Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
And I suppose I have to accept your claim that the meaning of jihad as religious war isn't anachronistic without proof? No thank you. :shrug:
Last edited:
Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Aaactually that verse reads there's no compulsion in religion for the right path is distinct from error. I expect it's interpreted by Salafists, conservatives and reactionaries to mean that no one can possibly be compulsed to believe the truth, and the penalties for apostacy in Islamic nations would seem to support this.
But which in fact has also been an offensive rallying cry for the same period of time. I appreciate that you, personally, don't see it that way, but it is what it is.
That's nice as an ideal, but isn't so in practice in a number of places. It's the basis of religious oppression, really.
In what way does it differ from the above, if it does?
(You, who dynamited the goal posts whenever I asked for a definition.)
At least you get goalposts.
Every time I approach the field, you guys take your ball and run home. :bawl:
How about the dictionary.com definition of religion:
No I said it's not an anachronism, it's alive and well among modern militant jihadis.
jihad: noun 1. a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
Debate over.
Again.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
It's an anachronism because modern militant jihadis are simply deviants.
Jan Ardena:
Who else's opinions am I supposed to hold?
A non-answer from you. Unable or unwilling to answer. As I expected.
I'll ignore whatever tangent this is supposed to take us to.
Saying God, the Devil, an Angel, my dead gran, etc.. made me slaughter my whole family can be classed as insane, and being insane can secure a better sentence, treatment, or even get you off.[/quote]
You think it is better to be locked up in a secure facility for the mentally insane for an indeterminate time than to have a set term in prison? Ok then.
You need to put the sentence you quoted here together with the one that immediately followed it and which proves my point.
No? What was all that "Follow my commandments" stuff you quoted about then?
You can't have it both ways.
You're obviously quite mixed up. Atheism isn't a religion. Also, who mentioned anybody thinking he is God?
A non sequitur from you. Relevance: none.
It made sense to the people who wrote the dictionaries I consulted. Check it out for yourself.
Have you considered that maybe in such cases offenders do not feel it to be as important to disclose their religious motivations?
---
Really, Jan, this is quite a poor showing from you.
Do you have any substantive, on-topic arguments you wish to make, or do you plan to continue to try to track the discussion onto irrelevant tangents and generally to divert attention away from religious violence?
Who else's opinions am I supposed to hold?
A non-answer from you. Unable or unwilling to answer. As I expected.
I'll ignore whatever tangent this is supposed to take us to.
Saying God, the Devil, an Angel, my dead gran, etc.. made me slaughter my whole family can be classed as insane, and being insane can secure a better sentence, treatment, or even get you off.[/quote]
You think it is better to be locked up in a secure facility for the mentally insane for an indeterminate time than to have a set term in prison? Ok then.
You need to put the sentence you quoted here together with the one that immediately followed it and which proves my point.
No? What was all that "Follow my commandments" stuff you quoted about then?
You can't have it both ways.
You're obviously quite mixed up. Atheism isn't a religion. Also, who mentioned anybody thinking he is God?
A non sequitur from you. Relevance: none.
It made sense to the people who wrote the dictionaries I consulted. Check it out for yourself.
Have you considered that maybe in such cases offenders do not feel it to be as important to disclose their religious motivations?
---
Really, Jan, this is quite a poor showing from you.
Do you have any substantive, on-topic arguments you wish to make, or do you plan to continue to try to track the discussion onto irrelevant tangents and generally to divert attention away from religious violence?
Or they are the ones that truly understand Allah. Guess there's no way to tell for sure.
From what I understood, one of the core items of religion is to thank God for the blessings one has received (such blessings are, notably, health and wealth).
To ask for blessings with an attitude of entitlement goes against the spirit of gratitude.
If I intended a debate, I would post the topic in the debate forum.
Why do you think this is a debate?
And why do you think it is a debate between "apologists" and their opponents?
It's not clear why some posters are making it into that.
- - -
Some people make the claim that there is "religiously motivated violence," but when asked, refuse to show what exactly was religious about it, other than the name, or the fact that the perpetrators had ecclesiastical titles or were members of religious organizations.
As if names or formal affiliations would be all there is to religion.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what is religious about their beliefs, other than the name.
Perhaps someone can elaborate.
Like I said earlier -
From what I understood, one of the core items of religion is to thank God for the blessings one has received (such blessings are, notably, health and wealth).
To ask for blessings with an attitude of entitlement goes against the spirit of gratitude.
Sure. But to think of oneself as having perfectly done "that which is right in God's sight" - that seems quite presumptuous to me.
From what I understood, the idea is to do one's best, and leave the result up to God.
I do believe in prayer, and I believe that one ought to pray to become aligned with God's will:
"Dear Lord, please engage me in Your service."
Turning to God with the request "God, do this for me" or something to the effect of "God, I am going to do this in Your name, as a service to You, and You better be happy with it"
is not in the spirit of service to God.
I find this to be a rather abstract definition. Perhaps on topic, but abstract.
It seems more like a legal, anthropological or culturological definition of religion, but hardly one that can be of much use in a detailed discussion on religion.
James R -
For example, a mathematical calculation is something an individual performs by himself. But this doesn't mean that anything that person calculates is line with mathematical principles or can be considered mathematical.
People have their own ideas of what religion is, but this doesn't automatically mean that those ideas are actually religious; they may be "religious" even only in a vague, political sense, but not in the sense as understood by advanced religious practitioners.
An interpretation of a text doesn't automatically place it into the same category as the text.
An interpretation of a scientific text is not automatically scientific.
An interpretation of a religious text is not automatically religious.
Keeping in line with the precepts of religion is an act of "staying within somebody's rules."
For example, a mathematical calculation is something an individual performs by himself. But this doesn't mean that anything that person calculates is line with mathematical principles or can be considered mathematical.
People have their own ideas of what religion is, but this doesn't automatically mean that those ideas are actually religious; they may be "religious" even only in a vague, political sense, but not in the sense as understood by advanced religious practitioners.
James R said:
An interpretation of a text doesn't automatically place it into the same category as the text.
An interpretation of a scientific text is not automatically scientific.
An interpretation of a religious text is not automatically religious.
Keeping in line with the precepts of religion is an act of "staying within somebody's rules."
Well, I thought it rather had to do with this post:
That is strange indeed. Personally, I mentioned the correspondence between the sociological tenets of scripture and religious violence. I suppose the perpetrators would also have to be members of religious organizations. I suppose it would be unusual in the extreme to have an orthodox Hindu slay a homosexual person out of sympathy for the same instructions in Leviticus.
Being an outsider looking in, a non-believer if you will, this describes religion as I see it fairly well.
When I was a child, we attended church regularly. It was a weekly social outing. As I grew into a teenager, I saw how it could be used for social (as well as political) work. I also saw the subtle (and not so subtle) brainwashing and control aspects it could be used for. An odd blend of love & compassion mixed with bigotry & prejudice.
The contradictions were easily explained when I realized that there was no divine guidance involved, it is simply a tool humans have developed.
Yeah, the dictionary definition fits my personal observations.
An odd blend indeed. And that bigotry and overt prejudice is where the mindset begins, which tolerates (or even acts on) ideas of violence.
While the believers in the house would like to cut back on the definitions ("motivated" becomes impossible to prove since you can't actually know what the violent person was thinking), I would want to see the pendulum to swing the other way, to include violent ideation as a form of violence.
Re bolded part - that implies you believe to have divine powers yourself - namely that you are at least omniscient.
:shrug:
Earlier on, the point has been made several times that there is sometimes violence committed in the name of religion. That doesn't automatically mean that it was religiously motivated.
Although I guess if you come into this forum with the mind "Let's fight!" then that OP and many others will indeed appear as inviting a debate to you.
Then what is religious about killing homosexuals?
Can you explain?