Hey man, this is HROT, I'll do what I want or we could always Fight Bar if you are feeling it.
Religion of peace--seriously?
- Thread starter GOHOX69
- Start date
Hey man, this is HROT, I'll do what I want or we could always Fight Bar if you are feeling it.
I think religions were created, or at least evolved, as tools—multifunctional tools. One tool is the tool of justifiable violence. Helluvalot easier to mobilize when I can say our god wants us to mobilize. And if I am hungry, tired, hopeless, angry, desperate, hell, even just bored, and underneath all of this is a feeling of victimhood—my hunger, thirst, desperation, even boredom is the cause of someone or something else—I can find justification to fight back in seemingly every religion and/or religious book. And I can most definitely find someone somewhere preaching, whether overtly or subtly, some type of violent message or act of retribution. Of course this is simplification, but to me, this is where religion fits into this. Religion is generally fairly peaceful for most people when people are relatively okay. When people don't feel like the victim of this, that, or the other, religion doesn't provoke them to feel justifiably violent.
Then when the rich and powerful are behind religion-related or religion-attributed acts of violence, I believe they're using the religion tool to mask basic greed, often colonialist in scale greed. Not to muddy things, but we see this in the micro for sure with this prosperity preaching bullshit.
And then nations I think like to be able to use this tool, this religion tool, too, in all kinds of ways. Some of them even, arguably, good ways. I don't think it's controversial to say that when USA goes to war we like to think we're defending our values. The parenthetical here, for many, is these are "Christian" values. Never mind that many religions (generally speaking), and even seculars, share basically the same core values. But it's nice to feel like God is on our side when we're sending tanks and drones and human war machines to destroy/take/rebuild/lease/own/leverage/etc.
And the greatest function of the religion tool is that damn God thing. If I'm angry, or even just greedy, man it sure is nice to rationalize God into it somehow, especially when with little effort I can find someone to do it for me.
Then when the rich and powerful are behind religion-related or religion-attributed acts of violence, I believe they're using the religion tool to mask basic greed, often colonialist in scale greed. Not to muddy things, but we see this in the micro for sure with this prosperity preaching bullshit.
And then nations I think like to be able to use this tool, this religion tool, too, in all kinds of ways. Some of them even, arguably, good ways. I don't think it's controversial to say that when USA goes to war we like to think we're defending our values. The parenthetical here, for many, is these are "Christian" values. Never mind that many religions (generally speaking), and even seculars, share basically the same core values. But it's nice to feel like God is on our side when we're sending tanks and drones and human war machines to destroy/take/rebuild/lease/own/leverage/etc.
And the greatest function of the religion tool is that damn God thing. If I'm angry, or even just greedy, man it sure is nice to rationalize God into it somehow, especially when with little effort I can find someone to do it for me.
Last edited:
What is "moral" about blowing up a bunch of people celebrating a wedding? Regardless of who does it. Are you saying you could forgive the people who accidentally blew up your family as long as their motive was "moral"? "Moral" by whose standard? We're in the Middle East for one reason and it's not morality.
BTW, there is no such thing as "shari'a law"...it's just shari'a. There is Islamic law that is based on some aspects of shari'a but shari'a simply defines a way of life - it translates to "path". Think of it as kind of like an expanded Ten Commandments (except shari'a is explicitly defined as not being the word of God). Some of the TC could define a legal system but some - like "Honor thy father and mother" - is just good practice.
Actually, there were 3 churches attacked and 3 hotels. While Christians were targeted, why also attack the 3 hotels, which are full of tourists of various religions. I think there may be other reasons for the attacks in addition to "revenge" for the New Zealand shootings. Sri Lanka is mostly Buddhist, then Hindu, and about 10% Muslim and 10% Christian, so why was Sri Lanka chosen? Things there have been relatively quiet since their civil war ended 10 years ago. The other big issue is that the government was given intel that an attack was likely, but did not follow up on it. There are a lot of unanswered questions about this attack, and we will probably never know all the answers. If there is a hell, I hope all the terrorists rot in it.
No violence is advocated in the New Testament!
Koran,,,,,,ummmmmm.
You will know them (false prophets) by what they do!
Yeah, Yeah, go preach your religion of anti religion somewhere else. You guys are worse than the Jehovahs Witnesses that knock on my door. Constantly proselytizing.
LOL...way to project. So some are way worse than others which brings us full circle. Which is "worse"...some nutjob radical blowing up a church in the name of Allah or a govt putting sanctions in place absolutely knowing that it will result in the deaths of thousands of innocents. And using that to pressure a govt we don't like.
Which is really weird since that's been my point the entire time.
I'm sorry if you think I'm attacking part of your identity. I don't mean to. I'm simply opining on how I think religion is used for bad. Nested in there, as well as in a previous post of mine, is an acknowledgment that religion is also used for good—as a tool for good.
It may be hard for you to recognize this, but I'm as much or more an ally of religion than an enemy.
There is not that much difference between Shia's and Sunni's theologically. The biggest issue is that they disagreed about who would take over after Mohammad, thus creating the two sects. Sunni's make up about 85% of the world's Muslims. Iran and Iraq are the two main countries where Shia's are the majority. The Sunni's and the Shia's don't care for each other too much, kind of like the Catholics and Protestants in N. Ireland.
Sort of like what "Barrys "philosophy was for eight years.But then he didnt even have the balls to call them a terrorist like Easter worshippers with Democrats now.
You guys sure took a lot of time/discussion to get to this point.
So, there’s no violence in the Bible other than the part that’s filled with violence. Sweet. Both holy books are horrific, and the peace loving members of both religions reached their enlightenment largely on their willingness to ignore the uglier teachings.
But my main point is that your initial post showed a childish view of Muslims, and suggests you have never spent time with any.
That's the cure to most every social illness... sharing time with different kinds of people to realize that we're not very different at all. Not ALWAYS, but in many ways.
This is inaccurate. In fact, there is ongoing recovery litigation against Saudi’s Arabia and the various charities for the property and PI damages. There was knowledge about the pending attack at certain levels of government - but not at the top.
Ummm, NT, about the most violence I see is Christ throwing out the money lenders. That and the Roman persecution. What you got?
Perhaps you didn't understand my post. The Old Testament is an orgy of violence. And it is the larger part of the bible. So, again, the Bible is not violent if you leave out the violent parts.
Even Jesus, in the New Testament, said he came not in peace but with a sword, and much of the New Testament seems to be celebrating the horrible deaths awaiting non-believers. The Book of Revelations can be particularly gruesome.
I think you have a very gross misunderstanding of what I'm saying. While I am not very well versed in culture from antiquity, I do know a few things. For example, I have read some Greek literature, and was quite astonished at not only how pervasive sodomizing young boys was amongst their warriors but how much it was glorified. Do I make judgments about that kind of behavior? Absolutely. The same as I make judgments against the South for Jim Crow laws.
Does that mean my antipathy towards certain cultural practices or beliefs, whether they be 50 years ago or 2,300 years ago, is contrived in ignorance or "searing hatred"? Absolutely not. It just means I call it for what it is: f***ed up.
What I find interesting is liberals will often use the culture card as justification for a permissive attitude towards certain issues that fit their agenda. For example, there was a push in Iowa this year by a liberal group for legislators to pass a law aimed at not prosecuting Africans practicing some f***ed up ritual of genital mutilation of young girls when they reach a certain age. To prosecute would not be respecting their culture, according to this liberal group. Of course, on the other hand, if a photographer doesn't want to take pictures at a gay wedding because it goes against their cultural or religious values, that they're up in arms about. Personally, I don't know why anyone would give a shit as long as they're getting paid, but that's beside the point.
Wrong is wrong. It makes no sense to argue on the grounds of "back then it was okay." That is not progressive thinking. That is anal retention. If it's not, then I don't want to hear another liberal complain about W's anti-gay marriage position. When he was president, 70% of the country agreed with him. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Damn, even though I don't agree with all of that, what you wrote was pretty frickin brilliant.
Sort of. I'm not equating the two, but it does raise interesting discussion points. Quick read. Point being, along with my general arguments in this thread, perspective matters, nuance matters.
Your quote on the sword is not how that is interpreted. And the horrible deaths to non-believers? Where is that coming from? OT maybe.
Yes, I agree perspective matters. I'm not sure nuance applies in this situation, though.
Are there not health benefits to removing the foreskin? Like infections are less likely? Also, I have no memory of when I was circumcised. That's a pretty big difference too.
But I get your point, kinda.
The 9/11 commission did the most exhaustive investigation possible and found nothing involving Saudi government that supported or funded AQ and 9/11. We're there a few rogue officials? Probably. Was it a state sponsored group and attack, not remotely. SA isnt stupid enough to bite that hand.
Ah, yes, interpretation. And the peaceful Muslims will tell you you're misinterpreting the Koran. It’s all good - it’s how the enlightened manage to behave civilly despite worshipping horrific books. But I don’t play that game. The books say what they say.
As for the gruesome deaths, I already pointed out Revelations. And it doesn’t matter because the OT is part of the Bible.
Last edited:
If you have to argue in the paradigm of "liberals do this, and conservatives do that"... then, it's pointless. Besides that, you go off on a tirade about things that I'm not even discussing with you.
I'm fully aware that you believe the behavior to be "wrong." I certainly do not condone it, nor would I practice it. I'm not A liberal or A conservative. No one is. I'm simply telling you that when Mohammed had a five-year-old wife, it was acceptable behavior. I'm not remotely implying that society's standard should return to that. I'm simply saying it was standard practice back then. And, to try and measure one impropriety from the past to another is your business. However, it's only an opinion, a matter of degree as measured by each person. It's not universal. Why do you need it to be? File them all under "No longer works", and be done with it.
I'm acutely aware of what you are saying in addition to understanding various practices that have been culturally acceptable throughout history, as demonstrated by the examples I offered.
Where I differ from you is that my disdain for certain ones makes me ignorant or "searing with hate." Additionally, I do believe there are universal laws or axiomatic truths that do and should govern society as well as define what is acceptable behavior. For me, not sticking your dick inside a five-year old is one of them. Call me crazy.
Last, whether you are or aren't liberal is of no relevant concern to me. What is considered liberal today will likely change twenty years from now. My point is the aforementioned attitudes and beliefs are consistent with many people regarded as liberal today. However you do or don't fit that mold is up to you to decide. Frankly, I don't give a shit, as my observations were intended to be in general and were not directed at you personally.
On a positive note, I like you and love reading a lot of your posts. However, I think you are laying siege of a vacant castle here by trying to "educate" me on the "perils" of judging past cultures through the lens of hindsight. I'm sorry, but humanity has done so for ages and will continue to do so long after you and I are gone. I suppose that is humanity's one surefire way of measuring progress.
Universal MORAL laws are a fantasy. You know how I know that's a fact? This conversation is proof. You and I can disagree, disapprove of, and malign anyone who thinks differently. However, if there are people who think differently, then there's the absolute proof that it's not universal. If it were universal, there would be no one challenging it.
What we actually have are present day standards and/or acceptable behaviors. If people violate them, there are consequences. But, they will continue to change.
With all due respect, this conversation is not proof of anything other than a parady of intellectual discourse. Lol.
All kidding aside, there are universal moral laws that do exist. They are not contingent upon unanimous agreement amongst mortal men, but on consciousness itself. Science proves there are universal laws and axioms that govern the universe. In my opinion, this is also true of the essence or spirit of mankind, and can be regarded as general truths viscerally known to man since the conception of time.
While I would submit to you they are wired into us by God, even evolutionary theory, in terms of the basic evolving of the species, would agree man has progressed in intelligent thought as far as an undestanding of basic morality that is good for his preservation and progeny is concerned. The taking of innocent human life being a prime example.
Ambiguities do exist, as mankind and our conception of morality differ or become nuanced as societies evolve, but there are very much universal axioms that exist in the conscious awareness of mankind. Those who differ in their awareness of these truths, or acceptance of them probably more accurately, only proves that abnormalities within the human consciousness do exist. That does not mean e.g. murder is not a universal law that not only exists but is accepted and indoctrinated into normal human consciousness.
Of course, all of this hinges on a belief that the universe and existence itself is organic and intelligently designed. If you are someone who accepts all levels of evolutionary theory, and that existence is one cosmic accident, then morality is perhaps unequivocally subjective, or, at a very primitive level, moot.
I, however, am one of those crazy people who believe in God and that Jesus the Christ is Lord and Savior. This is a belief I can't explain, as I can be a royal asshole most days, especially towards idiot evangelicals, but the belief is innate all the same. And it shapes my view of the universe.
So, take it with a grain of salt.
