Political Crossfire Forums

[XxMorningStarxX]

It appears that many people have argued that religion is a major cause of war and aggression. This is a common impression of many people, and it is dangerous for two reasons:

1) belief in that religion causes war is a mixing up of cause and effect.
2) belief in that religion causes war ultimately leads to shunning and persecuting of religion itself.

Human nature causes war, not religion. we're all selfish to some extent. Pride is healthy up until it reaches a certain threshhold, and at that point it morphs into egotism. Those who combine egotism, wickedness, and charisma may rise to positions and wage war through aggression and deceit. I emphasize DECEIT because it will tie in with religion as an aegis greatly, for it is evildoers who purposely twist religion into fitting into their agendas. They use the cloak of religion to fool people, especially those who have a limited understanding of religion. I doubt that anybody who has read through the Holy Bible and grasped its content would condone of the Crusades. FOr at the time of the crusades, a person can be arrested for reading the Bible, because the catholic churhc , being a corrupt institution then, tried to prevent people from reading the bible for the very reason of more easily deceiving them.

think about it this way. You look at how many people have died supposedly "because of religion." But if we didn't have religion, do you think we'd have a world of peace? Most likely there would be more war and more killing under some other name- survival, honor, etc. If religion didn't exist, evildoers would just find some other excuse, whatever excuse may help them most. In the case of religion, people such as the popes of the MIddle Ages used it because they knew that devout people would be easily fooled due to their lack of knowledge in the Bible at the time.

Arguing about something based on what someone did in the "name of" is useless, because you then wouldn't be taking into account the sincerety of the claim.

If i walkd on the street and killed somebody, and claimed that "my dad intended it" when he actually did not, does that necessarily stain my dear ol'dad's grave? absolutely not. It wouldn't stain the father even if a million people did the same thing i did.

But ask this: How many murders have been caused by Hate, Egotism, or Apathy? Things that Religion strictly oppose- The answer : every single murder since the beginning of human history.

[dtwizzy2k5]

XxMorningStarxX wrote: It appears that many people have argued that religion is a major cause of war and aggression. This is a common impression of many people, and it is dangerous for two reasons:

1) belief in that religion causes war is a mixing up of cause and effect.
2) belief in that religion causes war ultimately leads to shunning and persecuting of religion itself.

Human nature causes war, not religion. we're all selfish to some extent. Pride is healthy up until it reaches a certain threshhold, and at that point it morphs into egotism. Those who combine egotism, wickedness, and charisma may rise to positions and wage war through aggression and deceit. I emphasize DECEIT because it will tie in with religion as an aegis greatly, for it is evildoers who purposely twist religion into fitting into their agendas. They use the cloak of religion to fool people, especially those who have a limited understanding of religion. I doubt that anybody who has read through the Holy Bible and grasped its content would condone of the Crusades. FOr at the time of the crusades, a person can be arrested for reading the Bible, because the catholic churhc , being a corrupt institution then, tried to prevent people from reading the bible for the very reason of more easily deceiving them.

think about it this way. You look at how many people have died supposedly "because of religion." But if we didn't have religion, do you think we'd have a world of peace? Most likely there would be more war and more killing under some other name- survival, honor, etc. If religion didn't exist, evildoers would just find some other excuse, whatever excuse may help them most. In the case of religion, people such as the popes of the MIddle Ages used it because they knew that devout people would be easily fooled due to their lack of knowledge in the Bible at the time.

Arguing about something based on what someone did in the "name of" is useless, because you then wouldn't be taking into account the sincerety of the claim.

If i walkd on the street and killed somebody, and claimed that "my dad intended it" when he actually did not, does that necessarily stain my dear ol'dad's grave? absolutely not. It wouldn't stain the father even if a million people did the same thing i did.

But ask this: How many murders have been caused by Hate, Egotism, or Apathy? Things that Religion strictly oppose- The answer : every single murder since the beginning of human history.

Thats a pretty good post right there. Very true stuff...

[eynon]

XxMorningStarxX wrote: It appears that many people have argued that religion is a major cause of war and aggression. This is a common impression of many people, and it is dangerous for two reasons:

1) belief in that religion causes war is a mixing up of cause and effect.
2) belief in that religion causes war ultimately leads to shunning and persecuting of religion itself.

Human nature causes war, not religion. we're all selfish to some extent. Pride is healthy up until it reaches a certain threshhold, and at that point it morphs into egotism. Those who combine egotism, wickedness, and charisma may rise to positions and wage war through aggression and deceit. I emphasize DECEIT because it will tie in with religion as an aegis greatly, for it is evildoers who purposely twist religion into fitting into their agendas. They use the cloak of religion to fool people, especially those who have a limited understanding of religion. I doubt that anybody who has read through the Holy Bible and grasped its content would condone of the Crusades. FOr at the time of the crusades, a person can be arrested for reading the Bible, because the catholic churhc , being a corrupt institution then, tried to prevent people from reading the bible for the very reason of more easily deceiving them.

think about it this way. You look at how many people have died supposedly "because of religion." But if we didn't have religion, do you think we'd have a world of peace? Most likely there would be more war and more killing under some other name- survival, honor, etc. If religion didn't exist, evildoers would just find some other excuse, whatever excuse may help them most. In the case of religion, people such as the popes of the MIddle Ages used it because they knew that devout people would be easily fooled due to their lack of knowledge in the Bible at the time.

Arguing about something based on what someone did in the "name of" is useless, because you then wouldn't be taking into account the sincerety of the claim.

If i walkd on the street and killed somebody, and claimed that "my dad intended it" when he actually did not, does that necessarily stain my dear ol'dad's grave? absolutely not. It wouldn't stain the father even if a million people did the same thing i did.

But ask this: How many murders have been caused by Hate, Egotism, or Apathy? Things that Religion strictly oppose- The answer : every single murder since the beginning of human history. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

greed and fear too......they cause a lot of human misery.

[JDHURF]

Judaism and Christianity:

OT:
Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Deut. 17:5
Deut. 17:12
Deut. 18:20
Deut. 20:17
Deut. 21:18-21
Deut. 21:22
Deut. 22:22

For those of you who mistakenly believe that Jesus repudiates the barbarism of the OT (Matt. 17, Mark 7:8-10)

NT:
Matt. 10:21
Matt. 15:4
Matt. 24:50
Mark
Matt. 10:34
Luke 19:27
Acts 3:23
Romans 1:31


Islam:
“God is the enemy of the unbelievers” – (2:98 )

“We shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the fire. Evil shall be their fate.” – (2:126)

“The unbelievers are like beasts” – (2:172)

“Slay them whenever you find them. Drive them from out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage….If they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded.” – (2:190)

“Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not.” – (2:216)

There are a slew of these sorts of passages within the Qu’ran but the hadith is even more explicit:

“Jihad is your duty under any ruler, be he godly or wicked.”

“A day and a night fighting on the frontier is better than a month of fasting and prayer.”

“He who dies without having taken part in a campaign dies in a kind of unbelief.”

“Paradise is in the shadow of swords.”

These are all only a portion of the examples of the incitements to violence and murder found in all three religions. To claim, erroneously, that an individual under the impression that any of these religious texts is the true and infallible word of god and must be followed as such are not, in any way, culpable for the violence thereafter is simply lying to themselves.

It is because the bible was taken literally that there was the Crusades, the witch hunts and torture and murder in the name of God. It is because the quaran and the hadith is taken literally that there is Jihad, suicide bombing and torture and murder in the name of Allah.

[wormwood]

JDHURF:
Judaism and Christianity:

Quote: OT:
Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Deut. 17:5
Deut. 17:12
Deut. 18:20
Deut. 20:17
Deut. 21:18-21
Deut. 21:22
Deut. 22:22 There are a few strange things about your argument that lead me to believe that you are simply quoting someone else. For example you list exodus 22:18, and 22:20, but not 22:19 which also calls for death...unless perhaps you agree with this one. Since we are looking at exodus, did you happen to read exodus 22:21-27? IF you did write this yourself, what you have done is pick and choose what you want to read, and then applied the context you were looking for. Coincidentally, that is the same way zealots read holy texts, which is what causes all of the problems you are referring to.

[cap'n queasy]

wormwood wrote: JDHURF:
Judaism and Christianity:

Quote: OT:
Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Deut. 17:5
Deut. 17:12
Deut. 18:20
Deut. 20:17
Deut. 21:18-21
Deut. 21:22
Deut. 22:22 There are a few strange things about your argument that lead me to believe that you are simply quoting someone else. For example you list exodus 22:18, and 22:20, but not 22:19 which also calls for death...unless perhaps you agree with this one. Since we are looking at exodus, did you happen to read exodus 22:21-27? IF you did write this yourself, what you have done is pick and choose what you want to read, and then applied the context you were looking for. Coincidentally, that is the same way zealots read holy texts, which is what causes all of the problems you are referring to.

Good call.

[JDHURF]

wormwood wrote: JDHURF:
Judaism and Christianity:

Quote: OT:
Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Deut. 17:5
Deut. 17:12
Deut. 18:20
Deut. 20:17
Deut. 21:18-21
Deut. 21:22
Deut. 22:22 There are a few strange things about your argument that lead me to believe that you are simply quoting someone else. For example you list exodus 22:18, and 22:20, but not 22:19 which also calls for death...unless perhaps you agree with this one. Since we are looking at exodus, did you happen to read exodus 22:21-27? IF you did write this yourself, what you have done is pick and choose what you want to read, and then applied the context you were looking for. Coincidentally, that is the same way zealots read holy texts, which is what causes all of the problems you are referring to. I resent the charge that my post was plagiarized for I spent a good deal of time composing it. I did have a head start because I have a list of the 613 mitzvah which contain a good deal of those passages and I have, in the past, posted some of the NT and OT passages along with the suras from the Qua’ran on another forum. I did write the post myself and you would do well to abstain from waging such unsubstantiated and intellectually dishonest charges lest the discussion regress into the abyss of baseless charges and insults. The charge that I have plagiarized is simply as false as it is intellectually dishonest. Clearly I had not listed every passage in the bible which either condones or promotes violence and murder for I simply haven’t the time for it. Being impartial when listing off sinister passages from the bible is not evidence of either plagiarism or that one agrees with the passages not listed, it only implies that one did not list every single disagreeable passage found within the bible. I am well aware of Exodus 22:19 and that it calls for the death of anyone engaging in bestiality, the fact that I left it out doesn’t imply that I agree with it or that I plagiarized my post, simply that I left it out along with many other vile passages.
Furthermore the fact that there are contradictions within the bible does not suggest that the sinister portions which Christians wish not to follow are repudiated by the contradictions, they are not.

Indeed I did write the post myself and I did pick several passages out of the bible but I did not take them out of context. In reality the minor passage – that you choose, applying it to the context which you desired – merely suggests that one does not wrong or oppress aliens; clearly this does not imply that all of the preceding and following commandments are rendered irrelevant. To not “wrong” or “oppress” an alien is not to exempt them from passages such as: Exodus 22:18 (clearly if the female alien is deemed a sorcerer – or witch – then that alien is subject to death), Leviticus 20:13 (if the alien happens to be a male who “lies” with another male then they shall both be subject to death), Numbers 18:7 (if one of the aliens were to approach the alter they would likewise be subject to death), etc. It is clear that in this case it is you that has randomly chosen a vague passage and applied it to a context which you have conjured up.
I can do the same thing with the NT or with the Qua’ran, I can take a vague sura such as 2:190 and claim that because it states that “allah does not love aggressors” that other contradictory suras are rendered mute, such as 2:126 and 2:216 but this is simply not the case.

[JDHURF]

cap'n queasy wrote: wormwood wrote: JDHURF:
Judaism and Christianity:

Quote: OT:
Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Deut. 17:5
Deut. 17:12
Deut. 18:20
Deut. 20:17
Deut. 21:18-21
Deut. 21:22
Deut. 22:22 There are a few strange things about your argument that lead me to believe that you are simply quoting someone else. For example you list exodus 22:18, and 22:20, but not 22:19 which also calls for death...unless perhaps you agree with this one. Since we are looking at exodus, did you happen to read exodus 22:21-27? IF you did write this yourself, what you have done is pick and choose what you want to read, and then applied the context you were looking for. Coincidentally, that is the same way zealots read holy texts, which is what causes all of the problems you are referring to.

Good call. Clearly you are easily misled.

[toddytodd]

This is very similar to the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill with guns". Exchange the word 'guns' with the word 'religion' and the same still can hold true.
Of course religion doesn't 'kill' people, as it isn't a tangible thing. People use religion (and their beliefs in) to kill. That is the simple truth.
When people say 'Religion kills!" I sincerely doubt they envision a creature or person called Religion walking around killing people :roll:
As always, humans take something intended for good and turn it into evil - it happens with most (if not every) thing people touch. Why? Maybe evil is more 'fun'? Maybe because it is easier to do the wrong thing than the right thing?
There is no doubt that many documented parts of most religions contain violent content. That doesn't mean that the religion itself is a violent religion necessarily. It is all in how it is interpreted by individuals, and these individual's belief and trust in the religion and its characters.

[eynon]

JDHURF wrote: wormwood wrote: JDHURF:
Judaism and Christianity:

Quote: OT:
Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Deut. 17:5
Deut. 17:12
Deut. 18:20
Deut. 20:17
Deut. 21:18-21
Deut. 21:22
Deut. 22:22 There are a few strange things about your argument that lead me to believe that you are simply quoting someone else. For example you list exodus 22:18, and 22:20, but not 22:19 which also calls for death...unless perhaps you agree with this one. Since we are looking at exodus, did you happen to read exodus 22:21-27? IF you did write this yourself, what you have done is pick and choose what you want to read, and then applied the context you were looking for. Coincidentally, that is the same way zealots read holy texts, which is what causes all of the problems you are referring to. I resent the charge that my post was plagiarized for I spent a good deal of time composing it. I did have a head start because I have a list of the 613 mitzvah which contain a good deal of those passages and I have, in the past, posted some of the NT and OT passages along with the suras from the Qua’ran on another forum. I did write the post myself and you would do well to abstain from waging such unsubstantiated and intellectually dishonest charges lest the discussion regress into the abyss of baseless charges and insults. The charge that I have plagiarized is simply as false as it is intellectually dishonest. Clearly I had not listed every passage in the bible which either condones or promotes violence and murder for I simply haven’t the time for it. Being impartial when listing off sinister passages from the bible is not evidence of either plagiarism or that one agrees with the passages not listed, it only implies that one did not list every single disagreeable passage found within the bible. I am well aware of Exodus 22:19 and that it calls for the death of anyone engaging in bestiality, the fact that I left it out doesn’t imply that I agree with it or that I plagiarized my post, simply that I left it out along with many other vile passages.
Furthermore the fact that there are contradictions within the bible does not suggest that the sinister portions which Christians wish not to follow are repudiated by the contradictions, they are not.

Indeed I did write the post myself and I did pick several passages out of the bible but I did not take them out of context. In reality the minor passage – that you choose, applying it to the context which you desired – merely suggests that one does not wrong or oppress aliens; clearly this does not imply that all of the preceding and following commandments are rendered irrelevant. To not “wrong” or “oppress” an alien is not to exempt them from passages such as: Exodus 22:18 (clearly if the female alien is deemed a sorcerer – or witch – then that alien is subject to death), Leviticus 20:13 (if the alien happens to be a male who “lies” with another male then they shall both be subject to death), Numbers 18:7 (if one of the aliens were to approach the alter they would likewise be subject to death), etc. It is clear that in this case it is you that has randomly chosen a vague passage and applied it to a context which you have conjured up.
I can do the same thing with the NT or with the Qua’ran, I can take a vague sura such as 2:190 and claim that because it states that “allah does not love aggressors” that other contradictory suras are rendered mute, such as 2:126 and 2:216 but this is simply not the case.

:lol: wow Wormwood, you made him mad........so what is your point, btw, that the Jews of the OT were more violent then other late bronze-age early iron age peoples because of their religion.....news flash, it was a very, very violent time. If you live in a bad neighborhood you learn how to fight, it's that simple.

[JDHURF]

wannabe wrote: JDHURF wrote: wormwood wrote: JDHURF:
Judaism and Christianity:

Quote: OT:
Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Deut. 17:5
Deut. 17:12
Deut. 18:20
Deut. 20:17
Deut. 21:18-21
Deut. 21:22
Deut. 22:22 There are a few strange things about your argument that lead me to believe that you are simply quoting someone else. For example you list exodus 22:18, and 22:20, but not 22:19 which also calls for death...unless perhaps you agree with this one. Since we are looking at exodus, did you happen to read exodus 22:21-27? IF you did write this yourself, what you have done is pick and choose what you want to read, and then applied the context you were looking for. Coincidentally, that is the same way zealots read holy texts, which is what causes all of the problems you are referring to. I resent the charge that my post was plagiarized for I spent a good deal of time composing it. I did have a head start because I have a list of the 613 mitzvah which contain a good deal of those passages and I have, in the past, posted some of the NT and OT passages along with the suras from the Qua’ran on another forum. I did write the post myself and you would do well to abstain from waging such unsubstantiated and intellectually dishonest charges lest the discussion regress into the abyss of baseless charges and insults. The charge that I have plagiarized is simply as false as it is intellectually dishonest. Clearly I had not listed every passage in the bible which either condones or promotes violence and murder for I simply haven’t the time for it. Being impartial when listing off sinister passages from the bible is not evidence of either plagiarism or that one agrees with the passages not listed, it only implies that one did not list every single disagreeable passage found within the bible. I am well aware of Exodus 22:19 and that it calls for the death of anyone engaging in bestiality, the fact that I left it out doesn’t imply that I agree with it or that I plagiarized my post, simply that I left it out along with many other vile passages.
Furthermore the fact that there are contradictions within the bible does not suggest that the sinister portions which Christians wish not to follow are repudiated by the contradictions, they are not.

Indeed I did write the post myself and I did pick several passages out of the bible but I did not take them out of context. In reality the minor passage – that you choose, applying it to the context which you desired – merely suggests that one does not wrong or oppress aliens; clearly this does not imply that all of the preceding and following commandments are rendered irrelevant. To not “wrong” or “oppress” an alien is not to exempt them from passages such as: Exodus 22:18 (clearly if the female alien is deemed a sorcerer – or witch – then that alien is subject to death), Leviticus 20:13 (if the alien happens to be a male who “lies” with another male then they shall both be subject to death), Numbers 18:7 (if one of the aliens were to approach the alter they would likewise be subject to death), etc. It is clear that in this case it is you that has randomly chosen a vague passage and applied it to a context which you have conjured up.
I can do the same thing with the NT or with the Qua’ran, I can take a vague sura such as 2:190 and claim that because it states that “allah does not love aggressors” that other contradictory suras are rendered mute, such as 2:126 and 2:216 but this is simply not the case.

:lol: wow Wormwood, you made him mad........so what is your point, btw, that the Jews of the OT were more violent then other late bronze-age early iron age peoples because of their religion.....news flash, it was a very, very violent time. If you live in a bad neighborhood you learn how to fight, it's that simple. No I am not mad or upset in the least and your attempt to bring into the discussion my person hood or emotional state is intellectually reprehensible. Playing the “emotional card” is a tactic predominately implemented so as to dodge the actual argument and derail the discussion into the abyss of petty personal demagogy and peripheral rancor.

Clearly my point is not that the Jews in the OT are more violent than any other religion and this is made abundantly clear by the fact that I equally held accountable the Christians of the NT and the Muslims of the Qua’ran.
Furthermore the attempt to write off the horror found in the OT by claiming ‘it was a violent time” is unacceptable. Of course it was a violent time, it was a pre-scientific, savage, barbaric, fearful and ignorant time but this does not absolve the wrongness of the violence found in various religious texts.

[eynon]

Quote: No I am not mad or upset in the least and your attempt to bring into the discussion my person hood or emotional state is intellectually reprehensible.
*cough*from your earlier post*cough*
Quote: "I resent the charge that my post was plagiarized for I spent a good deal of time composing it"

Quote: Of course it was a violent time, it was a pre-scientific, savage, barbaric, fearful and ignorant time but this does not absolve the wrongness of the violence found in various religious texts.
does for me, that whole thing about walking a mile in some-one elses shoes....it's easy for our soft pasty asses to judge the souls and characters of those people who lived in such dramatically different times....fortunatley my religion teaches me it's a sin to pass judgement on people :wink:



more-over I think the grand point of this thread was to attack those who claim that religion is the cause of so much war and violence....which is laughable, faith and piety don't cause wars.....greed, pride, lust, and fear do. Now find me a religion that preaches the merits of those vices.

[Aqualung]

JDHURF wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: wormwood wrote: JDHURF:
Judaism and Christianity:

Quote: OT:
Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Deut. 17:5
Deut. 17:12
Deut. 18:20
Deut. 20:17
Deut. 21:18-21
Deut. 21:22
Deut. 22:22 There are a few strange things about your argument that lead me to believe that you are simply quoting someone else. For example you list exodus 22:18, and 22:20, but not 22:19 which also calls for death...unless perhaps you agree with this one. Since we are looking at exodus, did you happen to read exodus 22:21-27? IF you did write this yourself, what you have done is pick and choose what you want to read, and then applied the context you were looking for. Coincidentally, that is the same way zealots read holy texts, which is what causes all of the problems you are referring to.

Good call. Clearly you are easily misled.
:lol: Nice.

[JDHURF]

toddytodd wrote: This is very similar to the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill with guns". Exchange the word 'guns' with the word 'religion' and the same still can hold true.
Completely fallacious. A religion is a set of beliefs and beliefs drive peoples’ lives and motivate their behavior, guns are not beliefs they are machines and as such do not motivate or drive people as religions do. This spurious equivalency is mind boggling in its inaccuracy. If an individual owns a gun they are not explicitly motivated to engage in any form of behavior but if an individual believes that the creator of the universe has commanded them to either fight and kill infidels or burn in a lake of fire for eternity then they are explicitly motivated to act on the belief. Beliefs are, as Sam Harris says, “principles of action,” guns are not.
toddytodd wrote: Of course religion doesn't 'kill' people, as it isn't a tangible thing. People use religion (and their beliefs in) to kill. That is the simple truth.
Well, I agree with that. Religions do not, themselves, kill people but it is abundantly clear that they can explicitly motivate people to kill people, people that otherwise wouldn’t.
toddytodd wrote: When people say 'Religion kills!" I sincerely doubt they envision a creature or person called Religion walking around killing people
Unless they are psychotic. When people say “religion kills” – while it is a rather mindless phrase – I am sure they are actually referring to the beliefs that explicitly motivate murder on behalf of the specific religious principle.
toddytodd wrote: As always, humans take something intended for good and turn it into evil - it happens with most (if not every) thing people touch.
The commandments in the bible and qua’ran commanding the death of infidels, non-believers, idolaters, homosexuals, “witches,” adulterers, etc. are not intended for good they are intended for barbaric violence and murder.
toddytodd wrote: There is no doubt that many documented parts of most religions contain violent content. That doesn't mean that the religion itself is a violent religion necessarily.
Actually it does. If a commandment to murder exists it is a violent commandment, end of story. Sure with secular enlightenment and modernity violent and hostile religions can be tamed and moderated but this does not mean that the religion itself is passive and/or peaceful at its base, it merely means that those following the religion have watered it down, redefined it and only chosen to only follow the passages that they agree with. This form of the religion is clearly not the form being called for in the religious text in question, hence the religion itself is still calling for violence and murder it is simply falling on deaf or indifferent ears.

[eynon]

Quote: but it is abundantly clear that they can explicitly motivate people to kill people, people that otherwise wouldn’t

ahhhhh.....bull-s**t, all the so called "religious violence" in history has had secular reasons behind it.

[JDHURF]

Apparently I need to explain to you that resent is not synonymous with anger or overt emotion, but I should have omitted the use of the term “upset” because it was a bit upsetting to read such ridiculous response to my post after what I put into it.
wannabe wrote: does for me, that whole thing about walking a mile in some-one elses shoes....it's easy for our soft pasty asses to judge the souls and characters of those people who lived in such dramatically different times....fortunatley my religion teaches me it's a sin to pass judgement on people
Clearly you are either a member of Judaism or Christianity and as such your religion actually doesn’t, it teaches you to not only judge homosexuals, adulterers, idolaters, etc. but it teaches you that they should be killed. That is, by any standard, quite a judgment.
Furthermore this idea that it is wrong to judge people on the merit of the beliefs that motivate their actions is dangerous, should we not judge racist white supremacists? Should we not judge pedophiles that believe children are sexually viable? I don’t think so.
wannabe wrote: more-over I think the grand point of this thread was to attack those who claim that religion is the cause of so much war and violence....which is laughable, faith and piety don't cause wars.....greed, pride, lust, and fear do. Now find me a religion that preaches the merits of those vices.
You are not thinking clearly. The qua’ran and hadith explicitly call for jihad, “holy war,” and if you are to have me believe that when an individual believes that the creator of the universe – the entity that controls their going to heaven or hell for eternity – has called for war that they are not going to act in accordance would be laughable were it not so dangerously ignorant. Christian Scientists believe that god has commanded that they never allow their children to seek medical attention for easily curable diseases handing out death sentences to their children, the belief in this religion is the direct cause of death. Catholics are going around in subsaharant Africa preaching the “sinfulness” of condom use where literally thousands are dying from aids, this sort of genocidal stupidity is directly parallel to the violence and death. When a religion contains beliefs that, when acted upon, condone and promote violence and death then that religion is directly culpable; anything else is dangerous ignorance and pious indignation.

[JDHURF]

wannabe wrote: ahhhhh.....bull-s**t, all the so called "religious violence" in history has had secular reasons behind it.
Not much of a refutation.

Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Deut. 17:5
Deut. 17:12
Deut. 18:20
Deut. 21:18-21
Deut. 21:22
Deut. 22:22

These are secular reasons? You are delusional. This is only going by what is directly called for in the bible, I could go to other religions or to other interpretations of the bible – such as the St Thomas Aquinas interpretations that justified the witch hunts – but I will only if you continue with this hysterical line of argument.

[toddytodd]

JDHURF wrote: toddytodd wrote: This is very similar to the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill with guns". Exchange the word 'guns' with the word 'religion' and the same still can hold true.
Completely fallacious. A religion is a set of beliefs and beliefs drive peoples’ lives and motivate their behavior, guns are not beliefs they are machines and as such do not motivate or drive people as religions do. This spurious equivalency is mind boggling in its inaccuracy. If an individual owns a gun they are not explicitly motivated to engage in any form of behavior but if an individual believes that the creator of the universe has commanded them to either fight and kill infidels or burn in a lake of fire for eternity then they are explicitly motivated to act on the belief. Beliefs are, as Sam Harris says, “principles of action," guns are not.
toddytodd wrote: Of course religion doesn't 'kill' people, as it isn't a tangible thing. People use religion (and their beliefs in) to kill. That is the simple truth.
Well, I agree with that. Religions do not, themselves, kill people but it is abundantly clear that they can explicitly motivate people to kill people, people that otherwise wouldn’t.
toddytodd wrote: When people say 'Religion kills!" I sincerely doubt they envision a creature or person called Religion walking around killing people
Unless they are psychotic. When people say “religion kills" – while it is a rather mindless phrase – I am sure they are actually referring to the beliefs that explicitly motivate murder on behalf of the specific religious principle.
toddytodd wrote: As always, humans take something intended for good and turn it into evil - it happens with most (if not every) thing people touch.
The commandments in the bible and qua’ran commanding the death of infidels, non-believers, idolaters, homosexuals, “witches," adulterers, etc. are not intended for good they are intended for barbaric violence and murder.
toddytodd wrote: There is no doubt that many documented parts of most religions contain violent content. That doesn't mean that the religion itself is a violent religion necessarily.
Actually it does. If a commandment to murder exists it is a violent commandment, end of story. Sure with secular enlightenment and modernity violent and hostile religions can be tamed and moderated but this does not mean that the religion itself is passive and/or peaceful at its base, it merely means that those following the religion have watered it down, redefined it and only chosen to only follow the passages that they agree with. This form of the religion is clearly not the form being called for in the religious text in question, hence the religion itself is still calling for violence and murder it is simply falling on deaf or indifferent ears.

Quote: This spurious equivalency is mind boggling in its inaccuracy As is your apparent point of view. Of course it 'boggling' when one doesn't want to understand it. It's your call what you choose to believe.
For the idea that religion is violent to be true, every religious person would have to be violent, which is not true (at least in the real world)
Quote: If an individual owns a gun they are not explicitly motivated to engage in any form of behavior but if an individual believes that the creator of the universe has commanded them to either fight and kill infidels or burn in a lake of fire for eternity then they are explicitly motivated to act on the belief I think this says it all on your apparent view of religion. There are zealots in (probably) every religion. However, they are outweighed by those who are peaceful. You picked out the worst part of those who believe their religion - assuming they are going to 'kill because their god tells them to'. Absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps you should step back at look at religious people as a whole, not a small 'select' group.
Quote: ...1)it is abundantly clear that they can explicitly motivate people to kill people, 2)people that otherwise wouldn’t Part right, part wrong. Part 1) Religious beliefs (and any belief) can cause a person to kill, as well as do good. 2)Absolutely an opinion. If you believe otherwise, that is very, very sad.
Quote: Unless they are psychotic. Wow, now you are reaching to prove your point. Anyone can have this type of issue, correct?
Quote: The commandments in the bible and qua’ran commanding the death of infidels, non-believers, idolaters, homosexuals, “witches," adulterers, etc. are not intended for good they are intended for barbaric violence and murder. I can't speak on the qua'ran, but I don't remember any of the Commandments from the Old Testament telling anyone to kill anyone.
Personally I don't believe in the current interpretation of the New Testament as a whole. I don't believe human writer's like John or Paul of whoever was without bias. But that is how I choose to believe. Nor am I defending religion as a whole, only pointing out that when people say 'religion is violent, end of story' is beyond ridiculous and absolutely wrong. Do violent people exist and use religion or religious belief to do their killing, hurting, etc? Absolutely. They will continue to exist and use religion to justify their claims. Do peaceful people exist and use their religious views or beliefs to justify their good deeds? Absolutely.
For you to see it otherwise is more than sad.
Fact is indeed that people use their religious beliefs to kill. Just like they use any other 'perceived weapon' to kill. It's not the religion that kills, but the will of the person(s)(not guns, no knives, not bombs) that kills.
It's sad that some can't see past this. :roll:

[wormwood]

Quote: I resent the charge that my post was plagiarized for I spent a good deal of time composing it. I did have a head start because I have a list of the 613 mitzvah which contain a good deal of those passages and I have Isn't this a contradiction?

Quote: I did write the post myself and you would do well to abstain from waging such unsubstantiated and intellectually dishonest charges lest the discussion regress into the abyss of baseless charges and insults.
You do seem to get pretty worked up over an observation which I expressed as an opinion, not a fact. A simple, "no, I wrote it" will suffice next time.

Quote: Clearly I had not listed every passage in the bible which either condones or promotes violence and murder for I simply haven’t the time for it. Being impartial when listing off sinister passages from the bible is not evidence of either plagiarism or that one agrees with the passages not listed, it only implies that one did not list every single disagreeable passage found within the bible. I am well aware of Exodus 22:19 and that it calls for the death of anyone engaging in bestiality, the fact that I left it out doesn’t imply that I agree with it or that I plagiarized my post, simply that I left it out along with many other vile passages. My point was that it is odd if you were reading the passages directly, that you would choose to omit a sequential passage which supports you point. Seems a little strange is all...

Quote: Furthermore the fact that there are contradictions within the bible does not suggest that the sinister portions which Christians wish not to follow are repudiated by the contradictions, they are not. :lol: That is because you pick and choose what you want to read. That is why you have such a distorted vision. Each prophet changed the laws, because Judaism was a living religion. Christians, follow what they consider the last great Jewish prophet, and so the law was according to Jesus for them. That is why they don't have to stone people to death...did you ever read about JC stoning someone to death? I know you don't believe me, but you ARE doing the same thing zealots do which is pick and choose what to read that reinforces what they already believed. You are more of a secular zealot.

Quote: In reality the minor passage – that you choose, applying it to the context which you desired – merely suggests that one does not wrong or oppress aliens; clearly this does not imply that all of the preceding and following commandments are rendered irrelevant. No, but it does demonstrate two points. One that even in the same breath as the "barbaric" instances there is compassion. Two, what this means is that people in their communities were subject to these laws. Strangers were not to be mistreated or oppressed. If you did not like the laws of the community, there was no reason to stay there. I know people will disagree with me on this one, but do something for me; post any instance you can find of the Jews going outside of their community to enforce their laws, with no divine inspiration. For example, Joshua hears there is a sorceress living two towns over with the Hittites, so of his own volition he goes and kills her and God is pleased. If you can find anything even remotely similar to that, you might be able to make a case, until then you have nothing.

Quote: I can do the same thing with the NT or with the Qua’ran, I can take a vague sura such as 2:190 and claim that because it states that “allah does not love aggressors" that other contradictory suras are rendered mute, such as 2:126 and 2:216 but this is simply not the case. Yeah, who needs to read a book sequentially to understand it? :lol:

[JDHURF]

toddytodd wrote: As is your apparent point of view. Of course it 'boggling' when one doesn't want to understand it. It's your call what you choose to believe.
For the idea that religion is violent to be true, every religious person would have to be violent, which is not true (at least in the real world)
I didn’t claim that every variation of religion was inherently violent, they are not, I am claiming that Judaism, Christianity and Islam – the Abrahamic religions – all call for violence and death in their religious texts and that when a follower of any of these religions follows the commandments calling for violence and murder then that religion is culpable.
toddytodd wrote: I think this says it all on your apparent view of religion. There are zealots in (probably) every religion. However, they are outweighed by those who are peaceful. You picked out the worst part of those who believe their religion - assuming they are going to 'kill because their god tells them to'. Absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps you should step back at look at religious people as a whole, not a small 'select' group.
What you fail to understand is that the fundamentalists – the “zealots” – are actually correct about the three abrahamic religious texsts, they are theologically correct. I know fully well that there are moderates in every religion and I claimed that this has nothing to do with the basis of that religion or what is contained in the specific holy text, it has to do with enlightened secular criticism and modernity. I am not claiming that all and every religious person in the world is the fundamental type or that they all take their religious text literally and follow it in exactness – my argument has nothing to do with religious moderates except that they are theologically incorrect – my argument is not about the religious but the actual religion and what it actually teaches in the holy text.
toddytodd wrote: Part right, part wrong. Part 1) Religious beliefs (and any belief) can cause a person to kill, as well as do good. 2)Absolutely an opinion. If you believe otherwise, that is very, very sad.
I’m not even sure what you are trying to say here, it comes off as somewhat contradictory. Religious beliefs motivate – as you point out like any other belief – people to engage in both positive and negative behavior. This is simply not an opinion it is reality, beliefs motivate people to act and behave in a certain way and in ways that – without the belief – they may not have ever partook. If you dispute this I suggest that you review some elementary psychology.
toddytodd wrote: Wow, now you are reaching to prove your point. Anyone can have this type of issue, correct?
I have no idea how this is a coherent response to my post. I was claiming that it is psychotic to believe that religion is a physical entity itself going around killing people, I was agreeing with you.
toddytodd wrote: I can't speak on the qua'ran, but I don't remember any of the Commandments from the Old Testament telling anyone to kill anyone.
Then you didn’t read the OT and you haven’t been paying attention to my posts. Here are a few:

Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Deut. 17:5
Deut. 17:12
Deut. 18:20
Deut. 21:18-21
Deut. 21:22
Deut. 22:22
toddytodd wrote: Personally I don't believe in the current interpretation of the New Testament as a whole. I don't believe human writer's like John or Paul of whoever was without bias. But that is how I choose to believe. Nor am I defending religion as a whole, only pointing out that when people say 'religion is violent, end of story' is beyond ridiculous and absolutely wrong.
I do not claim that religion is violent, I claim that the abrahamic religions – theologically – are inherently violent and that when individuals lend absolute credence to these religions they are embracing violence. Clearly moderate religion is not inherently violent but they are not basing this moderation on what is actually found within their religions proclamations. They are deriving their moderation from enlightened secular criticism and modernity, not from the basis of their actual religion.
toddytodd wrote: Do violent people exist and use religion or religious belief to do their killing, hurting, etc? Absolutely. They will continue to exist and use religion to justify their claims. Do peaceful people exist and use their religious views or beliefs to justify their good deeds? Absolutely.
I do not dispute this.
toddytodd wrote: For you to see it otherwise is more than sad.
I don’t.
toddytodd wrote: Fact is indeed that people use their religious beliefs to kill. Just like they use any other 'perceived weapon' to kill. It's not the religion that kills, but the will of the person(s)(not guns, no knives, not bombs) that kills.
This is not entirely accurate. As I have already pointed out beliefs are “principles of action” and as such are not tools that are “used.” Sure some people use religious beliefs for their own purposes but I am speaking of the people that are used by their religious beliefs, the people that truly believe in the legitimacy of the violent commandments made by their religion and act in accordance to them; these people are not using religion, they are being used by the religion.