No offense, but you're getting less coherent with every post. :bugeye:
By your logic, "the devil made me do it" would be a reasonable defense. But we don't see it used very often. And I doubt it has ever worked...
Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
By your logic, "the devil made me do it" would be a reasonable defense. But we don't see it used very often. And I doubt it has ever worked...
But if some religious text or other suggests that, in fact, gay people really are bad bad baddie bad, and one goes out and kills a gay person in the name of some fundamentalism espousing such a belief, then that is indeed religiously motivated. Are you assuming that only nice things can be religiously motivated, or that unless an actual little grey representative of a religion tells you to do something - which would fall under the auspice of insanity, frankly - it cannot be religiously motivated?
OK, I see you're going with my first option above. Well, if the American constitution permitted or encouraged it, then it would make it so. There might well be a higher-order zeitgeist reading or perspective that would make such an action wrongful and immoral in the light of that very philosophy, but the tools still exist within the baser reading of that philosophy to allow it.
I appreciate what you're arguing here, but as an example the Abrahamic religions all have parameters under which murder and war and mayhem is allowed, or even encouraged. One cannot call the benevolent products of religion religious and the malevolent products irreligious. One has to take the good with the bad. If you wanted to call the malevolent ones misread, then okay. But if they remain genuine articles in that religion, then it's acceptable to call them religious. One could similarly have corporate douchebaggery and (less likely) corporate benevolence: but both still emit from the corporation.
The devil made me post in this thread.
Holy sheeit... Geoff, wow man... devils advocate is one thing... but damn.
Truly, Christianity isn't advocating violence or even the condemnation of other religions - truthfully, Christianity is supposed to be welcoming and even accepting - yes, we are supposed to reach out to those that don't know God and Jesus, but we are NOT supposed to "force them to bend to our ways or suffer the consequences"... after all, we humans are not intended to judge.
Truly, Christianity isn't advocating violence or even the condemnation of other religions - truthfully, Christianity is supposed to be welcoming and even accepting - yes, we are supposed to reach out to those that don't know God and Jesus, but we are NOT supposed to "force them to bend to our ways or suffer the consequences"... after all, we humans are not intended to judge.
Bells
Staff member
In theory yes. Unfortunately the practice does not always make it so.
Some branches of Christianity, and the same applies to pretty much all religions, Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic alike, are fundamentalists and militant. And then you have religious sects that apparently believes the following is acceptable:
An Irvine couple who suspected their 15-year-old son of smoking turned to a man believed to be relied on in their church to violently discipline children, authorities said.
The parents asked Paul Kim, 39, to discipline their son after finding a lighter in his possession, dropping the boy off at Kim's Chino Hills home with permission for the beating, San Bernardino County sheriff's spokesperson Cindy Bachmann said Saturday.
Kim hit the child with a metal pole about a dozen times, causing severe bruising on his legs, according to Bachmann. The pole was about an inch in diameter, investigators said.
An adult at the boy's school saw the bruises and called Irvine police, who in turn informed San Bernardino County officials, she said.
_____________________________________________
Investigators believe Kim has been used in this way by other families in the congregation, and asked for victims and witnesses to come forward.
The name of the church was not released but Bachman said it was located in La Habra.
[Source]
The parents asked Paul Kim, 39, to discipline their son after finding a lighter in his possession, dropping the boy off at Kim's Chino Hills home with permission for the beating, San Bernardino County sheriff's spokesperson Cindy Bachmann said Saturday.
Kim hit the child with a metal pole about a dozen times, causing severe bruising on his legs, according to Bachmann. The pole was about an inch in diameter, investigators said.
An adult at the boy's school saw the bruises and called Irvine police, who in turn informed San Bernardino County officials, she said.
_____________________________________________
Investigators believe Kim has been used in this way by other families in the congregation, and asked for victims and witnesses to come forward.
The name of the church was not released but Bachman said it was located in La Habra.
[Source]
I disagree:
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. As well the stranger as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
Leviticus 24-16
Bells
Staff member
So you believe that because there is no God, that people who claim they were motivated by their religious beliefs should not be taken seriously because their belief in their deity of choice and/or religion of choice is not real to begin with, because there is no deity?
I guess in that light, anyone who believes in a deity of some sort or other should be ignored and not be taken seriously?
No, he's a theist, and I can't figure out his argument.
Devil made me do it, pt II
?? OK, you lost me there. How is that Devil's Advocate?
Yes, but Christians do judge, and when they do, they do so because the actions of others are in violation with their conception of morality. They didn't institute pogroms against Jews because the Jewish people had really nice lawns or didn't return their recyling. They did it because of the old and utterly false conception that Jews were "Christ-killers", or unbelievers, or religious deniers, and so forth. It's not Devil's Advocate to say that; it's true. This persecution had a religious basis. It was religious violence.
Now, if you want to say that's not part of Christianity as you conceive it, you'd be right by default, because it's not part of your Christianity. It's probably not part of most people's Christianity. But it is part of someone's, and because it has a limited connection to Christian theology, it's still "religious violence".
Naturally, Kitta, I realize full well that you reject this doctrine as wrongful, immoral and inaccurate, and naturally I applaud you for that. It isn't a question of whether it's mainstream belief, but rather whether such violence could be called "religious" (as defined by the OP), and it could be.
?? OK, you lost me there. How is that Devil's Advocate?
Yes, but Christians do judge, and when they do, they do so because the actions of others are in violation with their conception of morality. They didn't institute pogroms against Jews because the Jewish people had really nice lawns or didn't return their recyling. They did it because of the old and utterly false conception that Jews were "Christ-killers", or unbelievers, or religious deniers, and so forth. It's not Devil's Advocate to say that; it's true. This persecution had a religious basis. It was religious violence.
Now, if you want to say that's not part of Christianity as you conceive it, you'd be right by default, because it's not part of your Christianity. It's probably not part of most people's Christianity. But it is part of someone's, and because it has a limited connection to Christian theology, it's still "religious violence".
Naturally, Kitta, I realize full well that you reject this doctrine as wrongful, immoral and inaccurate, and naturally I applaud you for that. It isn't a question of whether it's mainstream belief, but rather whether such violence could be called "religious" (as defined by the OP), and it could be.
Bells
Staff member
Or a good whipping:
Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Which is exactly what one Pastor in the US does.
As for stoning:
Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Deuteronomy 21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
Deuteronomy 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
Deuteronomy 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Deuteronomy 21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
Deuteronomy 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
Deuteronomy 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Some people actually take this kind of ridiculous crap to heart and follow through with it. And some, continue to preach it:
Comforting, isn't it?
Well...that has been the result of what we did.
Some of us seem to have done it with religious motivation:
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=6607
(Not sure they were either)
(ADD powers activate-ooo shiny!)
Last edited:
GeoffP:
Please withdraw your accusation that Bells condones or supports religiously-motivated violence against women.
Bells:
Please withdraw your accusation that GeoffP supports religiously-motivated violence.
----
By this, I mean that you will apologise for your respective accusations/implications, in this thread.
If you prefer not to apologise, you may instead accept a 1 week ban from sciforums.
Please respond when you next log in and read this.
Thankyou.
Please withdraw your accusation that Bells condones or supports religiously-motivated violence against women.
Bells:
Please withdraw your accusation that GeoffP supports religiously-motivated violence.
----
By this, I mean that you will apologise for your respective accusations/implications, in this thread.
If you prefer not to apologise, you may instead accept a 1 week ban from sciforums.
Please respond when you next log in and read this.
Thankyou.
Bells
Staff member
I never accused him of supporting religiously motivated violence. If he mistakenly believes that I have, then I sincerely apologise and withdraw.
I would also like him to apologise and withdraw for saying that I am immoral, insane and pose a danger to his family. Not to mention falsely accusing me of abusing and wrongly using my moderator status.
It is your reading/comprehension abilities that apparently decrease with every subsequent post.
Last edited:
I'm not a theist. I just want to understand how there can be religiously motivated violence.
I certainly think that there can be violence that is motivated by a mundane/incomplete understanding of religion.
There is indeed a considerable legal problem that ensues from the status that religion is ascribed by the law.
So questions arise like: Are those who are in some way religious or believe in God, delusional, or are they sane?
If a person commits a crime and then claims e.g. "God told me to do it" or "The Bible/Koran says so" - how should that crime be prosecuted?
Under the plea of insanity?
So I suppose one motivation for positing that violence can indeed be religiously motivated is legal.
People who have committed crimes and who justify them claiming e.g. "God told me to do it" or "The Bible/Koran says so," otherwise do not necessarily exhibit any beliefs and behaviors that would suggest they are insane.
But if we posit that there is no God, then it follows that those who believe in God are necessarily delusional, and if they commit a crime which they claim is justified in the name of God somehow, they are to be prosecuted as insane.
Then you seem to understand religion in terms of politics - as if religion would be yet another brand of politics, nothing more.
I take for granted that the American constitution doesn't permit or encourange vigilante justice.
And some people have baser intellects, so baser things appeal to them.
We're not.
Again, this speaks of a mundane, political understanding of religion.
I am beginning to think that the problem arises simply from the fact that people who have committed a crime can name justifications for it that the secular (!) law cannot prove or disprove. Such named justifications can be an appeal to aliens, conspiracy, temporary insanity, or religion.
wynn,
Also, are they insane because they believe in God.
And they do not necessarily exhibit religiousness, or a belief in God.
jan.
Also, are they insane because they believe in God.
And they do not necessarily exhibit religiousness, or a belief in God.
jan.
Three questions for discussion here:
1. How would religiousness or a belief in God be exhibited?
2. Throughout the thread, quotes from scriptures have been listed that instruct the commission of violent acts. How are those instructions to be understood?
3. When a person commits an act that is perceived as harmful by others,
an act that may be to the extent of a legally prosecutable crime (such as aggravted assault or homicide), or an absence of reasonably expected common decency (such as shutting the door to someone in a public space, as when several customers entering a store, and one shuts the door on another),
and they justify that act by naming some religion-related justification (such as "God told me to do so," "the Bible Koran says so," hissing "You worthless atheist!" at someone),
how can people who are not religious make sense of that?
I am deeply, deeply impressed. I thank you.
I accept Bells' frank and abject apology for her assertion. Most kind.
And naturally I apologize in turn. My objective was to illustrate an issue, and it has done. I didn't expect quite such a reaction, but I'm glad in its way that it has, and I think something genuinely positive has come from this. I can't tell SF how incredibly impressed I am by this decision. Was this a general thing or a single supermod's call? It's brilliant.
As for the 'threat to my family', the implication was legal, not physical, and the situation sounded as though it was becoming litigious. I've already made my mea culpas for that above; I'm a family man and when people start using heightened language of doom on the forum I think "nuisance suit?".
Lastly, and almost most importantly, I don't think I actually implied that Bells would use her mod status; rather, I was implicating the system itself. I suppose it's to that system I should apologize, which is an incredulous sort of turn of events.
So... strangely enough - I apologize to the SF system - and those that run her, too - for my suspicions. They were, most impressively, unfounded. I have to admit to a certain suspicion that this post might come back to haunt me if later I again criticize "the system"
, but, too, it could hardly be otherwise after this wonderful decision. :shrug: There you have it.Sincerest thanks again.
Bells
Staff member
What issue were you trying to illustrate by saying that I supported and approved of violence against women? Of all the things you could have picked, how could you actually even think to use that as a form of illustration. What? Were you trying to buck the system? Force me to apologise? Force the hands of the adminstrators of this site? Possibly humiliate me? The last two sentences of that paragraph seem to indicate that was your objective. And now you gloat.
While I accept the apologies for the other points. I do not accept this one at all. Your sole intent was to be offensive and insulting to me personally and professionally. This is not an apology or a retraction.
This is you gloating and frankly, no, I don't think that is good enough. So no, I do not accept this as an apology for your accusing me of approving of violence towards women.
Maybe if you had been less gleeful and gloating, it may have been accepted. But saying 'sorry' and then what amounts to 'tee hee sucked in' is not an apology in my book. Instead, it is more insulting.
Sorry James, but he needs to do better.