I didn't say that it was biblically motivated violence.
It's just a case of James R's horns showing.
Why don't you think it is biblically motivated violence?
A person quotes the scripture as the reason before stoning someone to death because he thought that individual was a homosexual. He states that the Bible states that homosexuals must be put to death. So he complies.
And you do not see that as violence motivated by one's religious teachings and readings?
I'd like you to explain in what way they are, rather than just saying they are.
What what is?
The quotes in the bible?
Or do you need someone to explain to you why stoning someone to death as per the scripture and stating that the reason he stoned him to death was because the bible said so is religiously motivated violence?
What about the priest who crucified the nun, with the help of other nuns in the convent, during an exorcism? When that
priest then makes
this statement:
Father Daniel who is accused of orchestrating the crime is said to be unrepentant.
"God has performed a miracle for her, finally Irina is delivered from evil," AFP quoted the priest as saying.
You need me to explain why and how crucifying someone in an exorcism is religiously motivated violence?
Now you try and insult me?
Explain the ''religion'' in casting the first stone? Please.
You were the one going on about the different levels of religion.
Not me.
And perhaps you should refer to your biblical text and scripture about casting the first stone and how homosexuals should be treated a la Bible.
Religion is a discipline. You may not like to think so. But it is.
All discipline require conviction, sacrifice, and understanding.
Your idea of religion just being whatever one feels, is not supported by any
scripture.
Aha!
So religion is supported by scripture? So why do you claim and how can you actually believe that a man who stones someone to death, with the full support of his bible and scripture is not acting religiously, when even he states clearly that he killed the man because the bible says to stone homosexuals?
So the scripture is only the go to place for happy fun times? That all the deespicable violence quoted in scripture is not worthy of consideration? It just doesn't count?
At what level are you an atheist?
I wasn't aware there were levels of atheism. Do explain..
If your child was in a life threatening situation, and all ''rational'' options were
exhausted. Would you ask God to help?
About as likely that I would seek help from the fairies at the bottom of my garden.
We're asking you to show and explain how this act of God's is ''religiously motivated''. Please do, it's been long overdue.
Well God not being the religious being that he is and all.. Perhaps you should ask him why he committed genocide?
Was it to save the souls from evil of false Gods of the Egyptians? Was it an act of revenge? Was it to protect the Jews from the fiendish and evil other God loving Egyptians? Was it because God supposedly owns human life and he just felt like it?
I don't know Jan. Why is any act of God's in the religious context it is placed in the bible not religious?
You see religion as a motivator, and as such you decide there are better motivations than religion, so you are atheist. That seems to be the standard for modern-atheists (mod-aths). But not everybody sees religion as a motivating factor to do good/bad, or to explain to workings of the world.
You are effectively tarring all religious people with the same brush, which is understandable, because you are an atheist, and that's how you see it.
I think the problem is your thinking you are correct in your analasys, and anything that doesn't comply is wrong. A trait that is all to common in institutional religion.
So as a religious individual, you do not believe in the scripture? Or do you pick and choose?
So you don't see different levels of religiosity in people?
No.
Because you are judging people by how much they believe.. What level of religiosity are they? How much do they believe. It is exclusive as it is competitive.
Come on Bells, you're better than this.
I am serious.
You are saying that you operate at a much higher religious level, apparently along with LG and Wynn.. this was your argument before.
In other words, you hold yourself and your belief to be above that of everyone else and you judge who and what is religious or not. That has been your stance in this whole discussion.
It says, in the Bible, Thou shalt not kill, Love thy neighbour, follow the commandments, vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, and load of other things along those lines. So why did he focus on that one thing, knowing he would go to jail for a long time (if he wasn't proved insane, then his sentence would be severly diminished ).
Why is stoning homosexuals even in the Bible Jan?
Why is
killing one's children in the Bible?
If you look back in this thread, you'll find that it is your side which has not been listening. The notion that the Bible IS ''religion'', therefore if one uses texts as ideas, or even passions, to carry out violent acts, one is ''religious'', needs to be explained and expanded upon.
You need to explain what it means to be religious, and what is religious motivation (to the exclusion of all other motivations). This idea of one size fit all, is bunk.
That you don't attach any importance to ''religion'', is not my problem. You are here, making a case, so explain yourself.
As an atheist, I can assure you, I attach absolutely no importance to religion or your brand of religious beliefs.
You are trying to have it both ways. You are religious and you follow the scripture. You have read your bible and you follow Jesus' teachings in said bible. Yet, you seem to be claiming that the Bible is not that important when discussing its ugly side.
If I were to use your argument to describe you, I would say you are a non-believer since you discount your own religious text to such an extent to make excuses for what is in it.
