shmogie
Well-Known Member
Fine, separate them out and tell me the differences in the beliefs of the groups you have come up with and how these beliefs effect their behavior.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
MURDER, GENOCIDE, and ATHEISTS.
- Thread starter shmogie
- Start date
It’s about time the truth came out on this one.
The Religion Of God which teaches love and harmony I am firmly convinced, has never caused wars. It is disobedience to the laws and teachings of religion I believe, which causes wars. The Religion Of God teaches Thou shalt not kill and to love thy neighbour as thyself and even thine enemy so I believe war is absolutely impossible if these counsels are adhered to. The Bible does not support wars such as the Crusades nor the Inquisition. By its very nature, it condemns all unprovoked wars. The Quran only permits self defense see Sura 2:190. The Hindu religion believes in ahimsa and Buddhism - in non violence. Religion teaches to wage war against the SELF. For instance Buddha said ,
One may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle but he is the true conquerer who conquers his own self(Dhamapadda)
And Baha’u’llah says to free ourselves from the prison of self.
Aggressive offensive wars against innocents involving religionists have ALL been instigated by either clergy, priests, popes, Mullas or politicians but never by the Manifestations of God Who have only taught love, compassion and kindness to all living beings.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I wasn';t talking to you and I couldn't care less as to how you feel. So ol' Robie was a deist, my mistake,.Unlike you, I sometimes make a mistake.
So a simple error warps my entire view of history,
'Do you know what hyperbole means ?
siti
Well-Known Member
I think you might mean 17,000 (approx.) - and nobody said they were all murdered by deists - but Robespierre was a deist and was a murderous tyrant responsible for some of the murders (aka executions) during the "Reign of Terror". And some were murdered under the influence of people like Jacques Hebert and his followers who were atheists and set out to replace religion - especially Catholicism - with a "Cult of Reason". But by far the most of those who died in the Reign of Terror were those who were political opponents - religion was a big part of the issue because the Catholic Church was so corrupt and so politically powerful - but Robespierre would have gladly executed fellow deists - like Thomas Paine - because Paine supported the less radical Girondin political faction. Paine's life was apparently spared by an oversight on the part of the guards in the jail where he was imprisoned.
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
Is it like when something happens to 17,000 people and someone says it was 300,000?
The regimes being referred to here were not atheist regimes. For the most part they were regimes led by people who wanted to create themselves as demigods.
siti
Well-Known Member
Thou shalt (or at least should'st) think carefully before posting BS on RF.
Last edited:
This is fun but now I'm on date night with the wife, so till tomorrow.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
You should have seen the opening round of this dumpster fire
I like others are responding to posts, How you feel? It sounds like, emotional, arrogant, and aggressively rewriting history to suit your agenda.
One of many based on an emotional agenda.
Of course, so what?
The problem is your exaggerated statements are intended to be taken literally.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Give her a smooch for me and tell her I will always remember Paris
Turkey roast?
Audie
Veteran Member
No, you did not.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I believe most wars are religious in nature because why else would you kill so many people? Only for some zealotry of one flavor or another. I think that people of all religious or "irreligious" backgrounds are capable of the same sort of thinking and extemist ideology. Whatever story was told or justification that was used it does not surprise me that religious thought is a central motivating force to do harm on a mass scale.
So yes, i think religious war has meaning. I just think that meaning is broader than the many would like to acknowledge.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Theist or atheist, humans are innately empathetic, social creatures driven by both reason and compassion (unless conditioned otherwise by religion/culture/ideology or simply sociopathic.) We care about others and possess a sense of fairness by nature and prefer the security that order provides. We treat others the way we hope to be treated in return. "The Golden Rule" is common sense and universal, not some magical, profound, ground-breaking revelation.
Civilization is built upon order, and most behave out of both mutual benefit and rational self interest, social repercussions serving as incentive and deterrence.
I can elaborate further, but currently on mobile and typing lengthy posts is a pain in the ***.
Last edited:
Skreeper
Member
Weird how a couple pages after that God commands his chosen people to commit some murder. Not even simply murder, but genocide.
It seems even the one who made up 'you shall not murder' can't be bothered to follow his own rules.
But I do appreciate this thread. Threads like these help convert people to atheism by simply showing people how incredibly BS and flawed some fundagelicals 'arguments' are.
The Biblical god character was a very violent entity according to the not so good book.
Augustus
…
Human nature: we evolved to be violent towards those outside our group. We don't see chimps fighting as 'religious in nature' though. The reason they involve 'so many' deaths is that we kept on expanding the size of groups we lived in (religion did play a major role in this process).
Also: because technology enables it, because it makes sense tactically/strategically, because they are trying to kill you, because you are worried they will try to kill you in future, because they didn't surrender so you want to make an example out of them so others will surrender, because they don't want to let you exploit them and you want to make an example out of them, etc., etc.
In the pre-modern world you generally needed to be strong because if you weren't, then you might well be a victim. It was rational/evolutionarily advantageous to be good at war, and being good at war required practice, people and resources.
Also, doesn't take zealotry. Can just be an unfortunate series of events that ends up with a situation no one really wants.
Violence is human nature, not a corruption of human nature.
Are you using religion as synonymous with culture? Why can you isolate religion/culture from geography, economy, technology, agriculture, language, history, etc.?
Wars are driven by culture, culture develops from human nature, geography, technology, experience, the need to survive, etc. culture, human nature, geography, technology, experience, the need to survive, etc creates religions, religions shape culture, and so forth.
Augustus
…
That's a bit like saying the opposition to the Romanovs in Russia could only have led to a totalitarian communist state (even though few people wanted it).
The choice wasn't ancien regime or Reign of Terror, the Committee for Public Safety, dechristianisation, etc. but revolutions never really produce what the masses want, just a different type of elite.