Does not compute. It requires a person to morph any idea into action. You might as well criticise language... Because of people. If people dissapeared, so would religions. If religions disappeared, people would still go along, finding new reasons to enslave each other. The concept, as you describe it, is the result of a person's purview, taught and reinforced through social means. So, I agree with your statement above, but your extrapolation that religions have superseded humanity and are the new "source" of such a concept is silly.
But wait...it's totally up to the interpretation of the preacher. I may be an absolutely irrational fool for sharing what I think of Jesus...but what does it lead to?? A conversation about treating every person with dignity? Someone decides to volunteer for something, maybe?? Someone decides that living like a fool in service of other people is a good idea. None of these things lead to violence. On the other hand, some jackass suggests that God wants us to blow up abortion clinics, for instance. This absolutely leads to violence. But the text or the message didn't do this...the interpretor did....and that's a human being. There are ancient religions that called for violence that are no longer practiced...those ideologies do not lead to violence today, because there are no PEOPLE willing to perpetrate the violence on their behalf. In the end, it is people who make these choices. And I'm not absolving them or the role of leaders in organized religion who preach for violence. In fact, I'm right there with you calling for them to be held accountable for that crap.
History shows this to be false. When you remove the religious impetus for violence, people don't often go around looking for reasons to blow each other to bits as often. (as evidence in modernity by the least religious societies having the lowest murder rates, crime, etc etc... or non-violent religions, for example, the places populated by those tend to be far less prone to conflict) We find conflict two other ways; through necessity/survival, and through human fault (lust for power, greed, envy, etc.) Religion is sometimes used a cover for the latter reasons, no doubt. Though it is becoming increasingly rare. But that is an example of automatic disqualification, because that is not violence that is truly inspired by religion. The violence I speak of is that of people who believe they are doing god's will to inflict harm on others, with little or no other impetus involved. Don't kid yourself, these people exist. Lots of them. From abortion clinic bombers to taliban radicals. Bullplop. To quote myself on this yet again... If you tell somebody (especially if you tell them from birth!) that X is the infallible word of God, and X has violent precepts in it (as all Abrahamic faiths do), then don't be shocked when that somebody goes off and commits violence. They think they are 1) doing the will of God and 2) going to be rewarded with the greatest gift imaginable for it or 3) at the very least avoiding the worst punishment imaginable. You don't need to look very far in today's news to find an example of this kind of violence. This scenario exists and is played out constantly. To suggest otherwise is downright naive, and increasingly dangerous.
Yeah, it is. But like I said, it's really hard to expect somebody who has been taught from birth to suddenly start thinking critically against the ideals they have held to be true since day 1. You have chosen to adhere to the part of Christianity that reflect your desires. Like I've said about a million times on this board, if every Christian chose to interpret the bible like you chose to, I wouldn't be nearly the hard-ass I am today. Now, would MadMax be the saint he is if the Bible didn't have all that mushy gushy feel-good stuff that was added later? I'm not so sure. You might just be an intrinsically kind person, but the odds of you becoming a bigoted violent sociopath certainly increase if the religious doctrine you were raised on includes a lot of horrible stuff in it. Would he have bombed the clinic if not for the religion which spawned the belief in him that God wants abortion doctors to die? I doubt it. Yep, gotta have a conduit through which the message can flow. That's more just random chance than anything, though. Not really sure how you're trying to use this as a defense of the fault of religion in the role of violence. This does nothing to disprove that link. We all know that ideas don't fly around and kill people by themselves, they need a host body to operate in. Indeed they do make the choice. But the odds they'll make a violent choice are increased x10000000000000 if they're taught that violence is God's will. And, unfortunately, you and I were born in an era where the popular religions of the day include violence in their directives. Sucks to be us.
1. I don't think my interpretation of the Bible is remotely unique among Christians. I think it's very plainly evident to anyone who stops to read the words of Jesus...and to read how he acted to other people. I think you have to twist it to get it to something else....but I understand there are people who disagree with me on that...and that it is ultimately my interpretation; 2. By stuff added later, I'm assuming you mean the New Testament. But for the events that are told in the NT, I probably wouldn't care what the Bible said. I'd still be a druid somewhere in Ireland, worshipping trees and rocks and looking for the next virgin to sacrifice.
I must have missed class the day they discussed the mass dissapearence of people and it's affect on religious worship... The rest of your post is taking us down the path of a previous thread, and I doubt we'll get much further here. I agree that the concepts need to be fought and resisted. I agree that much of what a "religion" offers is antiquated collectivism. But categorically blaming the institution instead of the people involved; the leaders, the drum-beaters, the militaristic sects etc. is far too simplified to be even remotely accurate. It's not that one is better than the other, rather it's just that a distinction has to be made, or you end up personifying a cause - generally speaking that's not very productive, either for the indoctrinated or the heretical non-believer. You appeal to history - well history has taught us over and over again that you cannot just change the systems in place, you have to change the way people think, the way they interact, their motivations. Religion is an easy justification (to the point of irresponsibility) but it's not a cause in and of itself except for very small scale situations (comparatively). Which would seem to agree with your purview that people "naturally" seek to leave well enough alone. I don't claim that you're wrong Donny. I just think your solution flawed to the point of impracticality.
You know I was responding to the 2nd half of that sentence, right? I'm very aware of that. And it's part of the reason I even bother posting about religion on this BBS. My solution is for people to stop killing each other because somebody else told them God wants them to. Impractical as it might be, I imagine we'll get there, one day.
Yeah, I was being an ass. I see. We can agree on that, and certainly, dismantling all religion is one way to do that. Should such occur, we can then charge into the next great war, be it for resources, ideology, racism, democracy...whatever - feeling blessed and confident in that we are only killing each other because another person wants us to.
Well, I can somewhat rationalize fighting and dying for resources, at least. Survival is the name of the game, after all. No doubt the next great war will be fought eventually, but the chances of it getting here sooner will be stunted, and ultimately it would end up less of a catastrophe were religion not it's primary motivator (nothing creates a bloodier conflict than spiritual struggle, people are far more willing to die for eternal life than for a few extra resources).
Iraq? Libya? 10+ latin american "interventions"? Careful Donny. And I would hesitate to proclaim that the bloodiest conflicts are for religion...that's a dubious assertion.
Resources as a matter of survival, not greed. I figured that went without saying. It's not dubious at all. Think about it. When you're fighting for, literally, the fate of eternity, you're going to fight a lot harder and a lot longer. Oil? Gold? Food? Water? Small beans compared to the afterlife.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a war in which this would apply in a strict sense, but I concur with you from a theoretical standpoint.
Perhaps bloodiest was the wrong choice of words. Maybe, fiercest? Reason being: countries that get involved in large scale wars, especially in the modern era, don't tend to be strictly theocratic. And the countries that are theocratic and involved in wars are typically smaller in scope and scale, with access to very little weapons of mass destruction. But the day will come when a group of warring people that believe in the afterlife and eternal glory for killing in the name of God will gain access to those weapons. And when that happens, I hope I'm already dead.
Religion and patriotism are the tools used by the empowered to get young people to fight and die for their benefit. Serfs are serfs no matter who is the lord. The only reason the people should fight is to free people from tyrants.
So basically you are just imposing your own definition to suit your own terms. Leaving aside the insult, I will agree they acted irrationally in terms of a civilized or logical behavior but again I am going by the definition that those regimes classified themselves and not imposing my own definition. They considered themselves rational and materialistic and not religious. Yes it absolutely was racial and the drive by the Nazi's to exterminate the Jews, Roma, homosexuals and etc. Had little to do with religion. They might've mentioned God but considering that Naziism was a mismatch of Nietschean philosophy, Social Darwinism, Aryan Mysticism and eugenics they were driven far more by a political and racial ideology than what is commonly considered religion. Except words do have meanings and you are basically twisting accepted meanings to suit your argument. "Communism" <> "Religion" anymore than "Nazism" <> "Marxism" while they might behave the same a Nazi regime isn't the same a Marxist regime. Actions might be similar but there are very important differences. And I have not said that religions haven't inspired violence or justifying their existence. I don't know and I don't think there is anyway to know whether more people have died in the name of religion versus for other reasons. You though seem to be laying almost all ills of the world to the religion. That is obviously not the case.
My definition is more apt, so, yeah. Not my fault webster's sucks. They considered themselves rational, yet they were not. Just as they did not consider themselves "religious", yet they treated their political philosophy as a religion. They used that philosophy to derive morality, ethics, laws, and their way of life.... and they did so with blind faith, following unquestionably, using very little critical thought or reason. Don't get caught up in thinking that religion has to involve an ethereal being, robes, and a cross. The driving force behind the persecution of Jews during World War II was the murder of Jesus Christ. The racial and homosexual bigotry were spawned by the same religious intolerance that created the animosity toward the Jews in the first place. I think you would do yourself a huge favor to read up on the role of Catholicism in Nazi Germany. Perhaps then you would finally stop trying Mathloomize this topic with excuses and apologies in defense of religious pacifists (people whom I have no beef with). Are nazism and marxism the same in terms of what they preach? No. Are they the same in terms of how they preach it (or practice)? Yes. That is the comparison I am making. You are comparing things on a level of specificity that I am not. I am comparing overall themes, patterns of thinking, while you are fixated on minutea. For example, deifying a political figure and following him unquestionably is very much the same as creating an immaterial god and following him unquestionably, but you are pointing out the fact that one is living and the other is not to make your point, which is largely irrelevant. When you say things like this it becomes clear how very poorly you comprehend what I say. We've had discussions about this crap that go in this circular manner before. Typically it consists of you putting words in my mouth ("laying all ills of the world to religion" is something I never, ever, ever said or even remotely hinted at), and I'm also guessing by the vast amount of weight you're trying to put into this Stalin example that you still don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, nor do you really understand what atheism actually is, which is probably at the heart of a lot of this conflict between you and I. (For example, you thinking that atheism is a form of "materialism" and also includes active suppression of other belief systems or religions, neither of which have anything to do with atheism) If you want to absolve the books of Abraham of blame for Stalin, that's fair game, and I would never place such blame on them. But at the end of the day, we are talking about two systems of belief that dictate how people live their lives and justify their own actions. Neither of which adhere to much rationality or tolerate much criticism. So even if you want to separate the two based on ethereal vs non-ethereal (despite both being philosophical), political atrocities provide ZERO excuse for religious atrocities and have ZERO relation to atheism or humanist thinking, and using them as such is a sad, sad waste of breath.
Here is what I don't like about religion and what I do like about Christianity. Religion is generally an adherance to teaching- so there goes the inclusion of man's interpretation and by this thread the reason that Christianity is associated with violence or deemed a religion- quite frankly the most evil things I can think of have been done as Christianity. But Christianity by definition is the immitation of Jesus Christ and by everything written in the Bible it is simply the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Take the teachings of Jesus and judge for yourself if they are consistent with His life. What people who claim to be Christians is not to be confused with the life of Jesus Christ. I don't label anything Christian if it doesn't immitate Jesus in motive, attitude, word and action. The rest is false.
