Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[wynn]

How do you know you're being religious? You have to have God tell you directly, right (per your definition). Until then you're working on guesswork and faith - and you have no idea if you're religious or not.

You're not walking in the same direction I am ...

 

[wynn]

what was that?
a neuron firing haphazardly?

Watch the news.

:shrug:

 

[Aqueous Id]

So they apparently tried to regain or defend what they believed was theirs.

If you mean they were defending Christianity, which, in their minds, was given to them by God, yes. Otherwise, no. It was not a secular land dispute, nor did they own it. This is why they referred to it as The Holy Land.

People generally act that way, whether they consider themselves religious or not.

Do you think medieval Christians were only religious to the extent they had a self-image of being religious? In other words, was it merely religiosity, in the derogatory sense of the term. Wouldn't this require an overhaul of history, too?

The tools and approaches they use tend to depend on the tools and approaches of the opponent. For example, if an invader with firearms invades your country and keeps killing your people, it won't do much good to try to defend yourself against him with bows and arrows. You'll have to use firearms too, or some super-clever strategy. So in this process of self-defense, the Christians used a number of tools and approaches - from prayer to sword, at some point, they even sent a boat of children. I don't see a problem here with the Christians using swords and other weapons of that time against the Turks and other opponents. The opponents were using dangerous weapons too.

I'm not sure to what extent the Christians were ever more than invaders, and the tools they initially employed were those of an expeditionary force, not a defender. This changed later when they became defenders of the small gains temporarily captured. Regardless, they demonstrated by a pattern of repeated expeditions for over 200 years that their main role was that of the aggressors, and the trend continued long after that into other conflicts. The notable exception is Spain, where they experienced an occupation by the Moors that lasted until the age of Columbus.

I wasn't addressing the military rationale for arming themselves, merely the religious rationale for launching the expeditions.

 

[wynn]

Do you equate the study of history, and the formulation of inferences from historical evidence, as an exercise in trivialism? That would require a brush with a very broad stroke to paint it so.

Those inferences are at best just speculations. What do we hope to achieve with such speculations?

Do you dismiss the Holy Roman Empire as a purely secular entity, and the congregation as secular? Or how exactly do you interpret that episode of history?

I don't have a problem with it.
:shrug:

Is it my reasoning? I thought I was bringing evidence from an authoritative source. Do you regard The Catholic Encyclopedia as engaging in trivialism?

Same as above.

In my mind revisionism connotes a reinterpretation of history in a contemporary light, at the expense of losing the historical context.

It can be in a contemporary light, but it can also be in a more neutral way:

A traditional Buddhist, for example, would analyze the whole situation of the Crusades etc. as "aimless wandering" (ie. samsara) and leave it at that.
Life as it is usually lived is about "men, women, money, horses and elephants." The latter three may vary according to what is fashionable at a time/place, but the principle remains.
Life as it is usually lived is about sights, tastes, sounds, smells, and tactile sensations.
If we read the news, it is just variations of the same thing, over and over again: the interplay of greed, anger and delusion; the interplay of human efforts to transcend the problems of ordinary life. The names and dates are new, but it's basically the same thing over and over again.


It seems that people engage in historical study and inference for the purpose of trying to learn lessons from past mistakes or to develop a sense of continuity of identity. Which is why historiography is so burdened with moral, psychological and philosophical issues.

Yet it is possible to develop a system of morality and philosophy of life also without specific regard to history.
In fact, the argument could be made that all traditional systems of morality and philosophy of life were ahistoric like that, and that they mentioned historical events only as an illustration of specific principles.

Using history "to learn from it" may be a later, secular development.

I'm not sure legalism had much to do with rescuing their shrines. The pope was recognized as having divine authority,

Which is why what he ordered was considered authoritative.

Where's the problem?

I agree that we should not judge history out of context, but I am at a loss to reconcile that point with your appraisal of medieval Christianity, which seems to say that it was a secular phenomenon. In context, it is religious. So there's a glitch.

Because I am working with a different understanding of religion than you.

In Iran any person can be put to death on the testimony of three witnesses. These are drawn from one of several Komiteh, which have jurisdiction according to nature of offense. So, for example, in the case of the woman who was sentenced to having her lips lacerated for the crime of wearing lipstick, the Shariah Sex Offender Komiteh brought three members who witnessed her wearing lipstick at the time they themselves were apprehending her. Under Shariah law, she was not allowed to testify or even to attend the hearing, insofar as God has already rejected her, she is doomed, and her testimony is rendered moot.

In Iran, this approach is considered legal.
There, it is not considered violence.

Maybe you missed my point. I merely gave you a scenario, to stimulate your own thinking process in regard to how anyone normally considers the weight of evidence in any matter. By making reference to a hypothetical trial, I am trying to unlock the vault where you are secreting that rationale away. It serves as a basis for "informed debate" to establish the rules of evidence. I was merely pointing to the rules of court as the assumed model.

No human court functions on the principles of objective morality, nor can any human court declare an objective, eternal verdict and exert an according punishment.
All human courts are based on particular legal systems.

You seem to think that a Nurnberg-like court is objective, superior, the representative of objective morality and absolute truth.
It's not clear how this is the case. Such courts indeed aspire to be on that level, and they tend to assume to be on that level - but they are just particular humans against particular humans.

I didn't have an overt intent to address objective morality per se, I am just addressing the OP, not much more.

Problems of objective morality are an issue here.

When you condemn that which you believe are cases of religiously motivated violence: Do you believe you are judging in line with a particular legal system (such as that of the US or Iran), or do you believe you are judging in line with objective morality?

 

[wynn]

So they apparently tried to regain or defend what they believed was theirs.

If you mean they were defending Christianity, which, in their minds, was given to them by God, yes.

So where is the problem?

Do you think medieval Christians were only religious to the extent they had a self-image of being religious?

I don't understand what you mean by this.

I wasn't addressing the military rationale for arming themselves, merely the religious rationale for launching the expeditions.

If the Holy Land would be covered by a heap of sand, and the Christians would go there with shovels to shovel the sand away - would that be religiously motivated violence, IYO?

 

[michael_taylor]

I am working with a different understanding of religion than you.

Could you summarize what you understand the concept of religion to signify in this context? Or is it something only people who already believe in a god can appreciate?

(edit - added : )

What is your definition of the good type of religion which you're promoting as never motivating violence? Does it differ from the normal meaning of the word?

I think that would give you the answer for which the thread was ostensibly posted.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Do you believe that, theoretically and/or practically, a truly religious person would not use any kind of force in self-defense?

It depends on the person.
Religion is like teaching a child to read, it does not determine what the child reads or how it personally percieves what it reads.

Although perhaps a truly religious or saintly person would never find themselves (due to being truly religious) in a situation where they would be forcefully attacked, or where they would need to resort to use of physical force in order to protect their body and belongings.

IMO, a religious person is not necessarily a saintly person. A saintly person id more likely to be the instigator of religion and religious practices.

A saintly person understands that violence, be it, defensive, or offensive, binds the soul to the material plane, and regards this plane as illusory. So for him it is pointless. Such a person is rare.

Ordinary people tend to live mixed lives - they are somewhat religious, and somewhat mundane. And it is the mundane part that entangles them in numerous problems with other people. Every now and then, those mundane problems escalate into full-blown conflict of interests.

The material ocean. Far vaster than all the oceans of the world put together.
It is extremely difficult from the materialist perspective to chart his position from the begining of his decent.

jan.

 

[GeoffP]

You're not walking in the same direction I am ...

Do you believe that other people owe it to you to accept your judgment of their stance?

yeah
to see some take god as a given and atheists doing the same for the sake of rhetoric is hilarious

Swing and a miss.

Strike one.

I'm not sure to what extent the Christians were ever more than invaders, and the tools they initially employed were those of an expeditionary force, not a defender.

Well, prior to the Crusades, the Islamic world had been on a crusade of its own against the Christians world, right across the ME, North Africa, and Anatolia. I consider it more a reaction than an invasion. People quickly forget that these regions were part of Christian (and other) civilization long before the Crusades.

In Iran, this approach is considered legal.
There, it is not considered violence.

Legal violence is still violence, unless you can cite something to differentiate the two.

And the above illustrates the central problem at the heart of your thinking on this issue: that religiously-motivated violence, being 'just' in your eyes, is forgivable. Pardon me if we disagree strenuously on this issue also.

When you condemn that which you believe are cases of religiously motivated violence: Do you believe you are judging in line with a particular legal system (such as that of the US or Iran), or do you believe you are judging in line with objective morality?

What a shame that religiously-motivated violence fails the test of objective morality so spectacularly, given its implicit objectives, eh?

 

[Sarkus]

You're not walking in the same direction I am ...

Ah yes - the joy of rejecting anything one says based on their direction of travel.
Who is to say that the reason I'm not walking in your direction is that I have been there and know what lies ahead?
But I guess you could also wander around waiting for a certain person to tell you you've actually arrived at your destination, yet not even knowing if that certain person exists?
:shrug:

 

[Aqueous Id]

Do you equate the study of history, and the formulation of inferences from historical evidence, as an exercise in trivialism? That would require a brush with a very broad stroke to paint it so.

Those inferences are at best just speculations.

Inference, properly applied, is generally the necessary element to discovering the truth of a matter. Speculation may engender inferences, but when dealing with historical matters, the inferences are grounded in artifacts, and the most conclusive findings arise from best evidence. To characterize this as just speculation is to minimize the authority which is generally held to be competent.

What do we hope to achieve with such speculations?

Truth. Not by speculation, but by best evidence.

Do you dismiss the Holy Roman Empire as a purely secular entity, and the congregation as secular? Or how exactly do you interpret that episode of history?

I don't have a problem with that.

You seem to cast them as secular. I was converging on their religious motivation. I can't tell from this answer whether "that" means secular or religious.

It can be in a contemporary light, but it can also be in a more neutral way: A traditional Buddhist, for example, would analyze the whole situation of the Crusades etc. as "aimless wandering" (ie. samsara) and leave it at that.

And the Christian Crusader might burn him at the stake for such heresy.

Life as it is usually lived is about "men, women, money, horses and elephants." The latter three may vary according to what is fashionable at a time/place, but the principle remains. Life as it is usually lived is about sights, tastes, sounds, smells, and tactile sensations.

They built a convent to house the women and girls in Flanders who had been displaced from their homes and families by the departing heroes. These women observed the Hours with Matins, worshiped the daily Mass and received the Sacraments, and supported the Convent through painstaking work, such as making lace. From infancy until their death, they never left their sanctuary, and never knew anything except obedience. How do you reconcile the reality of their existence with the existentialism you describe, and how is it relevant to their ascetic existence?

If we read the news, it is just variations of the same thing, over and over again: the interplay of greed, anger and delusion; the interplay of human efforts to transcend the problems of ordinary life. The names and dates are new, but it's basically the same thing over and over again.

Are you inferring that the Crusades arose out of patterned flaws of an existential source, rather than the religious source normally ascribed to it?

It seems that people engage in historical study and inference for the purpose of trying to learn lessons from past mistakes or to develop a sense of continuity of identity. Which is why historiography is so burdened with moral, psychological and philosophical issues.

The Crusades stands out by sheer volume and duration of the atrocities and the striking religious motive for engaging in it. Historiography would seem quite developed for this topic. The Catholic Encyclopedia is an interesting source because it demonstrates Catholic historiography, their doctrine, the artifacts and scholarship, all in one fell swoop. It seems to preserve the religious context of the day that is essential to understanding the religious motive. For example, in this reference I posted earlier:

Meanwhile Henry at last suffered a check from Matilda's forces at Canossa, the same fortress which had witnessed his humiliation before Gregory. His son Conrad, appalled, it is said, at his father's depravity, and refusing to become his partner in sin, fled to the faction of Matilda and Welf.

It seems curiously honest to say "depravity" and "partner in sin" where I might at first dismiss this as patronizing religiosity. Here it serves as a benchmark, that these were a people steeped in religion, in aspects that have long fallen by the wayside and almost become foreign to us. This is where I think the weight of context comes into play. And the annals are just loaded with stuff like this.

Yet it is possible to develop a system of morality and philosophy of life also without specific regard to history. In fact, the argument could be made that all traditional systems of morality and philosophy of life were ahistoric like that, and that they mentioned historical events only as an illustration of specific principles. Using history "to learn from it" may be a later, secular development.

That seems a little odd to me in that the bulk of the world's religions are founded upon scriptures that chronicle their perennial engagements in violence, even while the morality play is just beginning to unfold. (I think this idea is reflected in a lot of the more casual comments to the thread, for example, someone pops in and chimes: Duh! The scripture says: smite the infidel or whatever!)

It's hard to imagine a scenario in which morality could arise among perfectly innocent people. Maybe there is such a group, but the ones that come to mind are primitive tribes that all seem to have carnal knowledge of war. So I'm not even sure if that would ever be possible.

I'm not sure legalism had much to do with rescuing their shrines. The pope was recognized as having divine authority,

Which is why what he ordered was considered authoritative. Where's the problem?

Do you agree that those people believed that the Pope was God's instrument for promulgating His Holy Will? It is said that some people would faint at the sight of Church elders, so overcome by their sense of the presence of God, or to touch their robes seeking cures, believing the cloth itself to be impregnated with the soul of God. (Compare this with the goal of a Haji, to touch the object impregnated with God's power.) To construe this as merely secular or legal authority is to erase the religious experience that was then unfolding.

I agree that we should not judge history out of context, but I am at a loss to reconcile that point with your appraisal of medieval Christianity, which seems to say that it was a secular phenomenon. In context, it is religious. So there's a glitch.

Because I am working with a different understanding of religion than you.

By being taken in context, I mean the conflict is recognized as religiously motivated. They piously believed and worshiped under Christian tenets of faith, yet they also believed it was God's Holy Will, under the divine inspiration imparted to their Lord's Church, to go to war.

How does your understanding of religion affect their reality and their motive?

In Iran, this approach is considered legal.
There, it is not considered violence.

You mean it's not considered unjust? Iranians are known to fear the violent punishments for infractions, and it serves as a deterrent.

Maybe you missed my point. I merely gave you a scenario, to stimulate your own thinking process in regard to how anyone normally considers the weight of evidence in any matter. By making reference to a hypothetical trial, I am trying to unlock the vault where you are secreting that rationale away. It serves as a basis for "informed debate" to establish the rules of evidence. I was merely pointing to the rules of court as the assumed model.

No human court functions on the principles of objective morality, nor can any human court declare an objective, eternal verdict and exert an according punishment. All human courts are based on particular legal systems.

Are there courts other than human ones? I thought I was appealing to the highest standard of proof, nothing more.

You seem to think that a Nurnberg-like court is objective, superior, the representative of objective morality and absolute truth. It's not clear how this is the case. Such courts indeed aspire to be on that level, and they tend to assume to be on that level - but they are just particular humans against particular humans.

No, I think you missed my point. I was trying to put on stage before you an imagined play in which the pope is tried under the harsh inquiry of a prosecutor, to discover the truth of the matter concerning religious motivation. I randomly picked the Nürnberg setting only to create the atmosphere of an issue of war crimes, under examination by an adversarial prosecution. I am not advocating anything else about courts or the specific events at Nürnberg.

The question is: given this rendering, in which the man explains how deeply their faith permeated their mundane lives, do you deny that this depicts religiously motivated violence?

I didn't have an overt intent to address objective morality per se, I am just addressing the OP, not much more

Problems of objective morality are an issue here. When you condemn that which you believe are cases of religiously motivated violence: Do you believe you are judging in line with a particular legal system (such as that of the US or Iran), or do you believe you are judging in line with objective morality?

Oh I see what you mean. I didn't understand that this was your thrust.

I hadn't thought I was condemning religiously motivated violence by any standard except its own hypocrisy and the sheer cruelty perpetrated. I did not mean to infer that this is judged against law, although I do believe if we tried these questions similar to rules of court we would get to the truth quicker.

I suppose you could also tie me to some objective morality, but I'm not sure about any other strings attached to that characterization.

More to the point: they were butchers--wolves dressed up as sheep. I can't escape the reality of that regardless of how I am ultimately classified.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I'm not sure to what extent the Christians were ever more than invaders, and the tools they initially employed were those of an expeditionary force, not a defender.

Well, prior to the Crusades, the Islamic world had been on a crusade of its own against the Christians world, right across the ME, North Africa, and Anatolia. I consider it more a reaction than an invasion. People quickly forget that these regions were part of Christian (and other) civilization long before the Crusades.

Right. Here I was just referring to the folks far west of Anatolia who jumped into the fray. I call them invaders to the extent they were an expeditionary force, and not protecting their homeland. You're certainly right about the aggression of the Arabs. But since anyone defending their homeland would be excluded from purely religious motive, I was focusing on the folks out west. They seem to be poster kids for religiously motivated violence, and most remarkable, since Christianity famously turns the other cheek.

Point well taken.

 

[GeoffP]

Right. Here I was just referring to the folks far west of Anatolia who jumped into the fray. I call them invaders to the extent they were an expeditionary force, and not protecting their homeland. You're certainly right about the aggression of the Arabs. But since anyone defending their homeland would be excluded from purely religious motive, I was focusing on the folks out west. They seem to be poster kids for religiously motivated violence, and most remarkable, since Christianity famously turns the other cheek.

Point well taken.

Sorry Aqueous - not meaning to gripe.

 

[Aqueous Id]

So they apparently tried to regain or defend what they believed was theirs.

If you mean they were defending Christianity, which, in their minds, was given to them by God, yes.

So where is the problem?

Do you not recognize the religious motivation in defending the sacred faith given to them by their God?

People generally act that way, whether they consider themselves religious or not.

Do you think medieval Christians were only religious to the extent they had a self-image of being religious?

I don't understand what you mean by this.

You raised the point of self-image. In saying "People generally act that way, whether they consider themselves religious or not" the question of their actual religion, one which putatively prohibits violence, is erased by an assumed trend to behave badly. Missing is the sense of piety and discipline that would preclude the faithful from following the trend. Thus the decision of the Crusader, to risk his life and impoverish his family, was a seriously deliberated decision that struck the core of his being, and he answered the call to lay down his own life and sacrifice the happiness of his family in the service of God, which is a religious motivation.

I wasn't addressing the military rationale for arming themselves, merely the religious rationale for launching the expeditions.

If the Holy Land would be covered by a heap of sand, and the Christians would go there with shovels to shovel the sand away - would that be religiously motivated violence, IYO?

They went armed, with the deliberate intent to murder the Saracens who they understood were occupying and desecrating the Holy Sepulchre. Therein lies both the violence and the religious motive.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Sorry Aqueous - not meaning to gripe.

None taken. I think I'm on the same wavelength with you. And when the sun goes down, I will permit myself to salute all the good folks here at SciForums for putting up with me! ...with an appropriate libation: :cheers:

 

[Thoreau]

Simple:

There is all that talk about how religion motivates people to be violent and abusive.

Show that the violence is indeed religiously motivated - and not perhaps politically, economically, a mistake etc.

I'm sure that, in 51 pages of this discussion, people have thrown a million examples out there. So, I won't even bother with one. I will say, however, I'm amazed that such an ignorant question has spawned a 51 pages debate, much less a single answer at all. Seriously.....

:bugeye:

 

[Thoreau]

Excuse me, I'm not sure where the hell I came up with 51. It's actually 65.

Here's a googly eye back to myself. LOL

:bugeye:

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

You may have missed post #1260.

Erm... laws aren't ''religious'', they serve a purpose for society. You will find laws in every single society, culture, and sub-culture.

Laws based on religious teachings are religious laws. If the bible says "You must kill homosexuals" and people enact a law to that effect, then the law has a religious motivation.

I'm neither defining or ''redefining'' anything.
I'm asking YOU to define it, and so far you've only come to agree with a proffesional, secular understanding of the word. ....

No. I'm asking you, James, or any of the others, to explain what you mean by religiously motivated violence, as opposed to violence carried out by people who are supposedly being religious.

DEFINE THE ''RELIGIOUSNESS'' IN VIOLENT ACTS.

Explain what religion IS, then we'll have a clearer picture of what YOU as ''acting religiously''. This way we can then determine what IS ''religiously motivated violence''.

No. It is your turn now.

I have already defined religion. Go and read post #1260 and get back to me if you can.

 

[Bells]

Erm... laws aren't ''religious'', they serve a purpose for society. You will find laws in every single society, culture, and sub-culture.

So God's and Jesus' teachings in the Bible are not to be followed?

What a silly question.
Why do laws state that a minor can't buy alcohol, ciggy's, and porno mags, over the counter?

Or why is it prohibited to have sex-intercourse on the high street?

Why is it against the law to break into someones house and take things without their permission?,

Go figure.

You tell me. Why does the Bible instruct its readers and believers to go forth and stone homosexuals?

The very fact that the local laws view the murder of homosexuals to be an immoral act while God in the Bible instructs believers to go forth and stone homosexuals makes the Bible and God to be highly immoral, wouldn't you say?

Thanks for proving your lack of understanding.

Are you claiming I have a lack of understanding because I truly believe and know there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, like you truly believe and know there is a God?

I'm neither defining or ''redefining'' anything.
I'm asking YOU to define it, and so far you've only come to agree with a proffesional, secular understanding of the word. I dare say if you asked the same proffessionals to define ''reggea music'', they would say that it is a form of music which originated in the carribean island of Jamaica, a blend of African, Latin, and N.American popular music. :rolleyes

But not to worry, statements like the above, are full of revelation.
You can't hide your ignorance.

Yes, how dare one use actual words and be descriptive when asked to describe religion and how dare one think it is acceptable to give a definition of religion when asked to define it.

Did you want me to throw myself to the ground and speak in tongues to define religion?

Since I can't quote scripture or any religious text, since well, according to you, it's all bunk anyway and not religious.

So it's my fault if he cannot make himself clear, is it?

Oh he made himself very clear. It is not our fault if you lack the capacity to understand actual words.

No. I'm asking you, James, or any of the others, to explain what you mean by religiously motivated violence, as opposed to violence carried out by people who are supposedly being religious.

DEFINE THE ''RELIGIOUSNESS'' IN VIOLENT ACTS.

And that is where you went wrong.

We are not talking about religious acts. We are talking about what motivates someone to act in a certain way. The motivating factor which drives one to act is what can be religious. Can you tell the difference Jan?

Like the priest who crucified a nun to death in ridding her of evil spirits during an exorcism and who then claimed that God had performed a miracle on her after her death, because she was free of those apparent spirits and the fellow who stoned someone he thought was homosexual to death because the Bible told him to stone homosexuals to death.

In other words, their religious beliefs led them to think they were doing God's work as per the instructions of their religious texts and scriptures and they were motivated by their beliefs to act in such a manner.

Explain what religion IS, then we'll have a clearer picture of what YOU as ''acting religiously''. This way we can then determine what IS ''religiously motivated violence''.

I'm afraid, that definition from the dictionary is NOT a substantial explanation of ''religion'', hence it cannot help in determining why, if true, people are religiously motivated to do violence. You need to expand on that. It needs to come from YOU, or at least a source who has done your work for you.

Bullshit.

You do not define religion Jan. You are not the mighty and powerful one to tell people what is religious or not. Just because it does not agree with your personal level of religion does not mean that the millions of others who define it that way have to adhere to your personal standards.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

So God's and Jesus' teachings in the Bible are not to be followed?

The commandments are to be followed.

You tell me. Why does the Bible instruct its readers and believers to go forth and stone homosexuals?

It doesn't, it instructs Moses.

''The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites:.....''

Now, unless you can find a text which says ''all Christians, or people of different religions who happens to read this, MUST go forth and kill any homo sexual you come across'', or words to that effect, please don't bother me with this again.

The very fact that the local laws view the murder of homosexuals to be an immoral act while God in the Bible instructs believers to go forth and stone homosexuals makes the Bible and God to be highly immoral, wouldn't you say?

Read above.

Are you claiming I have a lack of understanding because I truly believe and know there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, like you truly believe and know there is a God?

Oh, you're so eager to pursue this idiotic line of nonsense, aren't you.

Yes, how dare one use actual words and be descriptive when asked to describe religion and how dare one think it is acceptable to give a definition of religion when asked to define it.

Seeing as you're accusing all believers of being capable of cold-blooded murder, I think a more in-depth description of religion is called for.

Did you want me to throw myself to the ground and speak in tongues to define religion?

Yes. Then please upload it so I can see it.
Thanks in advance.

Since I can't quote scripture or any religious text, since well, according to you, it's all bunk anyway and not religious.

:shrug:

Oh he made himself very clear. It is not our fault if you lack the capacity to understand actual words.

What's that you say?

And that is where you went wrong.
We are not talking about religious acts.
We are talking about what motivates someone to act in a certain way. The motivating factor which drives one to act is what can be religious. Can you tell the difference Jan?

Yes. Then you proceed to ''God instructs believers to kill homosexuals'', so now you've incorporated it into ''religion'', therefore believers are compelled to ACT, if they believe in God.

You appear to be toggling between religion instructing it's followers to act in a certain way, and it ONLY being a motivating factor.
Which one is it?

Like the priest who crucified a nun to death in ridding her of evil spirits during an exorcism and who then claimed that God had performed a miracle on her after her death, because she was free of those apparent spirits and the fellow who stoned someone he thought was homosexual to death because the Bible told him to stone homosexuals to death.

Aside from Jesus being crucified on a cross, what does cucifixtion have to do with religion?

And so what if he thougt God had performed a miracle after her death?
Show me how this thinking is religious?

If I just start talking a load of science, something I read in a science journal, does that make me a scientist?

In other words, their religious beliefs led them to think they were doing God's work as per the instructions of their religious texts and scriptures and they were motivated by their beliefs to act in such a manner.

a) you don't know that, and you don't know what religion is.

b) produce the texts you speak of.

Bullshit.
You do not define religion Jan.

Er yeah, I do f------g define religion when I'm being accused of being a murderer, you catch my drift.

You are not the mighty and powerful one to tell people what is religious or not.

When they don't have a clue as to what religion is, but still want to run up they mouth saying ''religion'' is the cause of this and that heinous act, then I will step into those shoes.

Just because it does not agree with your personal level of religion does not mean that the millions of others who define it that way have to adhere to your personal standards.

I don't have a personal view of religion, and those millions of others have been misinformed. They think religion is whatever you want it to be.

A minutes silence.
A poem about the little lambs bleating in the snow.
And shit like that.

jan.

 

[James R]

Tell us what religion is, Jan.