firedragon
Veteran Member
War usually has an economic purpose, so this sounds like an accurate rate.
It is a proven percentage. And even religious wars are fought for economic or political reasons. You should study it a little in depth.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
War usually has an economic purpose, so this sounds like an accurate rate.
Good point. If we are going to be objective and rational about this proposal perhaps the truth we acknowledge is the lack of fact and evidence for religion as a whole, and work to set it aside from social and cultural experience?
I never said they weren't. And even you admit you had to look it up. So keep up with the irony.It is a proven percentage. And even religious wars are fought for economic or political reasons. You should study it a little in depth.
Are you suggesting that religions are developed from a scientific approach? Or just acknowledging that sociology can explain how religions learned to be more effective as they spreads their influence?Religion has two different approaches. The sociological approach would deem that the "truths are subjective" and it stems from sociological foundations.
What theology is objective? I've never seen one.The other is the objective approach which is the theology is objective but influences sociology.
I never said they weren't. And even you admit you had to look it up. So keep up with the irony.
Are you saying you had the "7% of wars had religious motives" off the top of your head?I can't understand what you mean by "even you admit you had to look it up". About what? And where did I say something like that?
Are you suggesting that religions are developed from a scientific approach? Or just acknowledging that sociology can explain how religions learned to be more effective as they spreads their influence?
What theology is objective? I've never seen one.
Are you saying you had the "7% of wars had religious motives" off the top of your head?
Sociology is a social science. You wrote that religion has a sociological approach, which means religion uses sociology to engage with the public.I didnt even mention the word science so I dont know where that came from. Second, I mentioned two different things, not just sociology of religion. You missed it. Please read it again.
This doesn't explain how any theology is objective.I dont think you are attempting to understand someone.
Sociology is a social science. You wrote that religion has a sociological approach, which means religion uses sociology to engage with the public.
This doesn't explain how any theology is objective.
I did. What religions use sociology to engage with the public?No. I said two things. Read again please.
You wrote this:Of course not. Maybe you should read again. If you want a clarification please ask.
Or just say what you are looking for.
When you love your brother you help him on the way if you can.
When you say that the paths to truth are many that sounds as if you have a view already of what truth is.
That is good. But do we know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when we see it without first being told that from an authority?
A religion would have others who have trodden the path you are on or want to be on and who may be able to be of assistance.
What would be a specific example of a religion that does not address the unknown is some way?Your disagreement appears to refer to a specific religion(s). Not all religions’ purpose is to provide such pat answers.
What would be a specific example of a religion that does not address the unknown is some way?
I view religion much like any average species of creature. Once it is here, it attempts at just about any cost to survive and reproduce itself as (or more appropriate in religion's case, "within") the next generation. Some of these things eventually die out, as has been evidenced by religions that have zero or very near zero adherence - only the ones best adapted to hold the minds of the ever-changing landscape of humanity, or can adapt in some way to become something new and different that might do so (see the great many branches of Christianity) tend to propagate over the long haul.Brilliant -- an untold number of cultures spanning the globe and the millennia have (1) opted to produce, and (2) sought to sustain something that is, in fact, purposeless. Sociology be damned!
Is the "encyclopedia of wars" peer reviewed?...But you should note that according to the encyclopedia of wars which is the most extensive record of all wars in recorded history only 7% were motivated by religion. So we all must think about it.
I did. What religions use sociology to engage with the public?
You wrote this:
"The other is the objective approach which is the theology is objective but influences sociology."
Your language is ambiguous. Are you saying theology is objective? Clarify.
If these schools of Buddhism do not ascribe to any teaching of Gautama Buddha that address subjects outside of that which is real and existent (for example immortality of the soul and reincarnation) then are they really Buddhism and are they religious?My flavor of Hinduism does not.
There are also schools of Buddhism that do not.
Great job tiresomely and pretentiously missing the point!But just as one cannot point to the objective purpose of something like the dodo bird (and recognize that only subjective "purpose" is even possible to contemplate - especially given that it went entirely extinct), trying to do so for any given transient religion is no less an exercise in futility.