2008-07-25, 21:48 | Link #1063 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Quote:
Hitler exterminated the Hebrews as cattle to slaughter. Colonial America fought against England to establish itself as a free nation. One does not equal the other. The Mentalities are different. Understand? |
|
2008-07-25, 22:06 | Link #1064 |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Even if *you* believe it was in right measure it doesn't automatically make it so. The English, for example, might have (very probably) believed their domination was much more righteous and correct.
That Machiavellian way of thinking is not very Christian, if I may say so myself.
__________________
|
2008-07-25, 22:08 | Link #1065 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Quote:
I simply stated that one does not necessarily mean the other. Do I think it was right? Yes. I think that war is sometimes necessary. |
|
2008-07-25, 22:17 | Link #1066 | |||
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
Quote:
Instead, I am always maddened by the people who are the source of these very legitimate complaints. Berating and condemnation are NOT the way to reach people. But people can't seem to grasp that. Of course, reasonable people know that it is intolerant people who are at fault, and not the religious beliefs, but who can blame a person for having a bad taste left in their mouth? It's certainly true that, along the lines of the quote from James that Backwards Blues provided, pure religion isn't found in arbitrary intellectual assumptions. A non-believer with a loving heart is more righteous in the eyes of God than a hateful "believer", much as a street athlete has a better shot at playing in the Superbowl than a fat slob who wears their favorite team's jersey every day. (A sports analogy... I've fallen so far.) Of course, if one of the religions is true, certainly it would be of great importance to for individuals and people as a whole to seek and spread the truth of matters. Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2008-07-26, 00:40 | Link #1067 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Thanks, Kyuusai. I wanted to say this to you in a positive reputation to you, but I can't leave you more reputation yet. Instead, I'll remark here that it's reassuring to hear that from you. It means a lot, especially knowing that you've dedicated your life (if not all of it, a very large part of it) to religion. You're very open and based on what I've read you certainly seem to be the ideal example of how to embrace religion in a meaningful manner.
Quote:
I think that the point Vexx was making here was that war or other acts that resulted in human suffering have been caused by religion. War is war, but a war caused by religion is very unfortunate. It seemingly goes against what religion in general was created for (unless you're a skeptic who claims that religion was made to enslave the minds of people). When a religion declares that all non-believers are free to be hunted and killed, it's essentially declaring that these non-believers aren't human. I think it's a very important piece of history to make note of. Understanding the values of the religion is one thing, but understanding how a religion can be twisted for such horrible acts is something that many people fail to see. Unfortunately that's clearly obvious given modern world events. The Christian Crusades may be hundreds of years old by now, but today we're witnessing the Islamic Jihad. In both cases, the actions that are occurring were not sanctioned by the religion itself.
__________________
|
|
2008-07-26, 02:17 | Link #1068 | |
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Quote:
What I would like to add though is that it is not solely because of religion that things are like that, it is something more complex and just has to do with typical human nature. When you take away religion from the picture it is juxtaposed with something else. In the case of a country like China where Atheism basically prevails throughout the land, the government essentially becomes their religion. People fill that void in their hearts always with something. Many scientists fill it by trying to find the true meaning of life in a rational manner. Perhaps this concept is a little hard to convey to you all, but I guess I would say that religion just fills a void that many other things would if it were not for its existence. However, it was or maybe still is one of the easiest methods to control others. @Kyuusai I wish there were many more people like you in this world. If one is a spiritual or religious person, you set a pretty great example as a person for them. While I am agnostic and lean more towards atheism than religious faiths, I can fully respect your cause.
__________________
|
|
2008-07-26, 02:23 | Link #1069 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Quote:
If you read the Law of the Hebrews, one of the chief commandments is to treat aliens with respect and love, specifically because "you were once aliens in Egypt." (That's paraphrased, mind you) My point is that, as a religion, Judaism (which eventually offshot into Christianity) was a religion whose commandments taught kindness to those unlike yourself, not to slaughter them like animals. As I said, war is war. People die in war for whatever the reason, but Judaism never taught to go on random raiding sprees to kill off non-believers. |
|
2008-07-26, 03:40 | Link #1071 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
You can't point at a people who engage in brutal wars of conquest and just say "Oh, but you know, aside from that, they're quite nice to foreigners". |
|
2008-07-26, 07:32 | Link #1073 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Of course, having said that, only God alone has authority over human lives. So other than those specific Old Testament exceptions, the rest of us who are believers of the Bible have no basis to kill others only over a difference in faith. That would in fact contradict at least the New Testament, if not the whole Bible. Last edited by monster; 2008-07-26 at 07:42. |
|
2008-07-26, 07:51 | Link #1074 | ||
Every word must conjure
|
Quote:
Conflict for the sake of religion, or conflict using religion as a front for belligerence, has been going on for thousands of years. I would argue against your definition of "Christian Crusade" or "Islamic Jihad". How are these terms defined? Why are we witnessing an "Islamic Jihad" today? I'm not attempting to provoke anything here. But I would just like to point out that, to a Muslim, political rhetoric against a nation that practices Shari'a Law has been long interpreted as "Christian Crusade". The converse is also true. Terms - and therefore the decisions to wage spiritual warfare (I will make a note here that I dislike that term) is possibly the consequence of misinterpretation of a religion's tenets & laws. Quote:
Firstly, to what degree do such battles represent spiritual warfare or political conflict? Second, how many of these battles are legitimately considered "spiritual warfare" & can be rightfully interpreted as mindless slaughter? If I'm not wrong (but I would appreciate if a student of the Old Testament can either correct or support me), the reason the ancient Israelites fought wars with the people surrounding Canaan was, yes, divinely ordered. But the purpose being to rid Canaan of a culture of pagan worship so unwholesome & unhealthy that it ran counter to laws of society given by God to the Israelites. |
||
2008-07-26, 10:32 | Link #1076 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
Slaughter for the sake of slaughter makes no military sense. Unless there's a vested interest in your enemy's possessions, you will never profit from randomly killing infidels. That's why you don't see it in any major organized religion. Still, if Judaism is a religion of peace, love and understanding, they could try to apply said peace, love and understanding with the Palestine people dying everyday from their missiles. Just saying.
__________________
|
|
2008-07-26, 10:47 | Link #1077 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
What I understood from your posts is that war is an excuse for any atrocity, and that Hebrews are peaceful, except when they're not - a tautology. |
|
2008-07-26, 10:59 | Link #1078 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
Quote:
Some posters here are uncomfortable with my phrase "slaughtered like animals" --- simply saying "massacred" or "slaughtered" would have been more appropriate. I, otoh, took Backward_Blue's use of the phrase "unfortunate consequences" with probably too much loading --- since its a phrase often used in history by leaders with self-defined righteous agendas that end up killing many innocents. Gotta watch out for loaded word choice....
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2008-07-26 at 11:10. |
|
2008-07-26, 11:24 | Link #1079 | ||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
I've even had the "pleasure" to debate against a medical doctor who adamantly believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that the Great Flood killed the dinosaurs. I kid you not. I turned purple trying to argue the stupidity of it all, but finally accepted that it's pointless. After all, I believe now that people create their own meanings in life, and if Young Earth Creationists are happy to see things that way, I can't really stop them. I can't prove them wrong any more than they can prove me wrong for being agnostic. |
||
2008-07-26, 12:03 | Link #1080 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Quote:
@Vexx: Yes, you did misconstrue what I was saying. Whether or not it is a commonly used term by more ruthless individuals does not alter the meaning of those two words. Unfortunate consequences are just that, unfortunate consequences. Nothing more. |
|
Tags |
not a debate, philosophy, religion |
|
|