@Dane Train: Although I almost completely disagree with hailsatan, I also don't really understand your point. I don't think it's sufficient to define religion as "a common belief amongst a group of people". This definition doesn't really exclude anything. I could never agree that a philosophy was religion, although a philosophy can be called a belief (system of beliefs) that some people hold in common. Or saying that atheism is religion would also be quite strange - the main point of atheism is the denial of entities that various religions believe to exist. My point is that "religion" means what majority of the people mean by it, and I am certain that majority associates religion with various historical traditions, like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, indigenous beliefs etc. as different from philosophies and ideologies that deny or don't care abut these traditions. And claiming any kind of common belief system to be religion deprives this concept its analytical value. Why not just call these belief systems simply "worldviews"? No need to add "religion" here.
And when you say that the Crusades were political not religious, considering your definition, the Crusades can be considered as religious because politics surely includes commonly held beliefs about the social world.

On the other hand, I maintain that this topic is quite stupid because the concept "religion" is applied to very different phenomena. There are religions that deny or aren't interested in afterlife for instance (pre-islamic religion in Arabia would be an example here), there are religions that are completely pacifistic (Jehova's Witnesses, for instance, or Quakers). Also, religion can be quite rational - the theology of Thomas Aquinas was logical and consistent enough, although its presuppositions can be denied of course.
All in all, it's quite naive to associate religion with war. It's not that many wars haven't been motivated by "religious beliefs", but because "religion" isn't an unified entity in the world that determinate causal powers could be ascribed to.

To call religion "a common held belief amongst a group of people" is to put forth a functionally useless definition. Generally definitions of "religion" recognize some element of the supernatural, or at least something to differentiate "religion" from "politics", "science", etc.

Written by Dane Train on 17.12.2008 at 19:27

Written by ponderer on 17.12.2008 at 17:41

Where was religion when we first discovered fire and how to hunt and kill for survival? You won't find those chapters in the "bible". Religion was created out of necessity and greed and its foundation built on the blood of millions of innocents throughout history.

It seems that you don't really understand what the term Religion means. Everyone has a religion...even atheists. Religious is a common held belief amongst a group of people. Even your little ramble here showed me a glimpse at your worldview and religion. What more saying that 'religion' is to blame is gross overstatement. Events like the Crusades were a political and land war that twisted the beliefs of people and used the concept of Faith in God as a weapon. I am by no means saying that religious institutions are innocent, but claiming that religion is the problem is just a wrong assessment.

That's it? You quote one tiny portion of that diatribe related to something that's a cross between Quest for Fire meets a speech from Lenin and that's your justification for religion? Come on man. You can do better than that. Where is your "god"? Not to steal Warrel Dane's thunder but, does anything change when you pray? What about people who are innocently slaughtered by serial killers or have their bodies blown to pieces by bombs or die violently in plane crashes? They were probably praying. Who saved them? Your god? Lemme guess, they went onto a better place, right? Prove it. Don't tell me your "faith" says they were saved because the concept of faith is based on one's blind trust in something intangible, infallible and grossly misrepresented by the church.

I'm assuming you've studied religion throughout history enough to know that the whole concept was created, at first for political purposes, and then as a form of control. Politics and religion are so closely tied together there's really no discerning the two.

The mormon zealots on the west coast of the United States are directly responsible for the vote banning gay marriage. They banded together because of their moronic religious beliefs, and then took it upon themselves to decide whether or not two people of the same sex could be married. Who in the fuck are they to decide what anyone can and can't do? In fact, when did anyone on this blue marble in an ocean of cosmic chaos decide that it was their duty to determine what was right and wrong for mankind? I'll give you a hint. It started with the church. Although various leaders throughout our early history were telling people what to do, when to do it and not letting them ask why, it was the church that started the doctrine of Thou Shall and Thou Shall Not.

Here's a little tidbit for ya. I'll do whatever the hell I want, whenever the hell I want, with whomever I deem necessary at any given moment. I choose freewill, not blind devotion.

Also, I didn't appreciate you calling me an atheist because I'm not one. I have my own set of beliefs and codes of conduct which I live by, not those so determined by a definition in a dictionary. The nickname hailsatan comes from my complete contempt for the church, not because I worship a devil or demon created by your church. Nothing strikes more fear into the heart of a christian than almighty Satan

Again, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. May the blood of the innocents continue to flow through the isles and upon the altar of your institution and god.

Written by John Barleycorn on 17.12.2008 at 21:03

Why not just call these belief systems simply "worldviews"? No need to add "religion" here.

An interesting point. This is actually something I have been discussing for a long time, what exactly is the definition of "religion" and "worldview" and how do they relate to each other. I think you really nailed it with your conclusions there and it is a topic which I feel needs to be explored much more before people jump to conclusions and exclaim that "religion causes war" and so forth. It really seems to me that many people at this site, and elsewhere, confuse the concepts of religion, world view, belief and faith.

Written by ponderer on 18.12.2008 at 15:52

That's it? You quote one tiny portion of that diatribe related to something that's a cross between Quest for Fire meets a speech from Lenin and that's your justification for religion? Come on man. You can do better than that.

Oh I know I can do a lot better, but I was pressed for time and also wanted to get this discussion going again. I apologize for not submitting a term paper on the concept of religion. It also seems that part of my original post about the meaning of religion was not posted, for some reason, in which I went into a bit more about tradition and customs being part of those ideals.

Written by ponderer on 18.12.2008 at 15:52

Where is your "god"? Not to steal Warrel Dane's thunder but, does anything change when you pray? What about people who are innocently slaughtered by serial killers or have their bodies blown to pieces by bombs or die violently in plane crashes? They were probably praying. Who saved them? Your god? Lemme guess, they went onto a better place, right? Prove it. Don't tell me your "faith" says they were saved because the concept of faith is based on one's blind trust in something intangible, infallible and grossly misrepresented by the church.

What does that have to do with this thread? I can't really see the relevance, but to answer in, God is all around me, and within me, and yes, many things change when I pray. If you are going to approach this topic with both fists in there air and make rather angry assertions towards me, I have no real desire to even answer your questions. The big question of "Where is God when it hurts?" is by no means something I could, or would want to answer over text in an Internet Forum on a Heavy Metal Website. That is a question I face on a daily basis, and I tell everyone who is honestly seeking an answer that there is one, but it is not something you will derive at overnight.

Written by ponderer on 18.12.2008 at 15:52

I'm assuming you've studied religion throughout history enough to know that the whole concept was created, at first for political purposes, and then as a form of control. Politics and religion are so closely tied together there's really no discerning the two.The mormon zealots on the west coast of the United States are directly responsible for the vote banning gay marriage. They banded together because of their moronic religious beliefs, and then took it upon themselves to decide whether or not two people of the same sex could be married. Who in the fuck are they to decide what anyone can and can't do? In fact, when did anyone on this blue marble in an ocean of cosmic chaos decide that it was their duty to determine what was right and wrong for mankind? I'll give you a hint. It started with the church. Although various leaders throughout our early history were telling people what to do, when to do it and not letting them ask why, it was the church that started the doctrine of Thou Shall and Thou Shall Not.

Which is why I am very much against religion. Many of the points you bring up are topics I preach out against within the Church.

Written by ponderer on 18.12.2008 at 15:52

Here's a little tidbit for ya. I'll do whatever the hell I want, whenever the hell I want, with whomever I deem necessary at any given moment. I choose freewill, not blind devotion.

And you are saying this as if I care? God gave us all free will and you can use yours however you wish to. I am not here to stop you or tell you differently.

Written by ponderer on 18.12.2008 at 15:52

Also, I didn't appreciate you calling me an atheist because I'm not one.

I can't recall ever calling you an atheist. Would you please be so kind as to point out where I said that? I honestly can not find that quote.

Written by ponderer on 18.12.2008 at 15:52

Prove it. Don't tell me your "faith" says they were saved because the concept of faith is based on one's blind trust in something intangible, infallible and grossly misrepresented by the church.

You call faith "blind" trust in something intangible, infallible, and grossly misinterpreted but something as common as the concept of love is just the same. It seems largely ironic to me that someone would have such a faith in things that one can only see all the while dismissing that which he or she cannot. To me, that is blind!

Written by ponderer on 18.12.2008 at 15:52

Again, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. May the blood of the innocents continue to flow through the isles and upon the altar of your institution and god.

I hope you have a good holiday too and remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Without taking sides my friends, it seems that men who do not value life, whether they be religious or atheist do bad things and create war.
Yes the crusades happened, yes the witch trials happened, so have wars with cultural differences. Men who want what another has I contend is what causes war. not ideals. Ultimately man has the choice to conform tom society or violate it through war. Violent Ideals can come in the form of religion, lust, theft, or plain evil. Men who are evil can be of faith or just plain mad.

Written by Anthem on 19.12.2008 at 06:15

Without taking sides my friends, it seems that men who do not value life, whether they be religious or atheist do bad things and create war.
Yes the crusades happened, yes the witch trials happened, so have wars with cultural differences. Men who want what another has I contend is what causes war. not ideals. Ultimately man has the choice to conform tom society or violate it through war. Violent Ideals can come in the form of religion, lust, theft, or plain evil. Men who are evil can be of faith or just plain mad.

Amen to that!

You don't have time to reply? You were so adamant about your beliefs but now it comes down to time constraints? Okay. Allow me to reply to your swiss cheese theory of religion using a current example. The war in Iraq. Oil? Sure. That's the political excuse. It just so happens the invaders (my countrymen) are probably 75 - 85% catholic / christians who would love nothing more than to take out a few muslims. The underlying motive for the entire thing is to make a christian presence felt in a foreign land dominated by radicals. Politics and religion, once again hand in hand.

Back to your cheese. Faith is like love? How's that exactly? We all know what the definition of love is and some of us have feelings and emotions which are defined as love. Faith is love? I think faith is faith. If it were love it would be called hum lets see... LOVE? Find a new way to describe "faith" without using other feelings and emotions which are already clearly defined.

I'll apologize to Dane directly for being accusatory which wasn't my intention because you are clearly confused about what religion means to you. You are only 24. At 24 I started to discover the meaning of life and that our role and purpose is but a grain of sand in an infinite ocean of chaos. I think in a few more years you'll mature enough mentally to be able to throw off the chains of oppression (religion), and form your own solid opinions based on facts, and not what you were taught.

One example I like to use to enlighten the blinded religious zealots in regards to the "bible" is the telephone game. I've used this in my classes over and over to prove a point to my students, and they all leave thinking twice. Put a group of 5 - 10 people in a circle. Say something privately to one of the people and have them pass it on privately to the next. Lets say for example you said, "I like to eat swiss cheese and drink beer." The result of passing this sentence on around the room privately from student to student or person to person is interesting because it is NEVER the same sentence you started with. By the time you finish with 5 students, the sentence may read, "I like to beat meat and think queer." Let it pass on further and you may have a completely new sentence. This exercise takes about what, 5 - 10 minutes at the most.

Now lets add a few thousand years to the story, several different languages and political motivation. Everyone knows the story of the soldier who had his ear sliced off and supposably jesus healed the man? That's directly from the bible. If we rewind back to what actually happened from the first source who saw this event, I'm guessing it went something like this:

A guy had his ear badly cut and jesus healed him with some kind of balm or medicine. The story gets retold a few times over the next couple of days, weeks, months, years. Eventually someone writes down the account which has now been distorted through time, emotion, politics and religion. It's gone from a simple situation to a fucking miracle because the church needs something to show the people. Great story, too bad it's been completely misconstrued over the past few thousand years. I cut myself, I heal myself. I guess I'm the messiah. I see doctors healing people all the time so I guess they are messiahs too.

How about those dad gummit plagues? Science has already proved every single one was a natural event. We don't even have to use the telephone game theory, but it's definitely part of the picture. The "bible" is full of good stories and interesting interpretations, but once you get down to the science of the whole thing, it's just another book. I have lots of books and they aren't edited nearly as much as the "bible" is. The truth is that the "bible" gets edited more than any other piece of literature because the church knows its full of shit. It molds the hypocrisy put forth by religion doctrine into what serves their purpose best.

Abortion is illegal because thou shalt not kill? What a great way to overpopulate the fucking planet and make people poorer and more miserable by the day. The church is so fucking full of itself at this point I don't even think they believe half of what they spew. It's become so routine and profitable, why quit

I have nothing against people with religious values and morals. People are weak and need to believe in something. It's one of our many defects as human beings, this innate inability to think for ourselves and reach self-enlightenment. As long as you aren't pushing your ideals and values on me, we're all good.

Written by ponderer on 19.12.2008 at 21:49

Faith is like love? How's that exactly? We all know what the definition of love is and some of us have feelings and emotions which are defined as love. Faith is love? I think faith is faith. If it were love it would be called hum lets see... LOVE? Find a new way to describe "faith" without using other feelings and emotions which are already clearly defined.

I said it was comparable to love. You could look at it this way: one man who has no faith in God declares God does not exist because he has not experienced God, or found God, or because he doesn't "know" God. The next man has faith in God and declares God exists because of this. I say, look at the concept of love. Just because one man doesn't experience love, or find love, or "know" love, does love then not exist even though another man may experience, find, and know it? I think not. I'm not speaking of the Judeo-Christian God, but the primal "idea" of God all humans go through at some point in their life.

Written by ponderer on 19.12.2008 at 21:49

At 24 I started to discover the meaning of life and that our role and purpose is but a grain of sand in an infinite ocean of chaos.

I really like this, most likely because it's of high, to me, Lovecratian value. So then I ask, if you believe in this "infinite ocean of chaos" how can you be so sure something supernatural does not exist? I believe you were asserting this on your comment on faith.

Written by ponderer on 19.12.2008 at 21:49

...

And by the way, I agree wholeheartedly on your view of miracles and the like, and most things being grossly misinterpreted or changed over the years. People needed the language of "supernatural action" to explain the experience they had in Jesus, which was probably so amazing (from a completely mental and spiritual standpoint) that mere human language was largely inadequate. John Shelby Spong's Jesus for the Non-Religious spills this out nicely, I'd highly recommend it.

However, I believe this is all largely off-topic and would fit better in the Christianity thread, so I say again: guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Written by ponderer on 19.12.2008 at 21:49

You are only 24. At 24 I started to discover the meaning of life and that our role and purpose is but a grain of sand in an infinite ocean of chaos. I think in a few more years you'll mature enough mentally to be able to throw off the chains of oppression (religion), and form your own solid opinions based on facts, and not what you were taught.

I am sorry you feel that way about me. What can I do to help you understand where I am coming from and what my view is better since it seems you have a rather negative view of me. Please let me know, thanks!

Written by akatana on 12.12.2008 at 21:26

Written by [user id=30512] on 12.12.2008 at 11:38

Written by akatana on 21.11.2008 at 11:13

what soviet union? Stalin? The stupidity of these claims amazes me every time. I don't think you are stupid because you know the truth but you are dishonest.
I will try to explain you the principle but I am sure you know it already.
When someone goes around killing people because they are of different faiths or because they don't want to convert to your religion, that is killing in the name of religion. When some catholic goes and kills a jew for let's say political reasons, it's not killing in the name of religion. Similarly, if an atheist kills millions of people because he is a tyrannical madman it's not killing in the name of atheism.

I find this very interesting ( I'm sorry for my late reaction Taka).
When a catholic kills because he is a catholic and thinks it is neccesary for his believe it is a religious act, but when a communist or a nazi kills someone because he thinks it is neccesary for his ideology it is not an atheistic act. I think that the second world war was an atheistic war, so was the war in Vietnam, North Korea, Irak and many other wars. All the modern wars fought by first world countries are atheistic wars. A war has an ideology. Now the ideology is to bring democracy to people who don't want democracy. In earlier wars they wanted to bring equality (communism) or a united Europe (Nazis). The ideology is the atheistic (liberal/democratic) ideal. But it is not the ideal of anyone. Religion causes war, atheism is religion too.

no, you misunderstood. If a nazi or communist kills someone because he did not renounce his faith then it is very much an atheistic act. But just because some war is not about religion does not automatically make it an atheistic war. There is more than one dimension in the reasons for war, not everything can be separated into religious act or atheistic act. Conquest, revenge, pride, economic goods, slavery, power, political ideology , etc. all these have been reasons for war that are not connected to either religion or atheism.

And it's false to say that liberal/democratic ideals are intrinsically linked to atheism. Tell me, what is liberalism and democracy to you? With all due respect, are you suggesting that you would rather live in a society where homosexuals, adulterers and basically everybody who is not a fanatic conservative jesus lover are killed?

No disrespect meant but it's the first time that I hear anyone say that democracy and liberalism are atheistic principles. I cannot get my head around how that is possible.

You are the one who misunderstands, Taka. If I kill someone because my preacher says so it is a religious act. When a Nazi kills someone because Hitler says so it is an atheistic act. Religion is something else than faith.

Not democracy is a atheistic principle, but the idea that democracy (which isn't what the name says)would even be an inch better than dictatorship is. Not liberalism is a atheistic principle, but the idea that liberalism (which isn't either what the name says) is better than any other ideology is atheism.

Everything of course that puts God on any other place than on the first place is atheism and religion. Both I indeed hate. But it is impossible to prove whether someone puts God on the first place or not. It can only be believed (or not). So, you understand that the society I have in mind is even more liberal than the standards of a liberal society, as in my ideals everybody is truly free, for the people. But in the end, you know, we are not free for God. We have to choose. No choice means the wrong choice.
Choosing for liberalism, atheism, science, religion, spirituality, or even for the church is a wrong choice. Now is the time. You will have to decide, that is the point now.

Written by [user id=30512] on 25.12.2008 at 19:14


You are the one who misunderstands, Taka. If I kill someone because my preacher says so it is a religious act. When a Nazi kills someone because Hitler says so it is an atheistic act. Religion is something else than faith.

What makes Hitler and atheist? He was a devout Christian.

Written by ponderer on 19.12.2008 at 21:49

As long as you aren't pushing your ideals and values on me, we're all good.

No, I don't think religion has anything to do with wars.
Why?
Because wars are caused solely because one individual (or group, or organization) is "invading" the freedom of another. What do I mean by "invading"? I mean restricting, denying one's beliefs, resources, or any other action that makes one side feel threatened.
It doesn't even need to be difference of ideals. Two christians twins, of white skin, who have studied on the same school and have passed through the same experiences in life may end up fighting for a woman ( I know, ths is a horrible example, but it's just to show that even between people who have almost no differences there is war ).

So, why is religion at the heart of so many historical conflicts?
Because humans are social animals. They need to join up with other people, especially if they share the same beliefs. So, it's natural that there will be groups spread around the world united because of religion. But when this group meets another one, and threatens to impose its belief, conquer the territory, or use its water supply, and the latter feels they will become dominated, without space, and without water, they will reataliate. There you go, another war has just appeared.

Because of that, what's my conclusion? Yes, religion causes war, many wars had happened because one religious group did not accept the other, they didn't get along well, whatever. But it isn't the only reason, and to think that if everybody were atheist or christian we would have no wars is nonsense. The only way conflicts would cease to exist is by isolating every single human being from the others. This way they would stop threatening others' freedom (I'm using the term freedom as its' widest possible meaning).


And please, don't use Nazis and Jews as an example of war....First and foremost, because it wasn't a war, it was a massacre. Second, because WWII was not caused because Nazis didn't like Jews. It was caused because germans started to occupy the closest territories and grow stronger. But, if they didn't attack any of the allied nations, why did they entered the conflict? Because they were feeling sympathy for the invaded people? Not just that (that's the excuse for the public opinion), but the main reason is because they knew that, even though it had nothing to do with them, if Germany had grown stronger, they would eventually threaten even those in the other side of the Atlantic. Fear of losing freedom...

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 25.12.2008 at 19:21

Written by [user id=30512] on 25.12.2008 at 19:14

You are the one who misunderstands, Taka. If I kill someone because my preacher says so it is a religious act. When a Nazi kills someone because Hitler says so it is an atheistic act. Religion is something else than faith.

What makes Hitler and atheist? He was a devout Christian.

I guess that a Christian could claim that Hitler really wasn't a Christian because of what he had done.

I am not saying that Hitler was an atheist, though. I just think that calling him a devout Christian is a bit strange, because Christianity, for me at least, seems to entail certain norms which Hitler clearly didn't fulfill. Then again the definition of Christianity (and "religion" overall as have tried to stress in my earlier posts) is ambivalent. Also, since I am not a Christian my idea of Christianity may be quite untrue.

I still maintain that this topic is quite stupid because there are examples of religious people who have caused much violence in the world and there have been also those who wouldn't have hurt a fly (Gandhi, M.L. King, Desmond Tutu etc.

Written by John Barleycorn on 27.12.2008 at 19:43

I guess that a Christian could claim that Hitler really wasn't a Christian because of what he had done.

I am not saying that Hitler was an atheist, though. I just think that calling him a devout Christian is a bit strange, because Christianity, for me at least, seems to entail certain norms which Hitler clearly didn't fulfill. Then again the definition of Christianity (and "religion" overall as have tried to stress in my earlier posts) is ambivalent. Also, since I am not a Christian my idea of Christianity may be quite untrue.

I still maintain that this topic is quite stupid because there are examples of religious people who have caused much violence in the world and there have been also those who wouldn't have hurt a fly (Gandhi, M.L. King, Desmond Tutu etc.

Could someone please explain to me how Adolf Hitler was a Christian, let alone a devote one? A Christian is one who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and personal Savior and is Saved because of Christ's work and in turn lives their life by His Way. Anyone who claims that Adolf Hitler was a Christian either knows very little about the teachings of Christ and/or what Hitler did.

If you are confused on what some of these teachings are, here is what Matthew records for us:

Matthew 5
The Beatitudes
1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Salt and Light
13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
The Fulfillment of the Law
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Murder
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

25"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
Adultery
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Divorce
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Oaths
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.




Forgiving your enemies, turning the other cheek, taking care of those in need, spreading love and peace, and being in fellowship with God, these are the ideals that Jesus taught. Not mass murder, genocide and war.

Direcly... no, but who causes war are the peoples that lead and / or interpret them. Cuz' the religion are one compilation of some "rules" to you got (in theory) the "spiritual evolution" or something like that in a lil book.

no no, who causes war are the "leaders". On USA the reason was the black oil

Written by Dane Train on 27.12.2008 at 23:10

Forgiving your enemies, turning the other cheek, taking care of those in need, spreading love and peace, and being in fellowship with God, these are the ideals that Jesus taught. Not mass murder, genocide and war.

Crusades? The Inquisition?
Dreaming about an Utopia is something, reality something else.
How many Muslims do you want me show you who can sit in front of you, bombard you with absorbing words:
Brotherhood, Equality, Justice, Peace, Tolerance, Forgiveness and blah blah blah while others are blowing themselves for their delusive God's imaginary paradise?

Not necessarily the OPs of war, but more of anger between people same to all of us. Every religion, like it or not, is the best example for Hypocrisy. Always imagine that time when you were blasted on ideas that were idealy not fact that you believed, then you turned around and blasted on ideas that were idealy not fact that they believed in. It's a never-ending circle of frustration towards something we tell ourselves that we don't approve of. In the eyes of the beholder, they're always right, while in the opposing force's eyes, they're always wrong. This works all the way around to the start of the conflict, which is a person who is brave enough to say illogical reasoning at the wrong time. As everyone wants to know how we got here, how it all came to be, people forget that that's what they're looking for and not how to manipulate others that are trying to manipulate me. Final thoughts, though, when religion and commercialism collide to form advertisements, apparel and accessories, that's when the conflict becomes more vigorous and highly resulting in illogical arguments.

So no, doesn't necessarily start a war between people, but it sure as hell tries.

Written by AiwiAstwihad on 03.01.2009 at 20:30

Written by Dane Train on 27.12.2008 at 23:10

Forgiving your enemies, turning the other cheek, taking care of those in need, spreading love and peace, and being in fellowship with God, these are the ideals that Jesus taught. Not mass murder, genocide and war.

Crusades? The Inquisition?

What do the Crusades and the Inquisition have to do with what Jesus taught? I am by no means denying that such events happened, but to say that events like those are what Christ taught us is rediculous to claim.

Religion doesn't Cause War , humans cause wars but they use Religion as an excuse to kill whoever they wish

Written by akatana on 07.01.2009 at 23:15

But what do we see instead? The opposite. Every religious person I ever talked to, including you thinks that his version of the story is true,

Very similar to the way your posts always come across with a smug arrogance that you seem to have the answers to everything?

Written by akatana on 07.01.2009 at 23:15
But what do we see instead? The opposite. Every religious person I ever talked to, including you thinks that his version of the story is true, that he has the true meaning of gods words, if there was a god, there would a consensus on meaning and he would not need apologetics like you to tell others the true meaning of the word.

This I always find amazing. So much of the bible is so imprecise, so easy to interpret (and has been interpreted) in a virtually endless variety of ways. The amount of Christianities that people have developed based on this text is staggering, it would be impossible to discover and consider every angle that has been thought up by believers; yet they all think they are right with a strong conviction. How can one be so confident in their single interpretation of this massive and varied text, so confident that they will build their lives around it and imagine that their eternal salvation depends on it? How can the "word of god" be so difficult and incoherent? Yet so many act as if their personal interpretation of a given portion is so obvious...

Written by akatana on 07.01.2009 at 23:15
Such a book would certainly not condone animal cruelty, incest, slavery, abuse, child molestation, pillage, murder, and prejudice. But it does, and as much as you would want the teachings of jesus to be exempt of such things, they are there and moreover inextricably linked to the old testament, which is by far the most vile book I have read surpassing even Sade's "The 120 Days of Sodom".

That I find hard to believe, for all the horrors in the bible it tends to be pretty distant and poetic, "vile" is subjective but I would probably say vivid descriptions of pedophilia and ingestion of feces allows de Sade to beat out the bible in this case. Interesting comparison though. Also try The Turner Diaries, I wonder how you'd measure that against the bible.

Written by akatana on 07.01.2009 at 23:15
So, in a much needed conclusion, you don't know what jesus taught...

Even look at the beatitudes posted above; they are given as if they are the clear teachings of Jesus. But in the same bible we have another gospel author who records them in a notably different way. Even the "obvious' teachings of Jesus are hard to take for granted.

Written by Dane Train on 07.01.2009 at 23:39

Written by akatana on 07.01.2009 at 23:15

But what do we see instead? The opposite. Every religious person I ever talked to, including you thinks that his version of the story is true,

Very similar to the way your posts always come across with a smug arrogance that you seem to have the answers to everything?

Perhaps, but he's just giving his ideas, not proclaiming that he's found the key to eternal life or something.

Written by totaliteraliter on 08.01.2009 at 02:00

Written by Dane Train on 07.01.2009 at 23:39

Written by akatana on 07.01.2009 at 23:15

But what do we see instead? The opposite. Every religious person I ever talked to, including you thinks that his version of the story is true,

Very similar to the way your posts always come across with a smug arrogance that you seem to have the answers to everything?

Perhaps, but he's just giving his ideas, not proclaiming that he's found the key to eternal life or something.

Touché my good man! What a witty reply. But really Dane, it isn't of my (I hope not others) purpose to fight against you, but you must ask how the atrocities of the Old Testament and even the belief of Hell by Jesus in the New Testament weigh in the influence of sedition caused by humans against the heart of our own morality. In my opinion, in theory man's moral law far exceeds that of God's proposed by the Bible.

So how can you, a Christian who believes that man is weak and ignorant and in need of salvation from sin, not suppose that maybe we are influenced by the injustices in the Bible in our actions? I realize it takes man's hand to pull the trigger, but it doesn't help when something (not just God in the Bible mind you) which he devotes his life to spells out such acts as evil as truthful and the "inerrant" morality of God?

I usually don't do this, but I feel compelled by the Holy Spirit to say that if God exists "He" surely isn't the God of the Bible (at least not the evil "half") and if he is, then fuck him!

Written by Clintagräm on 08.01.2009 at 02:55

...but you must ask how the atrocities of the Old Testament and even the belief of Hell by Jesus in the New Testament weigh in the influence of sedition caused by humans against the heart of our own morality. In my opinion, in theory man's moral law far exceeds that of God's proposed by the Bible...

Ah, now you're diving into the realms of doctrine and philosophy, which as much as I would love to discuss them, are not appropriate for this thread.

Written by akatana on 08.01.2009 at 08:59

this is exactly what I was getting at, I cannot be sure that there is no god but if there was one, he is certainly not the god of the bible or any other religious book, as they all contain the flaws and injustice of some form.

Yet at the same time, don't forget most, if not all religions, contain truth. It's up to us to use it.

Written by akatana on 08.01.2009 at 08:59

this is exactly what I was getting at, I cannot be sure that there is no god but if there was one, he is certainly not the god of the bible or any other religious book, as they all contain the flaws and injustice of some form.

Where does your definition of justice come from? What is it being based upon?

Written by akatana on 26.12.2008 at 18:09

Written by [user id=30512] on 25.12.2008 at 19:14

You are the one who misunderstands, Taka. If I kill someone because my preacher says so it is a religious act. When a Nazi kills someone because Hitler says so it is an atheistic act. Religion is something else than faith.

If for you the world is divided into black and white, and if everything that does not consider god as supreme authority is atheism then you are one step away from blowing yourself up like your fundamentalist brethren. It is not meant as an insult but anyone with your logic and presumptions is bound to find out sooner or later that he must kill everyone who does not share his extreme belief that anything that is not done for god is wrong.
I just hope I am not the first on your kill the infidel list

Written by [user id=30512] on 25.12.2008 at 19:14

Not democracy is a atheistic principle, but the idea that democracy (which isn't what the name says)would even be an inch better than dictatorship is. Not liberalism is a atheistic principle, but the idea that liberalism (which isn't either what the name says) is better than any other ideology is atheism.

This makes no sense at all. You have to understand that the very fact that you have other standards as I do makes liberalism a better option than dictatorship because you are free to live and express your point of view. But maybe I misunderstand your point

Written by [user id=30512] on 25.12.2008 at 19:14

Everything of course that puts God on any other place than on the first place is atheism and religion. Both I indeed hate. But it is impossible to prove whether someone puts God on the first place or not. It can only be believed (or not). So, you understand that the society I have in mind is even more liberal than the standards of a liberal society, as in my ideals everybody is truly free, for the people. But in the end, you know, we are not free for God. We have to choose. No choice means the wrong choice.

What do you mean free? Free to believe in what you believe? No thanks. Your idea of society is scary because a society that puts god in first place is a monstrous mix of church dictatorship, genocide and hatred of others.

And I don;t quite understand your point. If everything that does not put god in the first place is atheism than eating, going to sleep, going to the toilet or any human activity except praying is atheistic. I have to laugh at the image of someone who puts god in the first place in everything he does.

Written by [user id=30512] on 25.12.2008 at 19:14

Choosing for liberalism, atheism, science, religion, spirituality, or even for the church is a wrong choice. Now is the time. You will have to decide, that is the point now.

What must I decide? What you write makes no sense, please explain better.

Please, Taka. I just ask you to read what I say. You cannot just keep on denying all the things I say and twist them until it fits in your own little anti-christian street. If you would have read my post you would know that I was clearly against anything that makes any human accountable for any other human. Maybe you understand better if I say it in German: Sie sind nicht rechenschaftspflichtig für menschen, aber sie sind rechenschaftspflichtig für Gott. (You are not accountable for any human, but you are accountable for God). If you would only read, as a scientist would do, you would know what I wrote. But as you didn't do so, I'll have to explain once more. When someone is not accountable to other humans there is no need to fear other humans. You can be free when humans cannot judge you. And they can't. I can't tell you what you must believe. I can tell you the truth, and I do so. Not liberalism is the truth, though I personaly prefer it above dictatorship.

Putting God in the first place has nothing to do with any church whatsoever. It has nothing to do with hatred, or with genocide. It has only to do with love. As Jesus said: When you eat and drink, do this in My remembrance. When you walk, walk with God. When you pray, listen to the things God has to say to you. You are laughing at it, but this makes you a fool, not me. You can no longer hide behind liberalism or evolution, because both proof only God.

I don't want to put to much on you, but please be honest and just see if there is a God, and do it with an open mind, than you will find Him. That's all. It is not about religion, don't forget that.

Just one thing to say.

Religion dont make Wars, but they are a really, really good excuse to do it.

I hate religions for that, it was often use for mad purposes. The worst is peoples that follow faithfully with no way to avoid it.

Written by akatana on 11.01.2009 at 17:37

Written by [user id=30512] on 11.01.2009 at 15:55

Please, Taka. I just ask you to read what I say. You cannot just keep on denying all the things I say and twist them until it fits in your own little anti-christian street. If you would have read my post you would know that I was clearly against anything that makes any human accountable for any other human. Maybe you understand better if I say it in German: Sie sind nicht rechenschaftspflichtig für menschen, aber sie sind rechenschaftspflichtig für Gott. (You are not accountable for any human, but you are accountable for God). If you would only read, as a scientist would do, you would know what I wrote. But as you didn't do so, I'll have to explain once more. When someone is not accountable to other humans there is no need to fear other humans. You can be free when humans cannot judge you. And they can't. I can't tell you what you must believe. I can tell you the truth, and I do so. Not liberalism is the truth, though I personaly prefer it above dictatorship.

I read what you wrote, and as a scientists I am telling you the logical conclusion. If you are not accountable to humans and only to god, then you have to do what god wants independent of consequences for other humans and this is exactly the point that led many religious people to commit atrocities. If your interpretation of the bible prevents you to harm other people that's good, but other people have other interpretations and their lack of accountability to other humans makes them dangerous.

Written by [user id=30512] on 11.01.2009 at 15:55

Putting God in the first place has nothing to do with any church whatsoever. It has nothing to do with hatred, or with genocide. It has only to do with love. As Jesus said: When you eat and drink, do this in My remembrance. When you walk, walk with God. When you pray, listen to the things God has to say to you. You are laughing at it, but this makes you a fool, not me. You can no longer hide behind liberalism or evolution, because both proof only God.

How can it be only associated with love when in fact christians like you promote intolerance against homosexuals and other religions exactly because you think you are only accountable to god and the only law you follow is the law of god. The problem is that the law of god has different and mostly harmful interpretations for people, and that is what I was getting at. I can believe that you are not a danger to others but if you look at fundamentalist christians like yourself that have bombed abortion clinics and killed people, at fundamentalist muslims who blow themselves up because they think they are only accountable to god you will see my point. It has nothing to do with the church, or god for that matter, it has only to do with how people are, and people believe many things that are not logical.

Written by [user id=30512] on 11.01.2009 at 15:55

I don't want to put to much on you, but please be honest and just see if there is a God, and do it with an open mind, than you will find Him. That's all. It is not about religion, don't forget that.

Look, being open about something has nothing to do with finding god. I know that you are far too indoctrinated with this god stuff, but the only reason that you believe as you do is because other people put these ideas in your head. If you would have grown up in the middle east you would have probably been a fundamentalist muslim. Just accept that there are people who are inclined to not use their reason but their feelings. The question remains what is better. But that is another discussion.

Christians do not promote intolerance against homosexuals, nor to other religions. But homosexuality is a sin. Besides the bible says so it is also the logical result of humans being made as man and woman. We're all sinners, so, that is not the discussion. With any religion that rejects God it is the same. It is the root of all sin. But any interpretation that tells us that we should kill, harm or excommunicate them is a interpretation that has left half of the bible out of the interpreatation. That's too bad. It really is a problem, I cannot understand the bible wholly. Neither can anyone else, as far as I know. You are studying philosophy. Maybe you share the opinion that philosophy for Plato was searching to know the gods (God). If you do so, you could easily follow in the trail of Plato, because knowing the gods means knowing the truth.

I assume that the poster of this topic meant to say "persecution" and not "prosecution." Lol.

So the whole "All religion is caused by war" thing is quickly becomming the easiest way for me to determine the intelligence level of a person.

People, do we realize that every people/nation/country/whatever in this world has their own beliefs, and that any of those beliefs can be considered as "religion?"

Saying that "all wars are caused by religion" is nearly the equivalent of saying "all wars are caused by differences in opinions and ideas."
WELL I'LL BE DAMNED!!! Who would have thought that?

The problem is that uninformed people take the obvious truth that wars are caused by this, and transform it into meaning "CHRISTIANITY causes all wars. God is to be blamed. If he is some loving God than why does he order his people to kill?"
This is a retarded and misguided judgement.

1) You cannot throw all Christian religions into one category. Do any of you actually have a concept as to how many different "Christian" religions there are, and as to just how little they have in common? On the outside, and to an uneducated prick who thinks he understands Christianity because he's visited a few websites, they may all seem the same... but this is just flat out ignorance.

2) What a "Christian" does in the name of God does not make it Gods will nor desire

3) 99.9% of "religion" nowadays is false religion. You cannot paint all Christians with the same stroke/brush. Just because one group are a bunch of hypocritical idiots, doesn't make the rest all the same, nor does it mean that "all Christian churches must be fakes."

Seriously, this "religion causes war" thing is quickly becomming the oldest argument of all time, and the easiest statement to say in order for an idiot to try and make himself/herself look intelligent and educated.
What a waste of a discussion.