versus individual Choice
alone in a black and white no Spectrum
type situation because if they were to
run on the idea that we must defend uh
predeterminism and on their side there
is no intervention from God at all then
all of their benefits in which they
claim that will pray to God to give them
Assurance for example cannot manifest
because God cannot intervene the
existing timeline of giving them any
kind of assurance at all give them any
kind of benefit at all because that will
be a form of God actually coming in and
shifting your life your you know way of
life that is to say this makes this
dilutes the benefit of opening
government at the end of the day that's
why the debate needs to be on the idea
uh that is more you know gray area in
which there is a level of individual
Choice done that was brought by Leon but
there is also a LEL of God intervention
as well coming from them right the
question becomes which should be
prioritized and which should be the main
focus of what religion thinks is the
most important and the source of sin at
the end of the day that needs to be
focused I'm going to talk about I'm
going to tackle opening government's
biggest heart in which they note this
yeah they only play on the very radical
spectrum of how individuals are going to
create har well we for that all the
religion should maintain and attract to
those who are actually the great area
which is the bigger chunk of religious
followers the day which means I think
this is to flag that the harm of message
coming to people from OG is only to a
very small margin at the end of the day
so let's Analyze This what they claim
radicalism will happen worse I think
radicalism does not happen in a factum
in which there is is not a randomizer
that emerges across all individual idual
right usually radicalism happens du to
two things one lack of Education in
which the individuals are not able to
have the critical thinking to process
information for example they don't have
access us to internet to allow them to
have different types of Education to
compare for example or to critically
assess whether this information is good
or not they have lack of economical
support for example because they usually
are poor resulting into them being
desperate wantan to cling into whatever
for example promises them the fastest
type of economic support in the future
what is this trying to talk to you tell
you this is trying to tell you that
usually violence that comes from these
people comes out of necessity at the end
of the day because they exist in such an
extreme condition that usually POS them
to do that oh they might claim but
religion ensures that they flourish the
problem becomes that even in both sides
religion will most likely make them want
to do that because usually if their
benefit is that huge for examp impacting
individual ritual they would say that ah
that people sin also for example that's
that's why because they are sinning and
they they actually not only are they
sinning but they are the source of what
I am feeling this way and I'm so uh
disfranchised for example I can also
justify attacking them at the other day
what I'm trying to after this I promise
so what I'm trying to say is let's
compare which one is better on our end
it's actually even if violence happen it
won't be as violent so it's a decrease
of heart
why because on our side it's not an
active choice we say that it's because
oh the they are actually affected for
example by the work in it of itself
which is already inherently evil so even
if for example we're talking about
individuals who say that oh I I am a
religion a and I see that religion B is
sinning for example I will say that they
are sinning not because of their control
and say it's not because of them
individually but because the world
impacts them to be that way there is a
level of sympathy here in which I see
that I understand that they as an
individual is just affected by this
cruel world that we are living in as
opposed on their end it justifies
violence because not only are those
people sinning and causing me harm they
are also the ones who actively choose to
harm me who actively choose to actually
make and ensure that I am not going to
get any benefit before I Mo on um do you
think that religious leader should
Advocate Court of exempting the of
murder when the perpetrators believe
that the act of murder is caused by the
Temptations of demon and
Satan this is this is a very radical and
very small level of case yeah but even
if not the answer becomes that I think
religion would also have a level of
critical thinking to analyze that okay
if they claim that way let's analyze
maybe they were for example mentally ill
or maybe they were for examp come from a
lower education also ensur that they are
heart I'm going to promise I I promise
I'm going to explain after this why then
radicalism is going to actually try to
solve that better but the conclusion of
this point is to talk to you the degree
of harm here manifest worse on their and
actually than it does on us we claim
that it's a mutual thing but we engage
by saying that at least the harm is not
as bad as opposed to on your end it's
justifi violence so engaging on the POI
and engaging to I think uh bat's point
about uh uh why this actually ensures
that we are going to limit the harm that
structurally happens yeah one I think Ro
Temptation assumes the individuals live
in world that are not good and causes
the creation of sin thank you why
because this looks like that Christian
are are portrayed for example as holy
well the world for examp is sinful
therefore they need to portray this
image of Holiness because that is image
of Jesus for example at the end of the
day well on their side um the problem is
that when you are seeing that the world
is simp for the focus is not on
individual sin but on how the world
ensures that the sin continues to happen
this looks like for example religion on
uh when it is implemented well focuses
on how systems systemic pressure and
oppression ensures that individuals do
not have choice at the end of the day to
do sin this ensures there is motivation
for IND for for churches for example to
focus on creating policies that helps
the poor to push individuals to talk to
uh to to uh governments to at least
pressure to hey how are we going to for
example limit pornography that
inherently harms children for example
and addiction the focus will be on how
system fails individuals because the
alternative on their end is the focus on
how individuals sin therefore creating
bad choices this is horrible on their
end because it ensures unsustainable
solution due to only focusing on
individuals action and choices claiming
that decision maker is bad that leader
is good we should Vote for This leader
because this leader does not commit sin
for example this is bad because it
ensures that the discussion is not on
value but on individuals actions and
past while we need to discuss on what
kind of policies Ur thing doesn't happen
only when you focus that the world is
inherently at fault therefore discussion
needs to be focused on that that's why
we are folks
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)