Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

TOPIC OF THE WEEK: Religion and War

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 7:15:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is an incredibly complex and charged topic, with stances ranging from religion being a primary cause of violence, espoused by atheist hardliners, to religion being portrayed as a restraining force when it comes to war. This latter point is particularly wrapped up in historical ambiguities, with distinctions to be made between jus ad bellum and jus in bello (right in war, or law of war, vs right to war). In Christianity in particular there are many various takes on this theme, from radically pacifist sects like the Cathars and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) to those who advocate a measured, reasoned approach to a "Just War" (Augustine, Aquinas, and Francisco de Vittoria) and those who have drawn a line in the sand between divinely ordained wars and more profane conflicts, claiming that the former are exempt from any restraints. In Islamic jurisprudence, on the other hand, it has been historically held that there are such restraints in any war, even one which is ordained, so that the laws governing jihad encompass both jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This holistic stance has since been challenged as non-traditional Islamists engage in asymmetric warfare, and all of the typically dishonorable conduct which that entails.

Similarly, religious restraints on war have often been abandoned when convenient in the West as well. Mesoamerican natives, for example, were treated with no trace of jus in bello, a fact often bemoaned and challenged by de Vittoria in his De Indis De Jure Belli. He rejects the following three justifications for war: a difference in religion, the extension of empire, and the personal glory of a prince, claiming that "there is a single and only just cause for commencing a war, namely, a wrong received" and that "not every kind and degree of wrong can suffice for commencing a war". He then rejects many wartime actions as irreconcilable with the classic defenses of a Christian "just war" in face of the doctrine's pacifistic strains.

Yet de Vittoria"s ideal of war was rarely carried out in Europe. This applies to internecine wars, such as the Albigensien Crusade, where the Papal Legate at Beziers ordered his soldiers to massacre both the pacifist Cathars and their Catholic defenders, famously answering doubts about innocent victims with the callous "kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His." It applies even more to the Middle Eastern Crusades, where the butchering of innocents, and even cannibalism, by the crusading armies is recorded in stark detail (The siege of Ma`arra). In the Islamic world, too, the laws of war were sometimes forgotten when the sway of the Ulama over temporal rulers weakened. This is especially true of ostensibly Muslim regimes which emerged outside centers of existing scholarship, like the various Turkic and Timurid Mongol empires.

But, despite this barbarism, I do not see the inability of religion to restrain it as a failure of religion, but rather as a clash between often idealized religious sentiments and the harsh realities of geopolitics and war. In order for a religion, and the nations which exist in symbiosis with it, to exist, they must at times resort to amoral pragmatism. Religion is not the motivation for the often brutal recourse to which nations must fall, it is simply a smokescreen. The Albigensien Crusade, for instance, while on the surface seems an attempt to root out Cathar heresies, was in truth an immense land grab by northern French lords against southern French lords. The northern lords, loyal to the king, established dominion over the south, which had been enjoying additional autonomy from the crown. The issue of Catharism was, geopolitically, more of an attempt to force submission and to shatter subversive tendencies than it was one of truly religious nature.

What are your thoughts on the interactions between war and religion?

What particular wars to you think support your assessment of the relationship?

If you are religious, what, in your opinion, does your religion teach about war?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 7:43:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
- I am leaving this comment here so as to remember later on. Very good post btw, FINALLY, Gosh! This forum has been a drain hole lately.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 8:09:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I feel as though for the most part, in the modern day, religion and warfare have an odd relationship. The majority of wars that have religious motivations generally have enough non-religious reasons to happen anyway. On the other hand, religion can act as a good excuse for warfare. A good example of this is when George W. Bush claimed that "God told [him] to end the tyranny in Iraq". Although the war would have happened anyway, he used religion as an excuse to justify the war to the American people. If religion was completely gone, it seems as though war would break out just as often, but would have much less public support.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 9:53:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
War is the inevitable by-product of Abrahamic religious belief. Abrahamic religions are based on religious warfare to conquer and control territory. For Judaism it was the territory of Canaan/Palestine. For Pauline Christians, it was the whole world and the same for Muhammadans. All three religions are based on the insanity of Abraham who's mental illness of willingness to murder his own child to serve a voice in his head is still deemed "righteousness" by Abrahamic believers who never stop to research the roots of their beliefs. If they did they would discover that whoever that god is of Abraham, it is not God Most High of Jesus as Abe's god demands exactly what the regional war god, Moloch, demanded, sacrifice of family to prove absolute loyalty to the war god. The "Great Moloch of War" is hidden in the Abraham story but can be deduced from linguistic traces, e.g. the name of "Melechizedek" falsely said to mean "King of Salem" in Hebrew, the world's most politically manipulated language that cannot be trusted at all now to convey historical etymologies. "Melech" is Hebrew for "king" and so is Moloch. Zadok Jews were high priests so the real meaning of "Melchizedek" is "High Priest of Moloch", the ultimate God of War. That Melchizedek honors Abraham's war victory only cinches the Moloch war god connection and of course YHWH also claims to be a God of war and Allah orders Muslims to permanent religious war against all unbelievers.

Abrahamic religions are war mongering religions and that's why we've had 2500 years of Abrahamic religious warfare happening somewhere on the planet. Abrahamic religions need to be composted so new religious instruction can grow and produce better people, less prone to violent acts against their neighbors.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 10:52:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 7:15:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is an incredibly complex and charged topic, with stances ranging from religion being a primary cause of violence, espoused by atheist hardliners, to religion being portrayed as a restraining force when it comes to war. This latter point is particularly wrapped up in historical ambiguities, with distinctions to be made between jus ad bellum and jus in bello (right in war, or law of war, vs right to war). In Christianity in particular there are many various takes on this theme, from radically pacifist sects like the Cathars and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) to those who advocate a measured, reasoned approach to a "Just War" (Augustine, Aquinas, and Francisco de Vittoria) and those who have drawn a line in the sand between divinely ordained wars and more profane conflicts, claiming that the former are exempt from any restraints. In Islamic jurisprudence, on the other hand, it has been historically held that there are such restraints in any war, even one which is ordained, so that the laws governing jihad encompass both jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This holistic stance has since been challenged as non-traditional Islamists engage in asymmetric warfare, and all of the typically dishonorable conduct which that entails.

Similarly, religious restraints on war have often been abandoned when convenient in the West as well. Mesoamerican natives, for example, were treated with no trace of jus in bello, a fact often bemoaned and challenged by de Vittoria in his De Indis De Jure Belli. He rejects the following three justifications for war: a difference in religion, the extension of empire, and the personal glory of a prince, claiming that "there is a single and only just cause for commencing a war, namely, a wrong received" and that "not every kind and degree of wrong can suffice for commencing a war". He then rejects many wartime actions as irreconcilable with the classic defenses of a Christian "just war" in face of the doctrine's pacifistic strains.

Yet de Vittoria"s ideal of war was rarely carried out in Europe. This applies to internecine wars, such as the Albigensien Crusade, where the Papal Legate at Beziers ordered his soldiers to massacre both the pacifist Cathars and their Catholic defenders, famously answering doubts about innocent victims with the callous "kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His." It applies even more to the Middle Eastern Crusades, where the butchering of innocents, and even cannibalism, by the crusading armies is recorded in stark detail (The siege of Ma`arra). In the Islamic world, too, the laws of war were sometimes forgotten when the sway of the Ulama over temporal rulers weakened. This is especially true of ostensibly Muslim regimes which emerged outside centers of existing scholarship, like the various Turkic and Timurid Mongol empires.

But, despite this barbarism, I do not see the inability of religion to restrain it as a failure of religion, but rather as a clash between often idealized religious sentiments and the harsh realities of geopolitics and war. In order for a religion, and the nations which exist in symbiosis with it, to exist, they must at times resort to amoral pragmatism. Religion is not the motivation for the often brutal recourse to which nations must fall, it is simply a smokescreen. The Albigensien Crusade, for instance, while on the surface seems an attempt to root out Cathar heresies, was in truth an immense land grab by northern French lords against southern French lords. The northern lords, loyal to the king, established dominion over the south, which had been enjoying additional autonomy from the crown. The issue of Catharism was, geopolitically, more of an attempt to force submission and to shatter subversive tendencies than it was one of truly religious nature.

What are your thoughts on the interactions between war and religion?

What particular wars to you think support your assessment of the relationship?

If you are religious, what, in your opinion, does your religion teach about war?

Terrific post with equally pivotal follow up questions. I agree, this is a very complex issue and will always be emotionally charged whenever religion is part of the equation. Before I answer your questions I would like to address one of your statements, "But, despite this barbarism, I do not see the inability of religion to restrain it as a failure of religion, but rather as a clash between often idealized religious sentiments and the harsh realities of geopolitics and war"
I think this is an excellent point but want to seriously point out that if not for the doctrine of religion most of this barbarism we saw during the crusades and are seeing in the Middle East would not exist. To place "idealized religious sentiments" on the same playing field with "geopolitics" as being equally attributable to the harness that existed and exists is just inaccurate. While geopolitics cannot be removed entirely from causation of war, the truly horrifying motivational aspects of religious interpretation of the Christian bible (crusades, witch hunts, etc) and the Quran and Hadith (IS, Palestine and Israel ) cannot be minimized.

1,2. In my opinion, war and religion can and often do go hand in hand. Historically, one can find exceptions but if we can maintain our focus or gaze on what is happening in the world today - The radical Islamic organization (IS) who have taken control in parts of Iraq and Syria with plans of expansion throughout the Middle East and abroad are waging Jihad against all who do not follow specific tenants in the Quran including the recognition of Allah as the one true creator of the universe. There is nothing about this movement that illustrates a geopolitical injustice as the cause.

3. I am not religious anymore (raised Catholic) and would go so far as to say the world would be a much better and safer place without it.

Thanks for the great post!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 12:41:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 10:52:27 PM, MEK wrote:

Terrific post with equally pivotal follow up questions. I agree, this is a very complex issue and will always be emotionally charged whenever religion is part of the equation. Before I answer your questions I would like to address one of your statements, "But, despite this barbarism, I do not see the inability of religion to restrain it as a failure of religion, but rather as a clash between often idealized religious sentiments and the harsh realities of geopolitics and war"
I think this is an excellent point but want to seriously point out that if not for the doctrine of religion most of this barbarism we saw during the crusades and are seeing in the Middle East would not exist.

I don't think that this is accurate. Such barbarism existed in all societies, no matter how religious, or the nature of their religions. The Huns had no religion, yet were one of the most wantonly violent cultures to ever exist, displacing people after people on their Westward march. When you look at wars, I think that of de Vittoria's reasons for war, the expansion of empire is the most common motivation by far. The Crusades were often about an expansion of Empire. Machiavelli further divided this motivation into two distinct types of expansion: displacement, and incorporation. When you look at religious societies, they tend towards the latter, which is FAR less violent and horrific than the former, because of the conversion aspects. It's only when two very strong and and firmly entrenched religions come up against one another that displacement takes place (The Crusades and Reconquista being two good examples.) Other than that, religious cultural and political blocks actually act as foils and buffers to displacing forces. Look at nascent Russia, the Islamic world, and Eastern Europe vs the Mongols, plus fledgeling Catholic Europe vs the Magyars, Vikings, and displaced Gothic peoples

To place "idealized religious sentiments" on the same playing field with "geopolitics" as being equally attributable to the harness that existed and exists is just inaccurate.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

While geopolitics cannot be removed entirely from causation of war, the truly horrifying motivational aspects of religious interpretation of the Christian bible (crusades, witch hunts, etc) and the Quran and Hadith (IS, Palestine and Israel ) cannot be minimized.
No, they should be depicted accurately. Traditional Islamist forces were and typically are stringent about restricting war. Christianity, I pointed out, was not usually a motivating factor in war. If that is not the case, then all that is required is an example of wars which don't fill any of the requirements except for a difference of religious belief, a war which was fought on religious zeal against geopolitical interests. These types of wars are extremely rare, because polities which engaged in them ceased to exist once they put something above their geopolitical considerations. Israeli/Palestine is not justified based on religion, it is a clash of both culture and spheres of influences, with religion serving as a rallying point because it is a prominent point of distinction. The IS will not survive for much longer precisely because its Muslim neighbors put more stock in pragmatism; that's why it can only exist in anarchic areas.

1,2. In my opinion, war and religion can and often do go hand in hand. Historically, one can find exceptions but if we can maintain our focus or gaze on what is happening in the world today - The radical Islamic organization (IS) who have taken control in parts of Iraq and Syria with plans of expansion throughout the Middle East and abroad are waging Jihad against all who do not follow specific tenants in the Quran including the recognition of Allah as the one true creator of the universe. There is nothing about this movement that illustrates a geopolitical injustice as the cause.

This is not 'often'. This is one fanatic group which arose and has existed for less than a decade, in an area seized by temporary chaos. It's a flash in the pan that cannot hold a candle to the wealth of historical evidence to the contrary.

3. I am not religious anymore (raised Catholic) and would go so far as to say the world would be a much better and safer place without it.

Why?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 1:18:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 7:15:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
What are your thoughts on the interactions between war and religion?

Thank you for an interesting question, Skeps.

War has multiple causes and many are not religious (see for example the greed vs grievance theory of conflict), but a key connection between religion and war can be found in nationalistic wars. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Nationalism is a belief, creed or ideology that attaches individuals to a sense of nationhood. Nationalism differs from patriotism in the sense that nationalism informs social identity, while patriotism informs a sense of obligation or duty to the state. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Religion then, can have a strong influence on nationalism in countries where a small number of religions predominate. Religion can help institutionalise, mythologise and systematise answers to questions like 'who are we as a nation', 'what binds us', 'what differentiates us from others' and 'what is our destiny'. It's not true that all nationalism is formed out from religion, but a high proportion of states and ethnicities revolve around a small number of dominant religions, so where strong religion is found, we also often find strong nationalism.

But nationalism is known to have a significant impact on the conduct of wars.

Among conflicts of the 20th century recognised as being nationalistic in character are WWI and WWII, the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Troubles, the first Indochinese war, the Vietnam War, the Kashmir conflict, the Balkan Wars, the Yugoslav Wars, the Chechen War, the Kurdish conflicts with Turkey and with Iraq, and the Sri Lankan Civil War. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

So it's not hard to conclude that some of the ugliest wars in recent history have been nationalistic in character.

In each, we can ask whether religion was on balance, a moderating influence or a force inflaming belligerence and justifying excess. I think the evidence tends strongly toward the latter, and in some cases the role of faith has been egregious -- or even the principle bone of contention.

That's not to say that nationalism causes wars, or is a principle cause of wars -- only that nationalistic wars are among our ugliest examples of human conflict. And to the extent that religion inflames nationalism and justifies excess (which I'd suggest it often does in times of threat), I would suggest that religion is no great friend to pluralistic reconciliation.

But should it be?

I'd argue that it should. Religion frequently lays claim to justice, compassion, moral authority, and an eye for matters spiritual, transcending local politics. So it's exactly at times when people are not acting at their best that religion -- if it's to fulfill its self-appointed purpose -- should be demanding more.

So why then is a religious voice of moderation so conspicuously silent during nationalistic struggles? Why are there so often clerics inflaming violence instead?

There may be multiple opinions about this, but one simple explanation is that like politicians and media personalities, religious institutions generally benefit from mobilising public sentiment. Their attendance increases, their coffers grow, and their professional classes are called on for more sermons and liturgies. Professional clerics live largely by public good will and cultural relevance, so like politicians, media and other communications professionals, clerical classes would be sacrificing popularity and institutional income to buck the trends.

Whether all fall prey to this innate conflict of interest is not the issue. The issue is how they manage it as a class, and history seems to indicate that, given a choice between morality and popularity, if an excuse can be made for the latter, a sufficient number of clergy will find it, while others fall silent and let them. Meanwhile, pious laiety are more than happy to invoke religion to justify belligerence they're already predisposed toward.

So I conclude that on balance, religion may not always create war, but largely enables, inflames and fails to moderate nationalistic wars.

How grievous an offense that is depends on what ethical responsibilities we think religious institutions have. That in turn depends on how much we hold religious institutions accountable to humanity, and how much we hold the reverse.

As an atheist and a secular humanist, my opinions on this are strong and predictable. But I've also seen the faithful argue the reverse -- for their own clerics, at least.

I hope that may be of interest.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 4:26:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 1:18:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/31/2015 7:15:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
So it's not hard to conclude that some of the ugliest wars in recent history have been nationalistic in character.

(For anyone not familiar with the details of these wars, I meant to point out that with some of the worst examples of attacks on civilian populations, human rights abuses and ethnic cleansings, it's not hard to conclude that some of the ugliest wars in recent history have been nationalistic in character.)
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:54:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Please, no excuses for religiously based warfare that comes from worshiping war gods who were all about territorial warfare (nationalism). The religion spawns the territorial impulse as it provides the words of war necessary to rally the troops against the Enemy.

We won't have any world peace until Abrahamic religious warfare is revealed for what it is and not covered over with historical excuses made for religiously sponsored human warfare, e.g. Augustine's righteous war nonsense. War situations happen because of religions or more precisely priesthoods teaching populations to hate another group. The priesthoods define the group identities initially, not their national origins which are usually shared with the "enemies" made such by religious warfare definitions.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 8:48:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 7:15:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is an incredibly complex and charged topic, with stances ranging from religion being a primary cause of violence, espoused by atheist hardliners, to religion being portrayed as a restraining force when it comes to war. This latter point is particularly wrapped up in historical ambiguities, with distinctions to be made between jus ad bellum and jus in bello (right in war, or law of war, vs right to war). In Christianity in particular there are many various takes on this theme, from radically pacifist sects like the Cathars and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) to those who advocate a measured, reasoned approach to a "Just War" (Augustine, Aquinas, and Francisco de Vittoria) and those who have drawn a line in the sand between divinely ordained wars and more profane conflicts, claiming that the former are exempt from any restraints. In Islamic jurisprudence, on the other hand, it has been historically held that there are such restraints in any war, even one which is ordained, so that the laws governing jihad encompass both jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This holistic stance has since been challenged as non-traditional Islamists engage in asymmetric warfare, and all of the typically dishonorable conduct which that entails.

Similarly, religious restraints on war have often been abandoned when convenient in the West as well. Mesoamerican natives, for example, were treated with no trace of jus in bello, a fact often bemoaned and challenged by de Vittoria in his De Indis De Jure Belli. He rejects the following three justifications for war: a difference in religion, the extension of empire, and the personal glory of a prince, claiming that "there is a single and only just cause for commencing a war, namely, a wrong received" and that "not every kind and degree of wrong can suffice for commencing a war". He then rejects many wartime actions as irreconcilable with the classic defenses of a Christian "just war" in face of the doctrine's pacifistic strains.

Yet de Vittoria"s ideal of war was rarely carried out in Europe. This applies to internecine wars, such as the Albigensien Crusade, where the Papal Legate at Beziers ordered his soldiers to massacre both the pacifist Cathars and their Catholic defenders, famously answering doubts about innocent victims with the callous "kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His." It applies even more to the Middle Eastern Crusades, where the butchering of innocents, and even cannibalism, by the crusading armies is recorded in stark detail (The siege of Ma`arra). In the Islamic world, too, the laws of war were sometimes forgotten when the sway of the Ulama over temporal rulers weakened. This is especially true of ostensibly Muslim regimes which emerged outside centers of existing scholarship, like the various Turkic and Timurid Mongol empires.

But, despite this barbarism, I do not see the inability of religion to restrain it as a failure of religion, but rather as a clash between often idealized religious sentiments and the harsh realities of geopolitics and war. In order for a religion, and the nations which exist in symbiosis with it, to exist, they must at times resort to amoral pragmatism. Religion is not the motivation for the often brutal recourse to which nations must fall, it is simply a smokescreen. The Albigensien Crusade, for instance, while on the surface seems an attempt to root out Cathar heresies, was in truth an immense land grab by northern French lords against southern French lords. The northern lords, loyal to the king, established dominion over the south, which had been enjoying additional autonomy from the crown. The issue of Catharism was, geopolitically, more of an attempt to force submission and to shatter subversive tendencies than it was one of truly religious nature.

What are your thoughts on the interactions between war and religion?

What particular wars to you think support your assessment of the relationship?

If you are religious, what, in your opinion, does your religion teach about war?

It is not really as complicated a subject as it appears.

However religion is never the reason for war, it is the excuse.

The only reason for war is that mankind is divided into national groups which are encouraged by Satan to compete.

Under Jehovah's Kingdom, through his son, there will be no national groups and therefore no wars.

It really is that simple. One God, One King, One faith, = no wars.

Even if this world went 100% atheist there would still be wars as long as mankind is divided into national groups.

Divide and conquer is Satan's plan.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 8:57:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 9:53:40 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
War is the inevitable by-product of Abrahamic religious belief. Abrahamic religions are based on religious warfare to conquer and control territory. For Judaism it was the territory of Canaan/Palestine. For Pauline Christians, it was the whole world and the same for Muhammadans. All three religions are based on the insanity of Abraham who's mental illness of willingness to murder his own child to serve a voice in his head is still deemed "righteousness" by Abrahamic believers who never stop to research the roots of their beliefs. If they did they would discover that whoever that god is of Abraham, it is not God Most High of Jesus as Abe's god demands exactly what the regional war god, Moloch, demanded, sacrifice of family to prove absolute loyalty to the war god. The "Great Moloch of War" is hidden in the Abraham story but can be deduced from linguistic traces, e.g. the name of "Melechizedek" falsely said to mean "King of Salem" in Hebrew, the world's most politically manipulated language that cannot be trusted at all now to convey historical etymologies. "Melech" is Hebrew for "king" and so is Moloch. Zadok Jews were high priests so the real meaning of "Melchizedek" is "High Priest of Moloch", the ultimate God of War. That Melchizedek honors Abraham's war victory only cinches the Moloch war god connection and of course YHWH also claims to be a God of war and Allah orders Muslims to permanent religious war against all unbelievers.

Abrahamic religions are war mongering religions and that's why we've had 2500 years of Abrahamic religious warfare happening somewhere on the planet. Abrahamic religions need to be composted so new religious instruction can grow and produce better people, less prone to violent acts against their neighbors.

No, it is the product of national divisions, religion is used as the excuse.

Jehovah teaches world unity by choice, not by terror as Allah, or to give him his real name, Satan, does.

Satan hides behind the name Allah, which is not even truly a name, just a title.

The Original Abraham based religious body, Israel, was only used by Jehovah to destroy it's enemies so as to protect the line leading to the Messiah. Once he had arrived and completed his mission, there was no need for it to be defended any longer.

None were forced to join Israel, simply to leave them be, though some did join Israel because they recognised what was happening.

World peace will only come through world unity.

One God = one kingdom under Jehovah, through his son. = eternal peace.

Jehovah does not teach hatred like Satan AKA Allah does.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 11:26:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
While it might be a bit harsh and also historically inaccurate to say that more wars have been fought in the name of religion--or God--than for any other cause, I will argue that religion has certainly caused far ore death and violence and war then it is worth.

And that, as a whole, the world would be better off without it, and we all just finally garnered the wisdom and logic to put Organized Religion where it belongs. And that is as a member of the pantheon of the world's cults, superstitions, and mythos.

If more people, for example would have seen the Holy Bible and the OT and Yahweh for what they are---PURE myth and ac historically accurate and scientifically valid as Greek Mythology--then millions of less souls would have been killed and tortured.

here is a small smattering of some of the evil done in the name of religion.......

http://addictivelists.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 12:46:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 8:57:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

No, it is the product of national divisions, religion is used as the excuse.

Jehovah teaches world unity by choice, not by terror as Allah, or to give him his real name, Satan, does.

Satan hides behind the name Allah, which is not even truly a name, just a title.

Notice the fighting words used by MCB towards Muslims, and he believes everyone else is causing the conflict.

The Original Abraham based religious body, Israel, was only used by Jehovah to destroy it's enemies so as to protect the line leading to the Messiah. Once he had arrived and completed his mission, there was no need for it to be defended any longer.

None were forced to join Israel, simply to leave them be, though some did join Israel because they recognised what was happening.

World peace will only come through world unity.

One God = one kingdom under Jehovah, through his son. = eternal peace.

Jehovah does not teach hatred like Satan AKA Allah does.

Yes, that should certainly start a religious war, well done, MCB. LOL.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 12:53:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 12:46:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/1/2015 8:57:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

No, it is the product of national divisions, religion is used as the excuse.

Jehovah teaches world unity by choice, not by terror as Allah, or to give him his real name, Satan, does.

Satan hides behind the name Allah, which is not even truly a name, just a title.

Notice the fighting words used by MCB towards Muslims, and he believes everyone else is causing the conflict.

The Original Abraham based religious body, Israel, was only used by Jehovah to destroy it's enemies so as to protect the line leading to the Messiah. Once he had arrived and completed his mission, there was no need for it to be defended any longer.

None were forced to join Israel, simply to leave them be, though some did join Israel because they recognised what was happening.

World peace will only come through world unity.

One God = one kingdom under Jehovah, through his son. = eternal peace.

Jehovah does not teach hatred like Satan AKA Allah does.

Yes, that should certainly start a religious war, well done, MCB. LOL.

Squeak squeak little Dangermouse.
kjw47
Posts: 1,624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 2:20:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 7:15:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is an incredibly complex and charged topic, with stances ranging from religion being a primary cause of violence, espoused by atheist hardliners, to religion being portrayed as a restraining force when it comes to war. This latter point is particularly wrapped up in historical ambiguities, with distinctions to be made between jus ad bellum and jus in bello (right in war, or law of war, vs right to war). In Christianity in particular there are many various takes on this theme, from radically pacifist sects like the Cathars and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) to those who advocate a measured, reasoned approach to a "Just War" (Augustine, Aquinas, and Francisco de Vittoria) and those who have drawn a line in the sand between divinely ordained wars and more profane conflicts, claiming that the former are exempt from any restraints. In Islamic jurisprudence, on the other hand, it has been historically held that there are such restraints in any war, even one which is ordained, so that the laws governing jihad encompass both jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This holistic stance has since been challenged as non-traditional Islamists engage in asymmetric warfare, and all of the typically dishonorable conduct which that entails.

Similarly, religious restraints on war have often been abandoned when convenient in the West as well. Mesoamerican natives, for example, were treated with no trace of jus in bello, a fact often bemoaned and challenged by de Vittoria in his De Indis De Jure Belli. He rejects the following three justifications for war: a difference in religion, the extension of empire, and the personal glory of a prince, claiming that "there is a single and only just cause for commencing a war, namely, a wrong received" and that "not every kind and degree of wrong can suffice for commencing a war". He then rejects many wartime actions as irreconcilable with the classic defenses of a Christian "just war" in face of the doctrine's pacifistic strains.

Yet de Vittoria"s ideal of war was rarely carried out in Europe. This applies to internecine wars, such as the Albigensien Crusade, where the Papal Legate at Beziers ordered his soldiers to massacre both the pacifist Cathars and their Catholic defenders, famously answering doubts about innocent victims with the callous "kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His." It applies even more to the Middle Eastern Crusades, where the butchering of innocents, and even cannibalism, by the crusading armies is recorded in stark detail (The siege of Ma`arra). In the Islamic world, too, the laws of war were sometimes forgotten when the sway of the Ulama over temporal rulers weakened. This is especially true of ostensibly Muslim regimes which emerged outside centers of existing scholarship, like the various Turkic and Timurid Mongol empires.

But, despite this barbarism, I do not see the inability of religion to restrain it as a failure of religion, but rather as a clash between often idealized religious sentiments and the harsh realities of geopolitics and war. In order for a religion, and the nations which exist in symbiosis with it, to exist, they must at times resort to amoral pragmatism. Religion is not the motivation for the often brutal recourse to which nations must fall, it is simply a smokescreen. The Albigensien Crusade, for instance, while on the surface seems an attempt to root out Cathar heresies, was in truth an immense land grab by northern French lords against southern French lords. The northern lords, loyal to the king, established dominion over the south, which had been enjoying additional autonomy from the crown. The issue of Catharism was, geopolitically, more of an attempt to force submission and to shatter subversive tendencies than it was one of truly religious nature.

What are your thoughts on the interactions between war and religion?

What particular wars to you think support your assessment of the relationship?

If you are religious, what, in your opinion, does your religion teach about war?

One thing is for 100% sure--Jesus would -NEVER- condone--brother in Christ vs brother in Christ--Which all of creation saw in the Rev war-civil war-ww1,ww2--for govts that cause division and hatred of the human family. False religions allowed this to occur. the religions claiming to be Christian( but are not) but are a divided house( Mark 3:24-26)-- it is sad how blind this world really is-2Cor 4:4)
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 4:35:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 8:57:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/31/2015 9:53:40 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
War is the inevitable by-product of Abrahamic religious belief. Abrahamic religions are based on religious warfare to conquer and control territory. For Judaism it was the territory of Canaan/Palestine. For Pauline Christians, it was the whole world and the same for Muhammadans. All three religions are based on the insanity of Abraham who's mental illness of willingness to murder his own child to serve a voice in his head is still deemed "righteousness" by Abrahamic believers who never stop to research the roots of their beliefs. If they did they would discover that whoever that god is of Abraham, it is not God Most High of Jesus as Abe's god demands exactly what the regional war god, Moloch, demanded, sacrifice of family to prove absolute loyalty to the war god. The "Great Moloch of War" is hidden in the Abraham story but can be deduced from linguistic traces, e.g. the name of "Melechizedek" falsely said to mean "King of Salem" in Hebrew, the world's most politically manipulated language that cannot be trusted at all now to convey historical etymologies. "Melech" is Hebrew for "king" and so is Moloch. Zadok Jews were high priests so the real meaning of "Melchizedek" is "High Priest of Moloch", the ultimate God of War. That Melchizedek honors Abraham's war victory only cinches the Moloch war god connection and of course YHWH also claims to be a God of war and Allah orders Muslims to permanent religious war against all unbelievers.

Abrahamic religions are war mongering religions and that's why we've had 2500 years of Abrahamic religious warfare happening somewhere on the planet. Abrahamic religions need to be composted so new religious instruction can grow and produce better people, less prone to violent acts against their neighbors.

No, it is the product of national divisions, religion is used as the excuse.

Jehovah teaches world unity by choice, not by terror as Allah, or to give him his real name, Satan, does.

Satan hides behind the name Allah, which is not even truly a name, just a title.

The Original Abraham based religious body, Israel, was only used by Jehovah to destroy it's enemies so as to protect the line leading to the Messiah. Once he had arrived and completed his mission, there was no need for it to be defended any longer.

None were forced to join Israel, simply to leave them be, though some did join Israel because they recognised what was happening.

World peace will only come through world unity.

One God = one kingdom under Jehovah, through his son. = eternal peace.

Jehovah does not teach hatred like Satan AKA Allah does.

Oh, just SHUT the Farook UP, you Gentile liar who doesn't even know he and his Cult insult God every time they call Him "Jehovah" which in Hebrew means "God of Ruin or Calamity".

You don't know a blessed thing but how to cut-n-paste other men's religious ideas to claim as yours. You have no spiritual authority or even common sense as you cannot tell religious propaganda from spiritual truth, as you believe in man-made Bible myths God has proven to be just that with archeological science but still you dare to post your man-made Bible fables as if they were true history. That alone makes you a liar and unworthy to be telling any other human being about Christianity that doesn't need liars to promote its spiritual truth.

I don't want to see any more posts by you today or tomorrow or the next day as I'm tired of your OCD trolling and hijacking religious discussions to pollute them with JW nonsense.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 4:59:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't doubt that religion has been the cause of many wars. I also don't doubt that atheism can and has been a cause for violence as is clear in Stalin's actions. It should also be evident that without religion cultural differences, political turmoil, economic greed or some primal tendency for violence will be enough to keep the fires of war aflame.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 8:59:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 4:35:27 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
At 6/1/2015 8:57:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/31/2015 9:53:40 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
War is the inevitable by-product of Abrahamic religious belief. Abrahamic religions are based on religious warfare to conquer and control territory. For Judaism it was the territory of Canaan/Palestine. For Pauline Christians, it was the whole world and the same for Muhammadans. All three religions are based on the insanity of Abraham who's mental illness of willingness to murder his own child to serve a voice in his head is still deemed "righteousness" by Abrahamic believers who never stop to research the roots of their beliefs. If they did they would discover that whoever that god is of Abraham, it is not God Most High of Jesus as Abe's god demands exactly what the regional war god, Moloch, demanded, sacrifice of family to prove absolute loyalty to the war god. The "Great Moloch of War" is hidden in the Abraham story but can be deduced from linguistic traces, e.g. the name of "Melechizedek" falsely said to mean "King of Salem" in Hebrew, the world's most politically manipulated language that cannot be trusted at all now to convey historical etymologies. "Melech" is Hebrew for "king" and so is Moloch. Zadok Jews were high priests so the real meaning of "Melchizedek" is "High Priest of Moloch", the ultimate God of War. That Melchizedek honors Abraham's war victory only cinches the Moloch war god connection and of course YHWH also claims to be a God of war and Allah orders Muslims to permanent religious war against all unbelievers.

Abrahamic religions are war mongering religions and that's why we've had 2500 years of Abrahamic religious warfare happening somewhere on the planet. Abrahamic religions need to be composted so new religious instruction can grow and produce better people, less prone to violent acts against their neighbors.

No, it is the product of national divisions, religion is used as the excuse.

Jehovah teaches world unity by choice, not by terror as Allah, or to give him his real name, Satan, does.

Satan hides behind the name Allah, which is not even truly a name, just a title.

The Original Abraham based religious body, Israel, was only used by Jehovah to destroy it's enemies so as to protect the line leading to the Messiah. Once he had arrived and completed his mission, there was no need for it to be defended any longer.

None were forced to join Israel, simply to leave them be, though some did join Israel because they recognised what was happening.

World peace will only come through world unity.

One God = one kingdom under Jehovah, through his son. = eternal peace.

Jehovah does not teach hatred like Satan AKA Allah does.

Oh, just SHUT the Farook UP, you Gentile liar who doesn't even know he and his Cult insult God every time they call Him "Jehovah" which in Hebrew means "God of Ruin or Calamity".

You don't know a blessed thing but how to cut-n-paste other men's religious ideas to claim as yours. You have no spiritual authority or even common sense as you cannot tell religious propaganda from spiritual truth, as you believe in man-made Bible myths God has proven to be just that with archeological science but still you dare to post your man-made Bible fables as if they were true history. That alone makes you a liar and unworthy to be telling any other human being about Christianity that doesn't need liars to promote its spiritual truth.

I don't want to see any more posts by you today or tomorrow or the next day as I'm tired of your OCD trolling and hijacking religious discussions to pollute them with JW nonsense.

I look forward to seeing how you prove that your view of religion is correct, and that every Jehovah's Witness is incorrect.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 1:27:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 12:41:50 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/31/2015 10:52:27 PM, MEK wrote:

Sorry for not being timely with a response but I am limited to night time writing due to my work schedule.

You and I may be coming from two different opinion camps when discussing the motivations for the crusades.
I have to concede that I am not formally educated with regards to the complex historical issues of the 1st and 2nd century that may have played into the religious wars but based on my research the crusades were much more aligned with promoting religious idealism and less about acquiring land or wealth as you have stated.

To start, the 1st crusade had many financially secure aristocrats participating and they had to finance their own expeditions causing families to pull together and shoulder the heavy economic burden from theses escapades. Secondly and probably most significant - few crusaders settled in the East after the pilgrimage was completed and instead returned home. If it were in fact true that wealth and land acquisition was a major motivating factor for the crusades, then why did so little colonization take place? The attraction to crusading must have existed elsewhere than financial especially during the first century with Jerusalem (a city of little economic or strategic importance) being a main point of interest. This other motivation was the belief that it brought significant spiritual rewards. Evidence for this can be seen in St Bernard's speech to the English during the second crusade "St Bernard Seeks English Participation in the Second Crusade" featured in The Crusades: A Documentary Survey.

With regards to ISIS and what we are seeing in the Middle East, you stated;
This is not 'often'. This is one fanatic group which arose and has existed for less than a decade, in an area seized by temporary chaos.

I fear that this is exactly how most of us in the West see the motivations for ISIS. But this would be a large misunderstanding. ISIS did not come about because of desperate economic pressures or from an opportunity to carry out some radical political agenda. I will grant that although the political and religious issues that surround Shia and Sunni are complex within the Muslim community, let there be no misunderstanding, when it comes to ISIS - their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival. Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, etc "Prophetic methodology," which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. The Atlantic.
Any one who does not accept their ideology is considered an apostate or enemy of the state. The leaders preaching and recruiting tactics are all religious based. There is plenty of video and written evidence to support this.

There is something culturally Taboo in the West when one wants to point to religion as a cause for harm but we could not find a more modern and obvious example than that of ISIS. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz are two reformed Muslims whose writings you may find very insightful on this matter.

Why am I not Catholic anymore or why do I believe the world a better place without religion? Well, to the former - mostly anecdotal experiences of attempting to square Catholic doctrine with the world around me ( ie homosexuality, empowerment of women, copious biblical errors and contradictions, and a corrupt organization).
To the latter - most of the violence done in the world has been done in the name of God, religion or some twisted, dogmatic interpretation (as in Stalin's case or Kim Jong un). We would be better off if we adopted the teachings of Voltaire, Spinozo, Einstein, and Socrates.

There are those who say some of the worst dictators have been atheists or secular. Whether or not this is true is not as important as the motivation or intention behind their insouciant destruction of life. To say they committed genocide in the name of atheism is not only disingenuous, it is naive. From Hitler to Kim - all have had one thing in common - a dogmatic framework that extends into the realm of supernaturalism. Whether it is one believing in an arian Christ who has instructed him to exterminate the Jews or one believing he is a God - all have software running on their brains that has supernatural ideology motivating their actions.

Is there evidence that a lot of good has been done in the name of religion - of course. But this does not give it's foundation validity; moreover, the same good done in the name of religion can and is being done by secular groups that don't have to pay lip service to 2000 year old cultural superstitions.

Sorry for my slight digression and thanks again for this very interesting and important conversation.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 8:47:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 2:20:48 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 5/31/2015 7:15:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is an incredibly complex and charged topic, with stances ranging from religion being a primary cause of violence, espoused by atheist hardliners, to religion being portrayed as a restraining force when it comes to war. This latter point is particularly wrapped up in historical ambiguities, with distinctions to be made between jus ad bellum and jus in bello (right in war, or law of war, vs right to war). In Christianity in particular there are many various takes on this theme, from radically pacifist sects like the Cathars and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) to those who advocate a measured, reasoned approach to a "Just War" (Augustine, Aquinas, and Francisco de Vittoria) and those who have drawn a line in the sand between divinely ordained wars and more profane conflicts, claiming that the former are exempt from any restraints. In Islamic jurisprudence, on the other hand, it has been historically held that there are such restraints in any war, even one which is ordained, so that the laws governing jihad encompass both jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This holistic stance has since been challenged as non-traditional Islamists engage in asymmetric warfare, and all of the typically dishonorable conduct which that entails.

Similarly, religious restraints on war have often been abandoned when convenient in the West as well. Mesoamerican natives, for example, were treated with no trace of jus in bello, a fact often bemoaned and challenged by de Vittoria in his De Indis De Jure Belli. He rejects the following three justifications for war: a difference in religion, the extension of empire, and the personal glory of a prince, claiming that "there is a single and only just cause for commencing a war, namely, a wrong received" and that "not every kind and degree of wrong can suffice for commencing a war". He then rejects many wartime actions as irreconcilable with the classic defenses of a Christian "just war" in face of the doctrine's pacifistic strains.

Yet de Vittoria"s ideal of war was rarely carried out in Europe. This applies to internecine wars, such as the Albigensien Crusade, where the Papal Legate at Beziers ordered his soldiers to massacre both the pacifist Cathars and their Catholic defenders, famously answering doubts about innocent victims with the callous "kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His." It applies even more to the Middle Eastern Crusades, where the butchering of innocents, and even cannibalism, by the crusading armies is recorded in stark detail (The siege of Ma`arra). In the Islamic world, too, the laws of war were sometimes forgotten when the sway of the Ulama over temporal rulers weakened. This is especially true of ostensibly Muslim regimes which emerged outside centers of existing scholarship, like the various Turkic and Timurid Mongol empires.

But, despite this barbarism, I do not see the inability of religion to restrain it as a failure of religion, but rather as a clash between often idealized religious sentiments and the harsh realities of geopolitics and war. In order for a religion, and the nations which exist in symbiosis with it, to exist, they must at times resort to amoral pragmatism. Religion is not the motivation for the often brutal recourse to which nations must fall, it is simply a smokescreen. The Albigensien Crusade, for instance, while on the surface seems an attempt to root out Cathar heresies, was in truth an immense land grab by northern French lords against southern French lords. The northern lords, loyal to the king, established dominion over the south, which had been enjoying additional autonomy from the crown. The issue of Catharism was, geopolitically, more of an attempt to force submission and to shatter subversive tendencies than it was one of truly religious nature.

What are your thoughts on the interactions between war and religion?

What particular wars to you think support your assessment of the relationship?

If you are religious, what, in your opinion, does your religion teach about war?


One thing is for 100% sure--Jesus would -NEVER- condone--brother in Christ vs brother in Christ--Which all of creation saw in the Rev war-civil war-ww1,ww2--for govts that cause division and hatred of the human family. False religions allowed this to occur. the religions claiming to be Christian( but are not) but are a divided house( Mark 3:24-26)-- it is sad how blind this world really is-2Cor 4:4)

Religions did a little more than encourage it, especially in WWI and WWII. They were virtual recruiting houses. Each side claiming that God was with them, when in fact he is completely impartial to disputes amongst men.

I suppose you could say that their god, Satan, was with both sides, egging them on.
kjw47
Posts: 1,624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 5:30:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 4:35:27 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
At 6/1/2015 8:57:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/31/2015 9:53:40 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
War is the inevitable by-product of Abrahamic religious belief. Abrahamic religions are based on religious warfare to conquer and control territory. For Judaism it was the territory of Canaan/Palestine. For Pauline Christians, it was the whole world and the same for Muhammadans. All three religions are based on the insanity of Abraham who's mental illness of willingness to murder his own child to serve a voice in his head is still deemed "righteousness" by Abrahamic believers who never stop to research the roots of their beliefs. If they did they would discover that whoever that god is of Abraham, it is not God Most High of Jesus as Abe's god demands exactly what the regional war god, Moloch, demanded, sacrifice of family to prove absolute loyalty to the war god. The "Great Moloch of War" is hidden in the Abraham story but can be deduced from linguistic traces, e.g. the name of "Melechizedek" falsely said to mean "King of Salem" in Hebrew, the world's most politically manipulated language that cannot be trusted at all now to convey historical etymologies. "Melech" is Hebrew for "king" and so is Moloch. Zadok Jews were high priests so the real meaning of "Melchizedek" is "High Priest of Moloch", the ultimate God of War. That Melchizedek honors Abraham's war victory only cinches the Moloch war god connection and of course YHWH also claims to be a God of war and Allah orders Muslims to permanent religious war against all unbelievers.

Abrahamic religions are war mongering religions and that's why we've had 2500 years of Abrahamic religious warfare happening somewhere on the planet. Abrahamic religions need to be composted so new religious instruction can grow and produce better people, less prone to violent acts against their neighbors.

No, it is the product of national divisions, religion is used as the excuse.

Jehovah teaches world unity by choice, not by terror as Allah, or to give him his real name, Satan, does.

Satan hides behind the name Allah, which is not even truly a name, just a title.

The Original Abraham based religious body, Israel, was only used by Jehovah to destroy it's enemies so as to protect the line leading to the Messiah. Once he had arrived and completed his mission, there was no need for it to be defended any longer.

None were forced to join Israel, simply to leave them be, though some did join Israel because they recognised what was happening.

World peace will only come through world unity.

One God = one kingdom under Jehovah, through his son. = eternal peace.

Jehovah does not teach hatred like Satan AKA Allah does.

Oh, just SHUT the Farook UP, you Gentile liar who doesn't even know he and his Cult insult God every time they call Him "Jehovah" which in Hebrew means "God of Ruin or Calamity".

You don't know a blessed thing but how to cut-n-paste other men's religious ideas to claim as yours. You have no spiritual authority or even common sense as you cannot tell religious propaganda from spiritual truth, as you believe in man-made Bible myths God has proven to be just that with archeological science but still you dare to post your man-made Bible fables as if they were true history. That alone makes you a liar and unworthy to be telling any other human being about Christianity that doesn't need liars to promote its spiritual truth.

I don't want to see any more posts by you today or tomorrow or the next day as I'm tired of your OCD trolling and hijacking religious discussions to pollute them with JW nonsense.

The Hebrew translation of Jehovah = Causes to become----you are misinformed.

Who are you to tell someone they cannot post any more on a given day?---you are confused obviously--Me and MCB will pray that your eyes and heart are opened to reality.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 8:54:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 5:30:25 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 6/1/2015 4:35:27 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
At 6/1/2015 8:57:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/31/2015 9:53:40 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
War is the inevitable by-product of Abrahamic religious belief. Abrahamic religions are based on religious warfare to conquer and control territory. For Judaism it was the territory of Canaan/Palestine. For Pauline Christians, it was the whole world and the same for Muhammadans. All three religions are based on the insanity of Abraham who's mental illness of willingness to murder his own child to serve a voice in his head is still deemed "righteousness" by Abrahamic believers who never stop to research the roots of their beliefs. If they did they would discover that whoever that god is of Abraham, it is not God Most High of Jesus as Abe's god demands exactly what the regional war god, Moloch, demanded, sacrifice of family to prove absolute loyalty to the war god. The "Great Moloch of War" is hidden in the Abraham story but can be deduced from linguistic traces, e.g. the name of "Melechizedek" falsely said to mean "King of Salem" in Hebrew, the world's most politically manipulated language that cannot be trusted at all now to convey historical etymologies. "Melech" is Hebrew for "king" and so is Moloch. Zadok Jews were high priests so the real meaning of "Melchizedek" is "High Priest of Moloch", the ultimate God of War. That Melchizedek honors Abraham's war victory only cinches the Moloch war god connection and of course YHWH also claims to be a God of war and Allah orders Muslims to permanent religious war against all unbelievers.

Abrahamic religions are war mongering religions and that's why we've had 2500 years of Abrahamic religious warfare happening somewhere on the planet. Abrahamic religions need to be composted so new religious instruction can grow and produce better people, less prone to violent acts against their neighbors.

No, it is the product of national divisions, religion is used as the excuse.

Jehovah teaches world unity by choice, not by terror as Allah, or to give him his real name, Satan, does.

Satan hides behind the name Allah, which is not even truly a name, just a title.

The Original Abraham based religious body, Israel, was only used by Jehovah to destroy it's enemies so as to protect the line leading to the Messiah. Once he had arrived and completed his mission, there was no need for it to be defended any longer.

None were forced to join Israel, simply to leave them be, though some did join Israel because they recognised what was happening.

World peace will only come through world unity.

One God = one kingdom under Jehovah, through his son. = eternal peace.

Jehovah does not teach hatred like Satan AKA Allah does.

Oh, just SHUT the Farook UP, you Gentile liar who doesn't even know he and his Cult insult God every time they call Him "Jehovah" which in Hebrew means "God of Ruin or Calamity".

You don't know a blessed thing but how to cut-n-paste other men's religious ideas to claim as yours. You have no spiritual authority or even common sense as you cannot tell religious propaganda from spiritual truth, as you believe in man-made Bible myths God has proven to be just that with archeological science but still you dare to post your man-made Bible fables as if they were true history. That alone makes you a liar and unworthy to be telling any other human being about Christianity that doesn't need liars to promote its spiritual truth.

I don't want to see any more posts by you today or tomorrow or the next day as I'm tired of your OCD trolling and hijacking religious discussions to pollute them with JW nonsense.


The Hebrew translation of Jehovah = Causes to become----you are misinformed.

Who are you to tell someone they cannot post any more on a given day?---you are confused obviously--Me and MCB will pray that your eyes and heart are opened to reality.

I'm afraid MCB's prayers don't count for much, since he is currently banned from the BotchTower and thus is not counted as one of God's people.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 10:47:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 1:27:42 AM, MEK wrote:
At 6/1/2015 12:41:50 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/31/2015 10:52:27 PM, MEK wrote:

Sorry for not being timely with a response but I am limited to night time writing due to my work schedule.

You and I may be coming from two different opinion camps when discussing the motivations for the crusades.
I have to concede that I am not formally educated with regards to the complex historical issues of the 1st and 2nd century that may have played into the religious wars but based on my research the crusades were much more aligned with promoting religious idealism and less about acquiring land or wealth as you have stated.

To start, the 1st crusade had many financially secure aristocrats participating and they had to finance their own expeditions causing families to pull together and shoulder the heavy economic burden from theses escapades. Secondly and probably most significant - few crusaders settled in the East after the pilgrimage was completed and instead returned home. If it were in fact true that wealth and land acquisition was a major motivating factor for the crusades, then why did so little colonization take place? The attraction to crusading must have existed elsewhere than financial especially during the first century with Jerusalem (a city of little economic or strategic importance) being a main point of interest. This other motivation was the belief that it brought significant spiritual rewards. Evidence for this can be seen in St Bernard's speech to the English during the second crusade "St Bernard Seeks English Participation in the Second Crusade" featured in The Crusades: A Documentary Survey.

Colonization isn't measured by actual conquerors remaining, but by who maintains political control of the region. There were many secular motivating factors for the Middle Eastern Crusades. A huge one was the nurturing and exploitation of international trade routes which served the West before the region was devastated by years of vicious warfare and eventually fell into Muslim control. Another even more potent, and perhaps the greatest driving factor in the conflict, was the unification of Europe. Unifying against a common enemy bound Europe for the most part together behind the Papacy at a time when it could have been tearing itself apart.

With regards to ISIS and what we are seeing in the Middle East, you stated;
This is not 'often'. This is one fanatic group which arose and has existed for less than a decade, in an area seized by temporary chaos.

I fear that this is exactly how most of us in the West see the motivations for ISIS. But this would be a large misunderstanding. ISIS did not come about because of desperate economic pressures or from an opportunity to carry out some radical political agenda. I will grant that although the political and religious issues that surround Shia and Sunni are complex within the Muslim community, let there be no misunderstanding, when it comes to ISIS - their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival. Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, etc "Prophetic methodology," which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. The Atlantic.

Any one who does not accept their ideology is considered an apostate or enemy of the state. The leaders preaching and recruiting tactics are all religious based. There is plenty of video and written evidence to support this.

There is something culturally Taboo in the West when one wants to point to religion as a cause for harm but we could not find a more modern and obvious example than that of ISIS. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz are two reformed Muslims whose writings you may find very insightful on this matter.

I'm not arguing that they aren't religion based, but that they are, in the long term, geopolitically irrelevant as a state (they are certainly relevant to actual powers in the region), and basically function as a gadfly to said powers. Sooner or later, once they are unable to hide behind destabilized outlands and porous borders, they will be swatted, and they have absolutely no diplomatic ties or military clout which will save them once the jello is nailed to the wall, so to speak. And there is no such cultural taboo. If anything, blaming religion for everything and anything is all the fashion nowadays.

Why am I not Catholic anymore or why do I believe the world a better place without religion? Well, to the former - mostly anecdotal experiences of attempting to square Catholic doctrine with the world around me ( ie homosexuality, empowerment of women, copious biblical errors and contradictions, and a corrupt organization).
To the latter - most of the violence done in the world has been done in the name of God, religion or some twisted, dogmatic interpretation (as in Stalin's case or Kim Jong un). We would be better off if we adopted the teachings of Voltaire, Spinozo, Einstein, and Socrates.

There are those who say some of the worst dictators have been atheists or secular. Whether or not this is true is not as important as the motivation or intention behind their insouciant destruction of life. To say they committed genocide in the name of atheism is not only disingenuous, it is naive. From Hitler to Kim - all have had one thing in common - a dogmatic framework that extends into the realm of supernaturalism. Whether it is one believing in an arian Christ who has instructed him to exterminate the Jews or one believing he is a God - all have software running on their brains that has supernatural ideology motivating their actions.

Is there evidence that a lot of good has been done in the name of religion - of course. But this does not give it's foundation validity; moreover, the same good done in the name of religion can and is being done by secular groups that don't have to pay lip service to 2000 year old cultural superstitions.

Sorry for my slight digression and thanks again for this very interesting and important conversation.

I think that our disconnect here is on another subject here, one concerning humans in the State of Nature. You seem to believe that humans, to simplify things, have an inherent goodness which religion corrupts with myths and lies. I, on the other hand, see humans as, left to them selves, bitter, brutal, and avaricious creatures, and that deception is not just benign, it is essential for them to rise above this to any sort of civilized state. To be human is to breath flattering lies as readily as air, and once we cease to do this we fall into debilitating Nietzschean insanity. We each pick our anesthesia and dose accordingly. I see religion as one choice among many.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 10:55:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 1:18:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/31/2015 7:15:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
What are your thoughts on the interactions between war and religion?

Thank you for an interesting question, Skeps.

I want to get back to this, because it's a really interesting point that I've looked into a lot, though I probably won't have time until tomorrow or Friday to give it a comprehensive treatment.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts on nationalism in general? How it waxes and wanes throughout history, when it is strongest, when it is useful/necessary, and when it is deleterious? How do you think that it dovetails with the psychology of mass movements?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 1:37:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 10:55:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2015 1:18:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/31/2015 7:15:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
What are your thoughts on the interactions between war and religion?
Thank you for an interesting question, Skeps.
War has multiple causes and many are not religious, but a key connection between religion and war can be found in nationalistic wars.
I want to get back to this, because it's a really interesting point that I've looked into a lot, though I probably won't have time until tomorrow or Friday to give it a comprehensive treatment.
I'm glad you're interested, Skeps. It sounds like you'll have some interesting links and references to contribute, and I look forward to them.
In the meantime, what are your thoughts on nationalism in general? How it waxes and wanes throughout history, when it is strongest, when it is useful/necessary, and when it is deleterious? How do you think that it dovetails with the psychology of mass movements?
I almost regret mentioning nationalism in conjunction with religion, Skeps, because they're two social phenomena on which vast screeds have been written, yet nobody can confidently say what either one is. :) So it might help to define terms first.

By religion I'm referring loosely to the organisation of beliefs, cultural symbols and world views that order human existence. [https://isites.harvard.edu...] So we can think of religion as a coherent system propagating culture, and although there are cultural artefacts that aren't religious, I hope we might agree that they generally don't have the ring of taboo around them that helps keep them both sacred and coherent with other religious artefacts. We can tell that the Qur'an is a sacred book for Islam, because there are rituals and taboos around its handling. We can tell that the Origin of Species is not a sacred book because we treat it functionally as a book. Thus we can tell that Islam is a religion, while Darwinian evolution is not.

In a similar way, I was thinking of nationalism not as the artefact of the modern nation-state -- with flags and newspapers and soccer-teams, but much in the way George Orwell critiqued it: as a group engaged in a competition for prestige. [http://orwell.ru...] Orwell put it this way: I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.

So the Islamic nationalism of DAISH/Islamic State is clearly of this sort. But Orwell also included in his ideas of nationalism, political Catholicism, Zionism, and antisemitism. Obviously not all nationalism is religious -- it could also be political or ethnic -- but the question I'm interested is to what extent high levels of religiosity contribute to high levels of Orwellian nationalism.

Orwell defined the principal characteristics of this competition for prestige as:

1) Obsession: wherever possible, each argument becomes a case for advancing the prestige of one's group;
2) Instability: Orwell pointed out that many nationalistic thinkers and some nationalistic leaders come from outside the culture whose nationalism they support. For example, many American supporters of Zionism are not themselves Jewish.
3) Indifference to Reality: Here I think Orwell meant exceptionalism -- supporting inconsistent criteria for critiquing one group than one would use for any other -- for example condemning the atrocities of a rival while ignoring comparable atrocities in one's own side;

He also distinguished 'Positive Nationalism' (zealously promoting one's own), 'Transferred Nationalism' (projecting sentiment about one group into support for another), and 'Negative Nationalism' (attacking rivals.)

A similar definition of nationalism can be found at: [ http://www.s3ri.soton.ac.uk... ]
Nationalism is characterized by idealization of the nation, a feeling of national superiority, an uncritical acceptance of national, state, and political authorities, a suppression of ambivalent attitudes toward the nation, an inclination to define one"s own group by criteria of descent, race, or cultural affiliation, and derogation of groups not considered to be part of the nation.

Orwell was a harsh critic of this sort of nationalism. However I'd like to qualify some matters:
* His is not the only definition of nationalism, and some are more benign, either pointing out that nationalism could be an expression of primordial adaptation to group for protection [http://en.wikipedia.org...], or taking a modernist view that nationalism is a recent product of modern media. [https://books.google.com.au...]
* There is no guarantee that a high level of nationalism will necessarily result in violence. For example this article argues that the triggers for violence may arise from other quarters [http://www.researchgate.net...]

I would argue that Orwellian nationalism at least, has had a long association with religion -- especially monotheistic religions (but not exclusively), and that it may have helped serve to hold cultures coherent in times of adversity, while at the same time whipping them to horrific excesses both cultural and humanitarian in times of expansion.

So while there have been religious wars, many of our most horrific wars have not been religious in themselves, so much as nationalistic. And I think that high religiosity (when present) has both inflamed nationalism, and driven warring cultures to excess -- and that this is likely religion's most egregious contribution to war, dwarfing its contributions to specifically religious wars.

So I think the link is not as direct as some atheists would contend (especially some of the so-called New Atheists), but I think it's perhaps broader, deeper and more complex than normally acknowledged.

I hope that may be of interest.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 5:41:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 8:54:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2015 5:30:25 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 6/1/2015 4:35:27 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
At 6/1/2015 8:57:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/31/2015 9:53:40 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
War is the inevitable by-product of Abrahamic religious belief. Abrahamic religions are based on religious warfare to conquer and control territory. For Judaism it was the territory of Canaan/Palestine. For Pauline Christians, it was the whole world and the same for Muhammadans. All three religions are based on the insanity of Abraham who's mental illness of willingness to murder his own child to serve a voice in his head is still deemed "righteousness" by Abrahamic believers who never stop to research the roots of their beliefs. If they did they would discover that whoever that god is of Abraham, it is not God Most High of Jesus as Abe's god demands exactly what the regional war god, Moloch, demanded, sacrifice of family to prove absolute loyalty to the war god. The "Great Moloch of War" is hidden in the Abraham story but can be deduced from linguistic traces, e.g. the name of "Melechizedek" falsely said to mean "King of Salem" in Hebrew, the world's most politically manipulated language that cannot be trusted at all now to convey historical etymologies. "Melech" is Hebrew for "king" and so is Moloch. Zadok Jews were high priests so the real meaning of "Melchizedek" is "High Priest of Moloch", the ultimate God of War. That Melchizedek honors Abraham's war victory only cinches the Moloch war god connection and of course YHWH also claims to be a God of war and Allah orders Muslims to permanent religious war against all unbelievers.

Abrahamic religions are war mongering religions and that's why we've had 2500 years of Abrahamic religious warfare happening somewhere on the planet. Abrahamic religions need to be composted so new religious instruction can grow and produce better people, less prone to violent acts against their neighbors.

No, it is the product of national divisions, religion is used as the excuse.

Jehovah teaches world unity by choice, not by terror as Allah, or to give him his real name, Satan, does.

Satan hides behind the name Allah, which is not even truly a name, just a title.

The Original Abraham based religious body, Israel, was only used by Jehovah to destroy it's enemies so as to protect the line leading to the Messiah. Once he had arrived and completed his mission, there was no need for it to be defended any longer.

None were forced to join Israel, simply to leave them be, though some did join Israel because they recognised what was happening.

World peace will only come through world unity.

One God = one kingdom under Jehovah, through his son. = eternal peace.

Jehovah does not teach hatred like Satan AKA Allah does.

Oh, just SHUT the Farook UP, you Gentile liar who doesn't even know he and his Cult insult God every time they call Him "Jehovah" which in Hebrew means "God of Ruin or Calamity".

You don't know a blessed thing but how to cut-n-paste other men's religious ideas to claim as yours. You have no spiritual authority or even common sense as you cannot tell religious propaganda from spiritual truth, as you believe in man-made Bible myths God has proven to be just that with archeological science but still you dare to post your man-made Bible fables as if they were true history. That alone makes you a liar and unworthy to be telling any other human being about Christianity that doesn't need liars to promote its spiritual truth.

I don't want to see any more posts by you today or tomorrow or the next day as I'm tired of your OCD trolling and hijacking religious discussions to pollute them with JW nonsense.


The Hebrew translation of Jehovah = Causes to become----you are misinformed.

Who are you to tell someone they cannot post any more on a given day?---you are confused obviously--Me and MCB will pray that your eyes and heart are opened to reality.

I'm afraid MCB's prayers don't count for much, since he is currently banned from the BotchTower and thus is not counted as one of God's people.

My prayers count for far more than yours do. It is only the human end of God's people who discount me, and no human can tell Jehovah whose prayers he listens to.

My prayers are always answered, even if sometimes the answer is no.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:03:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:54:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2015 5:30:25 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 6/1/2015 4:35:27 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
At 6/1/2015 8:57:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/31/2015 9:53:40 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
War is the inevitable by-product of Abrahamic religious belief. Abrahamic religions are based on religious warfare to conquer and control territory. For Judaism it was the territory of Canaan/Palestine. For Pauline Christians, it was the whole world and the same for Muhammadans. All three religions are based on the insanity of Abraham who's mental illness of willingness to murder his own child to serve a voice in his head is still deemed "righteousness" by Abrahamic believers who never stop to research the roots of their beliefs. If they did they would discover that whoever that god is of Abraham, it is not God Most High of Jesus as Abe's god demands exactly what the regional war god, Moloch, demanded, sacrifice of family to prove absolute loyalty to the war god. The "Great Moloch of War" is hidden in the Abraham story but can be deduced from linguistic traces, e.g. the name of "Melechizedek" falsely said to mean "King of Salem" in Hebrew, the world's most politically manipulated language that cannot be trusted at all now to convey historical etymologies. "Melech" is Hebrew for "king" and so is Moloch. Zadok Jews were high priests so the real meaning of "Melchizedek" is "High Priest of Moloch", the ultimate God of War. That Melchizedek honors Abraham's war victory only cinches the Moloch war god connection and of course YHWH also claims to be a God of war and Allah orders Muslims to permanent religious war against all unbelievers.

Abrahamic religions are war mongering religions and that's why we've had 2500 years of Abrahamic religious warfare happening somewhere on the planet. Abrahamic religions need to be composted so new religious instruction can grow and produce better people, less prone to violent acts against their neighbors.

No, it is the product of national divisions, religion is used as the excuse.

Jehovah teaches world unity by choice, not by terror as Allah, or to give him his real name, Satan, does.

Satan hides behind the name Allah, which is not even truly a name, just a title.

The Original Abraham based religious body, Israel, was only used by Jehovah to destroy it's enemies so as to protect the line leading to the Messiah. Once he had arrived and completed his mission, there was no need for it to be defended any longer.

None were forced to join Israel, simply to leave them be, though some did join Israel because they recognised what was happening.

World peace will only come through world unity.

One God = one kingdom under Jehovah, through his son. = eternal peace.

Jehovah does not teach hatred like Satan AKA Allah does.

Oh, just SHUT the Farook UP, you Gentile liar who doesn't even know he and his Cult insult God every time they call Him "Jehovah" which in Hebrew means "God of Ruin or Calamity".

You don't know a blessed thing but how to cut-n-paste other men's religious ideas to claim as yours. You have no spiritual authority or even common sense as you cannot tell religious propaganda from spiritual truth, as you believe in man-made Bible myths God has proven to be just that with archeological science but still you dare to post your man-made Bible fables as if they were true history. That alone makes you a liar and unworthy to be telling any other human being about Christianity that doesn't need liars to promote its spiritual truth.

I don't want to see any more posts by you today or tomorrow or the next day as I'm tired of your OCD trolling and hijacking religious discussions to pollute them with JW nonsense.


The Hebrew translation of Jehovah = Causes to become----you are misinformed.

Who are you to tell someone they cannot post any more on a given day?---you are confused obviously--Me and MCB will pray that your eyes and heart are opened to reality.

I'm afraid MCB's prayers don't count for much, since he is currently banned from the BotchTower and thus is not counted as one of God's people.

My prayers count for far more than yours do. It is only the human end of God's people who discount me, and no human can tell Jehovah whose prayers he listens to.

My prayers are always answered, even if sometimes the answer is no.

If only Jehovah - and no human - can tell whose prayers he listens to, then my deduction would be that you, since you are at least human, cannot tell if yours are answered or not. You contradict not only the Bible, but also your own self.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 12:45:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 10:47:31 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

There were many secular motivating factors for the Middle Eastern Crusades. A huge one was the nurturing and exploitation of international trade routes which served the West before the region was devastated by years of vicious warfare and eventually fell into Muslim control.

Yes, while it is true that establishing trade routes during the early centuries were important, this and other economic motivations were merely piggy backed onto Christian ideology. One can be in a holy war and still profit. As Fulcher of Chartres pointed out, the Crusade was "God's will" and it was through God's grace that penniless westerners became rich in the Crusade States.

I'm not arguing that they aren't religion based, but that they are, in the long term, geopolitically irrelevant as a state (they are certainly relevant to actual powers in the region), and basically function as a gadfly to said powers. Sooner or later, once they are unable to hide behind destabilized outlands and porous borders, they will be swatted, and they have absolutely no diplomatic ties or military clout which will save them once the jello is nailed to the wall, so to speak.

Well, for your and my sake - I sure hope "they will be swatted" but recent Pew studies in the Middle East indicate that although ISIS is a fanatical extreme within Islam, most Muslims do not disagree with some of the more dangerous tenants of the Quran (stoning of women who are not virgins before they are wed, killing of apostates and suicide bombing) which are a focal point with this group.

And there is no such cultural taboo. If anything, blaming religion for everything and anything is all the fashion nowadays.

Really? I suppose because I am on the other side of religion I see it quite differently. In fact, the term "Islamaphobia" is being thrown around by the liberal left and some religious groups as a subterfuge for hatred against Muslims. This could not be further from the truth.

I think that our disconnect here is on another subject here, one concerning humans in the State of Nature. You seem to believe that humans, to simplify things, have an inherent goodness which religion corrupts with myths and lies. I, on the other hand, see humans as, left to them selves, bitter, brutal, and avaricious creatures, and that deception is not just benign, it is essential for them to rise above this to any sort of civilized state. To be human is to breath flattering lies as readily as air, and once we cease to do this we fall into debilitating Nietzschean insanity. We each pick our anesthesia and dose accordingly. I see religion as one choice among many.

Wow! I believe you and I could discuss this particular topic for hours over, perhaps a 18 yo Scotch ;). Well, I have come a long way in my perception of what it means to be human. As I have mentioned earlier, I used to be a believer within the Catholic faith. Not just a passive participant but one who believed he had a personal relationship with God. One who prayed regularly with sincere devotion. It is ironic that since giving up my faith I am more tolerant of our species and less judgmental. Honestly, I do not believe we are corrupt creatures who need feigned supernatural doctrine to instill a sense of moral foundation. I think it takes a great deal of evolutionary work to climb down out of the trees, walk upright and build a civilization based on solidarity with one another.
Religion and the invention of Gods is just an early human coping mechanism against the fear we felt when we saw lightening or experienced earth quakes and violence for the first time. I am not saying humans cannot be cruel - we are, after all, survivalists and with this comes selfishness and solipsism. But as we have grown as a species, we have also experienced and learned truly marvelous things about ourselves and the world around us like psychology, physics, chemistry, biology, technology to see into the vast cosmos, etc.
Here, amidst this chaos, you see religion as a choice in assisting us to maintain moral integrity. I, on the other hand, see science and it's method as our only real means in identifying axioms and algorithms to help us establish a just and moral life. Is it perfect, no but with as many religions and different mutually exclusive gods that exist and have existed, how can you choose one that paves the way for human moral enlightenment? And once you have chosen one that seems to fit your perception of a guide for living a moral life, can you put it through the same rigorous scrutiny that you have used to discard other religions or religious doctrine? In other words, if you have chosen Christianity, you are essentially telling 1.7 billion Muslims they are wrong. Does this seem natural and in alignment with continuing to build solidarity with our own kind across different cultures?

What guarantee is there that the religious choice is not a harmful one?
As the late Christopher Hitchens once posited, "Think of a generous act done by a believer that could not be done by a non-believer. Can you think on one? Pretty difficult.
Now, think of a violent or heinous act that could be done ONLY by a believer? This is much easier - genital mutilation, suicide bombing - all done in the name of a god or religious ideology".

I do not believe practicing a religion makes one more moral than one who does not. In fact, I would contend, being "moral" means identifying with those things that make us human and understanding that it is only through constructive human relationships that morality is formed. We do not have to subscribe to Iron and Bronze age superstitions to live a moral life.
David.Cameron
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 12:49:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 12:45:59 AM, MEK wrote:
At 6/2/2015 10:47:31 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

There were many secular motivating factors for the Middle Eastern Crusades. A huge one was the nurturing and exploitation of international trade routes which served the West before the region was devastated by years of vicious warfare and eventually fell into Muslim control.

Yes, while it is true that establishing trade routes during the early centuries were important, this and other economic motivations were merely piggy backed onto Christian ideology. One can be in a holy war and still profit. As Fulcher of Chartres pointed out, the Crusade was "God's will" and it was through God's grace that penniless westerners became rich in the Crusade States.

I'm not arguing that they aren't religion based, but that they are, in the long term, geopolitically irrelevant as a state (they are certainly relevant to actual powers in the region), and basically function as a gadfly to said powers. Sooner or later, once they are unable to hide behind destabilized outlands and porous borders, they will be swatted, and they have absolutely no diplomatic ties or military clout which will save them once the jello is nailed to the wall, so to speak.

Well, for your and my sake - I sure hope "they will be swatted" but recent Pew studies in the Middle East indicate that although ISIS is a fanatical extreme within Islam, most Muslims do not disagree with some of the more dangerous tenants of the Quran (stoning of women who are not virgins before they are wed, killing of apostates and suicide bombing) which are a focal point with this group.


And there is no such cultural taboo. If anything, blaming religion for everything and anything is all the fashion nowadays.

Really? I suppose because I am on the other side of religion I see it quite differently. In fact, the term "Islamaphobia" is being thrown around by the liberal left and some religious groups as a subterfuge for hatred against Muslims. This could not be further from the truth.

I think that our disconnect here is on another subject here, one concerning humans in the State of Nature. You seem to believe that humans, to simplify things, have an inherent goodness which religion corrupts with myths and lies. I, on the other hand, see humans as, left to them selves, bitter, brutal, and avaricious creatures, and that deception is not just benign, it is essential for them to rise above this to any sort of civilized state. To be human is to breath flattering lies as readily as air, and once we cease to do this we fall into debilitating Nietzschean insanity. We each pick our anesthesia and dose accordingly. I see religion as one choice among many.

Wow! I believe you and I could discuss this particular topic for hours over, perhaps a 18 yo Scotch ;). Well, I have come a long way in my perception of what it means to be human. As I have mentioned earlier, I used to be a believer within the Catholic faith. Not just a passive participant but one who believed he had a personal relationship with God. One who prayed regularly with sincere devotion. It is ironic that since giving up my faith I am more tolerant of our species and less judgmental. Honestly, I do not believe we are corrupt creatures who need feigned supernatural doctrine to instill a sense of moral foundation. I think it takes a great deal of evolutionary work to climb down out of the trees, walk upright and build a civilization based on solidarity with one another.
Religion and the invention of Gods is just an early human coping mechanism against the fear we felt when we saw lightening or experienced earth quakes and violence for the first time. I am not saying humans cannot be cruel - we are, after all, survivalists and with this comes selfishness and solipsism. But as we have grown as a species, we have also experienced and learned truly marvelous things about ourselves and the world around us like psychology, physics, chemistry, biology, technology to see into the vast cosmos, etc.
Here, amidst this chaos, you see religion as a choice in assisting us to maintain moral integrity. I, on the other hand, see science and it's method as our only real means in identifying axioms and algorithms to help us establish a just and moral life. Is it perfect, no but with as many religions and different mutually exclusive gods that exist and have existed, how can you choose one that paves the way for human moral enlightenment? And once you have chosen one that seems to fit your perception of a guide for living a moral life, can you put it through the same rigorous scrutiny that you have used to discard other religions or religious doctrine? In other words, if you have chosen Christianity, you are essentially telling 1.7 billion Muslims they are wrong. Does this seem natural and in alignment with continuing to build solidarity with our own kind across different cultures?

What guarantee is there that the religious choice is not a harmful one?
As the late Christopher Hitchens once posited, "Think of a generous act done by a believer that could not be done by a non-believer. Can you think on one? Pretty difficult.
Now, think of a violent or heinous act that could be done ONLY by a believer? This is much easier - genital mutilation, suicide bombing - all done in the name of a god or religious ideology".

I do not believe practicing a religion makes one more moral than one who does not. In fact, I would contend, being "moral" means identifying with those things that make us human and understanding that it is only through constructive human relationships that morality is formed. We do not have to subscribe to Iron and Bronze age superstitions to live a moral life.

I'd also be pretty pissed off if I had to cut off my foreskin because sand kept getting under it.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 8:46:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 12:49:09 AM, David.Cameron wrote:
At 6/4/2015 12:45:59 AM, MEK wrote:


I do not believe practicing a religion makes one more moral than one who does not. In fact, I would contend, being "moral" means identifying with those things that make us human and understanding that it is only through constructive human relationships that morality is formed. We do not have to subscribe to Iron and Bronze age superstitions to live a moral life.

I'd also be pretty pissed off if I had to cut off my foreskin because sand kept getting under it.

Good point.