Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
I thank you for your clarification and apologize for considering you religious, but have no idea what your appeal to popularity is meant to imbue.
Incorrect, as demonstrated previously. Is there anything more that really needs to be said here?
I wonder what will the replies be if I said "All violence is because of relegion!"
ok let's try it:
All violence is because of relegion!
(just joking)
Well, the suggestion implies some expectation that you think some people will think it is. It isn't.
Notice how in the clip they never explain which parts of the book actually instruct beating a child for several hours to the point of death (or even to the point of leaving a mark)
You want to discuss malpractice or violence?
So what was christianity 1400 years before and 400 years after?
A minor political party?
Faith is malpractice.
Only for an explicit atheist
(unless of course we are talking about the kind of faith that drives their beliefs)
Last edited:
I wonder what will the replies be if I said "All violence is because of relegion!"
ok let's try it:
All violence is because of relegion!
(just joking)
Doesn't matter, even a minor blow can cause death is some circumstances. It certainly doesn't forbid it.
It which case it becomes recognized as a form of assault
it doesn't forbid assault .... or it doesn't forbid spanking a child (a precept which even secular law doesn't forbid)?
Last edited:
It specifically mentions a rod being used. That's violence in my book, spanking is violence too.
well then you have larger issues abroad with secular law than anything inherently religious on the subject
:shrug:
I wasn't serious.
I couldn't take the chance. Discussions around here develop a life of their own.
The shepherd's rod is mean as a tool to direct the herd, to function as a portable fence, to prevent the animals from going in the wrong direction.
Anyone who ever actually had to watch cows, goats, sheep or chicken, and has done so successfully, knows this.
And modern secular law orders that if your child commits a crime, you as a parent still have to report your child to the authorities, even if this means prison for the child.
People also have the legal option of disowning their children.
In the past, they didn't have the whole legal/judicial/penal system to take care of all that, so parents, relatives or the whole village/tribe had to administer justice themselves.
Or they heard it on Oprah / their psychologist tells them so / their neighbor tells them so - and they think it's necessary?
You seem to be putting forward the idea that no discernment is possible, and that people are bound by their immediate (often very emotional) reactions and an uncritical and non-systematic application of the advice they hear.
To each their own:
"There are these four types of excellent thoroughbred horses to be found existing in the world. Which four? There is the case where an excellent thoroughbred horse, on seeing the shadow of the goad-stick, is stirred & agitated, [thinking,] 'I wonder what task the trainer will have me do today? What should I do in response?' Some excellent thoroughbred horses are like this. And this is the first type of excellent thoroughbred horse to be found existing in the world.
"Then again there is the case where an excellent thoroughbred horse is not stirred & agitated on seeing the shadow of the goad-stick, but when his coat is pricked [with the goad stick] he is stirred & agitated, [thinking,] 'I wonder what task the trainer will have me do today? What should I do in response?' Some excellent thoroughbred horses are like this. And this is the second type of excellent thoroughbred horse to be found existing in the world.
"Then again there is the case where an excellent thoroughbred horse is not stirred & agitated on seeing the shadow of the goad-stick, or when his coat is pricked, but when his hide is pricked [with the goad stick] he is stirred & agitated, [thinking,] 'I wonder what task the trainer will have me do today? What should I do in response?' Some excellent thoroughbred horses are like this. And this is the third type of excellent thoroughbred horse to be found existing in the world.
"Then again there is the case where an excellent thoroughbred horse is not stirred & agitated on seeing the shadow of the goad-stick, or when his coat is pricked, or when his hide is pricked, but when his bone is pricked [with the goad stick] he is stirred & agitated, [thinking,] 'I wonder what task the trainer will have me do today? What should I do in response?' Some excellent thoroughbred horses are like this. And this is the fourth type of excellent thoroughbred horse to be found existing in the world.
"These are the four types of excellent thoroughbred horse to be found existing in the world.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.113.than.html
The task of a parent, or any other trainer, is to recognize what is necessary to get those who are under their care do as the training demands.
A trainer whose first action would be to hit the first type of horse, would, of course, be wrong and inefficient.
The notion that there indeed exists "religiously motivated violence," is a popular notion. Just like "spinach is good for you" is a popular notion.
Something being a popular notion doesn't make it unassailable or beyond analysis.
Nor does it make it false.
The issue I have with your (and LG's) position on this question is that you ask about whether religion is a motivation for violence, and then refuse to deal with the subject that undergoes the motivation, but rather concentrate on the specific wording of the supposed motivator - and seem to argue that because the wording does not explicitly support the specific action ultimately taken that it can not thus be considered a motivator.
You appear to be arguing a very different matter than mere motivation but rather against religion as the primary/only motivator/cause. (I do hope you see that this is a rather different argument?)
And when discussing cases of individuals acting upon their interpretation of the Bible, you are refusing to look at the individual but at the text and saying "there is no specific text to support the action, thus can not be a motivation!" - but you fail to address that motivation is subjective and rarely so black and white.