Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

wynn said:
What are my objections to what?
Click to expand...

To my proposed criteria for something to be religious.

"That which is done with the intention to serve God while supported by scripture."

If normal people can accurately interpret scripture, as you just suggested, then what is your objection to my criteria?
 
Enmos said:
If normal people can accurately interpret scripture, as you just suggested, then what is your objection to my criteria?
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest that. It is precisely what I questioned.


wynn said:
Enmos said:
How about this?
That which is done with the intention to serve God while supported by scripture.
Seems to suffice to me.
Click to expand...

Ordinarily, this is what people tend to do, yes, but it is not sufficient, notably because it exempts the intended recipient of the action (ie. God) from the equation.
Click to expand...

I never agreed with you.
 
GeoffP said:
How can you call that discernment religious? Maybe it comes from some other source.

Anyway, the admission that one must "carry out scriptural instructions" again establishes a very realistic space for the use of religiously-motivated violence. Again.
Click to expand...

I've explained above what I deem to be criteria for "religious": http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2888315&postcount=1107


Given that definition of "religious," show that there can be religiously motivated violence.
 
gmilam said:
It's my life, my mind & my conscience. I stand up and take responsibility for my actions.
Click to expand...

You also don't like philosophy. So there is a number of problems in your thinking and expression thereof that you don't notice but others do ...
 
James R said:
The religious apologists here will tell you that this is not religiously motivated violence at all.

For example, Jan Ardena is adamant that this is an example of "biblically-motivated violence", and as we all know the bible has nothing to do with religion.

lightgigantic or wynn will tell you that this stoning was politically motivated, or motivated by money or something else, because a religious motivation for something is just not possible. lightgigantic will tell you that every time somebody tells you they are religiously motivated, they are lying and there really is some other underlying motivation.

I think that's a fair summary of the case being put by these guys.

Stands up well, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

I like the claim that it is biblically motivated violence. I guess Jan does not think the Bible and the stories in the Bible are religiously motivated at all. She might also try to claim that the individual who cast the first stone in this horrendous case has not quite reached the religious level she has. They have levels of religiousness now, did you know that? Being an atheist, I guess it puts me at -10..

As for Wynn and and LG.. Well.. They'd probably try to claim God killing the first born son's of Egypt is not religiously motivated at all...

We should also remove religion from everything good and bad, since it is not a motivator at all but is simply nothing at all. In fact, we could probably claim religiousness does not exist at all and religious groups are really social clubs.

I think it stands up smashingly!

But I guess we need those who have reached a higher level of religion to tell everyone in the world what is religious or not. Since apparently they are the only 3 who would think a man stoning someone to death because of a belief that someone is homosexual, in accordance to his religious beliefs and what is written in the Bible, would not be religiously motivated violence.

In other words this discussion has been tantamount to the 3 of them doing the following...

pyzamcanthearyou.jpg
 
Enmos said:
Which hinged on people being able to accurately interpret scripture or not.
Click to expand...

On their own, a person is not able to interpret scripture accurately. Hence the need for a community of saintly people and a personal instructor.
 
It is actually really simple (and correct me if I'm wrong):

If someone does something that is motivated by religion, then it is religiously motivated.
 
Enmos said:
Which hinged on people being able to accurately interpret scripture or not.







:shrug:
Click to expand...
But you are missing the important point in their eyes...

As soon as those "people" interpret it to mean the approval or demand or instruction for violence (such as the instructions of stoning homosexuals), then it stops being religiously motivated because the Bible and all other religious text is only religious for the good bits. All the bits about murder, genocide, mass killings, stoning, crucifying.. well when that comes up, it is not religious anymore. Which would of course mean that Christ sacrificing himself for their sin's was not a religious gesture and celebrating Easter, celebrating that sacrifice is not a religious holiday at all.. since Christ was clearly not motivated by anything religious.. etc..

Wynn's argument is that everyone is too stupid to understand their religious text if they dare to take said text at its word and be motivated by their religious beliefs which stem from their religious texts to do anything...
 
Enmos said:
It is actually really simple (and correct me if I'm wrong):

If someone does something that is motivated by religion, then it is religiously motivated.
Click to expand...


What do you think this means in practice?

That if a person reads the Bible and then goes off to kill some people, this killing is automatically religiously motivated?
 
wynn said:
What do you think this means in practice?

That if a person reads the Bible and then goes off to kill some people, this is automatically religiously motivated?
Click to expand...

If the violence was motivated by religion. Yes.
 
wynn said:
I've explained above what I deem to be criteria for "religious": http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2888315&postcount=1107


Given that definition of "religious," show that there can be religiously motivated violence.
Click to expand...

I've posted the text of your link for clarity:


As far as I can see, the minimum criteria for something to be religious, and all three must be fulfilled:

1. that which is done with the intention to serve God,
2. that which is in line with all three: 1. scriptures, 2. the discernment of saintly people and 3. the discernment of a saintly person immediately in the position of instructing the person who commits an action,
3. that which indeed pleases God.​

Since no one has any definition of a 'saintly person' - including you - we may dispense with that notion. (And what to do when a saintly person approves of such violence? Is God saintly? He hardened the hearts of the Caanites and got the Israelites to slay them, apparently. Mohammed had his moments too.)

As for 1 and 3, I expect a literal reading of Leviticus would indeed give the person the impression of slaying to serve God. Similarly Suras 2 and 9 in the Koran. You might well argue that these are not "correct" interpretations, but your opinion is as unrooted as theirs for the purposes of practical effect.
 
My approach to the question would go something like this;

1) Is violence the result of human thoughts and feelings?
2) Can human thoughts and feelings be influenced by religion?
3) Yes and yes, therefore violence as a result of religion is a possibility.

Even if you wished to sweep all of the horrific parts that infest the main bibles under the carpet, and claim that everything in religions is non-violent and promotes love and peace, apart from being an outright lie, it wouldn't speak against the possibility of religiously founded aggression.

Violence is as complex as people are. You can't go filling people's heads with medieval horror stories and commandments about executing people for bizarre and trivial infractions and then expect them to behave sensibly. Not going to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top