To survive - lose religious faith

[robtex]

Here is a better way to quantify this. If you look judiasm in the torah God (hashem) comes, kicks tail and the Jews get Israel, a covenent with their God and all the riches attachted with that. But modern Judiasm is one of the more humanistic religions out there. I believe it is because rabbitical law and the talmud have positioned, or marketed their God with peace and love. Christians and Muslims do the same but inconsitantly. The net result constrasting the two is quantifable. Christians and muslims have a pleothra of hate groups using God as a justification while the Jews have few to none. None that I am aware of.

The paradigm of positioning God (aka maketing) as love and thus imcompatalbe with hate, attacking (not defense of) others has been done successfully by the Jews in the last thousand years plus a little bit at a time. I personally fault the christians and muslims for not following suit and instead openly propogating the notion that their God jusfies war and concuring.

Take UU as a second example. UU for the last few centuries has been synonamous with peace and love. The result= no god justifing war.

Hinduism, with their "many paths one truth" and post Gandhi hindu take have gone in the same direction. Wars jusified by taoism, buddhism, janaism ect ect..non existant.

The difference: muslim and christainty demand total submission to Gods will and need the other religions focus on a pacifistic and humanistic lifestyle. similar beliefs, or overlapping believes but different focus. Hence my idea to market god as love to deter wars justified by God. As a species what to do we have to lose? war?

 

[kassi]

If I had nothing more to hope in, than what I see around me or what only this world has to offer, then I might as well perish now. By the way I think eternal Life, without worries about tommorow or death or sorrows or misery or pain is a wonderful thing to hope for. A goal for the future worth investing in.
So if I spend "my" life doing or believing what I think is needed to gain this life, what business is that of anyone else. By the way my "religion" is very simple,brings no harm whatsoever to others, only takes a promise and faith. And for those that think there is nothing more than this life why should they care what other people do to get through it? Some would say some religions and faith cause harm to others, this is true. But there have also been many non-religious "righteous" causes that also bring harm to others. So whats the verdict? Have something to hope in while your going thru this short, short life or just except your short pitiful existance as it is?

 

[kassi]

People spend way to much time worrying about what "other" people are doing, instead of what they themselves are doing?

 

[jewscout]

Okay, I missed this stuff, but it deserves to be addressed...

These responses aren't reasonable, or decent arguments. I never implied that I thought all Christians or all Muslims condoned these acts. What is the purpose of your responses -- besides abject sarcasm? I have never used this tone with you. What's the reason for this? There's no constructive incentive behind this.

There's the old saying, that if you can't say anything nice, best not to say anything at all -- but obviously, that doesn't apply unless you're in a Mary Poppins picture or somesuch -- but ya know, I do think that unless you can contribute with something constructive, maybe best to lay off it.

the purpose of my response Voxton was to show that the statement you made previously showed a lack of knowledge in some of the causes for these events and the fact that not all memebers of those faiths support those sort of acts shows that religion isn't the sole cause of said events. Much of the warfare done throughout history has its roots more in a desire for money and power and less about religious zeal. Religion was the way the people who pulled the strings got the little guy to go out and die.
Today Dubya uses patriotism instead.

 

[Voxton]

the purpose of my response Voxton was to show that the statement you made previously showed a lack of knowledge in some of the causes for these events and the fact that not all memebers of those faiths support those sort of acts shows that religion isn't the sole cause of said events. Much of the warfare done throughout history has its roots more in a desire for money and power and less about religious zeal. Religion was the way the people who pulled the strings got the little guy to go out and die.
Today Dubya uses patriotism instead.

Good fracking grief -- "Today Dubya uses patriotism instead..." And what do you think Dubya has been using, to get elected -- something OTHER than religion?

Dude. C'mon...

If the purpose of your response was to demonstrate my lack of knowledge in the historical events I quoted, hey -- you didn't do a very good job of it. Sorry. You just didn't. That's the truth.

 

[michel]

but justified by the christian god and praised by allah (the two biggest culpits today), I am saying that marking, and all religion is marketed, the idea that god cannot justify, condone or approve of war if God equals love might be a more humanistic campign in the marketing of the two "superpowers" of Gods Jehovah and Allah.

the object being taking away God as a jusification for war aka the reason, not stating that God caused the war. But, interesting how many theists, such as yourself, are quick to say man causes war, but than say God is everywhere and is allpowerful. if you are in contact with jesus get that fella off his apathetic tail and into the game........being apathetic to a cause is supporting it by default in many cases if one has the ablity to influence it (as an all mighty god would).

You seem to be unable to understand the viewpoint that neither God nor Jesus would intercede in these wars; what on Earth would be the practicality of God, standing 'on top' of man, jerking him by the collar every time he did something wrong ?

For a start that would totally negate the idea of us each having the opition of choice. If everytime , say, I come across a position where I can either take a 'good' step, or a 'bad' one, God yanked me by the collar if I went down the 'wrong' route, what would the point of our lives be. We have to be allowed to sin, in order to have choice. Sure, if we do take the 'right' path, then there's 'credit on account' - but each time we take the 'wrong' path, we will pay for it. If from no other point than pure and simple:-

2 Kings 19:29 And this shall be a sign unto thee, Ye shall eat this year such things as grow of themselves, and in the second year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruits thereof.
​

Isaiah 37:30 And this shall be a sign unto thee, Ye shall eat this year such as groweth of itself; and the second year that which springeth of the same: and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof.

Leviticus 25:11 A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed.

Jeremiah 12:13 They have sown wheat, but shall reap thorns: they have put themselves to pain, but shall not profit: and they shall be ashamed of your revenues because of the fierce anger of the LORD.
​

Which all seem to me to indicate that, if we do wrong, then we will have wrong thrown back at us.

The Religious 'aspect' of life, as far as I am concerned, (and I think I speak for others), is that we are put on Earth, with the potential to do good or bad deeds; at the end of our lives, there is a time of reckoning. It would therefore be crass to think that each time we were at the point of doing wron, God tapped our shoulder and said "I would'nt do that if I were you, 'cos I'll punish you at the end of your life!" ..............

​

 

[jewscout]

Good fracking grief -- "Today Dubya uses patriotism instead..." And what do you think Dubya has been using, to get elected -- something OTHER than religion?

Dude. C'mon...

If the purpose of your response was to demonstrate my lack of knowledge in the historical events I quoted, hey -- you didn't do a very good job of it. Sorry. You just didn't. That's the truth.

First the Crusades, one of the biggest examples some use to condemn religion. If religion was THE motivating factor it took the west a great deal of time to decide to take action...

This background in the Christian West must be matched with that in the Muslim East. Muslim presence in the Holy Land goes back to the initial Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century. This did not interfere much with pilgrimage to Christian holy sites or the security of monasteries and Christian communities in the Holy Land of Christendom, and western Europeans were not much concerned with the loss of far-away Jerusalem when, in the ensuing decades and centuries, they were themselves faced with invasions by Muslims and other hostile non-Christians such as the Vikings and Magyars

and then when a decision was made to fight we see factors such as personal political gain...

In the Byzantine homelands the Eastern Emperor's weakness was revealed by the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, which reduced the Empire's Asian territory to a region in western Anatolia and around Constantinople. A sure sign of Byzantine desperation was the appeal of Alexius I Comnenus to his enemy the Pope for aid. But Gregory was occupied with the Investiture Controversy and could not call on the German emperor and the crusade never took shape.

For Gregory's more moderate successor Pope Urban II, a crusade would serve to reunite Christendom, bolster the Papacy, and perhaps bring the East under his control

There was even some question as to the doctrinal justification of the Crusades...but when it comes to power and money there's always a way...

The papacy of Pope Gregory VII had struggled with reservations about the doctrinal validity of a holy war and the shedding of blood for the Lord and had resolved the question in favor of justified violence. Actions against Arians and other heretics offered historical precedents in a society where violence against unbelievers, and indeed against other Christians, was acceptable and common

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

If you check here... http://www.unf.edu/classes/medieval/med-17.htm you will find that religion is the quick answer but the causes of the the Crusades are many and complex

 

[jewscout]

The Salem Witch Trials, another instance where religion is the easy answer but we find social issues and local politics in the mix with the religious zeal of the times as well...
http://www.salemwitchtrials.com/salemwitchcraft.html#winterdays

 

[jewscout]

even the Spanish Inquisition was a tool for political, not religious, ends...

While the Castilian Isabella was a devout Catholic, the Aragonese Ferdinand was not above using religion as a means of controlling his people. He wanted the Jewish and Muslim religions wiped out in his domains, and the Inquisition was his method for achieving that. Many historians believe the Spanish Inquisition was instituted as a way of weakening Ferdinand's primary political opposition at home. It is also possible that there was a financial motivation. Jewish financiers had lent Ferdinand's father many of the funds which he had used to pursue the alliance by marriage with Castile, and many of these debts would be wiped if the noteholder were condemned in court. The Inquisitor whom Ferdinand installed in Saragossa Cathedral was assassinated by New Christians (forced converts).
Ferdinand was an astute politician, and developed close ties with St. Peter's in Rome as part of his political manoeuvering, aimed at consolidating the independent realms (joined by his marriage to Isabella) into a single state to be left to his heir. However, he did not want the Pope to control the Inquisition in Spain, as he was jealous of any other power within his borders.

The Pope did not want the Inquisition established in Spain at all, but Ferdinand insisted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

 

[jewscout]

Now as far as Arab Terrorism goes (including the intifada and 9/11) it is another complex situation...

TERRORISM: The threat or use of extra-normal violence to intimidate or, more usually, to achieve a political objective by indirect means. The political objective is often ideologically or religiously motivated or defined. Terrorist violence aims to achieve its objective indirectly in the sense that the group which is targeted by a terrorist attack is often not the terrorists' primary audience. The impact of an attack on the potential supporters of a terrorist group may, for example, be more important than its impact on the group attacked.

http://www.aucegypt.edu/faculty/sedgwick/hist462td.html

 

[robtex]

You seem to be unable to understand the viewpoint that neither God nor Jesus would intercede in these wars; what on Earth would be the practicality of God, standing 'on top' of man, jerking him by the collar every time he did something wrong ?

​

I am not saying God or Jesus are doing anything. I am saying that war, destruction and hate are attached to more christians groups...actually to name them all would take quite a while because there are more hate groups attached to Jesus than every other living religion practiced today combined.

I think that is because Christianty is marketed poorly. We have had two crusades and a world war done in Jesus's name plus thousands of smaller wars. mIllions have been burned alive at the stake as sacrifices to Jesus in the last two centuries and more hate groups from Godhatesfags.com to the kkk require a belief in Jesus for membership.

I am not it is because Jesus is against homosexuality is pro sacrifce or hates blacks. I am saying it is because christianty is not marketed as a religion of peace well enough and that the ones who are more pacifistically inclinded are apathetic to the more miltaristic or even suppotive at times.

Your religion collectively is permissive of barbaric acts discrimmination, sexism because of the way it is marketed that way by the pastors and clergy of that religion. Irregardless if your jesus is hip to that or not. I am suggesting that using its cousin,
Judiasm as a working model that maybe if they pushe dor a more humanistic agenda over time, as in judaism a gentler expression of their fatih would emerge amoungs jesus followers.

 

[Sheldon]

I wonder if he realizes that there are still people who worship gods such as Apollo and Baal. And still practice Alchemy.

Help me out here, is that a good thing?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Help me out here, is that a good thing?

I'm more concerned about what they do with it than the actual belief itself.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Help me out here, is that a good thing?

And do note this thread is from '05. My views have somewhat changed since my original post those 16 years ago.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm more concerned about what they do with it than the actual belief itself.

Fair point, but should I be concerned that someone believes in something like alchemy in the 21st century? Let's hope they're not working as a chemist or in a pharmacy anyway, or in engineering anyway.