is this debate stupid?

[Father Heathen]

Well, we're all still here, are we not? The actual number of violent Muslims are very low, ergo there's something to the religion that's non-violent. Same goes with Christianity and Judaism. Baha'is haven't started any violence in their history, as far as I'm aware.

I tend to base my opinions on other religions on more than just anti-Abrahamic quote-mining.

I'm point was that it's in their book, so while some members of certain faiths may be peaceful, it's in spite of the religion, not because of it.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm point was that it's in their book, so while some members of certain faiths may be peaceful, it's in spite of the religion, not because of it.

That would be the case, if it really were just some, and not MOST, which is what it is.

Besides, like I said, all I saw was quote-mining.

So my question is this: does an instruction for violence nullify an instruction for non-violence? (BTW, non-violence is also taught in those books.)

 

[Father Heathen]

That would be the case, if it really were just some, and not MOST, which is what it is.

Besides, like I said, all I saw was quote-mining.

So my question is this: does an instruction for violence nullify an instruction for non-violence? (BTW, non-violence is also taught in those books.)

Personally, I think any such contradiction should nullify the whole book.

 

[Riverwolf]

Personally, I think any such contradiction should nullify the whole book.

Why is that?

Why not just discard that which is bad, and use that which is good?

Or, possibly learn about the context, in which case the violence may have been situational, and not meant to be applied for all times?

I know this won't apply to the Qur'an, but not all Jews/Christians believes that the entire Bible is the infallible word of God, and therefore are fully free to discard the bad, and use the good.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd say it's probably because two-thirds of the world's population affiliates, at least nominally, with a religion of some sort. I do wonder, though, why people who have no belief system at all, are so into maligning the beliefs of those who do. I mean, go to a cooking forum. You'll find people of all kinds who enjoy cooking different things. They'll share ideas, recipes, experiences, etc., and chances are they'll disagree on some points. But it's doubtful that they'll have to put up with very many people who just drop in to say, "Cooking's stupid! Why would anybody want to cook when they can eat out? I've never seen much point in cutting things up and watching them get hot."

By the same token, I've never had anyone come to my door telling me that I absolutely need to get rid of any pasta I have in the house and eat nothing but Tex-Mex instead.

I've also never seen parents disown their children over the fact that they go out for breakfast, or heard of people trying to deny legal rights to non-vegans.

Religion has a way of imposing itself on the non-religious that cooking doesn't.

 

[Riverwolf]

By the same token, I've never had anyone come to my door telling me that I absolutely need to get rid of any pasta I have in the house and eat nothing but Tex-Mex instead.

I've also never seen parents disown their children over the fact that they go out for breakfast, or heard of people trying to deny legal rights to non-vegans.

Religion has a way of imposing itself on the non-religious that cooking doesn't.

I think that's why political ideology is the most oft-used analogy for religion, as it's pretty much the only accurate one.

EDIT: But I have been harshly chastised by a vegetarian for eating meat once. ^_^

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that's why political ideology is the most oft-used analogy for religion, as it's pretty much the only accurate one.

And there's no shortage of anarchists and libertarians on political sites.

EDIT: But I have been harshly chastised by a vegetarian for eating meat once. ^_^

And to the extent that the vegetarian butts into your affairs, he or she gives you permission to butt into theirs.

 

[Riverwolf]

And there's no shortage of anarchists and libertarians on political sites.

I'm not part of any political forum, but I'd imagine this is so.

And to the extent that the vegetarian butts into your affairs, he or she gives you permission to butt into theirs.

True, that.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Taking the entire Bible as the infallible word of god serves to illustrate just how unknowable god is. As a follower of the god of Abraham, to paraphrase Paul, god does not shame me, but some of these other followers...

Why discuss religion? Evolution. Once upon a time, it was follow or die. Now, it is follow or discuss.

 

[sniper762]

there are two reasons to debate it.

1 is to learn by hearing how others interpret what they read (you cant really understand fully by JUST hearing the positive)

2 to convince others that your way of thinking is better than theirs.

which one are you?

 

[BruceDLimber]

I'm talking about advancements regarding equality, rights, liberty and justice (things that have a history of being scarce in religion's shadow).

But hardly nonexistent!

There are indeed religions that espouse and promote such things!

Indeed, the religion I endeavor to follow states explicitly in its scriptures:

"The best beloved of all things in My [God's] sight is justice!"

So things aren't quite so bleak as you portray them. . . .

Peace,

Bruce

 

[ChristineES]

As long as people follow religion, then people will discuss it.

 

[waitasec]

that is a bit paranoid isnt it!

really?
ask any same sex couples why they can't get married...

 

[ellenjanuary]

there are two reasons to debate it.

1 is to learn by hearing how others interpret what they read (you cant really understand fully by JUST hearing the positive)

2 to convince others that your way of thinking is better than theirs.

which one are you?

Well, obviously, my Gwynnies is the greatest god of all... but then again, you can't have her! She's my Gwynnies!

 

[Riverwolf]

really?
ask any same sex couples why they can't get married...

That post seemed more to be talking about violent extremists (who aren't limited to religion, BTW), not those with anti-gay marriage agendas.

...and, come to think of it, that post kinda reminded me of Senator Kelley's opening-film speech from the first X-Men movie. "loose among us", "use (insert here) as a weapon", etc.

It's the kind of mindset that makes people paranoid of everyone on the street, and hateful of those who fit the bill. In that sense, then, anti-religious sentiments aren't really much different than anti-homosexual sentiments. The only difference is that the one is slightly more justified and therefore understandable, while the other is just plain silly.

 

[waitasec]

That post seemed more to be talking about violent extremists (who aren't limited to religion, BTW), not those with anti-gay marriage agendas.

...and, come to think of it, that post kinda reminded me of Senator Kelley's opening-film speech from the first X-Men movie. "loose among us", "use (insert here) as a weapon", etc.

It's the kind of mindset that makes people paranoid of everyone on the street, and hateful of those who fit the bill. In that sense, then, anti-religious sentiments aren't really much different than anti-homosexual sentiments. The only difference is that the one is slightly more justified and therefore understandable, while the other is just plain silly.

huh? you mean to tell me that same sex marriages isn't an issue?
oh, i must have misunderstood the religious agenda; they are indeed morally superior. :sarcastic
not violent extremists, but fundamental extremists... which is a form of violent behavior.

 

[Riverwolf]

huh? you mean to tell me that same sex marriages isn't an issue?

I really don't understand where you're getting that. I didn't say that same-sex marriage isn't an issue, and I didn't mean to imply it.

oh, i must have misunderstood the religious agenda; they are indeed morally superior. :sarcastic

Again, where'd I say that? I don't believe that having a religion automatically makes one morally superior, and I'm not sure where you read that.

not violent extremists, but fundamental extremists... which is a form of violent behavior.

Violence is about physical harm. Therefore an extreme but ultimately non-violent political agenda does not fall under violent behavior. Unless the definition of violence has changed since I last checked.

Extremism isn't necessarily violent.

BTW, I support same-sex marriage, and I don't have a religious agenda.

 

[outhouse]

oh, please. yes we know that. come up with something profound, not trite.
(x)

I find the whole thing trite :sorry1:

as well as primitive and barbaric. I think it has held humanity back long enough.

all my opinion of course

 

[Riverwolf]

I find the whole thing trite :sorry1:

as well as primitive and barbaric. I think it has held humanity back long enough.

all my opinion of course

Based on what? Surely it must have a basis.

 

[waitasec]

I really don't understand where you're getting that. I didn't say that same-sex marriage isn't an issue, and I didn't mean to imply it.

since you were responding to

ask any same sex couples why they can't get married...

is why i would think you would imply such a thing. what were you thinking i was saying?

Violence is about physical harm. Therefore an extreme but ultimately non-violent political agenda does not fall under violent behavior. Unless the definition of violence has changed since I last checked.

where did i imply violence?

BTW, I support same-sex marriage, and I don't have a religious agenda.

:cigar: