Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[GeoffP]

It doesn't matter if it's an effort to impersonate God or not. (This distinction would be particularly unimportant for an atheist, which I think someone mentioned.) It's still religiously-motivated. If it isn't, what's it doing in a holy book in the first place? Moreover, what should I make of the extirpation of nation after nation by the Israelites in the OT? Is that also not religiously motivated? Hell, it's described explicitly as being religious: God hardened their hearts, and so forth.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The intention to harm someone because they live in violation of religious laws certainly is a religious intention.

Is it intentionally harmful , to punish someone who breaks the law?

Is the intention to harm someone because they are in violation of secular law, secular intention?


jan.

 

[wynn]

It doesn't matter if it's an effort to impersonate God or not.

It does matter, if we are talking about religion.

(This distinction would be particularly unimportant for an atheist, which I think someone mentioned.)

Surely an atheist, too, should employ critical thinking and not simply call something "religious" because the media or popular opinion call it that way.

It's still religiously-motivated. If it isn't, what's it doing in a holy book in the first place?

Some scriptures are wholesale compendiums for the organization of living of some societies. As such, they contain religious instructions, as well as instructions for mundane issues (like how to take care of camels etc.).

Moreover, what should I make of the extirpation of nation after nation by the Israelites in the OT? Is that also not religiously motivated?

I don't know. This is something I wonder about too.

Hell, it's described explicitly as being religious: God hardened their hearts, and so forth.

How is that religious? Can anyone explain?

 

[wynn]

IOW: How can a human external observer recognize whether someone is religious or believes in God, or not?

If the observer understands what it means to believe in God, then yes.

For that, he would have to be religious himself.

Being ''religious'' can mean anything,

??

The argument can be made that to apply those instructions from the Bible literally nowadays, would be an anachronism.

I suppose it could, in some western countries.

Or should the Jews who live in New York get camels so that they can uphold the laws about camel maintenance ...

Back in the day the soldiers went away to fight wars, and didn't kill and mame innocent people, unlike nowadays.

As far as I know, civilians have often been casualites of armed confrontations.

Back then, they simply didn't have the infrastructure to organize systematic education of children or imprisonment of criminals, so they had to resort to simpler means.

Says who?

History, and common sense economy.

If someone nowadays would want to be true to the letter of the Bible, they would have to refrain from using any modern technology, and also become illiterate.

No they wouldn't.
They only need to follow the 10 commandments. That IS the religion in the Bible.

I am sure you are aware that many disagree.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

For that, he would have to be religious himself.

Not necessarily.

??

???

Or should the Jews who live in New York get camels so that they can uphold the laws about camel maintenance ...

Maybe not, but let's hope they observe the laws requiring motor vehicles.

As far as I know, civilians have often been casualites of armed confrontations.

As far as I know, rules were observed which prevented the killing of women, children, and the elderly.

I am sure you are aware that many disagree.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

What am I missing then?

Most aspects of Christianity as delineated by the Bible, as well as all other religions besides the Abrahamic ones.

For you, religion is only a personal communication with God. This is not the definition. Religions are the set of practices and beliefs described in their foundational texts. As I pointed out, some of these practices are violent in nature and they go beyond mundane motivations of self-preservation or self-defense. Case closed.

 

[lightgigantic]

Most aspects of Christianity as delineated by the Bible, as well as all other religions besides the Abrahamic ones.

For you, religion is only a personal communication with God. This is not the definition. Religions are the set of practices and beliefs described in their foundational texts. As I pointed out, some of these practices are violent in nature and they go beyond mundane motivations of self-preservation or self-defense. Case closed.

Then I guess that leaves you with the mammoth task of explaining why the christians et al are not engaged in such "practices" as you describe them ... why does this conclusion of yours rely on circumstances that are political hotspots or in environments bereft of organized penal/judicial environments?

 

[Sarkus]

Then I guess that leaves you with the mammoth task of explaining why the christians et al are not engaged in such "practices" as you describe them ... why does this conclusion of yours rely on circumstances that are political hotspots or in environments bereft of organized penal/judicial environments?

One reason perhaps might be that other areas have such "organized penal/judicial environments" that work to temper that religiousness, and without such the religiousness is allowed to motivate unchecked.
This would mean, of course, that Christians aren't being as religious as they might potentially be without the tempering of the "organized penal/judicial environments" - but then we possibly saw that potential with the Crusades.

Of course, this is all merely an idea, not necessarily one I hold to, but it is an explanation that fits your request.
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

One reason perhaps might be that other areas have such "organized penal/judicial environments" that work to temper that religiousness, and without such the religiousness is allowed to motivate unchecked.

Vigilante group justice has nothing to do with religiousness

This would mean, of course, that Christians aren't being as religious as they might potentially be without the tempering of the "organized penal/judicial environments" - but then we possibly saw that potential with the Crusades.

Then why did it take a turkish expansion into Anatolia thus cutting off movement into Jerusalem to initiate the conflict?

I mean there was a good 500/600 years of christian/muslim interaction before that - is the absence of "religious" violence in that era due to them being less "religious"?

Of course, this is all merely an idea, not necessarily one I hold to, but it is an explanation that fits your request.
:shrug:

It isn't a well supported one

 

[wynn]

Sarkus -


What do you think is a functioning system of dealing with criminals in societies that live at a relatively simple economic standard (such as rainforest tribes, nomads, small communities high up in the mountains)?

 

[Sarkus]

Vigilante group justice has nothing to do with religiousness

Vigilantism is just justice outside of societal norms.
If societal norms are not the paragon of religiousness, who is to say that the vigilante group justice is not?

Then why did it take a turkish expansion into Anatolia thus cutting off movement into Jerusalem to initiate the conflict?
I mean there was a good 500/600 years of christian/muslim interaction before that - is the absence of "religious" violence in that era due to them being less "religious"?

Could be. I wasn't there. Were you?

It isn't a well supported one

Never said it was. You just wanted an explanation.

 

[Sarkus]

What do you think is a functioning system of dealing with criminals in societies that live at a relatively simple economic standard (such as rainforest tribes, nomads, small communities high up in the mountains)?

Can you elaborate, please? I'm not sure of the relevance.

 

[wynn]

People commit crimes; regardless of the level of technological development of the society they live in.

A member of a rainforest tribe murders another member; a US citizen murders another US citizen. Etc.
People steal, rape, assault, murder, destroy property, regardless of the level of technological development of the society they live in.
The objects and methods of the crimes vary, but the nature of the crimes is the same across history and geography.

And human societies have always tried to deal with crime and criminals somehow.
Either by excommunicating them, killing them, sending them to prison, etc.

So in a modern Western country, for example, a thief may have to pay a fine or is put to prison; a rainforest tribe may lash a thief. Either way, society has acknowledged that a crime was committed and punished the thief for the crime committed.

So when we read in old scriptures instructions for punishment, and we consider that this was intended for a society that didn't have the kind of judicial or penal facilities that modern Western countries usually do, it is reasonable to think that this was simply their way of dealing with criminals, and not something "religious."

 

[wynn]

Most aspects of Christianity as delineated by the Bible, as well as all other religions besides the Abrahamic ones.

For you, religion is only a personal communication with God. This is not the definition. Religions are the set of practices and beliefs described in their foundational texts. As I pointed out, some of these practices are violent in nature and they go beyond mundane motivations of self-preservation or self-defense. Case closed.

One reason perhaps might be that other areas have such "organized penal/judicial environments" that work to temper that religiousness, and without such the religiousness is allowed to motivate unchecked.
This would mean, of course, that Christians aren't being as religious as they might potentially be without the tempering of the "organized penal/judicial environments" - but then we possibly saw that potential with the Crusades.

Of course, this is all merely an idea, not necessarily one I hold to, but it is an explanation that fits your request.

Are the two of you saying that given the opportunity, true Christians would maim or kill every non-Christian, just like that?

That true Christians are essentially ticking time-bombs?

 

[Sarkus]

Are the two of you saying that given the opportunity, true Christians would maim or kill every non-Christian, just like that?

That true Christians are essentially ticking time-bombs?

Perhaps you missed where I said it was not a view I necessarily held?
I.e. I was merely providing an example of an explanation, as LG requested. Please don't infer into it that I therefore hold that position.

 

[Sarkus]

So when we read in old scriptures instructions for punishment, and we consider that this was intended for a society that didn't have the kind of judicial or penal facilities that modern Western countries usually do, it is reasonable to think that this was simply their way of dealing with criminals, and not something "religious."

Two ways to respond to this...
First, when those same punishments are continued despite an otherwise progressive society, are they continued for any reason other than religious?

Second, if you propose that instructions for punishments are merely "of their time", why can we not hold that true also of the laws to which those punishments apply? Why should religions adhere to those same laws if not adhere to the same punishments?

Again - these are merely arguments to examine a point (or two) and not to be taken as my view.

 

[chimpkin]

I suppose it could, in some western countries.
Back in the day the soldiers went away to fight wars, and didn't kill and mame innocent people, unlike nowadays.

What day are you talking about?

Wars have never remained ritualized and contained very well for very long.

 

[GeoffP]

It does matter, if we are talking about religion.

Not to an atheist. Your assumption seems to be that religion is true, and that therefore no evil can come from it. I have no reason to think that's so.

Surely an atheist, too, should employ critical thinking and not simply call something "religious" because the media or popular opinion call it that way.

What does that have to do with anything?

Some scriptures are wholesale compendiums for the organization of living of some societies. As such, they contain religious instructions, as well as instructions for mundane issues (like how to take care of camels etc.).

And so...? If those scriptures contain instructions on how to brutalize your neighbours for failing to live up to the regulations they set, is that not religious violence?

I don't know. This is something I wonder about too.

May I gently suggest, then, that this would be religious violence?

How is that religious? Can anyone explain?

Er...because it comes from God?

 

[spidergoat]

Then I guess that leaves you with the mammoth task of explaining why the christians et al are not engaged in such "practices" as you describe them ... why does this conclusion of yours rely on circumstances that are political hotspots or in environments bereft of organized penal/judicial environments?

To the extent that's true, I attribute it to the influence of the last hundred years or so of secular government, science, and humanism. But when you look at some areas of Africa, violence is still being committed due to the direct influence of Christianity and other native religions.

 

[spidergoat]

Are the two of you saying that given the opportunity, true Christians would maim or kill every non-Christian, just like that?

That true Christians are essentially ticking time-bombs?

Without the influence of secularism, yes, I think it would take no time at all for the worst aspects of Christian theology to manifest. In fact, there are some places in the South where I would not feel safe due to the religiosity of it's inhabitants.