Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[wynn]

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

Is this a discussion or not?

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

It seems then that per you, the only way there could be no violence from the side of the legal system, is if the law enforcement would never use any force.

Do you also believe that a system with no violence is the prefered one?

If yes, what do you suggest should police officers do when they witness one person beating another or shooting at a crowd of people?

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.

You will need to provide a copy-paste for where I said that violence in the name of religion is
1. just
and
2. forgivable.

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

So you know what objective morality is, then?

 

[Enmos]

The commandments are to be followed.

Why?

I don't have a personal view of religion

Well..

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.

There is no such accusation.

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?

It being instructed by religion should be a pretty strong motivation for believers, don't you think?

 

[Bells]

Bells,



The commandments are to be followed.

And the rest is?

So tell me, why are you supposed to only follow the 10 commandments and ignore the rest of the bible?

Since the 10 commandments are to be followed, does that mean you support Kony and his army? Since you know, they are fighting to establish a government which would be based on the 10 commandments..

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.

But the Bible does advise to kill homosexuals.

Oh wait, that's right. You believe that only the 10 commandments are to be followed.. Like Joseph Kony who is waging war to establish a government which would be based solely on the 10 commandments? Which would of course make his crusade and his army be motivated by their religious belief, since you are saying that only the 10 commandments are to be followed, surely anyone who kills to establish those 10 commandments would be religiously motivated violence, yes?

But let us go back to Leviticus, shall we? Lets look at his passages about homosexuality and the simple fact that they form part of the Holiness Code. Now, I am sure you are aware of the Holiness Codes, aren't you? If not, I'll give you a definition:

The Holiness Code is a collection of many laws concerning several subjects. Critical scholarship therefore regards it as being generally a work constructed by the collecting together of a series of earlier collections of laws​

So much for their being no laws in the Bible. And here you are saying we should follow the 10 commandments, like Kony is as he murders thousands in Africa, and the 10 commandments are religious rules and laws and instructions which one should obey.

Read above.

Then please explain Leviticus and his "religiousness"?

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

You are claiming your belief in God is nonsense because my belief in fairies is nonsense?

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.

I'm sorry, are you claiming that believers are somehow not capable of cold blooded murder?

Your own God was very capable of cold blooded murder when he committed genocide and mass murder. Hell, even Moses ordered the mass murder of over 3,000 when he came down that mountain with his commandments.

I guess you could say Moses and god were not religious if we were to take your definition and apply it to them.

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

No thank you.

What's that you say?

Boom boom..

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?

So you are saying the rules in the Bible are not to be followed or believed?

Do you not know your Bible and Leviticus narration of what God told Moses and the instructions God handed down to Moses? You were the one harping on about how the 10 Commandments were to be followed. What about the instructions from God to Moses? What? They don't count? You don't know Leviticus 18 where he narrates the instructions from God to Moses and then goes on to give due punishment (as instructed by God to Moses) in later chapters? In fact, the chapter [18] starts with:

"Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'I am the Lord your God. According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances. You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.'"​

And then, it goes on to state:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. [Leviticus 18:22 KJV]​

And Leviticus then narrates what God told Moses about anyone who breaches this rule:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. [Leviticus 20:13 KJV]​

So you were saying?

Any more straws you wish to clutch at?

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?

I don't know Jan. What does an exorcism and then an apparent miracle from God have to do with religion? What do priests and nuns have to do with religions?

You don't think a priest performing an exorcism is a religious action or motivated by religious belief?

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

b) produce the texts you speak of.

Well judging by your tooing and froing at the moment, you don't seem to know what religion is, nor do you know of the instructions God handed down to Moses.

Texts have been produced repeatedly in this thread Jan. It seems you don't think the Bible is a religious text and you also do not think what God instructed Moses about is religious.

It seems you are less religious than I am and I'm an atheist.

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

And where, exactly, has anyone here accused you of murder?

Can you please provide a link?

Because what people in this thread are saying is that some individuals can be motivated by their religious beliefs to commit acts of violence. Unless there is something you are not sharing with the rest of us, can I ask why do you assume we are talking about you in particular?

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.

Well you don't seem to have a clue of the instructions of God to Moses and you don't seem to have a clue about your own Bible. You also don't seem to have a clue of the numerous murders committed by God.

I think I need to ask if you if you know what religion is, since you seem to be lacking in understading the very basics of religious texts and laws and rules (such as the laws and rules God instructed Moses on).

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.

So you don't know what religion is but you seem to believe you have the right to tell others they are wrong?

You are making religion to be what you want it to be and accuse others of doing the same. You don't have a single idea of what God instructed Moses on and don't even know the very basics of your religious history and what your own God did in the past.

I think you are the last person to complain about anyone being misinformed.

 

[wynn]

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.

Truth. Not by speculation, but by best evidence.

Then you're talking about merely mundane truth.

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.

The Holy Roman Empire was what it was. I don't understand what you want here.

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

So?

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?

You seem to think that were it not for those formal practices of religious nature and the hard work, those women would be free to live as they please? They would all live like queens and princesses, never to suffer any problems of birth, aging, illness and death?

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

I don't understand what you mean here.

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.

Do you believe humans are tabula rasa when they are born?
Where does morality come from?

Do you agree that those people believed that the Pope was God's instrument for promulgating His Holy Will?

Yes, they quite likely did.

To construe this as merely secular or legal authority is to erase the religious experience that was then unfolding.

There are such things as mistakes, and also levels of religious attainment.

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.

Again, you're operating out of the trivial notion that religion is whatever anyone claims it to be.

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

How could it? It can't.
But I suppose you're asking this because you're certain of the quality of their motive and the truth about it and everything related to it.

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

As far as the legal system in Iran goes, if something is legal, then it is just.

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

All human courts concern themselves with proving or disproving the charges made, and then declaring the according verdict.

Courts do not concern themselves with the truth of what really happened.

It is a common mistake to think that courts concern themselves with truth.
They do not. They concern themselves only with proving or disproving the charges made. That is all they can do.

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.

I think I've understood how you mean the Nurnberg reference all along. I find it problematic.

In such a setting the accused is trialed by laws that were not in place or under whose jurisdiction he was not when he committed the act he is being trialed for.

What the Nazis did with the Jews in WWII was legal by the then valid laws in Germany.

The Nazis who were trialed generally did not acknowledge the authority of the Nurnberg court, nor would Pope Urban acknowledge the authority of your court.
Nor would you, as a US citizen on US ground for an act committed on US ground, acknowledge the authority of a court of some other country. If the Iranians kidnapped you, flew you to Iran, and trialed you according to Iranian laws, you would not acknowledge any of that.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that a trialed person is supposed to or would automatically acknowledge the authority of a court simply because they are being trialed by it. It doesn't work that way.

If a person is trialed by a court whose authority they do not acknowledge, then said person's statement in such a court cannot be taken as a veritable representation of their stance much less as a veritable admission of either guilt or innocence.

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?

What would Pope Urban say in a court whose authority he did acknowledge?

I hadn't thought I was condemning religiously motivated violence by any standard except its own hypocrisy and the sheer cruelty perpetrated.

That hypocrisy is a matter of your perception, of your interpretation.

Those Christians and you will forever be at odds: you don't acknowledge their authority, and they don't acknowledge yours.

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.

If the accused would not acknowledge the authority of the court, the whole thing would be merely a kangaroo trial.

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.

I think the pertinent questions here are actually -
What do you believe is the meaning of life?
Why is there violence in this world?
Why do bad things happen to good people?

How we answer these questions determines how we view particular instances of violence or use of force, such as the Crusades etc.

 

[wynn]

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?

Why should I accept you as my teacher?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Tell us what religion is, Jan.

You tell me, you're the one making the accusations.

jan.

 

[GeoffP]

Is this a discussion or not?

It is. But why should my assertions be ranked less important than yours? Mine are based on logic, at least.

It seems then that per you, the only way there could be no violence from the side of the legal system, is if the law enforcement would never use any force.

I'm not sure how you interpret this. Violence is violence, legal or not. I thought we were just discussing the case for religiously-motivated violence.

Do you also believe that a system with no violence is the prefered one?

Oh, ideally, sure.

If yes, what do you suggest should police officers do when they witness one person beating another or shooting at a crowd of people?

They should probably hang him for being homosexual. That way, no one could say that any religiously-motivated violence had taken place, sparking a lively debate between police and protestors about the nature of existence until someone name-dropped Sartre or something, at which point everyone would grumble and go home.

You will need to provide a copy-paste for where I said that violence in the name of religion is
1. just
and
2. forgivable.

My apologies: you did indeed not say that it was either that I recall. You did describe it as legal, however, and therefore not violent. This would seem to be in contradiction with simple morality.

So you know what objective morality is, then?

I should think so.

 

[wynn]

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

Do you think it is wrong to defend that which one considers sacred?


The only thing I find awkward about the Crusades is this: Why did the Christians leave the Holy Land to begin with? Why was there only a relatively small number of Christians left behind?
It seems that in the pursuit of material wealth, they moved across the countries, made new converts, but allowed the Christian population in the Holy Land to dwindle too much.
It seems that in the period before the Crusades, Christians had become overoccupied with mundane issues and that the majority of Christians were relatively new and inexperienced converts.
Then, when there appeared and external threat to their faith, their mundaneness and inexperience turned out to be heavy hindrances, and so their only hope at the time was drastic action against the Turks etc.


A religiously advanced person will be able to deal with any kind of person without the use of greed, anger and delusion, ie. without violence.
But the more mundane a person is, the more they will resort to mundane means of dealing with others (anything from using foul language to attacking others and defending themselves with weapons).

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.

People are at different level of religious attainment, and act accordingly.

You seem to think that anyone who is a member of the Catholic Church will, can and should behave perfectly in line with the Catholic teachings 24/7/365.
This is just unrealistic.

This is not to excuse their misdeeds; it's simply how things are. Mundane courts are there to deal with such transgressions. The final verdict is said to be left to God, though.

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'm not sure back then they saw it that way - that they would have thought they were sacrificng the happiness of their families in the service of God. This is a secular projection.

You seem to think that happiness and service to God can be mutually exclusive. For a believer, they are parallel or one and the same.

They went armed, with the deliberate intent to murder the Saracens who they understood were occupying and desecrating the Holy Sepulchre.

Those Saracens were not heaps of sand, so in order to remove them from the Holy Land, they had to use something other than shovels.

 

[wynn]

They should probably hang him for being homosexual. That way, no one could say that any religiously-motivated violence had taken place, sparking a lively debate between police and protestors about the nature of existence until someone name-dropped Sartre or something, at which point everyone would grumble and go home.

You're not serious about this discussion.
:bugeye:

My apologies: you did indeed not say that it was either that I recall. You did describe it as legal, however, and therefore not violent. This would seem to be in contradiction with simple morality.

"Simple morality" according to whom? US standards?


Personally, I find it extremely violent that a person gets laid off due to budget cuts - yet it is legal to fire people for such reasons and the person who was laid off that way cannot sue their employer who did so. The law doesn't classify it as "violent" either.

I should think so.

Objective morality is only a hot topic that has been discussed by philosophers and others for millennia ...

 

[wynn]

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.

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.

So we too have somewhat different understandings of "religion."

You seem to think of religion more in terms of "organized religion."

It seems that my earlier definition of religion would fit your notion of saintliness.

 

[wynn]

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.

I posted it here, and referred to it several times.

I've also noted several times that violence is unskillful, and all that is unskillful is due to greed, anger and delusion.

Religious action is skillful.
When there are greed, anger and delusion motivating an action, said action cannot be religious.

- This, at least, is my understanding so far.

 

[wynn]

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.

What is your point with this line of reasoning?

If some people consider themselves religious, this means they automatically are religious and everyone else is supposed to consider them religious as well?

 

[Sarkus]

Why should I accept you as my teacher?

Is that what you're looking for? A teacher?
And who says I'm offering?

Perhaps you are your own best teacher, but don't want to take on the responsibility?

Who knows. :shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

You're not serious about this discussion.
:bugeye:

Don't be absurd.

"Simple morality" according to whom? US standards?

Universal standards. You likey Golden Rule?

Personally, I find it extremely violent that a person gets laid off due to budget cuts - yet it is legal to fire people for such reasons and the person who was laid off that way cannot sue their employer who did so. The law doesn't classify it as "violent" either.

We can just confine our discussion to physical violence.

Objective morality is only a hot topic that has been discussed by philosophers and others for millennia ...

Well, bully for them. Back to the OP: religiously-motivated violence has been demonstrated again and again on this thread. What does this ongoing digression serve? You claim to want a discussion, but your arguments amount to nihilism. For example: anger cannot be religious, above? I seem to recall God being angry in the Bible. Is God not part of religion?

 

[Sarkus]

I've also noted several times that violence is unskillful, and all that is unskillful is due to greed, anger and delusion.

Religious action is skillful.
When there are greed, anger and delusion motivating an action, said action cannot be religious.

- This, at least, is my understanding so far.

This is your definition of religion, and it begs the very question you asked (in an inverse way):
"Violence can't be religious by definition - so please show that there is religious violence".

I really am surprised that you are still bothering with this thread, given that your own definition precludes religious violence.
You should have stopped at "my definition of religion does not permit violence, thus the question is moot".
But instead you merely wish to say to people who provide examples of what they consider to be religiously motivated violence "Sorry, your definition of religion is inadequate and thus you are wrong. There is no religious violence."


So, simply put: those who hold religion to be A will conclude there is religiously motivated violence, as amply exampled.
But those who hold religion to be B will conclude that there is no religiously motivated violence, because by definition there can not be.

I do hope I have succinctly summarised the 66 pages of this thread so far?

 

[Sarkus]

A religiously advanced person will be able to deal with any kind of person without the use of greed, anger and delusion, ie. without violence.

Yet you discount/ignore even the Saints that motivated, and committed, violence. :shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

Well, clearly they weren't guided by saintly people, or in the presence thereof.

/sarcasm off

Could this 'discussion' possibly be any more ridiculous? I've seen reductio ad absurdum before, but its a pale shadow of this thread.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

So tell me, why are you supposed to only follow the 10 commandments and ignore the rest of the bible?

From a Christian perspective...

John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

and...

1 John 5:3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,

The answer to your question is: because that is the RELIGION.
Notice Jesus never said, kill any homosexual you meet.

Since the 10 commandments are to be followed, does that mean you support Kony and his army? Since you know, they are fighting to establish a government which would be based on the 10 commandments..

No it doesn't, because following another person based purely on what he says, is nuts. That is your understand of religion, not mine.

Oh wait, that's right. You believe that only the 10 commandments are to be followed.. Like Joseph Kony who is waging war to establish a government which would be based solely on the 10 commandments? Which would of course make his crusade and his army be motivated by their religious belief, since you are saying that only the 10 commandments are to be followed, surely anyone who kills to establish those 10 commandments would be religiously motivated violence, yes?

How do you know he's not just using the 10 commandments as a ploy, just like Jim Jones used religion?

But let us go back to Leviticus, shall we? Lets look at his passages about homosexuality and the simple fact that they form part of the Holiness Code. Now, I am sure you are aware of the Holiness Codes, aren't you? If not, I'll give you a definition:

The Holiness Code is a collection of many laws concerning several subjects. Critical scholarship therefore regards it as being generally a work constructed by the collecting together of a series of earlier collections of laws​

So much for their being no laws in the Bible. And here you are saying we should follow the 10 commandments, like Kony is as he murders thousands in Africa, and the 10 commandments are religious rules and laws and instructions which one should obey.

1) i didn't say there were no laws in the Bible
2) i didn't say WE should follow the commandments

Then please explain Leviticus and his "religiousness"?

The Bible does not instruct its followeres to kill homosexuals.
God made the law for those specific people, and instructed Moses to impiment them. Obviously homosex, adultery, beastiality, and so on, is not conducive to spiritual life.

You are claiming your belief in God is nonsense because my belief in fairies is nonsense?

That is your understanding of religion, so i'm not going to argue with you.

I'm sorry, are you claiming that believers are somehow not capable of cold blooded murder?

Yes. And one who proffeses belief, murders, then I question his belief.

Your own God was very capable of cold blooded murder when he committed genocide and mass murder. Hell, even Moses ordered the mass murder of over 3,000 when he came down that mountain with his commandments.

How can a non-human be accused of murder?

I guess you could say Moses and god were not religious if we were to take your definition and apply it to them.

From modern atheist perspective, yes.

No thank you.

What a waste of popcorn.

So you are saying the rules in the Bible are not to be followed or believed?

Do you not know your Bible and Leviticus narration of what God told Moses and the instructions God handed down to Moses? You were the one harping on about how the 10 Commandments were to be followed. What about the instructions from God to Moses? What? They don't count? You don't know Leviticus 18 where he narrates the instructions from God to Moses and then goes on to give due punishment (as instructed by God to Moses) in later chapters? In fact, the chapter [18] starts with:

How many more times?
They are laws of the land, for the citizens of THAT land to obey.
Every society has laws, and if you don't follow them, you get penalised.
Is that so hard to comprehend?

And then, it goes on to state:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. [Leviticus 18:22 KJV]​

And Leviticus then narrates what God told Moses about anyone who breaches this rule:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. [Leviticus 20:13 KJV]​

So you were saying?

Any more straws you wish to clutch at?

Same as above. :bawl:

I don't know Jan. What does an exorcism and then an apparent miracle from God have to do with religion? What do priests and nuns have to do with religions?

What do Vicars and Tarts parties have to do with religion, aside from vicar uniforms? People may look the part, and make utterances to fool gullible, but they don't have to be religious. To be religious, one has to BE religious.

You don't think a priest performing an exorcism is a religious action or motivated by religious belief?

Not that priest, no.

Well judging by your tooing and froing at the moment, you don't seem to know what religion is, nor do you know of the instructions God handed down to Moses.

I know more about than you do.

Texts have been produced repeatedly in this thread Jan. It seems you don't think the Bible is a religious text and you also do not think what God instructed Moses about is religious.

We're the ones who assign ''religious text'', not the Bible itself.

What God imparted to Moses was a guide to live life in such a way that those people could advance spiritually, a God-conscious society.

It seems you are less religious than I am and I'm an atheist.

You know, you're probably right.
That's the the most sensible thing you've said so far.

And where, exactly, has anyone here accused you of murder?
Can you please provide a link?

Because what people in this thread are saying is that some individuals can be motivated by their religious beliefs to commit acts of violence. Unless there is something you are not sharing with the rest of us, can I ask why do you assume we are talking about you in particular?

You regard me as Christian. Right?
You say God instructs believers to murder homosexuals. Right.
I'll leave you to join up the dots.

I think I need to ask if you if you know what religion is, since you seem to be lacking in understading the very basics of religious texts and laws and rules (such as the laws and rules God instructed Moses on).

I think you need to, because you're not doing very well, and a good diversion is what you need right now.
The verses I quoted at the top of this post sums up ''religion'' quite nicely, albeit simply.

So you don't know what religion is but you seem to believe you have the right to tell others they are wrong?

Let ''the others'' speak for themself, and let the conversation flow accordingly. But right now i'm talking to you, and it is abudantly clear that you have a poor fund of knowledge regarding religion.

You are making religion to be what you want it to be and accuse others of doing the same. You don't have a single idea of what God instructed Moses on and don't even know the very basics of your religious history and what your own God did in the past.

No, I have explained to you, the basis of the Christian religion, using quotes from the object of said religion, namely Jesus.


jan.

 

[Bells]

From a Christian perspective...

John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

and...

The answer to your question is: because that is the RELIGION.
Notice Jesus never said, kill any homosexual you meet.

No, but God did.

Unless of course you are now saying you do not believe in God now?

And just to quote the passage you quoted:

1 John 5:3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,

Now, when God tells Moses, up on that mountain, that homosexuals are to be put to death and then we get John saying to obey his commands...

And we just had you saying "because that is the RELIGION"...

So a man, who obeys "his commands" and kills a homosexuals as God commanded, you are saying is not motivated by his religious belief?

No it doesn't, because following another person based purely on what he says, is nuts. That is your understand of religion, not mine.

And yet, here you are quoting passaged from the bible about obeying god's commands. This is of course after you stated earlier that we should obey and follow the 10 commandments.

Are you nuts Jan?

How do you know he's not just using the 10 commandments as a ploy, just like Jim Jones used religion?

He's obeying your God Jan. You just quoted a passage saying he is to be obeyed. He is doing exactly what God ordered and what was recounted by Moses.

Just to ask, do you even know who Kony is?

1) i didn't say there were no laws in the Bible
2) i didn't say WE should follow the commandments

Oh?

The commandments are to be followed.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2891279&postcount=1299

Erm... laws aren't ''religious"

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2890924&postcount=1264

Changed your mind again Jan?

The Bible does not instruct its followeres to kill homosexuals.
God made the law for those specific people, and instructed Moses to impiment them. Obviously homosex, adultery, beastiality, and so on, is not conducive to spiritual life.

So being homosexual is not "conducive to spiritual life"?

Nice Jan.

But lets look at the passage and what God instructs, shall we?

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. [Leviticus 20:13 KJV]​

So you are saying that what God instructs in the Bible is only for the Israelites and that the Bible and the rules and laws as well as the 10 commandments no longer apply?

So pray tell, why do you say that "The commandments are to be followed."?

That is your understanding of religion, so i'm not going to argue with you.

Right..

Yes. And one who proffeses belief, murders, then I question his belief.

Do you question the belief of Moses when he ordered his tribe to murder 3,000 people?

Do you question God's belief when he committed genocide and mass murder?

Why do you question the belief of someone when he is doing exactly as your God instructs in the Bible?

How can a non-human be accused of murder?

He is excluded because he's higher up?

Are you saying he did not kill?

Are you saying Moses should not be accused of murder?

Why not? They committed worse crimes than the fellow who followed God's instructions and stoned someone to death and you consider him a murderer, don't you?

Or do you turn a blind eye because in your view, homosexuality "is not conducive to spiritual life"?

From modern atheist perspective, yes.

And from a religious and modern perspective?

Please tell us Jan?

How many more times?
They are laws of the land, for the citizens of THAT land to obey.
Every society has laws, and if you don't follow them, you get penalised.
Is that so hard to comprehend?

So the laws of the land and of man is greater than that of God's?

Same as above.

Well you said before that god gave those instructions for very specific people. Murder was also not condoned back then Jan. So why was God telling people to break the law and to murder people?

What do Vicars and Tarts parties have to do with religion, aside from vicar uniforms? People may look the part, and make utterances to fool gullible, but they don't have to be religious. To be religious, one has to BE religious.

They believe they were religious and were doing exactly as God intended them to do. Just as Jesus cast demons from the body of the girl, they followed by example and exorcised that nun and killed her in the process.

Or are you saying that nuns and priests are not religious now?

Are you religious Jan? Do you consider yourself to be more religious than a nun who has dedicated her life to her religious beliefs at the expense of everything else?

Not that priest, no.

Why not?

Do you think Jesus and his disciples were religious when they did it?

I know more about than you do.

Of course you do. Which is why you can't seem to give a straight answer and can't even answer simple questions.

We're the ones who assign ''religious text'', not the Bible itself.

Oh, so you decide what text of the bible is religious?

My my.. Aren't you full of yourself.

What God imparted to Moses was a guide to live life in such a way that those people could advance spiritually, a God-conscious society.

By stoning homosexuals?

Is that what you call a God-conscious society? One where homosexuals are stoned to death?

You regard me as Christian. Right?
You say God instructs believers to murder homosexuals. Right.
I'll leave you to join up the dots.

You seem to not pay much attention to what you say, do you?

You have contradicted yourself numerous times, appear to not know and understand what your own Bible says, and at times you appear to condone the stoning of people because of their sexuality.

I think you need to, because you're not doing very well, and a good diversion is what you need right now.
The verses I quoted at the top of this post sums up ''religion'' quite nicely, albeit simply.

Which part?

The part where you quoted one should obey God to be religious but then you backflip and say that if you obey his direct instructions where he demands the killing of homosexuals, then you can't be religious?

Tell me, what other part of God's specific instructions do you pick and choose from?

Let ''the others'' speak for themself, and let the conversation flow accordingly. But right now i'm talking to you, and it is abudantly clear that you have a poor fund of knowledge regarding religion.

And you seem to have completely confused yourself about who and what to obey if your last post is anything to go by.

No, I have explained to you, the basis of the Christian religion, using quotes from the object of said religion, namely Jesus.

And yet:

1 John 5

1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the [a]Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the [c]Father loves the child [d]born of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and [e]observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is [f]born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.
​

Funny that, huh Jan? What is truly said when one expands on the minute few lines you quoted above.

 

[wynn]

And who says I'm offering?

You certainly seem to think you know better than me, given your disdain for me.