Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Does Religion cause WarsPage 5 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
igor, aremeself, aradicalpunk:

I want to clarify myself a bit more, and offer another way of looking at it.

Not that it's necessary, but I often like to explain some of what I think is definitive of religion by doing the same with science as a juxtoposition, just because it's a good vehicle by which to explain it.

Despite some of the different common ways to explain what science is, I think it's most productive to be what I believe to be (?) more reductionistic, so to find what is more definitive. Science...the tendency or impulse within everyone, or the formal institution of...is, at the bottom-most, simply about thinking about stuff.

But I always stress that this must always include thinking about thinking, along with thinking about whatever-else, which is the epistemological element that really makes science what it is - I think that there are two defining traits at the heart of science in general, which are required for science to really be science...epistemology, and (scientific) pragmatism. Epistemology is just the constant attempt to examine how you're thinking about something, and pragmatism is understanding that "this is simply what we know so far", and understanding that "we could always be wrong somewhere", but if we have to choose to apply something and it's useful, then we do. Part of why I'm pointing part of this out is because it is said that "making predictions" is what determines if something is science. This is not wrong. It is correct. But, I don't think it is quite reductionistic enough, and so isn't as definitive as could be. The point of being able to make predictions (aside from making it useful) is a method for testing, confirming, and being epistemological. It's a way of thinking about how we're thinking. "Making predictions" is definately correct, but saying it that way isn't an umbrella that's comprehensive enough, and isn't completely explaining it the way it should be explained. What I mean is...those scientific endeavors which at any given time aren't able to make predictions might not be very useful, and they might be on the wrong track in some way without us being able to know it, but I don't think this fact alone would mean that they aren't "science" - if the subject is being pursued with careful intellectual/epistemological/pragmatic-responsibility, even if we can't get very far with it at a given time because of not being able to make a prediction, then I'd say it's still "science"...we're still trying to think about something, while being responsible in how we're thinking about it, for the genuine purpose of discovering the truth about, and declaring that we can't go very far at all in making conclusions or it being useful.

(I'm just so anal about linguistics. Like the partial inconsistencies of when some say that "hard" science is just a certain collection of disciplines, while others say that "hard" science refers to those that can make predictions, for example, while "soft" science is supposed to be those disciplines that aren't developed far enough to be sure that we know the truth of something or can make predictions or make it useful...acting as if it isn't science just because we haven't figured out something yet. Or when we speak of "philosophy" as if it's something separate from or between science and religion, when it's really just a (unnecessary?) category of certain disciplines which are still just part of science in general in the sense that we are thinking about something and doing so responsibly and with intellectual honesty.)

Ok so, to get back on track...

Science is all about declaring the importance of, and the act of, thinking about things (doing research, experiments, etc), and always refining how we do so in order to actually do it. Thinking about something, searching for a truth, objectively, impartially, and honestly

Religion...the potential impulse or mindset within everyone, or the defining trait beneath other traits of the formal institution...is the perfect opposite. Be it religion, or Religion, or "being religious about something", is being intellectually irresponsible, dishonest, apathetic, or irrational about something/everything.

Religion isn't about god. Just because you think about the idea of a god or a supernatural realm, does not make you religious. Just because you think it's important to contemplate, philosphize, and/or rationalize about the idea of god, does not make you religious. Even if/when someone does truly have "proof" for or against god, (scientifically) knows the truth of the matter, or does or does not choose to like or worship this god, this would not make them religious. How you think about the god-idea, and how you make decisions on the subject, does indicate whether or not you're religious or "being religous about it". In this way, "god" does not define religion, and is not a necessary feature.

Religion isn't about morality. Just because you want to, do, or try to observe any laws, codes, protocols, morals, or whatever, does not make you religious. How you derive/endorse/justify the laws that you observe, and how you choose which ones to live by, does indicate whether or not you're religious or "being religious about it".

Religion isn't about reverence for nature or the universe, feeling that it's all beautiful, having happiness, having purpose in life, etc. Just because you have reverence, see beauty, are or want to be happy, have or want purpose, does not make you religious. How you derive these things, and/or why you have them, does indicate whether or not you're religious or "being religious about it".

Etc etc etc.

Religion does not have a patent on these things...these things do not intrinsically fall into a "magisterium" which belongs to religion...and these things are not intrinsic or definitive of religion. Also, understanding things in this way shows how nonsensical it is to think that religion and science overlap, can be compatible, or can be reconciled with each other.

Science is about learning and knowing the truth of things, and learning/knowing how to do so properly in order to actually do it. Religion, definitively, at bottom, is about romanticizing and legitimizing various ways of not-thinking and being intellectually irresponsible and not-rational-enough.

No one in their right mind (except for some of the "bad guys"), and no scientific-type person, would be averse to religion just for it being (alledgedly) about morality, happiness, purpose, or even god, etc, and religion would not be dangerous or bad if it were simply about these things. (At this point I want to allow myself to at least once say - der.)

Yes - most, if not all, people are a mix of these two compulsions. A person is either rational to a certain degree and fails to be rational beyond this degree, or is rational about some things while being irrational about other things. Ours is a struggle to move away from the one towards the other, and a war of the one against the other. "The fundamental history of humankind is the history of the mind." - William Barrett. We must recognize and understand both the "religious mindset impulse" within us individually, and the particularly "religious" sociological structural/behavioral dynamics within our collectives and group-entities.

Religion can manifest in any way, despite label or appearance. A few random examples and applications = Patriotism can be a religion for someone. On an issue of nation or patriotism, somebody could do something which is correct and good, but if they hold a certain view or do a certain thing dogmatically, without much attempt at questioning, because, for example, "their nation can do no wrong", then that person is still wrong, because of why and how they thought/acted, and in such an instance they were "being religious about it" (allowing for the fact that no one person can know everything and we have to weigh another's credibility) - even though you're right about something, if you were right effectively out of luck and your way of choosing your stance or action is according to a faulty or irresponsible methodology, then you are as liable to be a danger, or destructive, as you are liable of being right. Conversely, in nazi Germany, there were many people who definitely did not agree with what was going on, but they were effectively powerless against being "herded along with the stampede". This would be an issue of certain group-dynamics specific to what should be referred to as "religious". A space-shuttle exploded upon launch, when it was many of the engineers who were strongly advising against it, because of the structure and dynamics of how the decision was made to launch anyway. Apply everything I'm saying even to how you interact with your co-workers at your job.

So, as I've posted previously - Religion causes a stunting of intellectual, social, moral, and emotional development...for the individual mind, and collectives/group psychology. This causes strife and drama in all areas of life of the kinds that are unnecessary and otherwise avoidable. And this causes wars, which are only one manifestation of this damage and destruction that it does to us, which is manifested in many other ways in everyday life.

Now, let's see how this allows us to respond to the following...

igorfrankensteen:

...ignore the historic facts. If you actually studied the past, as I have, you would already know that if anything, the opposite is much more true. That is, the amount of mental work required to develop the very complex religions of the world, resulted in a tremendous promotion of intellectual pursuits over pure violence and the rule of the most powerful. The larger religions have done much more to encourage learning, research, investigation, debate, contemplation, logical analysis, and more, than has many of the non-religious means that humans have used to try to manage the world.

Yes, it is certainly true that SOME people look upon their religious beliefs as a way to avoid thinking, feeling, or reasoning, and especially being responsible for themselves and their acts. But that isn't the fault of the concept of a religion, any more than it is the fault of Science, that some people use THAT to declare that they are not responsible for themselves, because they are "just animals, after all."


aradicalpunk:

I'm going to have to agree with Igor here on the point of religion having some credit to inspire Philosophy. Many things evolved from baser, flawed, or rudimentary understandings. At one time we had Alchemy, and now we have Chemistry, at one time we had Apothecaries, and now we have Modern Medicine, at one time we had Symbols, and now we have Literature, at one time we had only Religion, and now we have Philosophy. Of course some of these more "mundane" practices and understandings exist, but humans are evolving from such beginnings. Religion has its place if only to teach us the atrocities, wrongs, and moral evils we committed; and to inspire us not to seek knowledge just for the sake of knowledge, but to really ask the hard questions and act on them.


- The attempt and practice of inspiring and developing intellectuality and knowledge comes from the "scientific" part of a person, or the "scientific" part of a formal institution. But this cannot be what defines "religion" or the institution, and this obviously isn't what's being blamed for causing wars or any other bad things, and religion shouldn't be allowed to disguise itself with the fact that it has done good works or contributed to scientific progress. And, bad things are the fault of the "concept" of religion. And, when people use science to declare that they aren't responsible when they are, or use reasonings such as "they are just animals" when those reasonings aren't true, rational, or applicable...then obviously they are not truthfully "blaming science", but instead are "being religious about it".

- If religion has inspired philosophy, that's irrelevant. Religion has inspired people to show what's wrong with religion...so what? If it even turns out that the intended purpose of religion is to spur us to make ourselves smarter and more moral to each other, by being an example of immorality or by being something that's ignorant and irrational...then part of that is obviously to blame religion and show that it's wrong, so doing so is still valid. And, if at one time we had only a certain degree of knowledge, and/or our knowledge was along the wrong track, and then we improved our knowledge and our methods of discovering it...obviously we're talking about scientific progress, the "scientific" presence within a formal religious institution or a person's total state-of-mind, and it's not attributable to "romanticizing the act of not-thinking and being irrational and not questioning things".

aremeself:

does religion cause wars???
sure!

next question;

should we outlaw religion???
yes! many say.

next question;

does selfish cause wars???
yup!

how you gunna outlaw that???


- Selfishness, when it's detrimental or not prudent, is a result of, and an effect of, the religious mindset impulse. And...How are we going to outlaw it? In some ways, we have - theft. Rape. Etc. Outlawing religion? How? Who knows...it's a good question to answer. It'd be good to be able to do so.

bow/curtsy
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 117
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/2/2013 3:54:40 PM
Though I do respect what you said in that very well written and very long response, 'drinks,' I honestly have to say that when
I distill it all down, what you have eloquently done, is to declare that the only definition of Religion that you are willing to recognize, is limited to one that caters to your conviction that it is all bad at it's core, designed to be damaging to rational thought and action of any kind.

Essentially, in a discussion about what color apples are, you would be the person who declares that all apples are red, because the only definition of "apple" that you recognize, is "Red Fruit from a tree."

I disagree with you, not because I think you are insincere, or unable to reason clearly, or otherwise incapacitated, I disagree with you because I see a larger and more inclusive definition of the terms involved. Though I am as wary of people who want to use religious beliefs to manipulate the rest of us as anyone can be, my first allegiance is to the facts as I see them, from years of studying History, and sociology, and psychology, and belief systems, and human nature in the greater sense.

Historically, for example, for a VERY long time in Europe especially, the only source of rational, careful reasoning and genuine scientific investigation of the world WAS the greater Roman Catholic Church. They not only preserved the older Roman knowledge base, they expanded it, they funded scientific investigations, and they worked very hard against simple superstition, even when it did NOT support their goals of world domination. That's just an example.

Anyway, you and I can't convince each other, because I don't agree with the limits you've placed on the words you are using.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/2/2013 4:20:07 PM
igorfrankensteen:


Though I do respect what you said in that very well written and very long response, 'drinks,' I honestly have to say that when
I distill it all down, what you have eloquently done, is to declare that the only definition of Religion that you are willing to recognize, is limited to one that caters to your conviction that it is all bad at it's core, designed to be damaging to rational thought and action of any kind.

Essentially, in a discussion about what color apples are, you would be the person who declares that all apples are red, because the only definition of "apple" that you recognize, is "Red Fruit from a tree."


I don't think that's a good interpretation of what I said. Please just read again. Carefully. And give it time. Let it digest within what's already in your mind. If I'm wrong somewhere, you can better show it and give a more accurate interpretation of what I'm saying and how I'm reasoning.


Historically, for example, for a VERY long time in Europe especially, the only source of rational, careful reasoning and genuine scientific investigation of the world WAS the greater Roman Catholic Church. They not only preserved the older Roman knowledge base, they expanded it, they funded scientific investigations, and they worked very hard against simple superstition, even when it did NOT support their goals of world domination. That's just an example.


Again, I don't care what good (or bad) a church has done...when we're trying to define what "religion" is, and determine whether or not it can be blamed for wars etc. If enough of the total organization of the Roman Catholic Church had the good intentions or good sense to do a lot of good, in whatever ways, that is only an indication of the rational elements that were present within the church and how it operated as the formal institution. A gun is used to kill someone; A car fails and runs someone over; A nucleur bomb is dropped onto a nation...would these things define "science"? In developing the Theory of Biological Evolution, along the way many things were wrong/erroneous...would these instances define "science"? When something is correct, or is done correctly...would that define "science"? Or would it be how this was achieved?


Anyway, you and I can't convince each other, because I don't agree with the limits you've placed on the words you are using.


Then show me how and where I'm wrong...but also show me that you can do it properly. That you can properly apply sense. If one can convince the other, it should only be because we're able to do it right. Assuming of course that all parties involved know how to use and recognize sense.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 119
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/2/2013 4:35:53 PM
^ Trust me...my intentions really are to know what's true here. I'm being about as sincere as a person could be. I would LOVE to find out that I'm wrong in some way...if I really am. Because I don't care about being wrong or right, I care about knowing what's right about something. But, you HAVE to PROVE it to me - that's how we figure things out. That's part of the method by which we figure out things. You have to prove it to me, but this requires knowing how to do so. It doesn't happen if it doesn't happen correctly.

I'm making it sound as if presented a hypothesis in such a way that a burden of proof is on you...forget that. That's not what I'm trying to do. What we're supposed to do is both "account" for the other successfully. To me, what I'm saying seems to account for things more or better than what you're saying...and your critique - trying to account for what I said - doesn't quite account for what I said, and doesn't quite account for everything about the subject at hand.

I don't think that makes as much sense as I'd like...I'm getting tired at the moment.
 ChristianGuy777
Joined: 2/26/2013
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/3/2013 9:09:38 AM
@ Radical

The evil I see in humans, is one of the reasons I went to Jesus/God.

The character you show in your post is a perfect example of the evil I noted in us, including myself.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/3/2013 2:51:03 PM
^ I thought the one unforgivable sin was "denying the holy spirit"? (same thing?) How does doubting thomas work into all this? Was he forgiven?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 124
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 1:50:15 AM
The unforgiveable sin is the one you commit when you have transcended your humanity enough to actually know better, but sin anyway. It is a willful reversal of direction in what might be termed spiritual progress; not so much a falling from grace as jumping down from it.
 ARadicalPunk
Joined: 1/27/2010
Msg: 125
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 2:20:37 AM

Another way to come at it: in order to declare that "religion causes wars," from the point of view of dispassionate logic, you have to show how the act of believing and following the religion you are speaking of, leads directly to the bad behaviors you want to blame upon it. It's not enough to say that "such-and-such a nation or person committed horrific acts, AND they said it was for god." That would necessitate declaring that if anyone claims to be acting because of anything, that the thing they claim as an excuse, is in fact the cause of the bad behavior...not the person committing it. As soon as you do that, you might as well declare that everything causes wars.


You claim to be a historian, but are you discounting the following wars were not the cause of religion: the American Revolution, Crusades (all seven of the Crusades) French Revolution, US Civil War, World War 1, and World War 2? Are you also claiming that there is no proof that religion has never been the cause of cruel, malicious, corrupt, and sadistic acts? Mary the First of England burned and hanged English men and women for not converting to Catholicism. The Salem Witch trials had women burned, hung, drowned, and tortured all based off religious dogma. The events of September ninth, of the twin towers being struck, was done by Islamic extremists, and because of their religious beliefs. Yet you say we cannot say religion cannot be the cause of wars? How again is this dispassionate logic? Are you going to say also that the child shot four times by the religious leader in North Carolina wasn’t acting on religion to justify his actions?

No one has claimed religion is the cause of all wars, but it has been the cause of some wars and atrocities throughout history, and the proof is already in the pudding. So explain to us again how “religion [doesn’t] cause wars.”
Any time a human has a radical belief in something, an extreme belief, or just a belief, and uses that belief to justify their actions, than yes we as humans can say that is the cause of their immoral behavior, amongst other things. Do you seriously believe humans cannot use someone’s morals in the pursuit of truth, fact, and reasoning for their behaviors and actions, and specifically when they use those morals, ethics, and beliefs to justify those behaviors and actions?
 ARadicalPunk
Joined: 1/27/2010
Msg: 126
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 2:57:13 AM

Another minor point: I have not myself said, nor do I believe that religions have never contributed to warfare or other bad behaviors by humans . Religions are among the many creations of humankind, and they have managed to use pretty much every single thing they've ever come up with, to do both good and not so good things.


Yet you keep saying that. You keep totting this line, moving the bar, and arguing points to suit your need that religion can never be used as cause. Next you will say, “Firearms don’t kill humans, humans kill humans, and you can’t blame a tool of destruction for the cause.”
 ARadicalPunk
Joined: 1/27/2010
Msg: 127
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 2:58:32 AM

- The attempt and practice of inspiring and developing intellectuality and knowledge comes from the "scientific" part of a person, or the "scientific" part of a formal institution. But this cannot be what defines "religion" or the institution, and this obviously isn't what's being blamed for causing wars or any other bad things, and religion shouldn't be allowed to disguise itself with the fact that it has done good works or contributed to scientific progress. And, bad things are the fault of the "concept" of religion. And, when people use science to declare that they aren't responsible when they are, or use reasonings such as "they are just animals" when those reasonings aren't true, rational, or applicable...then obviously they are not truthfully "blaming science", but instead are "being religious about it".

- If religion has inspired philosophy, that's irrelevant. Religion has inspired people to show what's wrong with religion...so what? If it even turns out that the intended purpose of religion is to spur us to make ourselves smarter and more moral to each other, by being an example of immorality or by being something that's ignorant and irrational...then part of that is obviously to blame religion and show that it's wrong, so doing so is still valid. And, if at one time we had only a certain degree of knowledge, and/or our knowledge was along the wrong track, and then we improved our knowledge and our methods of discovering it...obviously we're talking about scientific progress, the "scientific" presence within a formal religious institution or a person's total state-of-mind, and it's not attributable to "romanticizing the act of not-thinking and being irrational and not questioning things".


No, science comes from our ability to think, reason, and question. It is because we are an altricial species with the capability to learn is what inspires our practices and disciplines. Science is simply a discipline—much like Philosophy is a discipline. I never claimed Religion is the only reason we have Philosophy, but Religion did help humans to form Philosophy as a known practice and discipline in the world. Some cultures had Philosophy long before Religion, but so too did other cultures born of Religion evolve to have Philosophy later on.

Of course religion shouldn’t be allowed to disguise itself or scape goat the atrocities done in the name of its belief—whatever that may be. No discipline or practice is allowed this, so what exactly is your point? Educated people understand attempts to divert blame, shift argumentation, or use circular reasoning. Is your point to educate the ignorant and naïve?

“So what?” It is not irrelevant because of the very fact it did exist, and played such an interracial part in the lives of millions of human beings for millennia’s across the world. It was and is still a part of our evolutionary process, and something that does need to be recognized and learned from for the sake of prosperity. No we are on an evolutionary process. Science is not just a belief; it is a knowledge, discipline, and practice, and scientific progress is the means by which we are advancing our evolution and understanding of the natural world.

You keep harping on “Religion” and “religion.” They are both unanimous, and the only difference is the capitalization of the letter r; and either can be the in the service to God or an institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

You use a lot of circular reasoning and argumentation from assumption, and seem to want to clarify what educated audiences already know. Why? You’re going to need some citation of how humans have blamed one thing and done another, or how they are romancing, as you are putting nothing into context.
 ARadicalPunk
Joined: 1/27/2010
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 3:02:45 AM
@ Radical

The evil I see in humans, is one of the reasons I went to Jesus/God.

The character you show in your post is a perfect example of the evil I noted in us, including myself.


You better be able to elaborate, show, and prove how I'm evil if you are going to start to insult my character. I don't care for your condemning Christian views, and if you are going to make wild accusations you better damn well have some evidence to substantiate those bold claims.
 CureCurious
Joined: 1/15/2013
Msg: 130
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 7:08:23 AM
What is religion but a mere set of ideas, beliefs, and rituals? Is it religion that causes conflict, or is it ideas and beliefs that cause wars..

Don't tell me religion is a set of irrational delusional ideas. You can rationalise any bogus idea. Just like how the US invaded Iraq saying there were weapons of mass distraction.

The belief could have been true. It could have been that iraq did have WMDs. But the method of dealing with the matter could have been dealt in many ways.

It's what you o with your beliefs and ideas and your rituals that matter.

I love cats. I love rescuing cats. It's a good moral thing. But if I start burning houses of people who don't look after their cats, then irrespective of my good value, i am still doing a bad thing.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 131
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 7:49:57 AM
What is religion but a mere set of ideas, beliefs, and rituals? Is it religion that causes conflict, or is it ideas and beliefs that cause wars..

Those religions present ideals that others are not equal or less than because of their beliefs or lack there of, thus creating a platform for conflict and hate.




Don't tell me religion is a set of irrational delusional ideas...

Instructing others not to inform you of the truth, how very religious and ironic of you.
 CureCurious
Joined: 1/15/2013
Msg: 132
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 8:06:22 AM
^^ Typical, pull out the first sentence of a apragraph. :)

Humans have mroe than one facuty besides rational thinking
I think, therefore I am?
Or... I am, therefore I think!

Youse your left side brain yes, but also use the right side. Use your intution, reflection, wisdom. Things may not appear rational -- i mean, rationality is basically measured against what is known and tested... but have youcome to this world with infinite wisdom sir? You are merely at the stage of discovery. Not all things make sense to people until they experience it.

A friend today told me that they dont understand why people cry and sulk after a relationship break up. Its like crying over spilt milk. They admitted that when they see someone cry they get annoyed and click their fingers and say something like, "Righteo, so what are we going to do?"

He is rational. Yet, because he is unable to comprehend that sort of emotion, he can get very extremely dangerous.

We do / think irrational things all the time for rational reasons that make sense to us.

Of course there's a fine line and that line is not harming others...
Tolerance i important, and I'm sure all religions preach tolerance.
But even toleration comes in limits i guess.. even in secular states there are limits to toleration.
 ChristianGuy777
Joined: 2/26/2013
Msg: 134
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 10:55:35 AM
@bhawk01

No, I didn't say God murdered. I said God has a right to destroy. But in our context though, I said God has a right to kill.

Based on the Justice system God has a right to kill/destroy us. The justice system is like this... good 100% and anything less than that is evil. When I say evil... think "rapist, natzi, murderer".. worst of the worst evil. And you are in that category if you have done so little as told a tiny lie or stolen a penny or get angry, or lust.. or any evil at all. That's how serious it is.

Note: The "rapist,natzi,muderer" phrase is to help you understand how bad evil is in the eyes of God.

So, if God decides to kill/destroy someone than his taking out a person who is like a "rapist,natzi, murder." So, based on this Justice system God doesn't mudrer. He does justice and does good by killing/destroying a "rapist,natzi,mudrer."

That's one reason, the justice system.

The next reason is God's position and authority. God gave us our lives and he can also take it away if he wants.

Besides universal reasons why God can destroy and kill if he choses...there's reasons why ANYONE can see why...

So, when God led the Israelites to kill the Assyrians (whom are regarded as the Natzi's of the ancient world which people like yourself like to defend?) that was a good thing. They deserved it. Read thier history and prepare to have chills go down your spines. Like-wise, the Canaanites... descendants of Cain... from the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis... read thier religious practices... chills, chills. Amalekites, the name Amalek is still used as a symbol of hate and evil against Jews. They were set on destroying the Israelites for what seemed for no reason what so ever??? The destruction of these peoples was a good thing.

Lastly, in response to your last sentence, in most cases no, I shouldn't. For example, self-defence is justified reason to kill someone. Also, I think our earthly Justice system has some support scripterally to take life. To keep the peace and the preservation of life are two fundmental responsibilities for our gorvernment. So, I'm guessing that government has rights in that area as-well. That's as far as I know how much right we(humans) have a right to take life.

It's worth mentioning an eye for an eye. That's how far our punishments CAN go... NOT that it has to always go that far. But those are the boundaries. For example, say someone murdered Bob's sons. Bob can ask for full justice and that would mean the murderer gets death. That's an eye for an eye. However Bob can't ask for the murderer to die AND ask for the murderer's son to die as-well. An eye for an eye puts a border and restriction for that....Als, Bob can also forgive the man and ask for lesser sentences like prison time.

Okay, Im done
 ChristianGuy777
Joined: 2/26/2013
Msg: 136
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 11:53:47 AM
@Radical

Anger or hatred, do you ever feel that towards anyone in particular?

Also, it's not a bold claim. It's common knowledge that people do evil things.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 137
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 12:45:34 PM
...well, I tried. But debate games aren't going to get us anywhere.
 DevilfromToronto
Joined: 9/23/2012
Msg: 138
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 1:17:24 PM

It's common knowledge that people do evil things.


please clarify what you meant by "evil things"
 ChristianGuy777
Joined: 2/26/2013
Msg: 141
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/4/2013 4:49:09 PM
@ EVERYONE

I will make a thread and explain everything with baby steps, while trying to put it in a way you can more easily see it. It's clear that I shouldn't summarize. These are huge concepts and I've been silly for thinking it would be that easy.

And I'll take note of the posts that were before this. Thanks
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 142
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/5/2013 4:31:36 AM


Ah this guy, Christian douche bags making apologies for the Bible and their faith once again.

Actually, the Bible says nothing about interpreting it metaphorically (the fallacy of assumption) cherry picking your religion (another fallacy) and running augments into your beginning premise (and specifically giving circular arguments is another fallacy)

So what we get is A is true, “Scripture has to be read metaphorically to interpret it properly and learn it's profound moral lessons,”

Because B is true, “As an example of what I mean, I will now critique bhawk's post of scriptural quotes with my own take on their meaning. I'll omit the quotes from what Jesus meant, since he probably didn't say it exactly that way,”

Because A is true, “So you see, scripture, like Aesop's fables teaches us many and profound lessons when you read it properly and without making stupid assumptions (like it's meant to be taken literally, or is historically accurate, or was written by an almighty and nasty, vengeful, jealous God modelled on Zeus, etc.) Like any truly good storybook, the Bible teaches us a great deal about ourselves.”

This folks is a not only a weak argument, but an argument of circular reasoning. He argues against assumptions, but tells you to believe on assumption and makes appeals to faith (this is what we “intellectual” types like to call a fallacy).

Ofcourse his strawman army is easily burned when you look at the text, known your own level of education, beg the question, and realize the hokum that is the bible. The testaments do speak for themselves, and are to be taken with a grain of salt because Jesus himself says he lies, but calls them moral stories:

Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, “lest . . . they . . . should understand . . . and should be converted, and I should heal them” (Matthew 13:10-15).

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell (Mark 4:11-12).

Isn't Jesus a great guy? If you don't interpret his evil fairy tales correctly you will go to hell. I'm sure we can all learn our lessons in hell. Such is this Omniscient and Omnibenevolent God who tricks humans, manipulates humans, and blackmails humans into his way of thinking. Clearly this is the work of supreme intelligence and supreme love. Get illiterate and uneducated sandal jockeys to write your word, and objectify it to the world.

What kills me is when people like this can’t look up from their drip trays long enough to realize humans don’t like it when you say they couldn’t possibly understand, interpret, or even begin to fathom the bible (a book that was written by men some odd 4,000 years ago). No, sorry my education allows me to not only understand this garbage, but sort out all the lies, bullshit, and contradictions. Nice try, but from the time it took your brain to fart the excess gray matter out, us free thinkers already took this book apart front and back.

The best part, you have zero proof--nada, none, wala, aucun, keiner, and nemo--that God exists. Ah, we humans sure as hell can't disprove the existence of a god, but you Christians, Muslims, and Jews got shit to go on. I'm gonna go do a jig.


Unfortunately, I haven't been used as a xtian douche bag in quite awhile…Can't even function as one. It's a problem that comes with age I guess. And the only God I have faith in is me. (See some of my old posts in this regard lol)

Obviously you missed the intent of my post, which wasn't to argue (at all in the logical sense) either as a xtian apologist, nor as one of the "elect". What I was trying to pojnt out was that scripture (like any truly good book) contains stories and lessons that can tell us a lot about ourselves once we read what is morally reasonable INTO it. It can serve as a point of focus for critical thinking and moral reasoning. What might be called secular/humanist moral theory can be extracted from it once you sift thru all the crap.

I'm finding it to be a great source of ancient wisdom. For example, I contend (from a secular perspective) that we, as reasonable, caring adults should be acting as trustees (and co-beneficiaries) of the earth and all it contains (which includes us of course). Old Momma Earth serves as both grantor and (should be) beneficiary of our existence. The unfortunate truth is that the human species has moved from a symbiotic relationship (the behavioural rules of which are defined by natural law) to a vampiric/parasitic/commercial one that might be likened to fleas on a dog. We are raping the planet (unsustainably) for its resources with an eye to short term profit at the expense of life itself. Obviously we are acting in "breach of trust" with respect to the planet to spite what we might call the imperative to live sustainably ( to "give back" whatever we take). I reasoned (independently of any scripture, holy or otherwise) that it is our moral duty to replenish the earth.

If our civilization had been based on mere superstition & legends, then scripture would not contain any instruction implying a duty to be a good trustee. If instead we had known of natural law since early on, it should probably be reflected in scripture somewhere, so looking for passages to indicate this duty would reveal what our civilization is based on. Lo & behold, I found it in Genesis…

"Replenish the earth"…I now call that the first commandment, because IMO it was not only the first, but the most important of the bunch. It seems we originally knew natural law long before Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, etc. came along; we must have brought it with us when we came down from the trees and reasoned about it when we first started talking, finally putting it in print in what would eventually become a twisted compilation of ancient tales, interspersed with a very profound moral philosophy called "natural law."

It appears the ancient (before the rise of collective agriculture and the city-state) tribal shamans were a lot smarter than we give them credit for.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 143
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/5/2013 4:58:36 AM
justdukky:

What I was trying to pojnt out was that scripture (like any truly good book) contains stories and lessons that can tell us a lot about ourselves once we read what is morally reasonable INTO it. It can serve as a point of focus for critical thinking and moral reasoning. What might be called secular/humanist moral theory can be extracted from it once you sift thru all the crap.

The problem is that anything can do this, once you sift thru the crap, and are already able to read something reasonable into it...but things like the bible are thought of as being more than that, and as more reliable than that.

we are acting in "breach of trust" with respect to the planet

Yes. True.
 CureCurious
Joined: 1/15/2013
Msg: 144
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/5/2013 5:36:47 AM
The Bible, Torah, Quran really can be put into one sentence: "Believe n worship one God, do righteous deeds, be humble do unto others as you would wish for yourself, be united, be at peace, your return is to God."


But I disagree that the stories in these scriptures are jut stories... there is a wisdom behind many if not all these stories. You have to understand and read between the lines.

With the Quran for exampe, it is also viewed as a therapeutic relief. specially the first chapter combined with the last 3 chapters... (al-fatiha, ikhlas, al-falaq, an-nas) ... recitin these really calms one down when you are anxious or fearful or ill.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 145
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/5/2013 6:19:19 AM
^

- No they can't. Not the sentence above.

- A book of god wouldn't be a book that should have to be read so much between the lines.
 CureCurious
Joined: 1/15/2013
Msg: 146
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/5/2013 6:55:55 AM
drinkface,

Reading between lines i dont mean take the whole book as allegorical. Take the laws and stories literally. What you should read between the lines is the wisdom behind the words. That's what i meant. Understand the greater significance. The book may be talking about a spider, read it literally... but understand why it is giving you the story of the spider.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 148
view profile
History
Does Religion cause Wars
Posted: 4/5/2013 1:35:59 PM
curecurious - make up your mind (that's what I mean)
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >