Well, we need to make a distinction between the normative and descriptive uses of the word "Christian." From the normative perspective of some practitioners of Christianity, it's quite possible that the WBC aren't Christians. But if we describe their self-understanding, they of course consider themselves Christian. If we want to draw some lines as neutral observers, I reckon the most fair standard to use would be whether the majority of Christian communities and particularly the ecumenical churches acknowledge a given group as Christian. For example, Jehova's Witnesses consider themselves Christian but nobody else does, and therefore it's fair to call them non-Christian even in a descriptive, non-normative sense if we have to draw the line somewhere.

That said, I have no idea if ecumenical churches or the majority of other Christian denominations have said anything about the WBC. I don't know what their beliefs are, either. As a rule of thumb, I'd say that churches which recognize the first three or four ecumenical councils until (and possibly including) the council of Chalcedon can be safely called Christian in the most descriptive, non-evaluative sense possible.

I agree with you, though: if I was a Christian, I would want to confront the WBC and systematically show them wrong and false practitioners of the faith. Christians are on the defense, dismissing this and that as "not really their religion", but I'd like to see them take a positive initiative and meet the challenges of public opinion in a convincing and fresh manner.

Written by IronAngel on 27.03.2011 at 00:57

Well, we need to make a distinction between the normative and descriptive uses of the word "Christian." From the normative perspective of some practitioners of Christianity, it's quite possible that the WBC aren't Christians. But if we describe their self-understanding, they of course consider themselves Christian. If we want to draw some lines as neutral observers, I reckon the most fair standard to use would be whether the majority of Christian communities and particularly the ecumenical churches acknowledge a given group as Christian. For example, Jehova's Witnesses consider themselves Christian but nobody else does, and therefore it's fair to call them non-Christian even in a descriptive, non-normative sense if we have to draw the line somewhere.

That said, I have no idea if ecumenical churches or the majority of other Christian denominations have said anything about the WBC. I don't know what their beliefs are, either. As a rule of thumb, I'd say that churches which recognize the first three or four ecumenical councils until (and possibly including) the council of Chalcedon can be safely called Christian in the most descriptive, non-evaluative sense possible.

I agree with you, though: if I was a Christian, I would want to confront the WBC and systematically show them wrong and false practitioners of the faith. Christians are on the defense, dismissing this and that as "not really their religion", but I'd like to see them take a positive initiative and meet the challenges of public opinion in a convincing and fresh manner.

Well I understand that Christians may exclude other Christians, Protestants exclude Catholic and the reverse, so this still falls under no true scottsman. However the correct thing here to say is, that they're not "BIBLICAL" Christians, they willingly go against several portions of the bible in order to preach hate. However believe that Jesus Christ is their savior. Trust me I understand it's not something set in stone.

Yeah. I'm pretty lenient when it comes to words anyway, their meaning is simply shaped by their use. And there's always a normative aspect involved, whether we want to label someone under a given concept or not.

The relationship of Bible and Christianity is another interesting topic, but I guess it should go elsewhere. There's no clear and ecumenical (common to major churches) understanding of what the Bible's role is, and in fact there is no single Bible anywhere. Different churches have different canons, where both the selection of books and the shape of individual books varies. The Book of Jeremiah is 1/8 shorter in the Septuagint than in the Masoretic texts, and it's used by Eastern Orthodox Churches, for example. Lutherans and most other protestants don't consider deuterocanonical books part of the Bible whereas the two Catholic churches do. Not to mention the Jewish canon. And so on. Furthermore, the Bible doesn't actually establish its own authority as a normative book let alone the Word of God which some Christians consider it to be. And how could it, because when individual books were written they weren't written to be part of a normative canon, so they could only speak for themselves and not the entire collection. It's actually very interesting and funny how so many Christians automatically consider the Bible as a normative and authoritative book they must abide by, as if it was direct divine speech. They rarely stop to think why they give it such authority. Ultimately the role we give to the Bible is based on some arguments external to the book itself, which is a realization that might give pause to some fundamentalists. The Quran is often compared to the Bible, but the books are quite different in nature because one is a coherent literary work which understands and proclaims itself as the word of God and the other is an ambigious selection of books that range from secular history to erotic poetry to private letters. But we're getting far from the topic, I guess!

Written by Yasmine on 24.03.2011 at 21:50

Written by Guest on 22.03.2011 at 14:59

Written by Guest on 19.03.2011 at 22:23

Written by Guest on 19.09.2010 at 15:05

I dont think its a theory, people are actually slaying eachother in the name of some god. It might not be of WWII proportions, but still though. Islamic extremists even advertise with it calling it Jihad.
Religion demonizes, alienates and sometimes even kills other people, wich is exactly why i hate it. Religion is way too serious.
Imagine us killing people because they say something nasty about Slayer. And i definitely dare to state my lifestyle means as much to me as god to them.

I'm interested as to why you only mention Islam? There are several religions...

I'm also interested as to why you so strongly believe religion is the causal factor behind war AND mention World War II...far as I know, religion had absolutely nothing to do with WW2...[correct me if I'm wrong, but it had something to do with the assassination of a Persian prince? Ferdinandz or something?]

War is caused by many factors, religion certainly being one of them, but in this day and age? No. Socioeconomic factors are the key causes of religion, and probably have been since the 20th century.

I do not only mention Islam, you should re-read my post.
My mentioning of world war 2 is in a different context, and that religion causes wars would be evident. Do note "war" in my eyes can be waged between 2 individuals.
The evidence of religion causing "uncomfortable" situations to say the least in daily life to me are evident. Unfortunately for the beleivers, Islam proves this point best at the moment. (I refer to protests in UK for example, where people believe those who insult Islam should be beheaded.)

Nah Christianity is as good an example of this as Islam, see the Westboro Baptist Church.

Ah yes! Absolutely right you are. How can i miss them, they are completely bonkers.

Written by Guest on 27.03.2011 at 03:12

Written by Yasmine on 24.03.2011 at 21:50

Written by Guest on 22.03.2011 at 14:59

Written by Guest on 19.03.2011 at 22:23

Written by Guest on 19.09.2010 at 15:05

I dont think its a theory, people are actually slaying eachother in the name of some god. It might not be of WWII proportions, but still though. Islamic extremists even advertise with it calling it Jihad.
Religion demonizes, alienates and sometimes even kills other people, wich is exactly why i hate it. Religion is way too serious.
Imagine us killing people because they say something nasty about Slayer. And i definitely dare to state my lifestyle means as much to me as god to them.

I'm interested as to why you only mention Islam? There are several religions...

I'm also interested as to why you so strongly believe religion is the causal factor behind war AND mention World War II...far as I know, religion had absolutely nothing to do with WW2...[correct me if I'm wrong, but it had something to do with the assassination of a Persian prince? Ferdinandz or something?]

War is caused by many factors, religion certainly being one of them, but in this day and age? No. Socioeconomic factors are the key causes of religion, and probably have been since the 20th century.

I do not only mention Islam, you should re-read my post.
My mentioning of world war 2 is in a different context, and that religion causes wars would be evident. Do note "war" in my eyes can be waged between 2 individuals.
The evidence of religion causing "uncomfortable" situations to say the least in daily life to me are evident. Unfortunately for the beleivers, Islam proves this point best at the moment. (I refer to protests in UK for example, where people believe those who insult Islam should be beheaded.)

Nah Christianity is as good an example of this as Islam, see the Westboro Baptist Church.

Ah yes! Absolutely right you are. How can i miss them, they are completely bonkers.

Wow wasn't sure if people in Europe knew about the stuff they do, it's very sad imo and their leader was once a civil rights lawyer.

Written by Yasmine on 27.03.2011 at 03:14

Written by Guest on 27.03.2011 at 03:12

Written by Yasmine on 24.03.2011 at 21:50

Written by Guest on 22.03.2011 at 14:59

Written by Guest on 19.03.2011 at 22:23

Written by Guest on 19.09.2010 at 15:05

I dont think its a theory, people are actually slaying eachother in the name of some god. It might not be of WWII proportions, but still though. Islamic extremists even advertise with it calling it Jihad.
Religion demonizes, alienates and sometimes even kills other people, wich is exactly why i hate it. Religion is way too serious.
Imagine us killing people because they say something nasty about Slayer. And i definitely dare to state my lifestyle means as much to me as god to them.

I'm interested as to why you only mention Islam? There are several religions...

I'm also interested as to why you so strongly believe religion is the causal factor behind war AND mention World War II...far as I know, religion had absolutely nothing to do with WW2...[correct me if I'm wrong, but it had something to do with the assassination of a Persian prince? Ferdinandz or something?]

War is caused by many factors, religion certainly being one of them, but in this day and age? No. Socioeconomic factors are the key causes of religion, and probably have been since the 20th century.

I do not only mention Islam, you should re-read my post.
My mentioning of world war 2 is in a different context, and that religion causes wars would be evident. Do note "war" in my eyes can be waged between 2 individuals.
The evidence of religion causing "uncomfortable" situations to say the least in daily life to me are evident. Unfortunately for the beleivers, Islam proves this point best at the moment. (I refer to protests in UK for example, where people believe those who insult Islam should be beheaded.)

Nah Christianity is as good an example of this as Islam, see the Westboro Baptist Church.

Ah yes! Absolutely right you are. How can i miss them, they are completely bonkers.

Wow wasn't sure if people in Europe knew about the stuff they do, it's very sad imo and their leader was once a civil rights lawyer.

We sure do, and unanimously disgusted by it i may add.

Written by Yasmine on 27.03.2011 at 03:14

Written by Guest on 27.03.2011 at 03:12

Written by Yasmine on 24.03.2011 at 21:50

Written by Guest on 22.03.2011 at 14:59

Written by Guest on 19.03.2011 at 22:23

Written by Guest on 19.09.2010 at 15:05

I dont think its a theory, people are actually slaying eachother in the name of some god. It might not be of WWII proportions, but still though. Islamic extremists even advertise with it calling it Jihad.
Religion demonizes, alienates and sometimes even kills other people, wich is exactly why i hate it. Religion is way too serious.
Imagine us killing people because they say something nasty about Slayer. And i definitely dare to state my lifestyle means as much to me as god to them.

I'm interested as to why you only mention Islam? There are several religions...

I'm also interested as to why you so strongly believe religion is the causal factor behind war AND mention World War II...far as I know, religion had absolutely nothing to do with WW2...[correct me if I'm wrong, but it had something to do with the assassination of a Persian prince? Ferdinandz or something?]

War is caused by many factors, religion certainly being one of them, but in this day and age? No. Socioeconomic factors are the key causes of religion, and probably have been since the 20th century.

I do not only mention Islam, you should re-read my post.
My mentioning of world war 2 is in a different context, and that religion causes wars would be evident. Do note "war" in my eyes can be waged between 2 individuals.
The evidence of religion causing "uncomfortable" situations to say the least in daily life to me are evident. Unfortunately for the beleivers, Islam proves this point best at the moment. (I refer to protests in UK for example, where people believe those who insult Islam should be beheaded.)

Nah Christianity is as good an example of this as Islam, see the Westboro Baptist Church.

Ah yes! Absolutely right you are. How can i miss them, they are completely bonkers.

Wow wasn't sure if people in Europe knew about the stuff they do, it's very sad imo and their leader was once a civil rights lawyer.

We sure do, and unanimously disgusted by it i may add.

It"s not a theory, it"s a hypothesis

although the evidence clearly points to that direction it doesn"t support it enough

Philosophically I would say the term theory applies here.

That use of the word theory makes it posssible for creationists to say something"d be only a theory

Which is fine, as a theory in science is a set of testable facts. Most of them confuse it with the term hypothesis and don't understand scientific method.

I would agree to it being a hypothesis. But there is no way we can claim religion causes wars, that is downright just wrong. We can hypothesize that though, and form a theory, but there is too much to consider for it to work. We have religions such as Buddhism which have not caused war or any major violence outbreaks. It depends on the particular religion, their teachings, their relationships with surrounding countries, etc. It is pretty obvious that Christianity and Islam have caused war several times and their readings teach this (Old Testament in Christianity is worse than a horror film).

The only problem is peaceful religions do not hurt the argument here in anyway. I mean we only need to take say Christianity, Islam, etc. and look and see if they're linked to the cause of strife. I think it's a pretty simply argument, but that's my opinion.

Why not call this thread "In Practice: Religion causes war"....

Written by Dark Cornatus on 07.04.2011 at 02:25

I would agree to it being a hypothesis. But there is no way we can claim religion causes wars, that is downright just wrong. We can hypothesize that though, and form a theory, but there is too much to consider for it to work. We have religions such as Buddhism which have not caused war or any major violence outbreaks. It depends on the particular religion, their teachings, their relationships with surrounding countries, etc. It is pretty obvious that Christianity and Islam have caused war several times and their readings teach this (Old Testament in Christianity is worse than a horror film).

Both Christanity and Islam are ultimately peaceful religions according to their creeds and scripture. I'm not sure how the OT is so horrible, it's a pretty tame collection of documents from a time that knew much worse, too. But that's beside the point, because in Christian outlook the era of the OT is past and a new covenant has been put in effect. On the other hand, Buddhism (or rather, Buddhist people because religions are not individual subjects) has been involved in its share of violence and militarism just as well. Sri Lanka and Japan come to mind, though I'm not an expert. So it seems that the doctrines of a given religion are not what fundamentally direct social processes. They play their roles in specific situations, but because religions with different beliefs have been equally involved in conflicts and society as a whole throughout history it's simply inaccurate to say that this is determined by their teachings. Virtually all world religions stand for peace and justice anyway, at some core level, so if that had a major effect then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Written by Dark Cornatus on 07.04.2011 at 02:25

(Old Testament in Christianity is worse than a horror film).

Old Testament pre-dates Christianity... It has ideology in it which is completely the opposite of Christianity. The only reason why OT is in Bible is because Christ lived in Palestine and it is important to get acquainted to the culture and land he lived in and to the peculiarities of the religion there and yes... also the negative sides of religion because Christ's role in New Testament was to "own" all those dudes who relied on Old Testament and for whom Christ was the worst person ever because he said that their practice of religion is wrong.
Imagine if you've always believed that: "If someone causes discomfort to you, make his life miserable." and now someone says that "That's wrong, you should forgive and become friends."
If you've always believed that: "God has chosen me to be his favourite. One day He will come to Earth and slaughter all the filthy scum who live around on this earth and then I can have paradise." and now someone says that "No, God loves everyone. Nobody is scum, everyone should be friends and love each other because that is what Father wants."
And imagine what's even worse... that someone also calls God, the mighty thunder punishing machine father and claims he's some pink adorable who loves everyone... that is blasphemy, right? That means Christ got killed.
But as Wotan got nailed to a tree for the men's eyes to open, Christ got nailed to a cross and rose later for the people to see how wrong it is to be a hateful and evil person and how being good and loving and friendly is what God really wants for people.

People are people tho... do not expect they remember this, even when they claim to be Christian.

Therefore I hope you know now that OT is not a Christian scripture... it does contain prophecies and visions of "God's son who arrives on Earth" and it contains some poetry and historical data and yes... it contains also some religious texts, some of which are rancid... but they are not Christian...

Example: There was a dude who was blind. He had heard that Christ could heal the blind so he asked Him to help. Christ prepared a concoction and smeared his eyes with it and he began to see. People spread the word that Christ had healed the blind dude and as the "men of God" heard this they were furious because "He healed him on holiday. God has forbidden working during holidays. This Jesus is a sinner and bastard. God hates people like him." They called for the former blind dude and asked him about what had happened and as the dude dared to say that "He helped me and was good to me. How can anyone like Him not be sent by God." To which the priests excommunicated him.

Not to speak of numerous other cases like this...

PS. I know there are "Christian" sects who rely on OT only... there are said to be sects also where men for example have sex with all the women in the village and sacrifice little children... There are numerous little sects like this, some more extreme, some less...

"... but they are not Christian..."

This would seem to be a no true Scottsman fallacy as without the OT the NT would seem to be utterly useless.

Haha. You really can't challenge anything without slapping it with some fallacy label, can you? Not to start a fight, but it's probably more effective to talk business and make simple points without too much verbal finesse.

The Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible, rather, is not a Christian document. However, to say it's not part of Christian scripture and Biblical canon is incorrect from the perspective of most churches. It is generally considered just as holy and legitimate as the New Testament. But according to early Christian theology actually dating back to NT times, its guidelines and rules are not normative to Christians. It's not just that Christians don't stone people because it's lame or religiously irrelevant, but because their theology is based on the thesis that Christ is the new covenant which reinterpreted and fulfilled the Torah. But if we are to believe the early Fathers of the Church as well as the canons of modern ecumenical churches, the Old Testament is just as valuable, divine and dignified as the NT to Christians.

Don't take the anti-Jewish propaganda of certain evangelists (especially John and maybe Matthew) and other NT authors too seriously, Viggo. They were regular people with political and religious agendas, after all. Don't confuse the priests and the Pharisees, either. The reason Jesus' quarrels with the Pharisees were emphasized so much was probably because the Jesus sect and the Pharisean sect were two competing and similar forms of Judaism, and the Pharisean belief in resurrection was probably the biggest challenger of early Jewish Christianity. In Jesus' time and early Christianity, it was not a faith distinct from or contrary to Judaism. Judaism until the destruction of the second temple was extremely diverse and very different from the modern religion anyway.

Written by IronAngel on 07.04.2011 at 20:50

Haha. You really can't challenge anything without slapping it with some fallacy label, can you? Not to start a fight, but it's probably more effective to talk business and make simple points without too much verbal finesse.

The Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible, rather, is not a Christian document. However, to say it's not part of Christian scripture and Biblical canon is incorrect from the perspective of most churches. It is generally considered just as holy and legitimate as the New Testament. But according to early Christian theology actually dating back to NT times, its guidelines and rules are not normative to Christians. It's not just that Christians don't stone people because it's lame or religiously irrelevant, but because their theology is based on the thesis that Christ is the new covenant which reinterpreted and fulfilled the Torah. But if we are to believe the early Fathers of the Church as well as the canons of modern ecumenical churches, the Old Testament is just as valuable, divine and dignified as the NT to Christians.

You got a point there as well. As I said, not all of OT is rancid stuff in the style "how to stone your entire family". Plus it doesn't contain all of the guidelines, some more extreme ones are in other sources. But yes... Christ's aim was to redo the older religion and to make everyone see the true meaning and aim of it.

Though I have Iron on ignore, I see his quote there, and I'm just gonna say this. I don't want to fight with anyone either, but under a forum labelled "serious discussion" I think fallacies should be taken into account to keep these issues on point.

That's fine, Yasmine. But what I'm saying is, it would probably be more effective if you pointed out the problems in an argument and offered a balanced counter-argument without resorting to fancy terminology that probably doesn't mean anything to most of us. Moreover, when you call something a specific form of a fallacy, we'll probably get pulled into a debate about whether it actually meets the formal prerequisites of such a fallacy - and what's more, many formal fallacies are ultimately subject to social consensus and can therefore be challenged if the context warrants. That's wasted time, when you could've just explicated in simple terms what your problem with the argument was. "Fallacy this, fallacy that" comes off as pretty self-important and unproductive, and it gets old.

It's not a "No true Scotsman" anyway, because 1) it can be taken as a historical statement about the book and its origins, which is absolutely correct and 2) it can be a normative statement about what real Christianity entails, in which case it's drawing lines around your tradition and distinguishing good from bad, inside from outside. That is not an area of formal thinking anyway. In any case, the example lacks the ad hoc nature and attempt to save face after being proven wrong, which are the two characteristic features of a No true Scotsman. In fact, Viggo anticipated counter-arguments and brought up sects that only recognize the OT (not sure who those are, tbh, but I'm sure they exist) of his own initiative. That is is stark opposition to any No true Scotsman accusations.

Haha, see what happened?

Religion does not create war.People do because of the religion.Personaly i am not religious person but the ones who are, arent necessarly the ones who creat violence and wars.People use religion to make wars,but religion its slef is not dangerous...i guess.

Bill Maher's Bullshit Party!

Written by terrorist on 10.04.2011 at 18:22

Religion does not create war.People do because of the religion.Personaly i am not religious person but the ones who are, arent necessarly the ones who creat violence and wars.People use religion to make wars,but religion its slef is not dangerous...i guess.

no, religions that tell you that people not believing it are inferior and need to be wiped out (kind of the content of all major religions" holy books) are not dangerous al all....
neither are religions that tell you you can own slaves and beat them nearly dead (example: christianity) or rape women (christianity again) or stone them (islam)......

Written by theFIST on 22.04.2011 at 13:14

no, religions that tell you that people not believing it are inferior and need to be wiped out (kind of the content of all major religions" holy books) are not dangerous al all....
neither are religions that tell you you can own slaves and beat them nearly dead (example: christianity) or rape women (christianity again) or stone them (islam)......

Bring me the appropriate quotes and we shall elaborate this a bit.

Once again... where did Christ mention that you can get yourself a slave and beat him nearly dead? Where?

And where the flying fuck did Christ give any tips about raping women? Where the fuck really?

Jesus said that the validity of the law will continue, although then making exceptions (none of those about slavery or rape). Also your religion claims about your god that he is unchanging, which supports the continuity of religious law

some stuff about slavery:
leviticus 25: 44-46
exodus 21: 7
exodus 21: 20-21
1peter 2: 18

something about rape:
deuteronomy 22: 29
2 samuel 12: 11

too lazy to find more, but well, those verses are examples of what the bible supports

Written by theFIST on 22.04.2011 at 20:44

too lazy to find more, but well, those verses are examples of what the bible supports

Christ brought out the negative things in the society of this time whenever these occurred. Does this mean that not until someone says "Rape is bad" then it is automatically a good thing. Christ renewed the message of Father, that is, to let everyone know that He loves us and wishes us to love each other just that same way. That this is the most important thing to remember every second during your life. Including loving those whom you'd perhaps hate. What is unchanging is God and His love and forgiveness.

But failing to see that, let us just point out the favourite lines from the old Jewish society rules. That was the favourite pastime of the rabbis and pharisees as well...

Speaking of slavery... it was Roman Empire... Roman Empire just the way like many other ancient civilisations had slavery... in fact, slaves could be even 50% of the entire population. It doesn't mean automatically they were not considered human. They simply belonged to another social status, they were not free. But this didn't mean they were mistreated all the time. Many people, for example, sold themselves to slave status in order to make career. It was impossible or a poor free person because at least in Rome it was impossible to find a job because most of the production and industry was run by people whose social status was slavery.
Which implies slavery was such a common thing during the antiquity. Lots of things were different... doesn't mean that everyone thought of it as "slavery is just awesome. I enjoy abusing and owning other people.

Whilst I agree that religion is one cause of war, it is not the only cause and is but one of many. These kinds of wars tend to occur in areas where civilizational boundaries meet, and where civilizations meat has little to do with national boarders. For example in areas where the Islamic Ottomans encrouched in the Former Yugoslavia, you have a fairly even mix of of Catholic, Othodox and Muslims of a number of sub-groupings. But this is not the only area, where the middle-east meat India is also eachother you find Hindu's clashing with Muslims, such scenarios are not uncommon and are most often found where there is a lack of widespread education, massive poverty, long history of conflict ect. Which is both cultural and religious oriented.

However, the statement that Religion causes most major wars is unwise and seems to be biased towards those conflicts with were cause by war and simply overlooks the two most significant causes of conflict in history.
1st) Nationalism
The two largest wars in history have been cause primarily by National pride and pretige, as well as numerous conflicts throughout history. Sometimes it is ameans of spreading ideological values and beliefs (not religous), such as Communism, Liberalism, Democracy particularly where two or more major powers hold opposing views on an issue. The first world war, was almost entirely based on Nationalism and the propagenda produced in its name. World War Two also, but it can be considered as battle of Power and Control as well. The Nepolianic Wars, were primarily ideological as Nepolians forces sought to expand Liberal ideas throughout europe. The French Revolution, The Cold War, The Vietnam War, the Korean War, The Iran-Iraq War.
2nd) Power and Control of Essential Recources
This is argueably second only because it tends to be more subtle and such wars are often fought under a banned of "Peacekeeping", "Peacebuilding", "Crisis Intervention", "Humanitarian Intervention", sometime also underpinning wars of national pride, but also imperial/colonial expantion is done for the same reasons. If one takes the time to read a little on "Neo-Conservatism" you will understand why I say imperial expansion is not over. The current war in Libya is being fueled and fought for Power and Control of resources. Nato is interfering in Libya because it has an interest in having access to Libya's recourses, but ask yourself why Nato is in Libya and not in Syria where it seems clear that something similar is occuring.

I don't think religion causes war, it excuses it.

Written by Sophist on 21.07.2011 at 20:39

I don't think religion causes war, it excuses it.

In some cases certainly. Bosnia is one example of this.