Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

Unfortunately, others do have an explicitly religious basis for their hatred.
 
GeoffP said:
It wasn't. Taken. For granted. I only illustrated it several times above, while you retreated into language.
Click to expand...

Refusing to discuss a concept is an act of taking for granted that some claim stands (in this case the claim that there exists "religiously motivated violence").


Enough already. It's not part of your view of your own faith or other faiths, but it is part of other people's views of their faith. Exeunt.
Click to expand...

"People have different opinions and therefore we must just leave it at that"?
In a discussion forum?

Even you do not subscribe to this outlook; instead, your views of what is so and what is otherwise are definitive, and you demand that they be respected, even to the point that others should give up their stance in favor of yours.
 
lightgigantic said:
I'm surprised you still haven't understood what i have been saying.

Nowhere was I critical of your claims because they are not universal.

I was critical of them because the catalyst of motivation for whatever you deem as "religious motivation" for conflict is simply political motivation in a religious cultural land scape.
Click to expand...

Nope. That doesn't explain burning cats.
 
wynn said:
And in all this thread, you have
repeatedly
refused
to explain
what exactly is "religious"
about some people's hatred.
Click to expand...

I've illustrated it several times. None so blind as will not see.
 
wynn said:
Refusing to discuss a concept is an act of taking for granted that some claim stands (in this case the claim that there exists "religiously motivated violence").
Click to expand...

Then shall I assume you do indeed take for granted that there is religiously motivated violence?

"People have different opinions and therefore we must just leave it at that"?
In a discussion forum?

Even you do not subscribe to this outlook; instead, your views of what is so and what is otherwise are definitive, and you demand that they be respected, even to the point that others should give up their stance in favor of yours.
Click to expand...

No, no, no: a thousand times no. You are conflating the fact that some people do indeed have an explicitly, unavoidably religious basis for their hatred with free thought and will. The existence of such religious haters falsifies your argument. It is not a separation of opinion of those on this forum, but of those in real life, and it punctures the supposition you are holding.

Let me ask you, for the question has often occurred to me: does it behoove your standing with the Lord, doing His work via the propagation of deliberate misunderstanding? These are lies, you must surely see. Is He glad of this, do you think?
 
129049832235381946.jpg
 
GeoffP said:
Let me ask you, for the question has often occurred to me: does it behoove your standing with the Lord, doing His work via the propagation of deliberate misunderstanding? These are lies, you must surely see. Is He glad of this, do you think?
Click to expand...

I have said several times that I am not religious, nor a theist. I could not say that I believe in God.

I simply refuse to take for granted things simply because they are popular opinion or because a few people say they are a particular way.
Is this so hard to understand?
 
It doesn't mean that there were first political concerns and then people used religion to justify them. What often happened was that religious ideas gave the believers a sense of superiority, that their cause was God's cause because the enemy were unbelievers and if it happened to coincide with increased access to resources or more beneficial borders, that was just God's way of rewarding his own.
 
During the 14 and 15 hundreds, the Catholic church was THE political power in Europe. Since both religion and politics are about controlling populations, they were basically the same thing.
 
spidergoat said:
It doesn't mean that there were first political concerns and then people used religion to justify them. What often happened was that religious ideas gave the believers a sense of superiority, that their cause was God's cause because the enemy were unbelievers and if it happened to coincide with increased access to resources or more beneficial borders, that was just God's way of rewarding his own.
Click to expand...

Then those ideas were not religious. They were political/economic.

From feeling religiously superior, it does not automatically follow that one can or will kill, rape and pillage and feel good about oneself and believe that God is on one's side.

If you think it does follow, as you seem to suggest above, you will have to explain it.
 
That doesn't explain other incidents of violence that we did mention. Perhaps child abuse and slavery are better examples than, for instance, the Crusades. The Bible specifically orders that you beat or even kill your children for doing bad things. This cannot be considered political. Many parents instinctively don't want to beat their kids, but they read it in the Bible and think it's necessary.

Bible Teachings: Girl spanked to death in the name of god
 
Last edited:
AlexG said:
129049832235381946.jpg
Click to expand...
sigh

Nobody ever expects an informed opinion on sci ...

One of the first books to challenge the classical view was The Spanish Inquisition (1965) by Henry Kamen. Kamen established that the Inquisition was not nearly as cruel or as powerful as commonly believed. The book was very influential and largely responsible for subsequent studies in the 1970s to try to quantify (from archival records) the Inquisition's activities from 1480 to 1834.[108] Those studies showed there was an initial burst of activity against conversos suspected of relapsing into Judaism, and a mid-16th century pursuit of Protestants, but the Inquisition served principally as a forum Spaniards occasionally used to humiliate and punish people they did not like: blasphemers, bigamists, foreigners and, in Aragon, homosexuals and horse smugglers.[105] There were so few Protestants in Spain that widespread persecution of Protestantism was not physically possible.[citation needed] Kamen went on to publish two more books in 1985 and 2006 that incorporated new findings, further supporting the view that the Inquisition was not as bad as once described by Lea and others. Along similar lines is Edward Peters's Inquisition (1988).

One of the most important works in challenging traditional views of the Inquisition as it related to the Jewish conversos or New Christians, was The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain by Benzion Netanyahu. It challenged the view that most conversos were actually practicing Judaism in secret and were persecuted for their crypto-Judaism. Rather, according to Netanyahu, the persecution was fundamentally racial, and was a matter of envy of their success in Spanish society.[109]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top