Yes, it really does.
Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Yes, it really does.
No, it's Occam's razor. I see no evidence of any divine guidance, so I see no need to include it in any equation. In fact, the idea raises more questions than it answers... as is demonstrated in these endless threads that lead nowhere.
gmilam,
This is an honest response.
You don't know what religion is.
And this expereince shaped your outlook on religion in general?
And your realisation came as a result of your experience?
I understand that.
You aren't able to go past a certain level of experience.
jan.
This is an honest response.
You don't know what religion is.
And this expereince shaped your outlook on religion in general?
And your realisation came as a result of your experience?
I understand that.
You aren't able to go past a certain level of experience.
jan.
wynn,
Because that is how they deal with it.
Otherwise it's too personal, therefore beyond them, therefore
a lack of control.
Warfare instinct?
They don't understand what IS religion, they move to plan B when their cover (mimickery of understanding) is blown.
jan.
Because that is how they deal with it.
Otherwise it's too personal, therefore beyond them, therefore
a lack of control.
Warfare instinct?
They don't understand what IS religion, they move to plan B when their cover (mimickery of understanding) is blown.
jan.
Last edited:
And it was through stepping outside of my comfort zone that I accepted/realized that there is no divine guidance. I was reared with the concept of "God" (capital G). It took years of Bible (and other religion) study and soul searching to step outside the concept and see it for what it is.
Although I guess if you come into this forum with the mind "Let's fight!" then that OP and many others will indeed appear as inviting a debate to you.
Well, yes, when you lay down a challenge, expect it to be taken up.
Its religious motivation comes from Leviticus, among other places. Does that help?
gmilam,
What was your comfort zone, what did you do to step outside of it, and how did the realisation manifest to you???
What is ''soul searching''?
jan.
What was your comfort zone, what did you do to step outside of it, and how did the realisation manifest to you???
What is ''soul searching''?
jan.
No we understand it just fine, this isn't about some level of spiritual attainment, the subject is religion and how it's practiced by religious people. You want to cover for the worst aspects of following a sacred text or dogma by redefining religion into two categories, those who misunderstand it (by your definition anyone that may justify violence with it) and those who really understand it (by definition people that act like peaceful kind saints who can't do anything wrong).
spidergoat,
I don't understand. What do you mean by ''spiritual attainment''?
And what is it's connection with ''religion''?
I haven't give a definition of religion, outside of the scriptures, so it's hardly ''my'' definition.
The definition floating around refers to objects of religion, not what religion, actually, is.
It's like saying, a home is a place with walls, floors, and cielings, or, love is chemical reactions in the brain. While these may be present on some level, it most certainly does not constitute the actuality of these things.
To assert that they do, simply means your broader understanding is lacking, so you have to make do with a simple rationalized version.
That's all that definition is.
jan.
I don't understand. What do you mean by ''spiritual attainment''?
And what is it's connection with ''religion''?
I haven't give a definition of religion, outside of the scriptures, so it's hardly ''my'' definition.
The definition floating around refers to objects of religion, not what religion, actually, is.
It's like saying, a home is a place with walls, floors, and cielings, or, love is chemical reactions in the brain. While these may be present on some level, it most certainly does not constitute the actuality of these things.
To assert that they do, simply means your broader understanding is lacking, so you have to make do with a simple rationalized version.
That's all that definition is.
jan.
You said you didn't define religion, but then you do define it partially when you say that there is a separation between "objects of religion", presumably sacred texts, and what religion actually is. All I'm saying is that anyone can interpret the texts, and that interpretation is also religion. So if some text advocates violence, and someone accepts that as their religion, that's religion in the context of the original question about whether religion motivates violence.
I have no doubt that there are people who are not a part of organized religion who may nevertheless accept certain aspects of organized religion but also reject any violent course of action. Note that no one is suggesting all religions are violent or that all religious people are violent. Only that some religions as actually practiced include violent aspects, some of which are defined as obligations to be violent.
You claim that we don't know what religion is, but I claim that you are unaware of all the world's religions, so it's disingenuous to assert that religion cannot advocate violence. I'm also unaware of all the world's religions, there are thousands. Can you really be sure that none of them are violent?
I have no doubt that there are people who are not a part of organized religion who may nevertheless accept certain aspects of organized religion but also reject any violent course of action. Note that no one is suggesting all religions are violent or that all religious people are violent. Only that some religions as actually practiced include violent aspects, some of which are defined as obligations to be violent.
You claim that we don't know what religion is, but I claim that you are unaware of all the world's religions, so it's disingenuous to assert that religion cannot advocate violence. I'm also unaware of all the world's religions, there are thousands. Can you really be sure that none of them are violent?
spidergoat,
I was refering to the definitions given by modern atheists in this thread.
As gmillam said, that's how he sees it from his perspective. Like you, he doesn't understand what it is. Everything you say regarding religion shows this, even your above point.
No it's not, it becomes their interpretation. It is this thinking that makes this thread, pointless, although a brilliant expose of the modern atheist mindset.
You're saying that because it makes it easier, in your mind, to accept that there is ''religiously'' motivated violence.
You don't care for truth, only to win the argument.
How thoughtful of you.
Only because it doesn't benefit you (at this moment) to say that.
Onece you think you have the upper hand, you will say justify that. That is
your irrational need to do away with religion. Your motive is simple.
[qupte]Only that some religions as actually practiced include violent aspects, some of which are defined as obligations to be violent. [/QUOTE]
Then show it. Explain how it is religious, in it's proper scriptoral context, not cherry picked text. Make a real discussion of it, if you dare, and let's see if my expose of your mentality is incorrect.
Again, you show your ignorance.
Show me from the source, that violence can be religiously motivated.
Do you really think that the spagetti monster nonsense, devised by people with you mindset is actually a religion?
:roflmao:
You guys keep saying you are more adept in religion, and scriptures than theists. Here's your chance to show it.
jan.
I was refering to the definitions given by modern atheists in this thread.
As gmillam said, that's how he sees it from his perspective. Like you, he doesn't understand what it is. Everything you say regarding religion shows this, even your above point.
No it's not, it becomes their interpretation. It is this thinking that makes this thread, pointless, although a brilliant expose of the modern atheist mindset.
You're saying that because it makes it easier, in your mind, to accept that there is ''religiously'' motivated violence.
You don't care for truth, only to win the argument.
How thoughtful of you.
Only because it doesn't benefit you (at this moment) to say that.
Onece you think you have the upper hand, you will say justify that. That is
your irrational need to do away with religion. Your motive is simple.
[qupte]Only that some religions as actually practiced include violent aspects, some of which are defined as obligations to be violent. [/QUOTE]
Then show it. Explain how it is religious, in it's proper scriptoral context, not cherry picked text. Make a real discussion of it, if you dare, and let's see if my expose of your mentality is incorrect.
Again, you show your ignorance.
Show me from the source, that violence can be religiously motivated.
Do you really think that the spagetti monster nonsense, devised by people with you mindset is actually a religion?
:roflmao:
You guys keep saying you are more adept in religion, and scriptures than theists. Here's your chance to show it.
jan.
Only if one accepts secondary and primary causes for conflict as non-different (a POV that renders coming to any sort of solution or resolution impossible btw )
Hence a poor black man who steals is a thief because he is black,
(despite the exception)
an unskilled woman driver crashes her car because she is a woman
(despite the exception)
and a muslim who blows up a bomb is a terrorist because he is a muslim
(despite the exception)
I think you think you know what it means, but that personal definition is necessarily narrow in order to avoid coming to terms with how religion is really practiced in the world. What is the relationship between a religion like Christianity and God's laws as written in the Bible? Is the text sacred or not? Are the laws binding or not, and if not who's interpretation was that?
A religious interpretation falls under the larger category of religion. Otherwise, there would be no sects of Christianity. There would be no Mormons, Baptists, Calvinists, etc... these are all different interpretations of the Bible. Christianity is an interpretation of the Old Testament and the newer gospels. Are you asserting that there is an objective definition of a particular religion that excludes human interpretation of sacred texts?
We won the argument a long time ago, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of your particular flavor of denial.
Nonsense. Obviously you see this as a war between atheists and theists, not a debate in good faith. Which means that you will use any means at your disposal to combat what you feel is an attack on your belief system. I don't look at it that way. I certainly don't need to "do away" with religion. I'm under no delusion that any effort on the part of atheists will eliminate religion, and it's not even my desire. I desire nothing more than diversity and independence of thought. I don't even have any atheist friends!
We tried to do that earlier, remember? On the subject of witchcraft? Exodus 22?
16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
19Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
20He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
21Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
This passage has led directly to Christians accusing people of witchcraft, which doesn't exist at all or is a form of slander against some pagan religions, leading to innocent people being burned alive by the tens of thousands. It's part of the basic definition of Christianity that the Bible is the word of God. The Old Testament is also a foundational text of Judaism. We don't talk about Jewish killing of suspected witches, but I'm sure that happened too.
---
If someone read this:
19Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
And interpreted it to mean that anyone who sleeps with their dog or cat in the bed next to them must be killed, that would also be a form of religious violence. Their interpretation would be unorthodox, but it would still be religious in nature, because the Bible is a religious book.
---
No, it's a thought experiment designed to expose the false logic of some Christian apologetics.jan said:
Christianity
Studied it deeply for almost a decade
A man on a flaming pie came to me and said, "This is Bullshit!"
A figure of speech
BTW - I usually have you on ignore - so if you think I'm ignoring you - you are correct.
Nevertheless, if the religious text supports a violent action, even if there are other reasons for that action, it shares some of the blame. Slavery thrived for economic reasons, but the Bible was often used to justify it, and so it is also to blame. If there was a commandment against it, it would have been as rare as murder.
Just like if a demograph supports a specific behaviour, it shares some of the blame : eg blacks= criminals, etc etc
it was also used to abolish it, so go figure ..
what to speak of abolition, the whole amendment of "all men being equal" is a transcendental treatise based on scripture (in case you haven't noticed, all men are most certainly not created equal as far as naturalistic views are concerned ... IOW a vast majority of arguments against slavery have a transcendental basis )
spidergoat,
You don't seem to know the difference between what is ''religious'', and what isn't, and the definitions put foreward on this thread does nothing to clarify it.
You're asking me, because you don't know, yet you act as though you do.
Why does it?
Please don't evade this question.
Is it ''religion'' that differentiates the sects?
If so, what is the ''religious'' differences?
Bear in mind that ''religiousity'' is not only mental.
Are you asserting that religion is the assertions made by people?
To win an argument you need to understand both sides.
You barely understand your side, let alone the other. No objection, or addition
to that definition proves that.
I know you'd like to think so, because it would somehow back up your shot in the dark notion of religiously motivated violence.
If you understood my position, you would know that there is no need of such a war. You would understand that I don't see the two positions in the same way you do.
It is because you are so inclined, why you make this accusatiion.
You don't know my belief system, and you don't know if I'm religious.
Again, you've been caught with you pants down.
Slow down, and take a deep breath.
I'm only going off what you have said in the past.
These are laws, not religion, or religous laws (whatever that is). These are codes for citizens (at that time) to live by, to keep the society moving.
The ''religion'' is distributed in Chapter 20.
A good citizen would realise that the law has been violated, and call the authorities to take the perputrator into custody. If the person takes the law into their own hands, then they also become outlaws.
The Bible may be a ''religious book'', but the distinctions are clear.
Okay, so it's what you want it to be, just like the Bible or any other scripture.
How do you convince somebody that it is NOT a religion, if like you, things are what you want, or deem them to be?
jan.
You don't seem to know the difference between what is ''religious'', and what isn't, and the definitions put foreward on this thread does nothing to clarify it.
You're asking me, because you don't know, yet you act as though you do.
Why does it?
Please don't evade this question.
Is it ''religion'' that differentiates the sects?
If so, what is the ''religious'' differences?
Bear in mind that ''religiousity'' is not only mental.
Are you asserting that religion is the assertions made by people?
To win an argument you need to understand both sides.
You barely understand your side, let alone the other. No objection, or addition
to that definition proves that.
I know you'd like to think so, because it would somehow back up your shot in the dark notion of religiously motivated violence.
If you understood my position, you would know that there is no need of such a war. You would understand that I don't see the two positions in the same way you do.
It is because you are so inclined, why you make this accusatiion.
You don't know my belief system, and you don't know if I'm religious.
Again, you've been caught with you pants down.
Slow down, and take a deep breath.
I'm only going off what you have said in the past.
These are laws, not religion, or religous laws (whatever that is). These are codes for citizens (at that time) to live by, to keep the society moving.
The ''religion'' is distributed in Chapter 20.
A good citizen would realise that the law has been violated, and call the authorities to take the perputrator into custody. If the person takes the law into their own hands, then they also become outlaws.
The Bible may be a ''religious book'', but the distinctions are clear.
Okay, so it's what you want it to be, just like the Bible or any other scripture.
How do you convince somebody that it is NOT a religion, if like you, things are what you want, or deem them to be?
jan.
Ffs
He has: chapter and verse.
More straw men? "Because he is a woman/muslim/black" implies that such a perspective should be common to all individuals within these demographic groups, which is of course a bullshit contrast from the get-go. It appears that no one is arguing for such a contrast except you, so please cease the disingenuity. The point is that some individuals do act in violent ways because there is abundant suggestion in their religious texts to do so. Ergo, there is religious violence.
Only to the opaque.
Oh for Christ's sake - Jan, we understand your position, back to front. We get it. It's only been clear since the start of the thread. What we are - futilely, seemingly - trying to remind you is that there are people who interpret their religion in a manner unlike you. That they can do so in the name of their religion and have their assertions supported by scripture is reason enough to conclude that religious violence exists.
So thou shalt not commit murder and thou shalt have no Gods before me are not in any way religious commandments? From whom do they originate then? (What do you mean by "keep society moving", incidentally?) In what way do "codes" differ from religious edicts? Who assumes the responsibility for punishing infringements of such "codes" in such a society? Why do they punish people for infringements of same? - by which I mean, what do they cite as a necessity for punishment? Who is harmed by violation of, say, the exultation of a god besides - well - God? Or by the exultation of no god at all?
Well, at least someone's are. In the above: what if the state mandates violence against them, and employs it? i]I.e. punishing apostates for their apostasy (quite popular in Malaysia these days, I'm given to understand).
?? No, it's a thought experiment designed to challenge Christian apologetics. That's what it is. That's what it always has been.
By reminding them what the truth is. Which is that it's a thought experiment designed to challenge Christian apologetics. If there are those who don't believe that, well... :shrug: Some crazies, frankly, will never be cured.
What this has to do with the argument is beyond me. First, the "con" side seemed to be arguing that books were speaking to people, then the argument appeared to be that religion was whatever you said it was - which was presumably nothing since you could give no account of it - and now you seem to be trying to make the case that there's no such thing as religious violence since you don't think all that bad stuff is religious. Talk about moving goalposts.
He has: chapter and verse.
More straw men? "Because he is a woman/muslim/black" implies that such a perspective should be common to all individuals within these demographic groups, which is of course a bullshit contrast from the get-go. It appears that no one is arguing for such a contrast except you, so please cease the disingenuity. The point is that some individuals do act in violent ways because there is abundant suggestion in their religious texts to do so. Ergo, there is religious violence.
Only to the opaque.
Oh for Christ's sake - Jan, we understand your position, back to front. We get it. It's only been clear since the start of the thread. What we are - futilely, seemingly - trying to remind you is that there are people who interpret their religion in a manner unlike you. That they can do so in the name of their religion and have their assertions supported by scripture is reason enough to conclude that religious violence exists.
So thou shalt not commit murder and thou shalt have no Gods before me are not in any way religious commandments? From whom do they originate then? (What do you mean by "keep society moving", incidentally?) In what way do "codes" differ from religious edicts? Who assumes the responsibility for punishing infringements of such "codes" in such a society? Why do they punish people for infringements of same? - by which I mean, what do they cite as a necessity for punishment? Who is harmed by violation of, say, the exultation of a god besides - well - God? Or by the exultation of no god at all?
Well, at least someone's are.
In the above: what if the state mandates violence against them, and employs it? i]I.e. punishing apostates for their apostasy (quite popular in Malaysia these days, I'm given to understand).?? No, it's a thought experiment designed to challenge Christian apologetics. That's what it is. That's what it always has been.
By reminding them what the truth is. Which is that it's a thought experiment designed to challenge Christian apologetics. If there are those who don't believe that, well... :shrug: Some crazies, frankly, will never be cured.
What this has to do with the argument is beyond me. First, the "con" side seemed to be arguing that books were speaking to people, then the argument appeared to be that religion was whatever you said it was - which was presumably nothing since you could give no account of it - and now you seem to be trying to make the case that there's no such thing as religious violence since you don't think all that bad stuff is religious. Talk about moving goalposts.
Geoff,
please explain what it means to be religous, in your own words?
jan.
please explain what it means to be religous, in your own words?
jan.