any religion taught this
- Thread starter aswanikumar
- Start date
A friend of mine read a bible verse to me while we were in a hotel room from the hotel's bible. I don't know where it is exactly but I know it is in the old test. It said to tar and feather and stone your daughter to death if she had pre-marital sex. Now which is more evil(satanic), killing your kin, or killing your enemy?
Re: Re: any religion taught this
"They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. (Gen.11:3)
"Now the Valley of Siddim was full of tar pits... (Gen.14:10)
"But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. (Ex.2:3)
Who colonized North America? You did if you are not Native American. Are you where you belong? Because 9 chances out of 10, someone died so that you could have the priviledge of condemning others who did the same.
You can't point fingers if you are not doing something to stop such atrocities. If you can put a name on something, you are probably generalizing, and all generalizations should include yourself, because "in general" we are all part of the human race.
Does this mean it's natural? Yes or no?Originally posted by Michael
actually we (humans) are not totally alone in this respect - some insects (ants primarily) kill their own kind
The word tar only occurs three times in the Bible (Old and NT):
"They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. (Gen.11:3)
"Now the Valley of Siddim was full of tar pits... (Gen.14:10)
"But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. (Ex.2:3)
People took over other people. Hitler ordered the holocaust. Does that mean the "Germans" committed the holocaust? No. People who followed Hitler's orders did. Did Christians attack Iraq, or did Americans?
Who colonized North America? You did if you are not Native American. Are you where you belong? Because 9 chances out of 10, someone died so that you could have the priviledge of condemning others who did the same.
You can't point fingers if you are not doing something to stop such atrocities. If you can put a name on something, you are probably generalizing, and all generalizations should include yourself, because "in general" we are all part of the human race.
This is all true, and I Agree. But I was just stating that it is not the Islam religion itself that is performing terorist acts, but indeed the people as you say! People hurt people, sometimes ordered by other people. but becouse of a few fanatics not an entre religion is at fault. Religion often gets used the aquire power and/or money.
I think one should look at the true nature of any religion, instead of the way it is practised today. Becouse biblical tekst are wrongly translated, sometimes on purpose. Things get added over the years, by people who try to use it to make money or gain power (an example for this is the cristian church, especially around the middle ages. Another example is bin laden, who uses his religion to perform terrorist acts).
If one is serious ablout his religion, if one is a real fanatic, then one should study its origins, to know what its all about. This way we can avoid having ignorant, conversations, based on dogmas, with people who are sheeps being used by their religious leaders.
Religion is always paired with a few dogmas. The most known Dogma is the thought of any God, magick or divinity existing.
But when you're religion is based on solely dogmas, then there is something wrong! Their has to be some form of logic and reasoning...
Ants and Ainu
First - natural? What is meant by natural? Some ants are genetically programmed to attack other ants colonies (same species), fight to the death (killing all other ants OR they themselves die off completely) and, if they win, then carrying off the young foreign larval ants back to their colony and raise them as workers. Once the larval ants mature into new workers they tend to the needs of their new masters - without the knowledge that this is not their colony. It’s called slaving. Many times we hear of the Queen ant (just watch the cartoon Ants She’s usually thought of as controlling the colony. Using her daughters to her ends right? Not always, in the case of ants that do not slave, the genetic output for her is a ratio of about 3:1 (daughter ant genes relative to queen ant genes). In this sense they, the daughters, control the queen – and basically are using her as an ant-making factory (farming her out so to speak) making copies of them selves (which is the whole point). On the other hand, ants that do slave (for foreign ants to work the colony) this genetic output is not necessarily true. Because the daughters go on “slave-runs”, the queen now has a chance to gain control of the colony – in the sense of genetic output (while the daughters are away the Queen will play And as expected the ratio is now 1:1 – that is, queen ant genes relative to daughter ant genes in the next generation. The queen now has control (or as much as she can hope for).
So back to the original question – Yes, in some ants species it is natural (genetically programmed) to fight another ant colony to the death. What does this say about humans? Your guess is as good as mine.
I didn’t colonize North America. Someone before me did. And more than likely somewhere in me are some DNA from a Native American (lots of interbreeding). So is that where I belong? Or ony a bit of me belongs there? I think: Why can’t I live anywhere on this planet so long as I’m not hurting someone else is the better question. Who’s to say I can’t move to Thailand and live there? Is that then where I belong? With this “someone died so that you could have the privilege of condemning others” sort of reasoning then maybe all continental Europeans don’t belong in Europe because their ancestors had to kill off all the Neanderthals in order to take the land Or is it ok AFTER genocide because then there is no one left to bitch about it? What of the Japanese history with the Ainu? Better send all 100 million of them packing? Do the modern Japanese having the privilege of condemning the Ainu? I doubt most Japanese nor modern day Ainu think one way or the other about it.
In regards to ants.
First - natural? What is meant by natural? Some ants are genetically programmed to attack other ants colonies (same species), fight to the death (killing all other ants OR they themselves die off completely) and, if they win, then carrying off the young foreign larval ants back to their colony and raise them as workers. Once the larval ants mature into new workers they tend to the needs of their new masters - without the knowledge that this is not their colony. It’s called slaving. Many times we hear of the Queen ant (just watch the cartoon Ants
She’s usually thought of as controlling the colony. Using her daughters to her ends right? Not always, in the case of ants that do not slave, the genetic output for her is a ratio of about 3:1 (daughter ant genes relative to queen ant genes). In this sense they, the daughters, control the queen – and basically are using her as an ant-making factory (farming her out so to speak) making copies of them selves (which is the whole point). On the other hand, ants that do slave (for foreign ants to work the colony) this genetic output is not necessarily true. Because the daughters go on “slave-runs”, the queen now has a chance to gain control of the colony – in the sense of genetic output (while the daughters are away the Queen will play And as expected the ratio is now 1:1 – that is, queen ant genes relative to daughter ant genes in the next generation. The queen now has control (or as much as she can hope for). So back to the original question – Yes, in some ants species it is natural (genetically programmed) to fight another ant colony to the death. What does this say about humans? Your guess is as good as mine.
Please clarify.
I didn’t colonize North America. Someone before me did. And more than likely somewhere in me are some DNA from a Native American (lots of interbreeding). So is that where I belong? Or ony a bit of me belongs there? I think: Why can’t I live anywhere on this planet so long as I’m not hurting someone else is the better question. Who’s to say I can’t move to Thailand and live there? Is that then where I belong? With this “someone died so that you could have the privilege of condemning others” sort of reasoning then maybe all continental Europeans don’t belong in Europe because their ancestors had to kill off all the Neanderthals in order to take the land
Or is it ok AFTER genocide because then there is no one left to bitch about it? What of the Japanese history with the Ainu? Better send all 100 million of them packing? Do the modern Japanese having the privilege of condemning the Ainu? I doubt most Japanese nor modern day Ainu think one way or the other about it.There are two possibilities: It is natural to be territorial, since we evolved that way, and the fact that we become emotional about how wrong wars are, is irrational. Or, [*edit for CA's clarification* it is natural to be territorial, but] it is unnatural for humans to kill - where we must ask: if the decision whether to kill or not to kill is only circumstantial, on what do we base that decision? And what authority makes that decision valid?
It's just interesting to see what happens when we follow our assumptions through.
Last edited:
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Only two? For poor Jenyar-of-the-70-Books, everything is black or white. S/he sees no possibility that territoriality might be both natural and worthy of concern. Even though urinating and defecating when ever and where ever is natural, I'm sure we would all become concerned if we found that s/he were not toilet trained.
Of course territoriality is natural. My question, if you read carefully, is where does "concern" start? When does killing become an unwanted function of territoriality, if it is a natural instinct?
Indiscriminate defecation is arguably a hygenic, not a moral issue.
Indiscriminate defecation is arguably a hygenic, not a moral issue.
Did Jesus, Mohamed or Budha ever pick up arms? Or ever sanctioned the death of another... for ANY reason? No.
So what is it that causes ordinary people to committ atrocities to others in the name of religion? What is the overriding factor?
Short answer: Money and Power!
Religion is fundamentally supposed to be a spiritual pursuit, but it is obvious that the political is brought into it too, from external sources.
Differences in religion and historical conflicts* are used by countries' governments (and the International backers of those governments) to divide and rule populations, while seeds of contempt and hate are sown by strategic acts of violence apparently perpetrated by one religious group against another.
Is it shocking to hear that (for example) Indonesia's Western backed government sells arms and munitions to both, 'Muslim' and 'Christian' terror groups? That waves of attacks and atrocities sweep through villages almost on a daily basis, one day the Muslims, the next day the Christians, causing a chain reaction that can't be broken? Where the day following the carnage , the mixed religions people of the devastated villages actually HELP EACH OTHER to rebuild their town, in shock and amazement at what happened?
The perpetrators come and go, they could even be the same person's that attack both communities, but the seeds are sown and have been for a while now. Now there is a lush forest of hate growing and spreading everywhere.
The true perpetrators have now brought this to the west as well and people (being people) are falling into the trap as easily as all the others eg: 9/11=terrorists=Islamists=terrorists etc geddit?
Hate=mistrust=fear=irrational=controllable=power and money to third parties and all their cousins.
*Religious wars have always been politically motivated and have never had anything to do with any god.
So what is it that causes ordinary people to committ atrocities to others in the name of religion? What is the overriding factor?
Short answer: Money and Power!
Religion is fundamentally supposed to be a spiritual pursuit, but it is obvious that the political is brought into it too, from external sources.
Differences in religion and historical conflicts* are used by countries' governments (and the International backers of those governments) to divide and rule populations, while seeds of contempt and hate are sown by strategic acts of violence apparently perpetrated by one religious group against another.
Is it shocking to hear that (for example) Indonesia's Western backed government sells arms and munitions to both, 'Muslim' and 'Christian' terror groups? That waves of attacks and atrocities sweep through villages almost on a daily basis, one day the Muslims, the next day the Christians, causing a chain reaction that can't be broken? Where the day following the carnage , the mixed religions people of the devastated villages actually HELP EACH OTHER to rebuild their town, in shock and amazement at what happened?
The perpetrators come and go, they could even be the same person's that attack both communities, but the seeds are sown and have been for a while now. Now there is a lush forest of hate growing and spreading everywhere.
The true perpetrators have now brought this to the west as well and people (being people) are falling into the trap as easily as all the others eg: 9/11=terrorists=Islamists=terrorists etc geddit?
Hate=mistrust=fear=irrational=controllable=power and money to third parties and all their cousins.
*Religious wars have always been politically motivated and have never had anything to do with any god.
Re: Re: Re: any religion taught this
Of course God is involved in holy wars. To people that believe in a God, it created everything, meaning God created death and murder and is the root of all evil. So if they are told by someone ,who they deemed to be talking to God, to kill then they will do it because to them God has ordered them to perform something that is natural(since it is based in creation) and righteous. It is politically and spiritualy based, but done for social reasons.
Of course God is involved in holy wars. To people that believe in a God, it created everything, meaning God created death and murder and is the root of all evil. So if they are told by someone ,who they deemed to be talking to God, to kill then they will do it because to them God has ordered them to perform something that is natural(since it is based in creation) and righteous. It is politically and spiritualy based, but done for social reasons.
Re: Re: Re: Re: any religion taught this
use and manipulation of the general public by a cunning individual
I agree strongly to this. And most of us on these forums know not to trust religious leaders blindly. But who will educate the people in Afghanistan and other countries, who are used by bin laden for his terrorist deeds. Who will educate the common folks who are used by the hijackers, so that they can see past the viels of disguise and manipulation.
I do not want the current world situation displayed here, I want the solution, althoug it may be a bit much to ask...
Why doesn't amerika pump millions in the education of Afganistan, instead of sending troops their, and investing in war equipment!?
I agree strongly to this. And most of us on these forums know not to trust religious leaders blindly. But who will educate the people in Afghanistan and other countries, who are used by bin laden for his terrorist deeds. Who will educate the common folks who are used by the hijackers, so that they can see past the viels of disguise and manipulation.
I do not want the current world situation displayed here, I want the solution, althoug it may be a bit much to ask...
Why doesn't amerika pump millions in the education of Afganistan, instead of sending troops their, and investing in war equipment!?
To the perpetrators, this is the solution. They have the power and the means.
Re: use and manipulation of the general public by a cunning individual
America is investing in Afghanistan, but for its own benefit.
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp
America is investing in Afghanistan, but for its own benefit.
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: any religion taught this
Aren't divisions and rule performed with not only social intentions, but with social operations? After all, there is a reason why the word polite is contained in the word political. Also, if there is a god, did he not create evil? If there is, would not the followers of it assume or absorb ideas of performing the evil which god had created for them to solve problems? Then, are Buddha and Jesus not opposed to this? Would they not be against god at least 5o%?
Aren't divisions and rule performed with not only social intentions, but with social operations? After all, there is a reason why the word polite is contained in the word political. Also, if there is a god, did he not create evil? If there is, would not the followers of it assume or absorb ideas of performing the evil which god had created for them to solve problems? Then, are Buddha and Jesus not opposed to this? Would they not be against god at least 5o%?
Re: Re: Re: Re: any religion taught this
There are many things that are "natural" (in fact, if you truly believe in evolution, absolutely everything is natural) - but not everything is good, right, justifiable or God's will. Whether your intentions are politcal, spiritual or social, if you do not subject them to God, they will be ultimately personal and the question becomes: who are you unaccountable to?
If we are only "social animals", what are our responsibilities beyond reproduction and self-preservation? Do we really have any, or is morality an artificial invention, as some would have it?
The message is simple: perform and tolerate no evil of any kind, because God does not condone it. God did not create evil (at least not the kind you envision), but some things we experience as "evil" which are only natural consequences. The natural consequence of rebellion against God is death. I.e, if you don't love, you are sinning.
PS. If the law is love, then does that also mean "love evil"? Of course not. Just as surely it does not follow that if God exists, everything must be caused by God. Darkness isn't light's "fault" or "creation".
People who believe in God do not have to believe everything you believe about God. Death and sin are results, not creations. Do murderers create murder, or do they commit it? Nobody has the right to condemn anyone to death but God who also gives life. People can't give life, and therefore have no authority to take it. Sometimes justice demands it, but here is where people have to decide just how much justice will actually be served. If you condemn someone, you have to be prepared to receive condemnation by those same principles.
There are many things that are "natural" (in fact, if you truly believe in evolution, absolutely everything is natural) - but not everything is good, right, justifiable or God's will. Whether your intentions are politcal, spiritual or social, if you do not subject them to God, they will be ultimately personal and the question becomes: who are you unaccountable to?
If we are only "social animals", what are our responsibilities beyond reproduction and self-preservation? Do we really have any, or is morality an artificial invention, as some would have it?
Nothing, that was my point - not tar, not feathers, just stones - hence the word "stoning".
You mean, is there an ethic of evil? Can a country politely take over another one, using all forms of brainwashing and propaganda, without resorting to physical agression? Probably - which is why politics exist, I suppose. But they should not be surprised if its people take it back much less politely. Somewhere there is always someone with an evil agenda, with good people working for him without their knowledge. Or someone with good intentions, with evil people undermining him. Ultimately, everybody answers only to themselves - unless they don't...
The message is simple: perform and tolerate no evil of any kind, because God does not condone it. God did not create evil (at least not the kind you envision), but some things we experience as "evil" which are only natural consequences. The natural consequence of rebellion against God is death. I.e, if you don't love, you are sinning.
PS. If the law is love, then does that also mean "love evil"? Of course not. Just as surely it does not follow that if God exists, everything must be caused by God. Darkness isn't light's "fault" or "creation".
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Anyone that speaks to and acts out what God has told them to do
has been beguiled by their own Imagination.
They are False Prophets, Evil Doers.
The True God has No Name, can not be spoken of or to.
God is No Name, God is the Living Word, a Word that is the Name of No-Thing.
"It said to tar and feather and stone your daughter to death if she had pre-marital sex."
Pure Evil.