You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There is a sweary in it.
Indeed OP. As a Catholic I am reasonably familair with the Bible.
But I don't see passages from the Old Testament being used to justify flying civilian airliners full of passengers into office blocks, suicide bombing the tube or the bus or a market, executing thousands of prisoners or those who believe in a slightly different version of the religion, taking sex slaves, shooting school children and university students, cartoonists or hundreds of people having dinner or attending a music concert.
But I don't see passages from the Old Testament being used to justify flying civilian airliners full of passengers into office blocks, suicide bombing the tube or the bus or a market, executing thousands of prisoners or those who believe in a slightly different version of the religion, taking sex slaves, shooting school children and university students, cartoonists or hundreds of people having dinner or attending a music concert.
Remind me what happened during the Crusades. Maybe the Crusaders (etc) were just a couple of hundred years ahead of ISIS (etc)?
jambalayaIndeed OP. As a Catholic I am reasonably familair with the Bible.
But I don't see passages from the Old Testament being used to justify flying civilian airliners full of passengers into office blocks, suicide bombing the tube or the bus or a market, executing thousands of prisoners or those who believe in a slightly different version of the religion, taking sex slaves, shooting school children and university students, cartoonists or hundreds of people having dinner or attending a music concert.
It's not, but it easily could be given the right set of circumstances. You don't have to look very far (ie Northern Ireland) and there are places where the Bible has been used to justify killings. In 2005 a friend of mine walked out of a gospel hall because, to his amazement a pastor was quoting the bible to justify the killing of a catholic by the UVF. In the pastors words, killing a catholic was no different to killing a cat or a dog as hey hadn't been baptised in the one true faith and therefore they were damned anyway.
Extremists in all walks of life, not just religion. You just got to look at the cx fraternity!!!
Jamby Blathered on with...But I don't see passages from the Old Testament being used...and carried on pointlessly
familiarise yourself with Islam...the religion, and Islamist.. a political movement, and an Islamist Terrorist... a person who uses violent means to get the political changes.
Whilst their belief system is derived from Islam, they have pretty much nothing to do with it, in the same way that the Westboro' Church, Anders Brevik and the KKK are "Christian" in their beliefs and outlook, and use passages of the Bible to justify their actions.
Did you even watch the video?
and use passages of the Bible to justify their actions.
Or, arguably, misuse.
Whilst their belief system is derived from Islam, they have pretty much nothing to do with it, in the same way that the Westboro' Church, Anders Brevik and the KKK are "Christian"
It's just silly to say that fundamentalist Muslims or Christians aren't Muslim or Christian and have nothing to do with Islam or Christianity when[i] they're all about [/i]those religions.
They said pretty much but you get the point, Many will take a belief and use it to justify certain acts and extremists always use the book - was there not another attack on an abortion clinic in the US by another bible basher. When they do this they are both of the faith and not of the faith. Of course we dont talk about Christian terrorists nor the lords Resistance Army as Christians just dont do that,
Did you even watch the video?
I dont think he has got the revelatory bit at the end yet 😉
This has to be his greatest work of satire/trolling to date
Applauds
But I don't see passages from the Old Testament being used
What specifically is your point there Jam?
By the way STW - this is why RE is important on the curriculum.
But I don't see passages from the Old Testament being used to justify flying civilian airliners full of passengers into office blocks, suicide bombing the tube or the bus or a market, executing thousands of prisoners or those who believe in a slightly different version of the religion, taking sex slaves, shooting school children and university students, cartoonists or hundreds of people having dinner or attending a music concert.
The pro-life bunch in the US hold pretty hard line beliefs they fully believe are Christian but they are happy to bomb abortion clinics etc...
Pretty sure the 'Lords' Resistance Army in Uganda will have been quoting from the bible and elsewhere in Africa so called Christian militias have committed horrendous atrocities in the name of the bible.
It's just silly to say that fundamentalist Muslims or Christians aren't Muslim or Christian and have nothing to do with Islam or Christianity when they're all about those religions.
So much this. They are applying their religious texts literally. They couldn't be any more Muslim/Christian/Buddhist/whatever.
[quote=molgrips opined]By the way STW - this is why RE is important on the curriculum.
here it is in one sentence
Listen ikds some religious folk will abuse the books to do bad things dont judge the entire religion or all those with faith as being just like them or that their beliefs justify this. Ignore those like ISIS, those like the Lords resistance Army or the extremist Jew who went on a stab frenzy at Israel gay pride or the ones who firebombed a Palestinian family and killed an 18 nth old baby as it slept. They dont speak for their religion they are just very bad people.
@TFO
The social science suggests that the common factor is extremist tendencies, upon which the most convenient religious superstructure is placed. Not the other way around.
There's some good stuff coming out of the LSE about this.
So much this. They are applying their religious texts literally. They couldn't be any more Muslim/Christian/Buddhist/whatever.
Yeah, this. The only way you can be religious and a decent human being is by being very bad at the religious bit.
Couldn't carefully selecting and reporting the activities of religious people to fit an agenda or opinion be considered a form of extremism?
After all: "advocacy of extreme measures or views" is one definition of extremism, and these extreme views can only really be put forward if one carefully selects the information and discards what doesn't fit. In the same way that 'religious extremists" would seem to.
As above, in fact: the video the OP has put forward is just the opinion of someone- does it reflect the full spectrum of believers?
No, of course not.
So, putting up videos like the above, with no balance, is really another extremist act, in many ways the same as any other kind of extremist view.
Huff Post
I read the bible (not by choice)and it's just a book about women,blokes and gods being total dic*s
I am happy i have found a new god to beleave in. She has a Xbox and a unlimited data plan
Remind me what happened during the Crusades. Maybe the Crusaders (etc) were just a couple of hundred years ahead of ISIS (etc)?
Nope.
I don't mind a good religious discussion at all, but I do mind historical caricatures and inaccuracies. Without a lesson in Crusade history, suffice it to say that - as in all war - we can be sure there were mixed motives on the part of the many participants; but the Crusades were by and large a series of wars comprised of two distinct sides with clear objectives.
They were NOT comprised of Christians overwhelming the Holy Land and indiscriminately slaughtering Muslim men, women, and children in the most horrific possible ways, and then turning even on their own to do likewise.
I think there is quite a strong argument that the Crusaders were the Isis of their age.
Luckily [u]mass[/u] Christian extremism is more rare these days.
I read the bible (not by choice)and it's just a book about women,blokes and gods being total dic*s
Stop! You're overwhelming us with your depth, your culture, and your awesomeness.
codybrennan - MemberCouldn't carefully selecting and reporting the activities of religious people to fit an agenda or opinion be considered a form of extremism?
After all: "advocacy of extreme measures or views" is one definition of extremism, and these extreme views can only really be put forward if one carefully selects the information and discards what doesn't fit. In the same way that 'religious extremists" would seem to.
As above, in fact: the video the OP has put forward is just the opinion of someone- does it reflect the full spectrum of believers?
No, of course not.
So, putting up videos like the above, with no balance, is really another extremist act, in many ways the same as any other kind of extremist view.
No, the above video (or the posting of it) is not extremism. The video is satirsing some peoples' knee jerk reaction to global events and shows how their perception is skewed by the media or their own lack of any knowledge.
I would have thought we could all agree that cutting off heads, or mutilating the genitals of little girls (or boys) or picketing the funerals of dead soldiers in the name of god is extremist regardless of which flavour of the Abrahamic sky fairy you prefer.
I think there is quite a strong argument that the Crusaders were the Isis of their age.
Made by whom? Serious medieval historians? Or primary school teachers who have just read the one book in the library before teaching it to their Year 5 class?
Didn't England purloin half the globe and people becuase the bible says they were far superior.
Don't get me started on the crimes of those Roman Catholics raping and stealing in the name of god. They should send the loot back or ditch it.
Don't forget Blair and Bush having a chat with god before the airstrikes
Must Google crusades...
Didn't England purloin half the globe and people becuase the bible says they were far superior.
Er no, don't think so..
I would have thought we could all agree that cutting off heads, or mutilating the genitals of little girls (or boys) or picketing the funerals of dead soldiers in the name of god is extremist regardless of which flavour of the Abrahamic sky fairy you prefer.
It is. But selecting only these things and ignoring anything [i]good[/i] is exactly what religious extremists do- careful, biased selection to fit an agenda.
codybrennanIt is. But selecting only these things and ignoring anything good is exactly what religious extremists do- careful, biased selection to fit an agenda.
Yes, I agree with you 100%. But these books do contain these verses and the religions haven't matured to edit them out or dismiss them (with the exception of the more progressive schools of thought within Judaism maybe). You can't call something the literal word of god then simply dismiss the parts you don't like.
From the perspective of the extremist, whether we talk about ISIS, Westborough Baptist, Crusaders, the Inquisition, Anabaptists or whatever they are on the side of god and people who don't follow their interpretation are damned, but from a moderate perspective they are an aberration.
Didn't England purloin half the globe and people becuase the bible says they were far superior.
Er no, don't think so..
What was the reason for it then?
Given the Op, can we all not just agree that religion is used a political tool to motivate idiots, and then move on to a discussion that is relevant.
top tip, It ain't about religious books. 😆
Didn't England purloin half the globe and people becuase the bible says they were far superior.
Sure. That's Imperialist doctrine in a nutshell. The economy; competition with continental neighbours; the rapid evolution of the nature of the nation-state: these had nothing to do with it. 🙄
Please re-read what you have written, and consider whether or not it could be even remotely true. A bunch of people, all of whom had both read, and come up with exactly the same understanding of a series of books (bound into one cover and called 'The Bible', which say exactly nothing about the British, or Europeans, or even white people being 'superior'), decided that this series of books established them as a superior people, and so invested everything they had in ships and arms and personal risk to... what? Rule other people? To what end? The Enlightenment was already well under way by the time England was undertaking its little adventure in colonialism. And as far as religious scepticism goes, England was well ahead of the game. As always with history, we can be sure that some people involved with a given project were religious. But what you suggest with your statement is utter nonsense.
If a person wants to ridicule religious history, fine; just do it with knowledge and understanding please.
Example, Islamic state, much is made of their religious intentions. But scratch beneath the surface, what are they actually doing? Working the oil wells and punting the oil into Turkey and reaping the profit..
The financial motive superceeds any religious motivations in most things.
What was the reason for it then?
Really?!?
Quote from my post, above:
The economy; competition with continental neighbours; the rapid evolution of the nature of the nation-state
But no. A bunch of post-enlightenment men, in the most sceptical society in the Western world, somehow managed to agree that these voluminous religious texts meant that they had to rule other people.
And I'm a world-class mountain biker.
bath in the fortunes of their conquests.and so invested everything they had in ships and arms and personal risk to... what? Rule other people? To what end?
Take away profit and most of the wars in the world would not have happened.
What was the role of christian missionaries?
They were NOT comprised of Christians overwhelming the Holy Land and indiscriminately slaughtering Muslim men, women, and children in the most horrific possible ways, and then turning even on their own to do likewise.
While that might not have been the only motive, I'm not sure you can completely dismiss it. The Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars was a pretty good example of Christians turning on their own, and the Sack of Constantinople was hardly a high point in Christian history either.
Take away profit and most of the wars in the world would not have happened.
That may well have significant basis in fact...
Look at the exploits of the Catholic Church in the conquest of the new world and the [url= http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/how-rich-vatican-so-wealthy-it-can-stumble-across-millions-euros-just-tucked-away-1478219 ]wealth of the Vatican to this day[/url]
(Why isn't all the gold and whatnot sold off to do good deeds for the poor and needy anyway?)
By the same token, 2 of the main hubs of extreme religion in the world at the moment, Saudi Arabia and Israel are doing very well for themselves...
The (sometimes) friendly face of conquest?wanmankylung - Member
What was the role of christian missionaries?
Main course?
What was the role of christian missionaries?
Depends when, where, and who you are talking about.
mrsfry said that 'England purloined half the globe and people because the Bible said they were superior', and I called bullshit.
If you want to start with the French missionaries to New France, then you are talking about people who, heavily influenced by 17th century pietism coupled with Thomas More's 'Utopia', wanted to build a gentler, peaceful, truly Christian society, devoid of the baggage of European conflicts, alongside the Natives they encountered. This involved 'Christianising from within' - that is, living among the Natives in such a way that they would be so impressed by their Christian guests, they would become Christians themselves. This is explored by the Canadian historian John Webster Grant, the American Michael Oleksa, and your truly. The project was somewhat derailed by the English and the French creating alliances with the Iroquois and the Huron tribes respectively, as the two nations competed with one another for territory in the New World.
The same thing happened in South America between the Spanish and the Portuguese. Even as someone who is less than enamoured with the Jesuits, I have to acknowledge that their work among the Brazilian tribes was sincere and peaceable - born of the desire to improve their lives and see them reach heaven. It was the Portuguese and Spanish crowns in competition with one another that saw this destroyed. I am less proficient with South American history, but I know enough to say that what is depicted in the film 'The Mission' (with Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons) is not at all atypical.
The African situation is even more complex, because there you had Germany, Belgium, France, Holland, and Britain. All were after riches, and most (though not all) carried missionaries aboard their ships. The normal course of events there was that the members of the missionary societies piggybacked on the trading excursions made by the various crowns.
Anyway, just a snapshot.
Belief in omipowerful supernatural entities who have only communicated with humans through obscure means which rely on personal testament, which is known to be a flawed way of ascertain truth and is inevitably distorted by cultural and environmental influences, is not rational. Adhering partially to the texts that emerged from the political wranglings about who is most closely able to guess at the will of these mythical beings, despite the obvious contradictions and huge amount of evidence to the contrary (The earth is older than 6000 years, evolution, etc etc) is not a sensible basis for making any decisions on, let alone justifying abuse and murder.
Look at the exploits of the Catholic Church in the conquest of the new world and the wealth of the Vatican to this day
What exploits would those be then? Those of the Spanish, Portuguese, and French crowns?
The Catholic Church gained its riches by various means (not all of them especially felicitous), but national imperialism had little to do with it.
Why isn't all the gold and whatnot sold off to do good deeds for the poor and needy anyway?
Because even if 'all the gold and whatnot' was sold off and raised a few billion pounds, those pounds would then be gone, the poor in one country or another would have some extra mosquito netting, and nothing more could be done.
That said, whether their efforts are always successful or not, and whether or not you agree with them and their motives, the Church remains pretty active worldwide in seeking to alleviate suffering in many guises.
Do you think that chaps in far off countries enjoyed being beaten,raped, starved tortured, put into camps and enlsaved to make england a better place.
Me thinks one needs to take a closer look at history beside the bits you were taught in school
Disclosure, I've not seen the video yet as I'm eating.
It's just silly to say that fundamentalist Muslims or Christians aren't Muslim or Christian and have nothing to do with Islam or Christianity when they're all about those religions.
As regular readers will know I'm a fairly vocal atheist, and I'm not convinced I agree with this.
The likes of Westboro do what they do "in the name of" Christianity, but really they're just a bunch of hate-filled bigots who have found a handy way of justifying their actions. Ie, without the Bible they'd probably have found another reason to behave the way they do. "God hates fags" (as a random example) is just a convenient excuse so that they don't have to say "we hate..."
The problem here isn't that their religion tells them what to do per sé, but rather that the Bible is so vague, self-contradictory, re-written and generally open to interpretation that pretty much any viewpoint (good or bad, right or wrong) can probably be held up to justify it if you dig deep enough. It's not a reason but an excuse.
Which, thinking about it, probably makes it a perfect analogy for IS or whatever they're called this week acting in the name of Islam.
What was the role of christian missionaries?
Spreading the good word about the Position?
CougarAs regular readers will know I'm a fairly vocal atheist, and I'm not convinced I agree with this.
The likes of Westboro do what they do "in the name of" Christianity, but really they're just a bunch of hate-filled bigots who have found a handy way of justifying their actions. Ie, without the Bible they'd probably have found another reason to behave the way they do. "God hates fags" (as a random example) is just a convenient excuse so that they don't have to say "we hate..."
The problem here isn't that their religion tells them what to do per sé, but rather that the Bible is so vague, self-contradictory, re-written and generally open to interpretation that pretty much any viewpoint (good or bad, right or wrong) can probably be held up to justify it if you dig deep enough. It's not a reason but an excuse.
Which, thinking about it, probably makes it a perfect analogy for IS or whatever they're called this week acting in the name of Islam.
I don't disagree with your views on Westboro Baptist Church Cougar but I think they are 100% Christian. In their own minds anyway. Who are we to say they are not. I think we can see them as freaks because they are outliers, but if we look back through history at any number of attrocities carried out in the name of religion we don't doubt the conviction or the religiousness of the group in question.
The Crusaders did carry out atrocities, not least when they massacred European Jews, but we don't think of them as not Christian.
I'm not convinced that we can hold up actions of the past as direct proof of the present either, but you may be right.
Like I said, I'm not sure either way. Just thinking out loud really.
I'm not sure either and I think to claim 100% would be foolish. I mean, consider that Wesboro have abjured from any normal Christian church. No Pope or Archbishop has authority over them. All the major religions are so splintered and fractious that any law or divinely appointed leader is instantly rendered moot if you renounce said leader.
ISIS might be abhorrent to many moderate middle class western muslims, but they'd probably be quite comfortable living in Saudi.
Because even if 'all the gold and whatnot' was sold off and raised a few billion pounds, those pounds would then be gone, the poor in one country or another would have some extra mosquito netting, and nothing more could be done.
Yep, far better to invest in drugs and arms:
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banco_Ambrosiano ]Banco Ambrosiano[/url] was an Italian bank that collapsed in 1982. At the centre of the bank's failure was its chairman, Roberto Calvi and his membership in the illegal Masonic Lodge Propaganda Due (aka P2). Vatican Bank was Banco Ambrosiano's main shareholder, and the death of Pope John Paul I in 1978 is rumored to be linked to the Ambrosiano scandal. Vatican Bank was also accused of funneling covert United States funds to Solidarity and the Contras through Banco Ambrosiano.
Did God's Banker [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Calvi ]Roberto Calvi[/url] learn the hard way?
On 10 June 1982, Calvi went missing from his Rome apartment, having fled the country on a false passport in the name of Gian Roberto Calvini. He shaved off his moustache and fled initially to Venice. From there, he apparently hired a private plane to London via Zurich. At 7:30 am on Friday, 18 June 1982, a postal clerk was crossing Blackfriars Bridge and noticed his body hanging from scaffolding beneath Blackfriars Bridge on the edge of the financial district of London. Calvi's clothing was stuffed with bricks, and he was carrying around $15,000 worth of cash in three different currencies
His death in London in June 1982 is a source of enduring controversy and was ruled a murder after two coroner's inquests and an independent investigation.
You know jivehoneyjive, when you make everything into a conspiracy, or you refer to everything in conspiratorial terms you undermine any conspiracy that might have any substance to it. There's actually a conspiracy theory that "they" spread conspiracy theories so that there's such a sea of conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists, so much white noise, that it covers up the ACTUAL conspiracies. Just saying.
My bad... Wikipedia is pretty 'out there'
What are your thoughts on Roberto Calvi, Banco Ambrosiano, [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due ]Propaganda Due[/url] and the Vatican?
(we'll leave [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair ]Iran Contra[/url], [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9703479/Gods-banker-linked-to-Pablo-Escobar.html ]Pablo Escobar[/url] and [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mena_Intermountain_Municipal_Airport#CIA_drug_trafficking ]Mena Airport[/url] out of it for now to avoid complicating matters)
You're right though, we have to be aware of disinfomation, but this is all solidly researched.
Do you think that chaps in far off countries enjoyed being beaten,raped, starved tortured, put into camps and enlsaved to make england a better place.Me thinks one needs to take a closer look at history beside the bits you were taught in school
Uh huh. 🙄
Apologies for the loaded question @Saxonrider - do you think the crusades were good or bad for Christian / Muslim relations?
And a slightly more serious question, do you think Muslim world would be further forward than it is today had it not been for the crusades and the mongols?
But I don't see passages from the Old Testament being used to justify...executing thousands of prisoners or those who believe in a slightly different version of the religion, taking sex slaves, shooting school children
Jesus, have you people never heard of the Bosnian genocide? Mass murder, sexual slavery, ethnic cleansing - all done against Muslims by Christian zealots who framed it in explicitly religious terms. They killed 8,000 Muslims in one event!
do you think the crusades were good or bad for Christian / Muslim relations?
Apologies for interupting, but it's worth bearing in mind that the Crusades and Knight's Templar are deeply linked to the basis of modern Freemasonry.
So not only do we have the holy land being of major importance to 3 of the world's most prominent religions, but also to the world's most prominent secret society.
Temple Mount is the place to be...
Apologies for the loaded question @Saxonrider - do you think the crusades were good or bad for Christian / Muslim relations?
Perfectly good question. I think any war is tragic, and don't think that fighting over the holy sites helped two civilisations get on any better. They did, however, bear a huge amount of intellectual fruit that both sides would do well to acknowledge. The oft-commented-on re-introduction of Aristotle into Western philosophical discourse is a case in point, but so is the development of mathematics and medicine. In other words, I think in terms of the Crusades that no little good was born of what could have been an unmitigated tragedy.
As for the Muslim world, a more serious look at its intellectual decline is warranted than I can afford to put forward here, but I am not convinced that the Crusades did much to diminish it. I think the Mongols probably had a more substantial effect, but I think there were likely factors not dissimilar to the sort we have seen in the last hundred years - for example, of political intrigue among the Caliphates - that served to undermine the Muslim world from within.
Jesus, have you people never heard of the Bosnian genocide? Mass murder, sexual slavery, ethnic cleansing - all done against Muslims by Christian zealots who framed it in explicitly religious terms. They killed 8,000 Muslims in one event!
That this appalling, wicked thing happened cannot be denied. Nor can its religious dimension. All I will say to qualify it, is that it was not based on anything Orthodox Serbs read in the Bible, but rather in the fact that Bosnian Muslims are seen by them as inheritors of the Turks, who undertook their own form of oppression centuries earlier.
To be clear: I am NOT positing this as an excuse; it is just a more thorough cause than saying the Bosnian conflict was a result of the way Christian zealots read the Bible.
No, that's not true. It wasn't a war of difference that happened to be determined by religion, it was explicitly a religious war in which the Orthodox and Catholic Churches incited, facilitated and justified genocide.
Also - describing life under the ottomans as "oppression" is not a value free statement either
people wrote these Bronze age 'us vs them' manuals.
people are capable of acts of good, and acts of staggering violence
why shouldn't the interpretations of the world and society writtenby people reflect this?
They were NOT comprised of Christians overwhelming the Holy Land and indiscriminately slaughtering Muslim men, women, and children in the most horrific possible ways, and then turning even on their own to do likewise.
Balls!
Although conquerors committing atrocities against the inhabitants of cities taken by storm after a siege was the norm in Medieval warfare, the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem likely exceeded even these standards
n this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)#Massacre
Its all the same shit, religion is a great way to justify doing and manipulate people to do horrific things, once you've taken that leap of 'faith' into the fantastical land of omnipotent supernatural beings, life after death and miracles surely holy war isn't such a stretch
No, that's not true. It wasn't a war of difference that happened to be determined by religion, it was explicitly a religious war in which the Orthodox and Catholic Churches incited, facilitated and justified genocide.
Thank you for posting that paper. But did you read the whole thing? I did not say that the religious element could be excused or ignored; I only pointed out that the Bosnian situation grew out of an Ottoman past, and so that the sickening ethnic cleansing that unfolded was made up of causes that extended beyond religion.
The author of the paper doesn't say anything different.
For some reason, I can't copy and paste quotes from the paper, or else I would cite it directly here, but the author fairly clearly sets the Serbian Orthodox Church alongside the Serbian government as an instrument in the 'scapegoating' that took place.
Why is that important? Because, just like in the current Russia vs. Ukraine situation, Church hierarchy can be identified as aligning itself with a government, but that does not make the Church to blame. It merely reveals that the Church, made up of human beings, is as given to corruption as the system within which it operates.
It merely reveals that the Church, made up of human beings, is as given to corruption as the system within which it operates.
That's a tricky one, as most [i]religions[/i] comprise of righteous principles within their belief system, however, most [i]Churches[/i] are money making machines, as the grandiose architecture of their places of worship dating back centuries testify, as do their links to the powerful and corrupt around the world.
Its all the same shit, religion is a great way to justify doing and manipulate people to do horrific things, once you've taken that leap of 'faith' into the fantastical land of omnipotent supernatural beings, life after death and miracles surely holy war isn't such a stretch
As much as you'd like it to, kimbers, your conclusion does not follow.
First of all, ANY system that draws people together can become 'a great way to justify doing and manipulate people [sic] to do horrific things'.
Secondly, 'faith', which you derisively put in inverted commas, is a real human phenomenon, that can be distinguished - both psychologically and philosophically - from belief in a 'fantastical land of omnipotent supernatural beings, life after death, and miracles'.
Thirdly, you don't prove your assertion that belief in such things easily leads to holy war.
Most certainly, there are instances in which faith has been used to start war, although statistically, this is small (123/1763 wars listed and evaluated in 'Enyclopedia of Wars' by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod, accounting for 7% of all wars, and 2% of all people killed in war), I take issue with your suggestion that there is a direct correlation between faith and violence.
SiFi take on misinterpretation of a religious text
Thatbook says that WW2 was not a religious war. My question is this - if religion didn't exist would Hitler have persecuted the same people?
Good question. When you consider all the factors that led to his rise, I suspect he would have turned his hateful rhetoric on someone else though. Don't forget, for example, that the Slavs were expendable because they were an inferior race.
When a scapegoat is needed, a scapegoat can be found.
Secondly, 'faith', which you derisively put in inverted commas, is a real human phenomenon, that can be distinguished - both psychologically and philosophically - from belief in a 'fantastical land of omnipotent supernatural beings, life after death, and miracles'.
Genuine request, would you be able to elaborate a bit more on that?
That book says that WW2 was not a religious war. My question is this - if religion didn't exist would Hitler have persecuted the same people?
Also... if religion didn't exist, would the Nazis have received the funding necessary to make WW2 possible via [url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar ]Prescott Bush[/url] and [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/10213988/Never-mind-the-Czech-gold-the-Nazis-stole....html ]Allen Dulles[/url], who were both Vatican Knights of Malta.
Buried among the typewritten pages of the Bank of England’s history is a name of whom few have ever heard, a man for whom, like Montagu Norman, the primacy of international finance reigned over mere national considerations.Thomas McKittrick, an American banker, was president of the BIS. When the United States entered the war in December 1941, McKittrick’s position, the history notes, “became difficult”. [b]But McKittrick managed to keep the bank in business, thanks in part to his friend Allen Dulles, the US spymaster based in Berne. McKittrick was an asset of Dulles[/b], known as Codename 644, and frequently passed him information that he had garnered from Emil Puhl, who was a frequent visitor to Basel and often met McKittrick.
[b]Declassified documents in the American intelligence archives reveal an even more disturbing story. Under an intelligence operation known as the “Harvard Plan”, McKittrick was in contact with Nazi industrialists, working towards what the US documents, dated February 1945, describe as a “close cooperation between the Allied and German business world”[/b].
[b]Thus while Allied soldiers were fighting through Europe, McKittrick was cutting deals to keep the Germany economy strong. This was happening with what the US documents describe as “the full assistance” of the State Department.[/b]
Obviously, without religion, the Vatican wouldn't have existed to aid the escape of many Nazis via [url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/juliankossoff/100030163/the-pope-eichmann-and-the-nazi-ratlines/ ]Ratlines[/url]
The role of Pope Pius XII during World War II, his relationship with Nazism and his efforts (or lack of them) to save Jews from the gas chambers are hotly disputed. Even within the Jewish community there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate.But the latest Eichmann revelations suggest that Pope Pius XII's moral stature – and qualification for sainthood – should be judged on its conduct in the aftermath of Nazism's defeat. Once the evil of the Holocaust was revealed for all to see, the Holy See should have been at the forefront of the campaign to bring the war criminals to trial.
In fact history's most savage mass murderers – Adolf Eichmann, Dr Josef Mengele, better known as Auschwitz's 'Angel of Death', Franz Stangl, commandant of the Treblinka extermination camp – escaped justice down the 'ratline' that ran straight through the Vatican state in Rome.
Senior members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy – marinaded in virulent Judeophobia and obsessed by Bolshevism – organised the escape of thousands of the most debauched, cruel monsters to a peaceful, prosperous retirement in Catholic South America.
Cougar - Moderator
Secondly, 'faith', which you derisively put in inverted commas, is a real human phenomenon, that can be distinguished - both psychologically and philosophically - from belief in a 'fantastical land of omnipotent supernatural beings, life after death, and miracles'.Genuine request, would you be able to elaborate a bit more on that?
At a guess, he might be referring to studies using brain scans which have shown certain activities in the brain when the faithful are in a state of religious rapture. These have been identified in people of multiple denominations, but also in atheists in meditative states.
wanmankylungThatbook says that WW2 was not a religious war. My question is this - if religion didn't exist would Hitler have persecuted the same people?
I think Hitler was an inventive chap and knew how to motivate people (in a negative way). Fear of the other is always a big driving factor for people and I don't doubt that Hitler would have found other "others" to discriminate against.
SaxonRider - MemberApologies for the loaded question @Saxonrider - do you think the crusades were good or bad for Christian / Muslim relations?
Perfectly good question. I think any war is tragic, and don't think that fighting over the holy sites helped two civilisations get on any better. They did, however, bear a huge amount of intellectual fruit that both sides would do well to acknowledge. The oft-commented-on re-introduction of Aristotle into Western philosophical discourse is a case in point, but so is the development of mathematics and medicine. In other words, I think in terms of the Crusades that no little good was born of what could have been an unmitigated tragedy.
As for the Muslim world, a more serious look at its intellectual decline is warranted than I can afford to put forward here, but I am not convinced that the Crusades did much to diminish it. I think the Mongols probably had a more substantial effect, but I think there were likely factors not dissimilar to the sort we have seen in the last hundred years - for example, of political intrigue among the Caliphates - that served to undermine the Muslim world from within.
I can't help but think that the cross pollination of ideas and the spread of technology was one way traffic. The muslims were the intellectual world leaders at the time. Maths, science, medicine...they were hugely advanced. As their society was trampled into the dust learning flourished in Europe. I can't see what benefit the muslim got from the crusades other than being weakened militarily to the point where they couldn't defend themselves from the mongols who finished the job the crusaders started.
Secondly, 'faith', which you derisively put in inverted commas, is a real human phenomenon, that can be distinguished - both psychologically and philosophically - from belief in a 'fantastical land of omnipotent supernatural beings, life after death, and miracles'.
Genuine request, would you be able to elaborate a bit more on that?
In spite of Dawkins' insistence that faith in God and belief in the 'flying spaghetti monster' are tantamount to the same thing, it is not a serious philosophical or psychological premise.
The concept of God - not a specific God described by religion, but the idea, thought worthy of discussion in philosophy since the dawn of the discipline to the present - is rational. By that, I mean simply that legitimate, rational arguments can be made both for, and against, the existence of such a concept.
In spite of the apparently easy way in which all rational arguments for the existence of God are swept away in the God Delusion, if it really was as easy as all that, there would be no further debate. The fact is, however, that if the 'God debate' proves anything, it is that the very human positions of accepting the existence of God or of rejecting it, are pretty much equally reasonable.
Importantly, though, this premise is linked to the accepted philosophical definition for God, and NOT to a mythical creation whose attributes are different to those posited by philosophy.
In other words, if, on this forum, we think that somehow, we will resolve whether or not God exists based entirely on the rational arguments, we are kidding ourselves. It is simply not possible. Fun, but not possible.
So if the philosophical conception of God is at least as reasonable as the arguments against it, then those whose faith attracts them to accept its reality are not anti-rational. Faith itself represents a different epistemic category to knowledge that some can find it hard to accept, but it is at least [i]consistent[/i] with reason.
This is different than someone walking into your kitchen and proclaiming that s/he can transform into a werewolf (or whatever).
One of the ideas that many religions have adhered to over the centuries is that faith must be consistent with reason. This is something the much-loathed Pope Benedict said many times. But so has Islam and Judaism.
Faith as an epistemic reality is accepted as a legitimate dimension of the human person. But faith is NOT to be confused with irrational belief.
Finally, by saying so, I do not think for one minute that this means the [i]object of faith[/i] is somehow proven. That is a very different discussion.
I simply stress that faith itself is not the irrational thing it is caricatured as by kimbers, above, and [sometimes] others.
OP suggesting we go back to the Crusades to find an example of "Christian tryanny" sort of makes my point, ancient history with very little real relevance today. Somethinng far more relevant to today is the Bibles position on homosexuality, notwothstanding that we have gay marriage today even in countires like Ireland which are staunchly Catholic.
BTW of course I watched the video, all of it.
The Empire had pretty much zero to do with Christianity, it was about commerical power and control. Whilst you had minssionaries trying to spread the word counties like India and Malaysia for example retained their Hindu/Sheik and Muslim traditions.
The quotes used, I believe, came from the Old Testament. I think I am correct in saying that Christian teaching in our lifetimes and before is most heavily focused on Jesus and the New Testament. There will be very many Christians who have never seen or heard those passages. There are many passages in the New Testament which would contradict the passges chosen and for Christians the New Testament would take preference.
jambalayaOP suggesting we go back to the Crusades to find an example of "Christian tryanny" sort of makes my point, ancient history with very little real relevance today.
And I gave you an example from ten years ago. There's no need to fudge the issue, the video satirises the idea that [b]Islam alone[/b] is a radical doctrine full of violence and hate, and people who want to spread that idea for whatever reason are quick to ignore that Christianity and Judaism contain many of the same ideas.
@jimjam - Old Testament is part of both Judaism and Christiantity and indeed contains some extreme amd you could say barbaric passages but my view is that those passages are not used today to justify widespread violence.
Follwoing your post above I checked back and yes re Ireland I can well imagine priests on both sodes sought to absolve killers of their sin by referemce to the Bible but its my view the conflcit there was far more about Nationality than religion. The IRA where not killing Protestants for religious reasons or attempting to justify their actions as such
@kimbers yes indeed Bosnian massages where genocide, I have to say I have never considered them religiously morivated either but could be wrong about that. We in the (Christian) West tried to resolve that conflict, we tried to protect people. We may have failed but we tried.
They were NOT comprised of Christians overwhelming the Holy Land and indiscriminately slaughtering Muslim men, women, and children in the most horrific possible ways,
That statement is just taking the p*ss.
But I can certainly agree that the majority of Wars/Crusades/Jihads etc are about money and power and control. Unfortunately these are not generally the elements that are remembered when it comes to the middle east. Shame really, its the only reason we are there now.
OP suggesting we go back to the Crusades to find an example of "Christian tryanny" sort of makes my point, ancient history with very little real relevance today.
I'm sure Tancred wasn't thinking too far into the future when his merry band rocked up onto the Mount in 1099 and slaughtered everyone, this still reverberates today.
First of all, ANY system that draws people together can become 'a great way to justify doing and manipulate people [sic] to do horrific things'.
System justification. The "west" suffers from this greatly. The black and white world of Jambalaya is a classic example of this.
OP suggesting we go back to the Crusades to find an example of "Christian tryanny" sort of makes my point, ancient history with very little real relevance today.
It gets tricky when you factor in that both Tony Blair and George W Bush said that God factored in their decision to go to war in Iraq...
[img] 
?w=640[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Especially when you consider that the consensus seems to be that the rise of ISIS is intrinsically linked to the invasion of Iraq, just as the rise of Saddam Hussein and his supply of weapons was intrinsically linked to the UK and US Governments, whose leaders are Christian.
In fact, Tony Blair is a Vatican Knight of Malta, just as all US Presidents between 1981 and 2009 have been, including Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, who aided Saddam Hussein's rise with Margaret Thatcher's government.
Rupert Murdoch is also a Vatican Knight of Malta and his role in drumming up support for war using his media empire should be clear to the intelligent folk on here.
[img] 
[/img]
To my knowledge, Obama is not yet a Knight of the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta ]Sovereign [b]Military [/b]Order of Malta...[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
Clicking the link, you will note the Sovereign Military Order of Malta dates back to the Crusades...
jambalayaFollwoing your post above I checked back and yes re Ireland I can well imagine priests on both sodes sought to absolve killers of their sin by referemce to the Bible but its my view the conflcit there was far more about Nationality than religion. The IRA where not killing Protestants for religious reasons or attempting to justify their actions as such
I didn't say anything about the IRA, my point was about Calvinist pastors justifying the sectarian murder of Catholics by referencing the old testament, apologizing for the killers, and emboldening those might chose to do the same. So when you say
Old Testament is part of both Judaism and Christiantity and indeed contains some extreme amd you could say barbaric passages but my view is that those passages are not used today to justify widespread violence.
...well I just gave you an example. A perfect example. My point isn't to prove that Calvinists are bad, or that muslims are good, rather that Iron age self help guides which are morally ambiguous can be twisted to any agenda by those who wish to do so. It just needs the right set of circumstances.
In fact, Tony Blair is a Vatican Knight of Malta, just as all US Presidents between 1981 and 2009 have been, including Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, who aided Saddam Hussein's rise with Margaret Thatcher's government.Rupert Murdoch is also a Vatican Knight of Malta and his role in drumming up support for war using his media empire should be clear to the intelligent folk on here.
What is a 'Vatican Knight of Malta'? Do you mean a member of the Sovereign Order of Malta? Because if so, your statement above is incorrect, as one has to be a Catholic in order to be a member, and not all US presidents have been. As for the others, aside from Blair, I have no idea if they are Catholic or not.
In fact, Tony Blair is a Vatican Knight of Malta, just as [b]all US Presidents between 1981 and 2009[/b] have been
i.e.:
Ronald Reagan
George HW Bush
Bill Clinton
George W Bush
All Knights of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, ordained by the Vatican
Worth noting the Bush Family have a long history with the order (Prescott Bush already mentioned above for his role in funding the Nazis) and Jeb Bush is already ordained as a SMOM Knight.
[img] 
[/img]
Further ambiguity arises as there are also other [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Malta_%28disambiguation%29 ]Knights of Malta, including High Ranking Freemasons of the York Rite (Christian faith)[/url]
jimjam - Member
my point was about Calvinist pastors justifying the sectarian murder of Catholics by referencing the old testament, apologizing for the killers, and emboldening those might chose to do the same.
That's just a sympton of the partition of ireland, where the real motive of keeping the industrial north in british hands suited having the loonballs of orangism be dominant. So utimatley not a conflict that is based on religion at all, but on control of resources. Put it this way, no industrial north and the northern protestants would have been living in a 32C republic a long time ago.
Like I say religion is just a tool to get the idiots doing your bidding.
I'd like sources. The Sovereign Order of Malta is for Catholics. Full Stop. Jeb Bush is Catholic afaik, but the rest of the Bush family is NOT. Nor was Bill Clinton. So I ask again: what are you talking about?
seosamh77That's just a sympton of the partition of ireland, where the real motive of keeping the industrial north in british hands suited having the loonballs of orangism be dominant. So utimatley not a conflict that is based on religion at all, but on control of resources. Put it this way, no industrial north and the northern protestants would have been living in a 32C republic a long time ago.
Well thanks for that patronising oversimplification there. I hadn't stop to think, at any point in my life that there might be a reason for the troubles. I just thought catholics and protestants really didn't like each other 🙄
Like I say religion is just a tool to get the idiots doing your bidding.
And you can say that about any religiously motivated conflict or killing. Virtually any of them. Including the current war in the middle east.
I don't disagree with you that religion can be a tool to inspire allegiance but it needn't apply only to stupid people. People want to be together, they want to be part of a group or a community and one of the best ways of galvanizing that community is to give them an adversary.
I'd like sources. The Sovereign Order of Malta is for Catholics. Full Stop. Jeb Bush is Catholic afaik, but the rest of the Bush family is NOT. Nor was Bill Clinton. So I ask again: what are you talking about?
Tell you what, how about you provide sources, since:
As for the others, aside from Blair, I have no idea if they are Catholic or not.