Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[wynn]

Since the OP inquires into religious violence, and since the Crusades is conceivably the largest example of religious violence of known history,

You still haven't explained what was religious about the Crusades, other than the official motto and the historical reputation they gained over time.

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.

I don't find anything unusual about the Credo. Pretty much every person has a similar credo - the particular names and other specifics may be different, but the person's dedication to it is the same: the person is convinced he or she is right.

The Boy Scout pledge, a person's "mission statement," people in high official positions make a pledge (such as the President's) etc.

People who don't posses that kind of credo (and even if it is just about the value of noodles), end up in mental institutions.

IOW, you are holding against those Catholics something that is natural to all humans.

Granted, not everyone formulates their personal credo as explicitly as the Catholics did, but that doesn't mean they don't have such a credo.


Or would you really give up your own beliefs and practices in order to spare the life and wellbeing of your enemies?

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

But you seem to be doing just that!

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.

For some reason, you side with those Catholics and agree that the Credo is religious.

 

[Bells]

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

So why do you defend it?

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

Do you believe that those who sin should be put to death?

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

Well you have changed your mind like what? Two, three times?

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

But you weren't questioning. You were denying.

What if their beliefs were in fact religious? What if that guy really did stone someone to death because that is what the Bible advocates?

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

So god gets a go-free card to slaughter as many children as he can?

Yeah really?

You do.

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.

Whoa.. There goes that goal post again.

How many more times can it be shifted?

Proof of religiously motivated violence has virtually be spammed in this thread. You refuse to acknowledge that it is. You question the religiousness of the person(s) committing the acts of violence, even when it is clear they were acting based solely on their religious beliefs.

And it is clear to me that modern theists such as yourself are lacking in reading and comprehension.

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

So he is right to order the death of thousands of innocent people because they worshipped another God? Does he have insecurity issues?

He is right when he orders the deaths of thousands of children, simply because he wanted revenge?

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.

Tell that to the people who died.

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

Which is not believing in God...

Again, does he have an issue with not being popular?

No.

You don't think it's right, but you don't think God can do anything wrong...

Do you think the mass murder was religiously motivated (ie God told him to kill them)?

Or is God not religious enough for you?

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

You claimed earlier there are no laws in the Bible. So obviously, he just killed them because he was pissy. After all, if he had "laid down a law", such law would be followed today by his followers.

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

And you accept it when God lay down the law to kill homosexuals?

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

Because we are no longer living in the dark ages and people now recognise that one is born a homosexual and how can one be born a sin?

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 it is a choice though?

Since you consider it a sin and the language you use, I am guessing you assume people choose to be homosexual?

Do you therefore accept the laws laid down by God that they should be put to death? Since you know, he is to be obeyed?

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.

So the only thing that stops you from stoning a homosexual is the law of the State you live in?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

So why do you defend it?

Defend what?

Do you believe that those who sin should be put to death?

I haven't given it much thought.
And I'm not going to go there in this thread.
You should start a new thread so we can go into it properly.

But you weren't questioning. You were denying.

I question their beliefs.

What if their beliefs were in fact religious?

Show how it was.

What if that guy really did stone someone to death because that is what the Bible advocates?

Then his violence isn't religiously motivated.

So god gets a go-free card to slaughter as many children as he can?

The question is why would God want to do that?
And why would you use that as an example?

Proof of religiously motivated violence has virtually be spammed in this thread. You refuse to acknowledge that it is.

I'm afraid you're wrong.
You don't know what religion is, therefore you don't know if something
is religiously motivated or not.

You question the religiousness of the person(s) committing the acts of violence, even when it is clear they were acting based solely on their religious beliefs.

How can it be clear to you?
Using that definition of religion floating around, can you explain how one can act religiously?

And it is clear to me that modern theists such as yourself are lacking in reading and comprehension.

And yet here you are losing a debate with one.

So he is right to order the death of thousands of innocent people because they worshipped another God? Does he have insecurity issues?

You were saying about lacking in reading and comprehension?
Go, look see, what the reasons were.

He is right when he orders the deaths of thousands of children, simply because he wanted revenge?

Here we go, using children to make things seem worse.
What? Has homosexuals taken a back seat now.

Go read scripture, and take off that emotional mask.

Tell that to the people who died.

I've written them a letter, just trying to find a post code.

Which is not believing in God...

Again, does he have an issue with not being popular?

Go, read, scripture, or argue with yourself.

You don't think it's right, but you don't think God can do anything wrong...

I don't think murdering someone liberates them.
Stick to the point YOU raised.

Do you think the mass murder was religiously motivated (ie God told him to kill them)?

Are the WW11 Generals mass murderers?

Or is God not religious enough for you?

Do you know what religion is?

You claimed earlier there are no laws in the Bible.

Did I?

And you accept it when God lay down the law to kill homosexuals?

Do you mean, do I hate homosexuals, and are happy when they are killed?

Because we are no longer living in the dark ages and people now recognise that one is born a homosexual and how can one be born a sin?

The sin is never about the person, it is about the acts of the person.
It's simple, keep your cock in your pants, or have sex with women.
If you like to have sex with other peoples wives, keep your cock in your pants, and have sex with your own wife.

Do you think it is a choice though?

I've absolutely no idea.

Since you consider it a sin and the language you use, I am guessing you assume people choose to be homosexual?

People choose to act.
Do you believe that?

Do you therefore accept the laws laid down by God that they should be put to death? Since you know, he is to be obeyed?

It depend upon what you really mean.
I know you're full of entrapment tricks, and I'm not going to take the bait.

So the only thing that stops you from stoning a homosexual is the law of the State you live in?

That's what you want to think, isn't it?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Why do you bother to talk to Jan? She refuses to acknowledge the historical fact that there were religious motivations (people believing that God approved) for violent acts, genocide, murder, and slavery. I even gave a modern example of a human sacrifice intended for the gods in the belief that it would result in the end of a drought. You could go another 28 pages with this brilliant mind and never get anywhere.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why do you bother to talk to Jan? She refuses to acknowledge the historical fact that there were religious motivations (people believing that God approved) for violent acts, genocide, murder, and slavery. I even gave a modern example of a human sacrifice intended for the gods in the belief that it would result in the end of a drought. You could go another 28 pages with this brilliant mind and never get anywhere.

Believing that ''God approves'' does not mean one is religious, and you cannot show that they are in fact religioius.

You have to show that the motive for their slaughter was religious, that's the point of the thread. Saying ''God told me to'' does not count unless you can prove that God told them to.

The human sacrifice, and general debauchery was carried out by the people who were slaughtered. That is not the irreligion we are talking about here.
Or is it?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Yeah it does mean exactly that. People who believe in God are religious. When someone believes that killing someone will elicit a desired response from God, that's a religious motivation for violence.

I don't understand your last sentence at all. The sacrifice example I gave was from some villagers in India who killed a virgin girl in the expectation and belief that god or gods would grant them a good harvest.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

Yeah it does mean exactly that. People who believe in God are religious.

Not necessarily.

When someone believes that killing someone will elicit a desired response from God, that's a religious motivation for violence.

Again, not necessarily.
Someone can believe that of their own volition, meaning they are being selfish.

I don't understand your last sentence at all. The sacrifice example I gave was from some villagers in India who killed a virgin girl in the expectation and belief that god or gods would grant them a good harvest.

And how have they come to believe that such an act would grant them a good harvest, if not a selfish, act.


jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Yes. Necessarily.

I think that "believing in something of their own volition" constitutes the entire body of what we call religion. You seem to have an idea that there can be a "true" religion which aligns itself with an actual God. This is a religious proposition, but it's not one which you can support logically, since there is no evidence for it.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Aqueos ID,

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.

Well if you were a Medieval Western European you wouldn't have had a choice in the matter since you would have been indoctrinated into home prayer, rites, etc. even before the age of reason.

Then, when it comes to action, you simply respond to God's army which surrounds you, with the saints and angels as colonels and majors passing the General's orders down through chain of command within the Church, and from there, within the home.

You will be called into action so much you may even tend to be stifled in your own initiative, having become accustomed to relying on marching orders.

If you remember any of the old flicks that romanticize this - I'm thinking Becket for example (although that may be to stodgy for your tastes) but sometimes you see these scenes where they are keeping the Hours. That would be a prime example of how religious action takes hold of the sense of self. They have appointments to keep. With God. Day in, day out, and, in the case of Hours, throughout the day. You see this in Islam. If you ever watched those folks, it demonstrates punctuality and serious reverence rolled up together. It reminds me of going to group workouts. There's a commitment, there's sacrifice and some pain, but there's also reward.

Also, the Hours was a rite that was just taking hold when the Crusades broke out. All kinds of beautiful art was engendered, maybe to cheer these folks up and give them hope that their prayers would be answered, but I would say that the art reinforced their resolve and brought solidarity that today may seem frivolous and overwrought, but for those folks, they seem to think they had one foot in Heaven.

So out of this grew musical notation, polyphony and all the imaginative audible imagery that we understand as textures and colors that sound can paint in the mind. But for them, it was new and fresh. Gregorian chant was probably no older than rock 'n roll is today.

Similarly, in painting, sculpture, metalwork, and all the builder guilds there was a swelling of artisan embellishments to their simple little thatched-roof lives. I mentioned the convents in Belgium that invented lacemaking to occupy the deserted women and girls left homeless by departing heroes.

All of these embellishments reinforced the commoners' beliefs, no differently than the rich material world around us reinforces our beliefs - yours and mine, different though they may be - because we are not comatose. We drink in every detail and assimilate it as best we can.

So you had the rise of ritual - Hours, the Mass, the Sacraments, Holy Days, all of those trappings were in a growth spurt.

You are living in this world that already had cast you as a Soldier of God, and tasked you with prayer, ritual and service. Only one small switch needs to flip in your mind and you will rise to the call of war. And the hand that flipped the switch was the Pope's. It was irresistible. Never in your life had Christ's High Priest directly reached out to you.

This was a call of action that you had been practicing all your life--to wrestle the devil like St. Michael. You step out of one mode of religious action and into another, albeit brutalizing. The transition is seamless, since you believe so devoutly that the sacred will of God pours from the Pope's mouth. (Hence the notion of papal infallibility.)

Besides, there was plenary indulgence, and the Church was adopting your family.

You asked how the teachings of Jesus came into play. Don't forget that the Bible was not widely disseminated in the 10th century, and I suspect most commoners couldn't read Latin, if they could read at all. This put an enormous burden on the fledgling diocese to preach the Bible message at Mass. That was one of the embellishments I was referring to. It was right about the 10th C. when they decided to bring the Credo into the Mass after the Readings and Homily. So you are read Jesus' message, it is explained to you what it means you must do, then you have the Credo, which expresses your pledge, and, toward the end, your pledge to the Church

So everything you knew about Jesus was delivered to you through the same mouth that later urged you to war. And you have already converged on the belief that the priest speaks nothing but divine truth, delivered personally to him by the Holy Spirit. For this reason, your religion is indistinguishable from aspects that today seem secular.

That's why I object to the idea that the motive was anything but religious. There was little left in the secular world for these people, except forbidden fruit. Remember, their religion held that sovereign powers were all created by God, and though some kings and popes had fallen to the devil, unless their own leader were known to them as corrupt, then they would have regarded them as God's right hand men, by default.

This is why it is impossible for me to accept that they aced by any motive other than religion in their repeated acts of violence - 200 years in Asia Minor, and long after that in the lands of the barbarians

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

Yes. Necessarily.

Wrong.

I think that "believing in something of their own volition" constitutes the entire body of what we call religion.

You think that way because you are an atheist, and you don't know what
religion is.

You seem to have an idea that there can be a "true" religion which aligns itself with an actual God. This is a religious proposition, but it's not one which you can support logically, since there is no evidence for it.

Again, you think like this because you are an atheist looking at things from an atheist perspective, and more importantly, believe them.


jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Atheists know what religion is. You don't. Or rather, you use the word religion in your own personal way. That's not good for an honest debate, it's a kind of logical fallacy.

You should admit that religion motivates violence, just that you happen to believe that there is a sub-category you call "true" religion that does not involve violence. In other words, your personal religion doesn't allow for violence. This would at least be true to the English language.

 

[Gustav]

This is why it is impossible for me to accept that they aced by any motive other than religion in their repeated acts of violence - 200 years in Asia Minor, and long after that in the lands of the barbarians

yet you amply illustrate, in excellent prose, the methodology of engendering social conformity that easily goes beyond an inspiration derived thru a simple reading of scripture

it is like us marching on baghdad with visions of mushroom clouds over the homeland

a con job in both instances

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

Atheists know what religion is.

Then explain it without the aid of a proffesional saftey net.

You don't. Or rather, you use the word religion in your own personal way. That's not good for an honest debate, it's a kind of logical fallacy.

Hiding behind proffessional courtesy again.

You should admit that religion motivates violence, just that you happen to believe that there is a sub-category you call "true" religion that does not involve violence. In other words, your personal religion doesn't allow for violence. This would at least be true to the English language.

I didn't say religion does not involve violence. However you cannot show violence where the motive has been religion, because you don't know what religion is.

To you, if someone say ''i am religious'', then they are religious.
But that is not the case.

jan.

 

[GeoffP]

I didn't say religion does not involve violence. However you cannot show violence where the motive has been religion, because you don't know what religion is.

That is asinine. We have previously described it. It appears that it is you, and Wynn, and assorted other sundries, who do not know what religion is. It has been defined time and again. Next time, try "God-motivated violence" and you'll have a case.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You still haven't explained what was religious about the Crusades, other than the official motto and the historical reputation they gained over time.

No I explained that it was a call to rescue their religion itself, to answer a direct summons from God as delivered by his messenger, the Pope, and under remission of all sins, in other words, since they would likely die, they were assured a place at the right hand of God.

All of this was purely religious, since, in that date and time, for those people, there did not exist any other notion of religion, other than perhaps some vague notions of apostasy and heathenism.

I don't find anything unusual about the Credo. Pretty much every person has a similar credo - the particular names and other specifics may be different, but the person's dedication to it is the same: the person is convinced he or she is right. The Boy Scout pledge, a person's "mission statement," people in high official positions make a pledge (such as the President's) etc. People who don't posses that kind of credo (and even if it is just about the value of noodles), end up in mental institutions.

In fact the Boy Scout pledge may have been modeled after the Credo.

Significance attaches to first things, innovation. As far as I can tell, the way this transmuted--from a statement against heresy at Nicaea, to a concise averment of the basic tenets of faith--this idea does not exist on earth until they invented it. Other religions may not have been so focused on vows or prayers that dwell on fundamentals like this. The only thing I can think of offhand are the vows of the Boddhisatva, which are highly symbolic and not nearly as steeped in the historical cause and effect: affirmation of creator, the fall, the redemption of the cross, and the call to faith; as the Catholics would affirm.

IOW, you are holding against those Catholics something that is natural to all humans.

Is this existentialism? Not sure what well you are drawing that from.

First of all, I don't hold anything against those Catholics other than crimes committed under color of religion which is completely unnatural. I gave the Credo to show an express religious motive. I wasn't trying to showcase the crimes, with the exception of the slaughter of the Jews at Mainz, and the repeated acts like that, in part because the accounts show how heinous it was, and worse, the Bible-covers, depicting the slaughter of Jews, are so arrogant about it. Here's the account again if you're interested:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1096jews-mainz.asp

I notice that's a Jesuit source so it may not suit you, but it's the original account from 1096, through a Jew, so I think it's competent.

Granted, not everyone formulates their personal credo as explicitly as the Catholics did, but that doesn't mean they don't have such a credo.

Right: I wasn't discounting any other religion, and, as GeoffP mentioned, don't forget, the Saracens started the conflict to begin with.

And, yes, it was explicit and that is why I brought it, to establish the formalization of a religion, by which we can now read its motives through mounds of documents and museums-full of artifacts.

Or would you really give up your own beliefs and practices in order to spare the life and wellbeing of your enemies?

They weren't their enemies. They were enemies of the Byzantine Turks (Anatolia).

In any case, it doesn't matter what I would do. It's just a bare naked case of religiously motivated violence. We could speculate all day in hindsight, but if I were indoctrinated as they were, this would be my religion. i would not be who I am, I would be one of them. And that's what they did. Killing in the name of....

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

But you seem to be doing just that!

Yes, I do seem to be acknowledging the competency of evidence, so does Google, Wikipedia and anyone else. If it's from a reputable authority, and widely reviewed and accepted, that establishes competence. It's another reason I like to go to the original sources, like the one I gave you above, since they are among the best evidence of what eyewitnesses have to say, as opposed to frauds and forgeries.

What's you point ? :shrug:

For some reason, you side with those Catholics and agree that the Credo is religious.

I don't think I side with them. I barely side with you, and you're not talking about going off to kill someone in the name of God.

And yes, all of their objects and rites that were sacred to them are religious objects and religious rites. Since religion is by definition invalidated due to superstition, establishing a thing or an act as religious does not validate the thing or act in any other way. It's a classification, not a validation. So yes, the Credo is religious act of affirmation and a very prominent one at that, which has existed as long as the modern Bible.

 

[spidergoat]

It's not just saying so, but if you believe you are religious, then you are religious. People determine for themselves whether they are religious or not. It's a personal choice. You just think that there must be a celestial verification before one can legitimately claim to be religious, and that is a religious idea. It's your own personal faith.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That is asinine. We have previously described it. It appears that it is you, and Wynn, and assorted other sundries, who do not know what religion is. It has been defined time and again. Next time, try "God-motivated violence" and you'll have a case.

What you think is a definition of ''religion'' is just rhetoric, which you hide behind, because you don't know any better.

Look at the response from Aqueos ID, to my questions. Totally unrelated.

If you know what religion is, then expand upon the definition you hide behind.
And give relevant answers to my questions.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat.

It's not just saying so, but if you believe you are religious, then you are religious.

No you're not.

People determine for themselves whether they are religious or not.

Nonsense.

It's a personal choice.

What part of being religious, is a personal choice?
How can one choose to be actually ''religious'', as opposed to one aspiring
to become religious.

You just think that there must be a celestial verification before one can legitimately claim to be religious, and that is a religious idea. It's your own personal faith.

You don't know what I think.
''Your own personal faith''?
Wtf is that supposed to mean?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

The common definitions are just fine. They include what religion really is in the world as humans practice it.

Jan, your reasoning is like saying "no one has a tattoo".
But I see tattoos all the time!
"Yeah, but they aren't real tattoos done in the traditional way with a sharpened stick and ink made from charcoal preceded by meditation and offerings to the volcano god."
But that's not how tattoos are defined in the common language...

 

[spidergoat]

I have personally come to the end of this stupidity. It's stupid to be arguing that religion doesn't mean what it means.