Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueos ID,

Earlier you gave a definition of religion.
Based on that definition, what is a ''religious action''?
And how do the Crusades qualify as a ''religiously motivated act'', based on that definition.

jan.

 

[wynn]

This means that besides no longer being able to order coffee, you will not know for sure if the ice water given to you by default is not really java after all. Which is of dubious benefit, since you won't know for sure what coffee tastes like, or why you ever liked it. Alzheimer's? Is this rhetorical dementia we are witnessing?

Millennia of philosophy flushed down the drain ...

 

[Enmos]

Again? There can't be many millennia of philosophy left..

 

[Bells]

There is plenty of threads intended only for theists/religionists in which others are welcomed to further the discussion and ask questions, while not making it into a theist vs. atheist issue.

Which still doesn't answer why you are here if this thread was supposedly only for theists, nor would it allow you to participate in a new thread with the same topic and which is restricted to theists.

This is an open forum. People are free to participate in whatever thread they wish to participate in.

 

[GeoffP]

I see Sciforums discussions as a team effort.

When I started this thread, I didn't have all my definitions worked out. I worked them out as discussion progressed.

:shrug:

Others call this stance - coupled with a firm starting challenge - as shifting the goalposts.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Aqueos ID,
Earlier you gave a definition of religion.
Based on that definition, what is a ''religious action''?
And how do the Crusades qualify as a ''religiously motivated act'', based on that definition.
jan.

Click here for: ~Exhibit A~


Credo means "I believe in". They list the tenets of their faith, then,
near the end, at Article IX:

...et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam...
​

which means

"..and [I believe in] one sacred, universal and apostolic church..."
​

This dates to the launch of the First Crusade.


~Exhibit B~

Throughout the Middle Ages it was generally believed that the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, while still under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, composed our present Creed between them, each of the Apostles contributing one of the twelve articles...As a result of this intimate association with the liturgy and teaching of the Church, the Apostles' Creed has always been held to have the authority of an ex cathedra utterance.

-The Original Catholic Encyclopedia​

Effectively in Article IX the Apostles are instructing them to believe in the Church. The Pope was its earthly Father and representative of God. This was Urban II, who rallied the Crusaders to the Byzantine conflict as follows:

~Exhibit C~

A plenary indulgence was granted to all who should undertake the journey pro sola devotion, and further to help the movement, the Truce of God was extended, and the property of those who had taken the cross was to be looked upon as sacred.

-The Original Catholic Encyclopedia​

Conclusion:

The religious tenets established in the Credo, authorized (they believed) by the Apostles, expressly placing faith in the Church, and in their Pope as their Holy Father and God's representative on earth, conveyed by Urban II through his decree urging them to go to war, and dispensing the plenary indulgence to ensure their union with God at death, constitutes "religious action", that is, the "religiously motivated violence" of the First Crusade.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Millennia of philosophy flushed down the drain ...

I checked my plumbing - it's OK. Maybe there is a high pressure source on your side of the pipe.

My focus has been into the philosophy of one millennium ago. This would be the way to uncover the facts about the largest of religious wars in history, the Crusades. We can know what happened simply by examining their artifacts. This to me seems to preclude the philosophical treatment which merely asks whether the religious violence is theoretically plausible or not.

It's a cut to chase. Why dilly-dally with speculation when there's a mountain of evidence right at out fingertips?

 

[wynn]

Which still doesn't answer why you are here if this thread was supposedly only for theists, nor would it allow you to participate in a new thread with the same topic and which is restricted to theists.

This is an open forum. People are free to participate in whatever thread they wish to participate in.

Read:

There is plenty of threads intended only for theists/religionists in which others are welcomed to further the discussion and ask questions, while not making it into a theist vs. atheist issue.

 

[wynn]

Others call this stance - coupled with a firm starting challenge - as shifting the goalposts.

How is a thread to be started, if not with a "firm challenge"?
Doesn't detract from a discussion being a team effort.
Looking into every nook and cranny is not shifting the goal posts.

 

[wynn]

We can know what happened simply by examining their artifacts.

IOW: selective observation, projection and conjecture.

 

[wynn]

Click here for: ~Exhibit A~


Credo means "I believe in". They list the tenets of their faith, then,
near the end, at Article IX:

...et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam...
​

which means

"..and [I believe in] one sacred, universal and apostolic church..."
​

This dates to the launch of the First Crusade.


~Exhibit B~

-The Original Catholic Encyclopedia​

Effectively in Article IX the Apostles are instructing them to believe in the Church. The Pope was its earthly Father and representative of God. This was Urban II, who rallied the Crusaders to the Byzantine conflict as follows:

~Exhibit C~

-The Original Catholic Encyclopedia​

Conclusion:

The religious tenets established in the Credo, authorized (they believed) by the Apostles, expressly placing faith in the Church, and in their Pope as their Holy Father and God's representative on earth, conveyed by Urban II through his decree urging them to go to war, and dispensing the plenary indulgence to ensure their union with God at death, constitutes "religious action", that is, the "religiously motivated violence" of the First Crusade.

It seems one has to be a Catholic to believe your proof.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

No, but God did.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

No He didn't.
Firstly, it makes no distinction of the person, only the act, which is regarded as ''abominable''.
Secondly, it states that they shall be put to death (capital punishment). The word used is ''muwth'' , which means execution, as in being found guilty of something, then paying the price. The penalty of death was not only for men shagging men, it was for a host of other things which would have made the Israelites go astray.

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...

He didn't say ''homosexuals'' are to be put to death, he said men who shag men. They had a choice, they could have ceased their activity, just like the man who liked to shag other mens wives have f-----g choice.

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

Yeah, Mart Kony, he lives at the end of my street, drives a white Ford van.

Of course I know who Joseph Kony is, and if I didn't I would have looked it up.

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

Nice Jan.

No.
Thanks.

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."?

What we read in the Bible is intended for the Israelites, but is a universal concept.
If God told them to eat, in order to keep up their strength, the instruction would have been meant for them specifically, but is also a universal instruction.

God didn't instruct Moses to go around the globe and implement this law.
The law was specific to the Israelites, and anyone who came into contact with them.

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

Why should I question his belief?

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

God didn't commit ''mass-murder''.
And again, what do you mean by ''question God's belief''?

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

I don't.

He is excluded because he's higher up?

God can do what He likes with regards to human existence.

Are you saying he did not kill?

No.

Are you saying Moses should not be accused of murder?

Are you saying the generals who helped liberate Europe from Nazi Germany SHOULD be accused of murder?

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

Is it this what's really bugging you?

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

It depends. In that case, no.

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?

He didn't.

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.

They may have believed they were religious, but they weren't.

Here cop a load of this, and tell me if he was acting like Jesus.

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

I don't know any, so I can't say for sure.
If they condone homosexual practice, then they are irreligious, IMO.

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?

I'm not as religious as I think I should be, and as I said, I don't know any nuns. But I don't think I am as religious as Mother Theresa, if that helps.

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

Not that priest, no.

Why not?

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

Read the link regarding evil spirits.

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?

What is the deal with you and homosexuals, aren't you aware there were other kinds of sins mentioned? :shrug:

jan.

 

[James R]

You tell me [the definition of religion], you're the one making the accusations.

I already did.

I find it extremely interesting that you preach that none of the atheists here really know what religion is, but when I ask you directly to tell us all what it is you suddenly go all coy.

"Uh... er... gee shucks. I'm not sure, guys."

 

[Bells]

No He didn't.
Firstly, it makes no distinction of the person, only the act, which is regarded as ''abominable''.
Secondly, it states that they shall be put to death (capital punishment). The word used is ''muwth'' , which means execution, as in being found guilty of something, then paying the price. The penalty of death was not only for men shagging men, it was for a host of other things which would have made the Israelites go astray.

Are you excusing it?

He didn't say ''homosexuals'' are to be put to death, he said men who shag men. They had a choice, they could have ceased their activity, just like the man who liked to shag other mens wives have f-----g choice.

I'm sorry, are you saying homosexuality is a choice?

No.
Thanks.

Wow...

What we read in the Bible is intended for the Israelites, but is a universal concept.
If God told them to eat, in order to keep up their strength, the instruction would have been meant for them specifically, but is also a universal instruction.

God didn't instruct Moses to go around the globe and implement this law.
The law was specific to the Israelites, and anyone who came into contact with them.

So you do not follow the 10 commandments and do not follow any of the teachings in the bible?

Why should I question his belief?

Well you question the beliefs of others who kill because their motivation is based on their religious beliefs..

God didn't commit ''mass-murder''.
And again, what do you mean by ''question God's belief''?

Are you saying killing the first born son's of Egypt is not mass murder?

Well since you state that killing in the name of one's religious means that one is not religious....?

I don't.

Really?

So you agree that there is religiously motivated violence? Excellent.

God can do what He likes with regards to human existence.

So God has no morals?

No.

Could have fooled me..

Are you saying the generals who helped liberate Europe from Nazi Germany SHOULD be accused of murder?

Moses ordered the mass killings because they no longer believed in his God.

Do you think mass murdering innocent civilians is liberating them?

Is it this what's really bugging you?

Not at all. Your hypocrisy, however, is astounding.

It depends. In that case, no.

Oh?

heh..

He didn't.

So he didn't order to kill?

I don't know any, so I can't say for sure.
If they condone homosexual practice, then they are irreligious, IMO.

Who says anything about those nuns and priest condoning homosexuality. I was talking about nuns and that priests performing that exorcism.

But tell me, do you think that accepting homosexuality makes one "irreligious"?

I'm not as religious as I think I should be, and as I said, I don't know any nuns. But I don't think I am as religious as Mother Theresa, if that helps.

Hmmm..

What is the deal with you and homosexuals, aren't you aware there were other kinds of sins mentioned?

So you think homosexuality is a sin?

You already said above that you deem it a 'choice'..

Do you think they should be stoned to death for sinning as per the Bible?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueos ID,

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

My point is, how does one act religiously if this is ''religion''?

For example, in Christianity, how do the teachings of Jesus relate to this
definition?

Or, let's say I've read this and now want to become religious. What's my next move.


jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

It seems one has to be a Catholic to believe your proof.

It's not mine, it belongs to the world and it's free from the Catholics. They have a mother lode of ancient scholarly works, well-organized and easy to browse. If you think you must first believe in Catholicism to trust the authority of their collection...:shrug:

Since the OP inquires into religious violence, and since the Crusades is conceivably the largest example of religious violence of known history, I went to the best authority for the religion of the Crusaders, which was Catholicism. I went to the Encyclopedia of the Catholic Church.

The Credo is unusual for its history, the cause for it being written, and its innovation among religions as an express pledge of belief. It can accurately place us right inside the brain of that 10th century hero who was bearing his cross for his Lord. And his sword.

It gives us the connection between his express commitment to the Church through their High Priest, Pope Urban II, to whom he pledges a spiritual fealty. That's pretty striking. You would be hard pressed to find such competent evidence of religious belief and motivation as you get here.

Acknowledging the competency of evidence is necessarily independent of having a superstitious allegiance to the source. That would be ludicrous.

Did you like the Credo? It was circulating in the form of Gregorian Chant at the outset of the First Crusade. We can be sure the soldiers knew it, just as they knew that the plenary indulgence assured them a place in heaven for their acts of religious violence. And one should take away that meaning regardless of one's own religious belief, and especially if that belief is not Catholic, since the evidence speaks to belief, not the other way around.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

Are you excusing it?

Stop trying to draw me into your emotional mine field.
It has nothing to do with whether or not I excuse it.

I'm sorry, are you saying homosexuality is a choice?

Unless someones holding a gun to your head, all sexual activity is a choice.

So you do not follow the 10 commandments and do not follow any of the teachings in the bible?

What does this have to do with me?
I'm not going down that emotional route with you, so quit it.

Well you question the beliefs of others who kill because their motivation is based on their religious beliefs..

I question their beliefs when they claim it to be religious.

Are you saying killing the first born son's of Egypt is not mass murder?

If I, or you did it, it would be mass murder.

Well since you state that killing in the name of one's religious means that one is not religious....?

Er, Thou shalt not kill, is the ''religious'' tenet, meant for the ordinary person.

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

I don't.

Really?

Yeah really?

So you agree that there is religiously motivated violence? Excellent.

I don't know how you come to this conclusion, based on my response.
But aside from that, I, nor anyone here (to my knowledge) has stated that there exists NO ''religiously motivated violence'', the question is to SHOW that there is ''religiously motivated violence'', and as yet all that has come about is the usual calls with nothing showing.

It's become apparent that modern atheist have no clue as to what is actual ''religion'', therefore cannot say what IS ''religious''. All you have is a bunch of cliches which has gone unchecked.

So God has no morals?

No matter what God does, He is Absolutely Right.
Work it out from that.

Could have fooled me..

Either God, nature, another being, sickness.
It's going to happen to us all one way or another.
We are meant to die, as morbid as that sounds.

Moses ordered the mass killings because they no longer believed in his God.

No, because they had reached the all time low.....


...

The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18).

Do you think mass murdering innocent civilians is liberating them?

No.

So he didn't order to kill?

He laid down a law, and the penalty was execution.

But tell me, do you think that accepting homosexuality makes one "irreligious"?

No, I believe that ''homosexuality'' is an irreligious act, if acted out by so-called religious people.

So you think homosexuality is a sin?

Yes, of course it's a sin.
Why does that bother you?

You already said above that you deem it a 'choice'..

All consented sexual activity, is a choice.
Whether they have choice in being homosexual, is a different matter, and not my call.

Do you think they should be stoned to death for sinning as per the Bible?

I accept whatever the law states as lawfull.
If I was living in that time it would have been the same, unless of course I was guilty of breaking it.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I already did.

I find it extremely interesting that you preach that none of the atheists here really know what religion is, but when I ask you directly to tell us all what it is you suddenly go all coy.

"Uh... er... gee shucks. I'm not sure, guys."

I've given a definition of what religion is, if you look in my last couple of responses to Bells, you will find it. Regarding to John verses.

jan.

 

[GeoffP]

How is a thread to be started, if not with a "firm challenge"?
Doesn't detract from a discussion being a team effort.
Looking into every nook and cranny is not shifting the goal posts.

Rapid retreat and evasion is.

 

[wynn]

Rapid retreat and evasion is.

You're just not a team player, at least not in this thread.

:shrug: