Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by wynn, Dec 3, 2011.

  1. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    wynn,



    I don't understand the question.



    You'd have to quote some, as the thread is too big to go trapesing through.
    I would say they have to be understood in the context the time, place, and circumstances it nartates.


    Sounds as it that person is pissed about something. Again, context is king.


    jan.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Bells -

    The issue under discussion was - as you no doubt realize full well - was unfounded assertion. I'm sorry you now present this as a plan to humiliate you or force you to emit a public apology, and that you now see this as 'gloating'. It was not gloating, although it was certainly 'gleeful' (I actually would have said 'very pleasantly surprised'). I was hugely impressed with the equanimity of the decision, and I still am.

    Now, as to the why: you've made comments on the issue of the French law of the burkha which could - using the same biased filters you employed, and then ran away from - be used to implicate you as having some kind of discriminatory opinion. Did that seem fair? Of course not. And the issue is now clear.

    So I'm sorry you don't accept the apology, but ultimately that's your problem. I have not criticized your poor-faith apology; it was patently clear that you were implying my support for religious violence. There were no "ifs" to it. I thank you for your apology, but since you accept mine in such poor faith, no further will in all probability be forthcoming.

    Let us now return the thread to its intent. I fully intend to do so.

    Best regards,

    Geoff
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Rather, a philosophy. Politics - at least in part - is another form of philosophies.

    As do I, Second Amendment notwithstanding. But if it did, then vigilante justice arising from it could be said to be based in constitutional law; that is, 'political'. It would spring from that source.

    This is true, but some people are taught baser things, and retain them. In any event, the motivation for such religious violence would be religious. Hence, religious violence.

    So you're calling religiously-inspired generosity irreligious?

    I think it more mundane to assume that. Religion, like politics, is merely philosophy.

    And other crimes are committed explicitly in the name of religion. I could add that the secular law uses many religious concepts in its application.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    The request was that you apologise and retract. You did neither on that issue.

    You accused me of approving of violence towards women, and then had to go and search for what you could possibly find when challenged on the issue. What you used as so called evidence was my saying that forcing women to not dress a certain way is just as bad as forcing them to dress a certain way... You attempted to lie through your teeth about it and you failed. You also falsely accused me of banning a member I have never banned, questioned and criticised my moderating that member's post (by linking the post I made in regards to that action - in other words, it was my moderation and supposedly banning LeBlanc you were criticising me for... when I never even banned him or issued him with an infraction) and called me a hypocrite for it. You also haven't apologised for that particular lie either.

    So no, it is not my problem. But yours.

    Since you have failed to apologise and retract for your accusation (all blatant lies) that you made against me that I approve of violence against women, I really do not see how or why I should accept what you have failed to provide or give.
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Actually, I did apologize for all the particulars above. I wish you the best of luck in locating them: written in basic English, they should not be indiscernible to the naked eye. I didn't specifically retract them, but I would have assumed that was implicit: nonetheless, I further add that I retract those statements.

    Let me know how you make out: or actually, don't.

    Geoff
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Oh you mean after you edited your post? Again, sneaky and lies.. Really, how much lower can you actually go? Lets see your words, shall we? Let us look at your "apology" about what you said about my moderation..

    Hmmm.. lovely sentiments. However, here is what you had actually said:

    With a direct link to a mod note I did about LeBlanc and what he had done. So this is you not implying that I use my mod status? So which individuals have I banned for 'this'? You also failed to provide evidence for that lie you tried to push about me as well. How about when after I pointed out your lies, you then edited your next post to say this:

    This is you not implying that I use my moderator status? Not to mention all this while you commented that I am a "moderator", you know, just to be clear. Show me where in that link you provided after you accused me of using my moderator status to 'ban' people for failing to provide evidence or cite their sources, did I threaten or point out that he would have been banned?

    Your instructions were clear. Apologise and retract. Do it properly and I might take you seriously.
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I think your opinion is based on an incomplete understanding of religion.
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Delusional is not the same thing as insane.
     
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Look, enough already. Is this necessary now?

    Very well: in what sense was my edit "sneaky" or "lying"? I'd be only to happy to discuss it, if only you can figure out what post you're talking about. Bon chance.

    Very good. You have mastered the art of posting a link. Could you point out where in that post I said you personally would abuse your mod status? Do you understand yet?

    'Use your mod status'? What in hell are you trying to say here? Please specify.

    Actually, in that post I pointed out that you were correct and that you had not banned him, but that your calls were hypocritical given your behaviour. And?

    What is the edit to which you are referring? What is that post supposed to have said originally? I seem to recall adding some italics and a "-". I think I even added "whoever he might be". And? What is this post-hoc meant to have changed or implied? If you're accusing me of deception, you should probably have a care about it. Proof is good.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I've done so already. Are you going to be done this anytime soon?
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    What am I missing then?
     
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Mundane things - whether it is mundane violence or mundane generosity or anything else mundane - are simply mundane, not a matter of religion per se.


    This then seems to be the core of your stance.
     
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    No, elements of religion may also be mundane. This is a value judgement you are applying to motivation; as motivation spans the range of the exciting to the deadly dull, elements of religion may be mundane also. Or do you mean in the material world? In that case, there is nothing religious or irreligious in real space-time, and thus no rationale for your distinction about religiously motivated violence. There can then really be nothing religious at all.

    And it is, unless you believe the God-hand is in all things. In which case there is nothing irreligious, and so the existence of religious violence is indisputable. :shrug:

    But what about those crimes committed that spring directly from religious sources; i.e. anti-Semitism (or at least obliquely via some of the NT language), or the execution of apostates from Islam under Islamic law?
     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    IOW: How can a human external observer recognize whether someone is religious or believes in God, or not?



    E.g.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2873480&postcount=325

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2873511&postcount=329


    The argument can be made that to apply those instructions from the Bible literally nowadays, would be an anachronism.

    Back then, they simply didn't have the infrastructure to organize systematic education of children or imprisonment of criminals, so they had to resort to simpler means.

    If someone nowadays would want to be true to the letter of the Bible, they would have to refrain from using any modern technology, and also become illiterate.
     
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    There may be religious, or irreligious intentions/motivations for doing things.

    For example, to eat in order to please one's senses is irreligious.
    To eat in order to keep the body going so that one can perform one's duties, one of them being to acknowledge God in a favorable manner, is religious.
    Externally, two people may be performing the same action, but the type and quality of their respective intentions may vary.


    Every social group deals with intruders, enemies and misfits somehow.

    If the group can afford it, they put them in fancy prison facilities and try to rehabilitate them.
    If the group is poor, they'll just excommunicate, lash or stone the misfits and be done with it.
     
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Then you also cannot justly claim that they committed religiously motivated violence.

    To justly make the claim that an act is religiously motivated, you'd have to be religious, at least that.
    To justly make the claim that an act is religiously motivated, you'd have to belive that that particular person in that particular situation was divinely ordained by God to do what they did.


    But that doesn't make them so.

    The notion of "religiously motivated violence" assumes that a particular person in a particular situation has been divinely ordained to commit a violent act with the intention to cause harm to another living being.


    Do you take for granted that someone is a nuclear physicist simply because they claim to be a nuclear physicist ...
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Aha! Then there is such a thing as religiously-motivated violence, which was your original point and the title of the thread. You can't separate by outcome.
     
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    wynn,



    If the observer understands what it means to believe in God, then yes.
    Being ''religious'' can mean anything, and not necessarily mean one is actually a theist. Religion is the application of ones belief system, or world view, and if one believes in the material world, Charles Darwin, or oneself, and lives according to those principles. One is, in my view, religious.


    I would understand that to be the rules of the day.



    A ''rod of correction'' need not be ''violence''.



    I suppose it could, in some western countries.
    Back in the day the soldiers went away to fight wars, and didn't kill and mame innocent people, unlike nowadays.



    Says who?



    No they wouldn't.
    They only need to follow the 10 commandments. That IS the religion in the Bible.

    jan.
     
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    The intention to harm someone just to make them suffer is not a religious intention.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    The intention to harm someone because they live in violation of religious laws certainly is a religious intention.
     
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    No. That would be an attempt to impersonate God (which one should not do) or considering oneself to be the agent of another person's karma (which is a mistake).
     

Share This Page