Beliefs inform actions. If these people weren't religious, then they wouldn't be committing these acts of violence as instructed by their religion.
What? The scriptures say things like 'Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme.' And 'O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people.' Let's not forget 'O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.' My favorite 'Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme'
You see the verses of the Qu'ran were unveiled during a time of all out war. The verses about war were detailed in a way to work with that time. Many verses to combat the teachings of Islam are 'cherry' picked to persuade a biased opinion on others. People like Osama Bin Laden were extremists who took the context way out of text. He favoured this verse: "slay (enemies) wherever you find them!" (4: 89). When the verse is directly followed by "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).
Your quotes of the Qu'ran are taken out of context or not understood appropriately.
Source from an Islamic oriented website that specifies in translation:
http://quran.com/2/193 said:
2:193
Sahih International
Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
'O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people.'
This was revealed as a whole Surah roughly seven years after the first hijra (pilgirmage). A time when Islam was spreading the message, and Jewish and Christian Tribes would take the message. Remember Islam is a monotheistic religion that upgrades on teachings that were Illustrated in the other two. The Ayah/verse was mentioned to the Muslim members, when identity was an important matter. The Muslims were creating a different social, political and religious image to the other two, and if the members imitated and befriended the enemy tribes they would be classed as one of them.
It's not a matter of isolating religions.
I have no time to further explain the other verses, I can trust you that my point still stands and can be used for the other verses you quoted.
You're one of those people who cherry pick the verses that support your version of secular morality, and then throws out everything that goes against it, like the violence and the hatred. But you see, there are people who don't do what you do. They look at the bible or the Quran as the complete and infallible word of god/allah. And because of this religious view, they do things that the bible/Quran tells them to do, like 'Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme.'
I do not cherry pick anything, I abide by the Qu'ran and teachings of the Prophet as a whole. Many have just understood it incorrectly, which explains the few extremists that you like to monopolosize that the religion is.
Yes we abide by the infallible word of Allah, because its what we believe in and our way of life. Just like you choose not to, and instead follow the 'democratic' system, which is another belief system in this sense of living by it.
I'll say it again: Beliefs inform actions. People don't refuse to give their sick children medical attention because they are fringe lunatics or bad people. They do it because they believe what their religion tells them regarding prayer and keeping the body pure.
People don't strap bombs vests on and stroll into a crowded market place because they are fringe lunatics or bad people. They do it because they believe what their holy book says about infidels and the afterlife.
People don't have unprotected *** in a country that's suffering from an aids pandemic because they are fringe lunatics or bad people. They do it because they believe what their religious leader tells them about condoms and other birth control.
I'll say it again, I don't believe in those religions, thus you trying to provoke me with those repititive examples have no importance to me. If you want me to say it I will. Those people were ignorant and stupid to impose such laws. We can agree on something.
That's not the site I pulled those verses from, but that's irrelevant. The point is I can find the same types of verses within the bible, and any other 'holy' text ever written. Those verses are not good verses to promote peace or unity between muslims and non muslims. Or christians and non christians.
Nonetheless, posting your meaning of the quotes on google, demonstrated or anti-islamist sites. The bible is not the Qu'ran. The words of the Qu'ran have never changed to sway to a particular society unlike the bible.
You're missing the point completely. A responsible person can smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol in moderation and never hurt themselves or anyone else. A child who's sick with an easily treatable illness can't get medical treatment without their parent's consent. So if the parent believes in prayer and doesn't believe that illnesses require medical attention, like Jahova Witnesses do, then their children die from these easily treatable illnesses instead of getting treatment and getting better.
I really don't care, I'm not being ignorant. I'm saying I can't speak for a culture or religion I have not lived in to understand. I'm treading careful ground, not being ignorant and making false assumptions.
Not acquiring medical aid, is a silly notion. In Islam we believe everything may have a cure except for possibly aids.
Appendicitis is an easily treatable illness, but fatal if left untreated. Diabetes is an easily treatable illness, but fatal if left untreated. Tonsillitis is an easily treatable illness, but fatal if left untreated. The flu is an easily treatable illness, but potentially fatal if left untreated. There are hundreds of other illnesses that are easily treatable but potentially fatal if left untreated.
The fault of the Jehovah's, not Islam. I agree with you that medical aid should be sought in those situations. I'm not against you on that ground. But once again, it's a way of life they've lived by for a long time and is something they won't change overnight.
But these children can't make the choice themselves to get treatment. It's up to their parents. When their parents put their religion over their children's well being, those children die, through no fault of their own. Often times these children aren't even old enough to decide if they want to be religious or not. So comparing a personal decision to drink or smoke to children who don't even get a choice is not only laughable, but it shows how ignorant you are being.
It is sad yes, laughable no. Parents speak for their children, because they believe their children to fall under their same teachings, they believe they are doing for the well being of their child not in hopes of killing them. They do not know better and may be seen as cruel from an outsider's view.
You percieving it from one side, is showing ignorance or just not knowing, which is excusable.
I'm not trying to belittle the meaning of anything. I'm trying to get you to understand that most of the world's atrocities and violence stems directly from religion and religious teachings. That doesn't mean all religion is bad, or all religious people are bad. It means that the dogma found in religion stems from writings that are thousands of years old, which never change.
What other religions have done, and what non-religious people have done would not matter, if people abided by peace. And tolerated one another, perhaps religion has been the fault of most wars in the past, but it is not out of genocide, it is out of spreading what they believe is right. Like English settlers wiped out indigineous people of their lands, fearing the unknown.
Islam, will never change, and is its strength point because of that. Religion's hinder because of people's various changes and interpretations of the original scriptures of a religion.
Anyone who reads the scriptures will get the same messages that the people got when they were originally written, and those messages are founded on morality that's archaic and immoral compared to today's secular society. People like you have no choice but to completely ignore the parts of your scriptures that do not conform to societies standards.
No they would not. They would be adjurned according to the masses or society. Morality that's archaic and immoral? What's immoral about men and women dressing modestly? The forbidden of intoxicants? Respect between family and utmost obedience to your parents out of good? etc.
'Accurately' is a matter of opinion when it comes to scripture. 'Accurately' in reality would be following the scriptures word for word, both the good and the bad. Unfortunately, doing so is illegal in most countries and would get you locked up in prison. You see, the part you're forgetting is that most atheists are well versed in scripture, and those scriptures are part of the reasons why they are atheists.
No rational person can sit there and read through the bible or the Quran, read those passages that depict violence and hatred, and then think that those books are good for society or humanity in general. In order to make them appropriate, you'd have to remove a great deal of those books, and that's not even bringing up what's factual in them. If you removed all the evil and fictional stuff from the bible, then you would have maybe 10% of the bible in your hand.
Ya see, that's why Muslims living in non-muslim territory must tolerate other laws and not spread a bad name. A multicultural society like Australia here allows for freedom of race, culture and beliefs, a place where we are still limited to some resources, but are making do with.
The thing I see with athiests, is that they can never be well versed with the Qu'ran, otherwise they would understand the subtext and history of the verses as well. You may have read it, but not understood it thoroughly. I have yet to understand the vast knowledge of the Qu'ran completely and the teachings of the Prophet. It's a blessing to want to know more. The reason why most people are athiests is because they've left behind a faith, not understood the scriptures or lost the spirital balance that I was talking about earlier. It's a thing Buddha seeked originally.
What hate in the Qu'ran? The brotherhood and family oriented values, peaceful way of life, and protection and defence of terms of self-defence? We are not doormats, and we are not ignorant or obstructed from gaining knowledge.
I'm done going point for point with you, since you are obviously not interested in understanding the foundation religion has established regarding belief and motivation to commit acts of violence and hate.
Islam, will never change, and is its strength point because of that. Religion's hinder because of people's various changes and interpretations of the original scriptures of a religion.
This is precisely why religion is bad. Religion teaches people to hold specific beliefs no matter how right or wrong they are, and teaches those people NOT TO QUESTION THEIR BELIEFS AT ALL EVER.
This is why a Jehovah Witness will read the parts of the bible their religion teaches, and then deny their children medical care for potentially fatal, otherwise easily treatable illnesses. At no point do they ever question whether or not it's wrong to let their children die.
If society determines that something said in a religious book is bad for society, then makes a law against it, those religious people who believe in it claim persecution, start wars, and PROVE why those beliefs are bad. Right now both the Muslims and Jews in Palestine are fighting over land which their respective holy books claim God gave them.
In a secular society, diplomacy would settle the disagreement over the land and award it to both peoples in as equal a manner as possible. But instead, the Jews (Israelis) and the Muslims (Palestinians) are killing each other in the streets of Palestine because they both believe that they have a holy claim to the land, and a justified reason to kill all the people who don't believe what they believe.
No they would not. They would be adjurned according to the masses or society. Morality that's archaic and immoral? What's immoral about men and women dressing modestly? The forbidden of intoxicants? Respect between family and utmost obedience to your parents out of good? etc.
I would love for you to explain that to the 5 dead children of Andrea Yates.
You must be registered for see links
In case you refuse to read it:
While in prison, Andrea stated she had considered killing the children for two years, adding that they thought she was not a good mother and claimed her sons were developing improperly. She told her jail psychiatrist: "It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."[24] She also told her jail psychiatrist that Satan influenced her children and made them more disobedient.[25]
Yes, beliefs very much inform actions. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then I don't know what to tell you. I will freely admit that not all religious people are evil and do bad things. However, the vast majority of the people on this planet who ARE evil and do bad things, ARE RELIGIOUS, and do so because their beliefs informed their actions.
But like I said, I am not going to go point for point with you. I'm a citizen of the US, where 80% of the population is religious, and nearly every single person who holds public office is relgious. In my country, you cannot get elected to any public office unless you are religious. Those few secular politicians who hold office now, got there by hiding their atheism.
So because the majority of public officials in the US are religious, they are more likely to create laws and policies based on what their religious beliefs are. I really don't care who's religious or not, so long as I don't have to know about what you believe and my children aren't forced to in school. So long as I don't have to read about the insanity that ensues from extreme fundamentalism in the news.
The entire purpose of science, medicine, and technology is to establish a link between facts/evidence and reality, explaining the universe around us in a practical way which we can use as a model to improve the quality of all life on our planet. The major point of science is to conform your beliefs to the facts of reality based upon the evidence, completely dismissing any beliefs that do not conform to the facts of reality.
This is why religious is under so much scrutiny all around from every discipline in science. This is why creationism is not considered science or valued as a working model of reality. This is why secular morality trumps the morality of any holy book. This is why humanity's best bet of moving civilization forward is to abandon bronze age myths found in scripture.
It is sad yes, laughable no. Parents speak for their children, because they believe their children to fall under their same teachings, they believe they are doing for the well being of their child not in hopes of killing them. They do not know better and may be seen as cruel from an outsider's view.
You percieving it from one side, is showing ignorance or just not knowing, which is excusable.
Here in the US, according to the constitution and secular morality, we believe everyone has a right to live in a safe environment that is conducive to the proper growth and education of children. So when there is probable cause to question the safety of an environment, our government will step in and remove children from their parents custody in order to preserve their safety and well being.
The only exception to this rule is established religious dogma. As an atheist, if I refuse life saving medical attention to my children, and they die, I go to prison for a very long time. But if I am a Jehova Witness, I can't even be charged unless some other form of abuse can be proven.
Just like you choose not to, and instead follow the 'democratic' system, which is another belief system in this sense of living by it.
It's not democracy that I believe in and live by. It's secularism. In case you didn't know, 'Secular' means 'without religion.' This means we establish morality and laws without utilizing religion as a context for basis. Secular morality is vastly superior to any other morality because it allows for change and improvements.
It is not dogmatic like religious morality and allows for society to shape it's values around what's actually best for everyone.
I'm done going point for point with you, since you are obviously not interested in understanding the foundation religion has established regarding belief and motivation to commit acts of violence and hate.
You're done going point for point? Is that laziness, lack of time or stubborness to want to respond. I'm correcting your view, you continuously generalise that religions are built for violence and hate. Islam, the current fastest growing religion in the west, criticised prior, due to the September 11 attacks that falsely acused them, has been better understood due to the internet and its nature for encouraging science and peace. The word Islam means "Surrender", and a rephrase of the word "peace".
The foundation of Islam does not push violence and hate, it is the complete polar opposite.
You went ahead and left out all the information I reputed earlier, about your understanding of the verses. How the teachings themselves are not based on violence and hate, and how you repitively generalise religion.
Every group has it's bad eggs. Don't let those eggs monopolise your thoughts on all religions.
This is precisely why religion is bad. Religion teaches people to hold specific beliefs no matter how right or wrong they are, and teaches those people NOT TO QUESTION THEIR BELIEFS AT ALL EVER.
This is why a Jehovah Witness will read the parts of the bible their religion teaches, and then deny their children medical care for potentially fatal, otherwise easily treatable illnesses. At no point do they ever question whether or not it's wrong to let their children die.
If society determines that something said in a religious book is bad for society, then makes a law against it, those religious people who believe in it claim persecution, start wars, and PROVE why those beliefs are bad. Right now both the Muslims and Jews in Palestine are fighting over land which their respective holy books claim God gave them.
In a secular society, diplomacy would settle the disagreement over the land and award it to both peoples in as equal a manner as possible. But instead, the Jews (Israelis) and the Muslims (Palestinians) are killing each other in the streets of Palestine because they both believe that they have a holy claim to the land, and a justified reason to kill all the people who don't believe what they believe.
You're really going through with this thought...
Stop generalising religions! It won't do you any good. You are selecting small niches to prove your side.
People have a choice to choose what they want to follow, and it is stated that 'let there be no compulsion in religion' within the Qu'ran. I believe Islam is a really logical religion, way of life. I can't speak for others though.
Go tell a Jehovah's Witness council about your problems.
Society needs to determine what's bad according to something. Secular morality? As long as you're not harming, stealing or insulting another race, culture belief, is fine by me whilst living in a Non-Muslim country. It's something that can't be helped, and God understands. It's the intention to want to grow and follow Islam the best way possible, without crossing boundaries, that you will find most Muslims abide by. That goes for any religion. Humans generally want to avoid confrontation.
Islam and Judiasm are brothers by original religion and belief. Each book is a later installation to correlate with the specific time period. Islam came afterwards and preached for Jews and Christians to follow the complete religion. Prophet Ibrahim/ Abraham was Jewish, yet we still follow his teachings.
What land do the Palestinians have anymore? All the original Islamic sites are getting taken down. Palestinians are tormented, taunted, harassed and killed each day by the military. Palestinians are limited to what they can do, there's a few recounts of when the Muslims are praying, they are shot. I've seen countless live footage on Arabic News, of the time the Israeli government surrounded Gaza and began its genocide a few years back. This military is not following any religion, but the order of its leader, who is clearly Jewish only by name.
I've spoken to Jewish migrants from Israel who have mentioned they were good friends with Muslim neighbours. And that the stuff that is presented on the news is nothing but hyped propaganda.
The Muslims are only fighting back in self-defence of their land and protection of family. Is that war?
I would love for you to explain that to the 5 dead children of Andrea Yates.
You must be registered for see links
In case you refuse to read it:
While in prison, Andrea stated she had considered killing the children for two years, adding that they thought she was not a good mother and claimed her sons were developing improperly. She told her jail psychiatrist: "It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."[24] She also told her jail psychiatrist that Satan influenced her children and made them more disobedient.[25]
I find no point in reading it, your little summary just shows how psychotic that person was. Psychotic! Influenced by Christianity(don't expand it to the vast of all religion), seems like the case. IMO, I believe Satan screwed up her perceptions of reality.
Yes, beliefs very much inform actions. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then I don't know what to tell you. I will freely admit that not all religious people are evil and do bad things. However, the vast majority of the people on this planet who ARE evil and do bad things, ARE RELIGIOUS, and do so because their beliefs informed their actions.
But like I said, I am not going to go point for point with you. I'm a citizen of the US, where 80% of the population is religious, and nearly every single person who holds public office is relgious. In my country, you cannot get elected to any public office unless you are religious. Those few secular politicians who hold office now, got there by hiding their atheism.
So because the majority of public officials in the US are religious, they are more likely to create laws and policies based on what their religious beliefs are. I really don't care who's religious or not, so long as I don't have to know about what you believe and my children aren't forced to in school. So long as I don't have to read about the insanity that ensues from extreme fundamentalism in the news.
Nawww, but going point for point is fun, and this has been a rather interesting discussion so far.
Meh...not a big fan of the US system anyway. Knowing your children aren't forced to learn something in school...evolution and the big bang theory(which I believe is true) are...
If you are paranoid, teach your child before entering school to always make wise decisions and to have facts before blindly following something. There will always be people trying to shove down beliefs down your throat, it's life, and no one said it was easy.
I wish people paid more attention to the half of the world that is dying right now and got off their high horse to offer aid, and not terrorise instead in act of heroism. I'm reffering to the War on Terrorism, the third world nations of Africa, and the civil wars within the Middle East. The Olympic Games couldn't have come at a better time.
'Extremism' should be classed as it's own bizarre culture, to avoid the stereotypes that most religions face.
The entire purpose of science, medicine, and technology is to establish a link between facts/evidence and reality, explaining the universe around us in a practical way which we can use as a model to improve the quality of all life on our planet. The major point of science is to conform your beliefs to the facts of reality based upon the evidence, completely dismissing any beliefs that do not conform to the facts of reality.
This is why religious is under so much scrutiny all around from every discipline in science. This is why creationism is not considered science or valued as a working model of reality. This is why secular morality trumps the morality of any holy book. This is why humanity's best bet of moving civilization forward is to abandon bronze age myths found in scripture.
Your 'purpose explanation is logical; and I agree with it. Humans are extremely advanced creatures that have the capability of thinking on their own, free will. The Qu'ran is an opening to the world, it unites science, spirituality, history, and a code of conduct all in one. Circling a life around facts and evidence is important, but that too can make one blind, by narrowing their mind and level of tolerance eventually leading to selfishness, the concept of not bothering about anything as long as it doesnt affect you personally.
Secular morality only trumps in a multicultural society, where people with so many different beliefs need a similar level to fall under, otherwise chaos will fall. Even then though its only a temporary embrace. The reason why laws, policies and codes of conduct are continuously, changed or updated. It's what measures we have to take at times, for the sake of peace and tolerance.
I don't get all this nonsense about humanity constantly needing to move forward? All it does is cause a further superiority complex in some people's minds. It seperates those who are extremely talented or powerful, scientists, political leaders, etc...to those who are nothing more than droids at times, that feed off technology. Watching my little sister sometimes is scary...spending 6 hours straight on an ipod.
What people need to do, is increase their knowledge and experience of the world, rather than create more ways to seperate each other.
Here in the US, according to the constitution and secular morality, we believe everyone has a right to live in a safe environment that is conducive to the proper growth and education of children. So when there is probable cause to question the safety of an environment, our government will step in and remove children from their parents custody in order to preserve their safety and well being.
The only exception to this rule is established religious dogma. As an atheist, if I refuse life saving medical attention to my children, and they die, I go to prison for a very long time. But if I am a Jehova Witness, I can't even be charged unless some other form of abuse can be proven.
It's not democracy that I believe in and live by. It's secularism. In case you didn't know, 'Secular' means 'without religion.' This means we establish morality and laws without utilizing religion as a context for basis. Secular morality is vastly superior to any other morality because it allows for change and improvements.
It is not dogmatic like religious morality and allows for society to shape it's values around what's actually best for everyone.
I never once said that religions were built for violence or hate. I'm saying that religious texts have passages in them which are violent or hateful, which leads to people behaving in violent or hateful ways, as justified by their religious text.
I never once said that all religious people are like that. In fact, I said that only some religious people are. I'm not generalizing anything, except that all religions have violence and hate in their texts.
I have no problem with religious people, especially in the context where their religion doesn't have a negative effect on anyone else.
You went ahead and left out all the information I reputed earlier, about your understanding of the verses.
Because they are not important. How YOU interpret them makes no difference to the Muslim who straps a bomb to his chest and then strolls into a crowded market in Palestine. He believes his actions are commanded by god, and justified by the Quran.
Every group has it's bad eggs. Don't let those eggs monopolise your thoughts on all religions.
My thoughts aren't being monopolized by anything. I'm pretty sure you're using the word 'monopoly' wrong here. The fact of the matter is that if the bible and the Quran were edited to remove all those passages that talk about violence and hate, then no one would have ever committed an act of violence or hate because of them.
You are selecting small niches to prove your side.
I'm not selecting small niches of people. I'm pointing out the facts as the evidence shows. The evidence proves that yes, people do commit acts of violence based on their religious beliefs. You're just refusing to see it that way, which is typical of religious people. There's an actual generalization for you.
Go tell a Jehovah's Witness council about your problems.
Society DOES determine what's bad according to something. We determine what's good or bad based on how it affects the population of that society. That's what our laws in the US reflect (for the most part). It's why our laws are based on the values of modernity and not the 10 commandments (623 commandments if you want to get technical).
Yes, morality without religion. Most people hear the 'without religion' part and freak out because they don't believe that it's possible to have morality without an authority figure (god) to teach it.
As it turns out, it's entirely possible to come up with a sense of morality without ever once invoking a god or other supernatural authority. We've done it in western society for the last 200 years, our constitution and other laws were founded on the principles of secularism, at a time when our founders came to America to ESCAPE the persecution of religion in Europe.
Most of the very first settlements here in America were completely secular. Our founding fathers were mostly secular. Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on the values of secularism over 200 years ago as an improvement to society, and he even made sure that the Constitution had the Establishment Clause as part of the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
He also went on to write a response to a letter he received from the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, who were asking him to overthrows the establishment of congregationalism in their state.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
The Muslims are only fighting back in self-defence of their land and protection of family. Is that war?
Yes, it is war. If neither of the holy books proclaimed Palestine as the holy ground of each of these people, then they wouldn't be fighting over it as such. It's like if I told you that Allah gave you this Pizza and told your Jewish neighbor that God gave that same Pizza to him, you would then set out to kill each other over the Holy Pizza, feeling as though it's rightfully yours and belongs only to someone of YOUR particular religion.
It would never occur to you that the Pizza is actually not holy in any way, that the Pizza wasn't actually given to either of you from God or Allah, and that it would be socially better for you to share the Pizza, instead of killing each other over it.
I find no point in reading it, your little summary just shows how psychotic that person was. Psychotic! Influenced by Christianity(don't expand it to the vast of all religion), seems like the case. IMO, I believe Satan screwed up her perceptions of reality.
Psychotic people have beliefs too. They can even have religious beliefs. The fact that Andrea Yates was insane was irrelevant. Her belief in religion caused her to kill her 5 children. She was found not guilty of her actions by reason of insanity, but that's just how the court system works.
What she did was considered insane, but perfectly justified by her religious beliefs. She believed in sin, she believed that the only right action was to murder her children to save them from sin. That is 100% religion informing her actions. If she did not believe in sin, it wouldn't matter how psychotic she was, she would not have killed her children, because she would have not believed that killing them was the only way to fee them from sin.
Do you agree? It's literally no different than when an Islamic extremist executes someone who's gay. They believe that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death as per the Quran. Their religious belief informs their actions, which leads them to kill someone who's gay. Except in Islam, there is no trial, and the murderer does not go to prison. He is excused because his religious beliefs are not allowed to be scrutinized.
Beliefs can inform actions, and cannot. What the individual chooses to do, is their choice.
Beliefs always inform actions, 100% of the time. There isn't a single thing you or anyone else does in their life, that does not stem from something you believe. Religion is only part of belief, but with religious people, it acts as an authority which screens their other beliefs.
For example, there are parts of the bible that forbid eating meat. People who are religious, and believe in that teaching, refuse to eat meat, as part of their religion. Eating meat is something that has nothing to do with god in any normal sense. But when someone has a religious belief against eating meat, the activity of eating meat is screened against that belief, and thus informs their actions.
I want you to come up with an action that you either take or refuse to take, that you don't think is informed by your beliefs. I can guarantee that you can't do it, and if you think you have, I'll show you how you're wrong.
By doing bad, they are NOT religious. I really hate how everything is so categorised and generalised.
This argument is empty. Are you really trying to say that an Islamic extremist is not a true Muslim if he blows himself up in a crowded market? That's completely absurd, especially when the guy who's doing it did so because his religion tells him that has rightful claim to a piece of 'holy land.' Just like the guys who bomb abortion clinics here in America because their religion tells them that Abortion is wrong.
These people are no less religious than anyone else, and it can be argued that they are MORE religious than anyone else, since they are willing to follow their religion word for word and kill innocent people in the name of their god. You can't go from 'I believe in god' to 'I'm willing to follow the divine command of god and kill people' without religion.
You can try to argue that god/allah would never command such a thing, but you're in the same position that you are when you say that god is real: zero evidence to support your claim.
Knowing your children aren't forced to learn something in school...evolution and the big bang theory(which I believe is true) are...
Evolution and the Big Bang cosmology are supported by evidence and practically used in working models to improve humanity. Religion isn't, and the religious leaders of my country are trying to get Evolution and other science removed from the education system, and replace it with creationism (which isn't science).
'Extremism' should be classed as it's own bizarre culture, to avoid the stereotypes that most religions face.
Extremism is a product of religion though. You can't get to extremism through rationality and skepticism. The only possible route to extremism is by holding onto irrational beliefs and refusing to criticize them in any way. This is where religion comes in.
The Qu'ran is an opening to the world, it unites science,
There isn't a single shred of science to be found in the Quran.
Secular morality only trumps in a multicultural society, where people with so many different beliefs need a similar level to fall under, otherwise chaos will fall.
There is a significant population of the world that is not capable of moving forward and prospering. Advancements in science, medicine, and technology improve the lives of people who have access to it, thus moving civilization forward through better living.
Compare the life expectancy of secular countries with the life expectancy of 3rd world countries. The most secular country in the world is Japan, where the average life expectancy is the highest in the world @ 82.6. Japan also has the lowest teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, and drug rates, with the 3rd highest education standards of any country in the world.
Whereas in a heavily religious 3rd world country like Africa, they have the lowest average life expectancy @ 40. Africa also has some of the highest crime rates, poverty, drugs, and teen pregnancy rates, with abysmal education standards.
So when we talk about 'moving forward,' we are talking about improving the quality of life all over the planet. However, that can't happen when people keep killing each other over religion and other irrational beliefs.
Teaching people not to question bronze age beliefs is not a means to prevention, unless you are talking about the prevention of critical thinking skills regarding religion. It's best to each people to reserve belief unless it's justified by evidence and facts.
That way people practice critical thinking skills in all aspects of their life, up to and including morality and beliefs. If people reserve belief for when it's justified, then they are less likely to be irrational people who behave irrationally.
Religion does not teach skepticism or critical thinking. Instead religion teaches you to accept it blindly through faith, ESPECIALLY when you are skeptical of religion. They see doubt as a form of weakness and praise faith and knowledge claims, even if they are unsubstantiated.
I suppose I can be considered as an atheist.. why?
Well, I don't believe in a divine power being responsible for all the good or bad things that happen in the world, people and nature decide that U_U that's only one of the reasons, don't feel like going into detail.
I've read every drop, hence why I quote and respond to your entire posts by paragraphs. Your words have not gone ignored, they have merely not persuaded me. I'm telling you that it's the individual's choice to decide what they are influenced by. Religion can influence to an extent, but once an adult, you have the freedom to believe what you want and work how your mind works. People like you have chosen to not follow any religion, that is your choice and I can respect it. You are influenced by people's claims about the disproved existance of God.
I have grown up in a religious household, questioned it when I was younger, it is only normal as a child. I even questioned that if we can't see God, how does he exist. My parents weren't entirely religious, merely did the basics. Once I hit high school, instead of the usual being swayed by the masses, I felt my purpose in life was shifted, and my perception of reality changed. I noticed how so many students my age were easily swooned over by preteen boy bands, interrupted classes and created chaos amongst the playground, I didn't want to fall into that domain. I never used to care about practicing religion, merely did it because I had to, but once I understood, took the time to understand the meanings and had a sister who was in the same situation to help me. I made up my mind to stick strongly with Islam.
I never once said that religions were built for violence or hate. I'm saying that religious texts have passages in them which are violent or hateful, which leads to people behaving in violent or hateful ways, as justified by their religious text.
I never once said that all religious people are like that. In fact, I said that only some religious people are. I'm not generalizing anything, except that all religions have violence and hate in their texts.
I have no problem with religious people, especially in the context where their religion doesn't have a negative effect on anyone else.
If you said that initially, then I wouldn't have said you generalised it. Violence or hate are strong terms. I can't speak for religions in general, but Islam spits on violence. It does not mean though, it is a doormat religion, or one that spouts war whereever it goes. Like a typical human would apply self-defence if threatened, so does Islam only preach.
If you are so bent on wanting to persuade the masses that religions promote violence, isolate the verses in the major religions. Do not create an open hole by not providing the evidence. The verses you brought up initially were relevant, as I informed you how to understand them, and that they were not at all hateful, merely logical. Providing facts and evidence that Islam is not a belief that spouts hate or violence.
The fact that you don't have a problem with a religious person is a positive thing. It shows people from both sides can argue maturely. The thing I have a problem is with though, is not the person, but the words or actions they spout in hate or claiming of false information about another.
Because they are not important. How YOU interpret them makes no difference to the Muslim who straps a bomb to his chest and then strolls into a crowded market in Palestine. He believes his actions are commanded by god, and justified by the Quran.
Yes they are important. They were not my interpretation, it was a summed up paragraph of the history and context that related to the time that the verses of the Qu'ran that were released, to help you understand it. As well as more literal arabic-to-english translations.
One who understands the meaning thoroughly IS different to the person who takes it out of the context and does not follow it accurately. It gives false images of those who do follow the practice accordingly.
He was influenced by his own mind not rationally understanding the context.
My thoughts aren't being monopolized by anything. I'm pretty sure you're using the word 'monopoly' wrong here. The fact of the matter is that if the bible and the Quran were edited to remove all those passages that talk about violence and hate, then no one would have ever committed an act of violence or hate because of them.
If it was used in the wrong context, the word 'monopoly', I apologise, just sounded fancy to me.XD
The way you speak, is like censorship. The US holds a death penalty, if the law was censored each time to cover any mention of imprisonment, sentenced for life, death sentence or corporal punishment do you believe that would stop the violence that runs in America?
The 'violence' you mention, is punishments of those who do wrong. Like you would discipline a child. Generally there's a warning, if it is passed once again, punishment will happen.
I'm not selecting small niches of people. I'm pointing out the facts as the evidence shows. The evidence proves that yes, people do commit acts of violence based on their religious beliefs. You're just refusing to see it that way, which is typical of religious people. There's an actual generalization for you.
The statement should be. People do commit acts of violence based on their environment and beliefs. You're refusing to see it any other way, which is typical of anyone.
:ice:
Because there isn't enough time in the world to mention the possible harm a person can commit without knowledge. Do not mix up people who don't have the oppurtunity to experience the world due to their environment to the likes of someone like you and I, who have access to the internet and interactive knowledgable sources.
Society DOES determine what's bad according to something. We determine what's good or bad based on how it affects the population of that society. That's what our laws in the US reflect (for the most part). It's why our laws are based on the values of modernity and not the 10 commandments (623 commandments if you want to get technical).
Yes, morality without religion. Most people hear the 'without religion' part and freak out because they don't believe that it's possible to have morality without an authority figure (god) to teach it.
I know what secular morality is, you explained it to me. It was a rhetorical question.
I'm not freaking out. It's possible to have morality without it, its why we have a conscience. The conscience though needs nourishment at times, we sometimes gets so blinded by our negative actions, we see them as normal, and that's where spirituality comes in. To bring us back to balance.
As it turns out, it's entirely possible to come up with a sense of morality without ever once invoking a god or other supernatural authority. We've done it in western society for the last 200 years, our constitution and other laws were founded on the principles of secularism, at a time when our founders came to America to ESCAPE the persecution of religion in Europe.
I'm not saying secularism is bad, but it is not perfect. It is only a temporary method of civilisation and constantly shifts, so there will either always be people in the loop or out of it.
The way of life, Islam is seen as now, has been practiced for thousands of years. Judiasm and Christianity were its early stages, and slowly perfected over the years till the seal of the prophets, Prophet Muhammad (SAW). It is why till 600 years after his death, Muslims still follow the original and refuse to change it. Why millions each year line up to attend pilgrimage, wherever you are, you can find and trace the same sources. The Qu'ran and the way the Prophet live. Nothing has changed - yet we still correlate with today's modern society.
Most of the very first settlements here in America were completely secular. Our founding fathers were mostly secular. Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on the values of secularism over 200 years ago as an improvement to society, and he even made sure that the Constitution had the Establishment Clause as part of the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
He also went on to write a response to a letter he received from the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, who were asking him to overthrows the establishment of congregationalism in their state.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Jefferson was a smart man. Like I said, secularism is not bad, and put in to avoid confliction between beliefs and duties of politics within a society where so many different beliefs exist. It assures standards are met and no one cheats there way.
Secularism would not work in a naturally religious society. Where the dominanating belief system is already in work.
Yes, it is war. If neither of the holy books proclaimed Palestine as the holy ground of each of these people, then they wouldn't be fighting over it as such. It's like if I told you that Allah gave you this Pizza and told your Jewish neighbor that God gave that same Pizza to him, you would then set out to kill each other over the Holy Pizza, feeling as though it's rightfully yours and belongs only to someone of YOUR particular religion.
It would never occur to you that the Pizza is actually not holy in any way, that the Pizza wasn't actually given to either of you from God or Allah, and that it would be socially better for you to share the Pizza, instead of killing each other over it.
The problem that has occured here is that the basic foundations of both religions, have the same god and share the same monotheistic belief. If the Torah wasn't lost over the years, its texts would be similar. Both sides have the same prophets that preached the message of God Islam just came afterwards to conclude and disrupt confusions. It's one of the reasons when I can't find Halal foods in the supermarket, I can find Kosher food and still trust to eat it.
Psychotic people have beliefs too. They can even have religious beliefs. The fact that Andrea Yates was insane was irrelevant. Her belief in religion caused her to kill her 5 children. She was found not guilty of her actions by reason of insanity, but that's just how the court system works.
What she did was considered insane, but perfectly justified by her religious beliefs. She believed in sin, she believed that the only right action was to murder her children to save them from sin. That is 100% religion informing her actions. If she did not believe in sin, it wouldn't matter how psychotic she was, she would not have killed her children, because she would have not believed that killing them was the only way to fee them from sin.
Psychotic, there is your answer. She obviously wasn't following the word. Religion may have stemmed it, but it was her OWN irrationality that committed the action. Like a Police man can carry a gun and choose to use it only in the case of self-defence, or use it take the shortcut and simply shoot the enemy even when vulnerable.
Do you agree? It's literally no different than when an Islamic extremist executes someone who's gay. They believe that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death as per the Quran. Their religious belief informs their actions, which leads them to kill someone who's gay. Except in Islam, there is no trial, and the murderer does not go to prison. He is excused because his religious beliefs are not allowed to be scrutinized.
:sy: This does my head in each time someone pulls that out as an excuse of the 'brutality' that Islam harbours. Someone either follows Islam completely or not. There's no inbetweeners. You can be in the case of learning and striving to achieve your best. But there is no extremist, and no modern Muslim. Only someone who understands, and someone who doesn't or has not yet.
Beliefs always inform actions, 100% of the time. There isn't a single thing you or anyone else does in their life, that does not stem from something you believe. Religion is only part of belief, but with religious people, it acts as an authority which screens their other beliefs.
For example, there are parts of the bible that forbid eating meat. People who are religious, and believe in that teaching, refuse to eat meat, as part of their religion. Eating meat is something that has nothing to do with god in any normal sense. But when someone has a religious belief against eating meat, the activity of eating meat is screened against that belief, and thus informs their actions.
I want you to come up with an action that you either take or refuse to take, that you don't think is informed by your beliefs. I can guarantee that you can't do it, and if you think you have, I'll show you how you're wrong.
Oh beliefs influence actions, I agree with you on that. But I do not agree that it is the final attribute in a person committing the action. People forget you have the power to choose what you want to do. But your own choice isn't always the cleanest option.
This argument is empty. Are you really trying to say that an Islamic extremist is not a true Muslim if he blows himself up in a crowded market? That's completely absurd, especially when the guy who's doing it did so because his religion tells him that has rightful claim to a piece of 'holy land.' Just like the guys who bomb abortion clinics here in America because their religion tells them that Abortion is wrong.
It ain't empty. It's simple and logical to follow.
Yes I'm saying someone who outrightly goes against the teachings, putting their own 2 cents worth, claiming it's in the name of God to explode things, then yes they are NOT Muslim.
These people are no less religious than anyone else, and it can be argued that they are MORE religious than anyone else, since they are willing to follow their religion word for word and kill innocent people in the name of their god. You can't go from 'I believe in god' to 'I'm willing to follow the divine command of god and kill people' without religion.
It's either you follow the creed of a religion or you don't. Some one won't be seen as being more religious, if they're not even following the words that it preaches. Those bastards that kill innocents are more twisted in the head than anything, and I refuse to believe they are religious.
You can try to argue that god/allah would never command such a thing, but you're in the same position that you are when you say that god is real: zero evidence to support your claim.
Read the Qu'ran. No not just read and treat it like an ordinary book. No do not simply look at and judge it by perceptions you have heard of before. Take a chance to learn the history behind it, the meaningful lessons in it.
Here's some of the minor signs of Judgement Day fortold 1400 years ago.
* Camels will no longer be used as a means of transport - the development of technology, and white settlement.
* The distance on earth will become short - invention of airoplanes and jet engineering.
* Horses will not be used in wars - hence guns, tanks etc.
* Muslims will defeat the Byzantines which will end with the conquest of Constantinople Istanbul) - history.
* Very tall buildings will be built - seen the Dubai tower lately? 1km wow. Now there's plans for an even taller building.
* The disappearance of knowledge and the appearance of ignorance, with much killing - hence the widespread of idiots killing within military, and unexplained stabbings.
* Adultery will become widespread, and the drinking of wine will become common - Cheating is so common. Alcohol advertised on almost every bus stop in my area.
* The number of men will decrease and the number of women will increase until there are 50 women to be looked after by one man - current facts have the ratio pretty even, but due to so many men dying due to war, especially during the world wars, by the time that generation is within it's middle-age, there are more women and men.
* Allah will send a disease to fornicators that will have no cure - Perhaps Aids?
* People will begin to believe in the stars and reject AL QADAR (THE DIVINE DECREE OF DESTINY) - how many people wish on stars?
* Men will pass by people's graves and say: 'Would that I were in his place' - suicide is becoming increasingly popular...
* The Euphrates will uncover a mountain of gold for which people will fight over - the river of Alfurat that lies near Syria has nearly entirely dried up and there are spotting of gold appearing at the top.
Evolution and the Big Bang cosmology are supported by evidence and practically used in working models to improve humanity. Religion isn't, and the religious leaders of my country are trying to get Evolution and other science removed from the education system, and replace it with creationism (which isn't science).
My suggestion is, schools should be allowed to teach all this, but not force it as a part of the compulsory syllabus. It's good to be educated, but if someone doesn't want to learn something, they won't.
By the way, I'm religious and believe in both the Big Bang and Evolution. There are mentions of it within the Qu'ran. Just to the vast extent than humans arrived from an ancestor of the monkey.
Extremism is a product of religion though. You can't get to extremism through rationality and skepticism. The only possible route to extremism is by holding onto irrational beliefs and refusing to criticize them in any way. This is where religion comes in.
But people don't see it that way, and will continue as it is impossible to have every person on board. I believe this life's a test, and that the heart and intentions of one person are more stronger than anything. So if you really seek peace for all and the well being of others, I'm sure your message will reach others.
There is a significant population of the world that is not capable of moving forward and prospering. Advancements in science, medicine, and technology improve the lives of people who have access to it, thus moving civilization forward through better living.
Compare the life expectancy of secular countries with the life expectancy of 3rd world countries. The most secular country in the world is Japan, where the average life expectancy is the highest in the world @ 82.6. Japan also has the lowest teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, and drug rates, with the 3rd highest education standards of any country in the world.
Whereas in a heavily religious 3rd world country like Africa, they have the lowest average life expectancy @ 40. Africa also has some of the highest crime rates, poverty, drugs, and teen pregnancy rates, with abysmal education standards.
So when we talk about 'moving forward,' we are talking about improving the quality of life all over the planet. However, that can't happen when people keep killing each other over religion and other irrational beliefs.
Compare the dark ages of the Western World to the golden ages of the Eastern World during the same time. The introduction of religion, brought universities to existance, working societies where even the poor and slaves were treated with respect. It didn't happen over night, but it was achieved. Islam brought CHANGE. The world went through thousands and thousands of years through similar utilities within the west, only in the last few hundred years has that changed, the hold of the perpetulant church weakened within the Western Side, which allowed for CHANGE. That CHANGE brought freedom of mind, and the ability to gain knowledge, which is what sparked the industralisation of today.
Africa is a challenging nation. Compare somewhere like Libya to the country of Ethiopia. Libya was a successful nation run by Muslim Gaddafi, who by media was falsely accused. I've talked to a Libyan who supported Gaddafi whole heartedly, saying the riots were caused by one of the tribes of three major ones that lost its leader prior to Gaddafi's reign.
Gaddafi's benefits include:
You must be registered for see links
Ethiopa on the other hand, has gone through decades of military leadership, ruining its economy and care for the citizens.
Japan only after WWII lost lots of its culture and spirituality. Rushing to compete with the industrialisation of the west, it became so intact with working and such, that a lot of its originality was lost. Tadashi Suzuki is a man who talks about how the average Japanese man has become so possessed with the economy that they have lost their connection to the Earth. But I'm not complaining too much...I wouldn't have the Toshiba laptop I have to respond to this today, if it weren't for Japan's industralisation.
Teaching people not to question bronze age beliefs is not a means to prevention, unless you are talking about the prevention of critical thinking skills regarding religion. It's best to each people to reserve belief unless it's justified by evidence and facts.
I'm not telling people not to question, ignoring that factor is going against basic human curiousity. A person seeking spirituality does not blindly follow a faith, they look for the most logical root and settle from there. It's best for people to be rational in a society that is secular.
That way people practice critical thinking skills in all aspects of their life, up to and including morality and beliefs. If people reserve belief for when it's justified, then they are less likely to be irrational people who behave irrationally.
Religion does not teach skepticism or critical thinking. Instead religion teaches you to accept it blindly through faith, ESPECIALLY when you are skeptical of religion. They see doubt as a form of weakness and praise faith and knowledge claims, even if they are unsubstantiated.
Depends what religion you are talking about. I probably sound annoying contiously bringing up Islam, but it's right there for humanity. Doubt is obtained from either not knowing the entire truth, unable to reach the truth, or raised in the wrong truth. That truth though is for you to decide.xd
Not to argue whether religions are in the right or wrong, however, it isn't just a tool of mass population control. Religion has always been the main driver of humanities advances, it gave many nations life, it made the followers of different religions competitive, even war is an important factor that religion drove and had may benefits that shouldn't be underestimated. The Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Persian, and probably every single great nation that has achieved anything, were all driven by religion.
Religion has also implemented many high morals into humanity, it regulated most of our affairs, from trade to mating.
No one can deny that religion has always been the main driver of civilizations.
You're right about one thing, religion has been the main drive of civilization. BUT, it hasn't always serve to implement high morals into people. For the 18 years of my existence, I've come to notice that 'some' people who become religious let religion and their beliefs manipulate their minds. Thus cruelty comes to play in cases. I've seen people who will treat someone who's 'different' wrongly in the name of god.
I will not deny that religion has it's benefits but it's also a big impediment for those who aren't religious or the 'minority groups' since the majority of the world's population practices a type of religion.
I cant bring myself to believe in a religion yet I love God and have my own morals. One thing why I perhaps could never accept religion is the fact that they cant learn tolerance.
"You don't need a religion to know how to treat others or what's wrong and what's right"
Without religion, there is no description of God, or reason to believe in him. You can't go from atheism or agnosticism to a belief in god without some sort of description of god and a reason why you should believe. Most religions describe god as the creator of the universe, and the supreme controller of your afterlife. So if you don't believe in religion and what it says about god and the afterlife, why do you believe in god at all?
Why do I believe in god? because I'm an ex Catholic, I never 'truly' doubted that god existed even if I had my ups and downs. I became agnostic because I was sick and tired of watching every religion out there do the same thing "Be good only to insure their spot in heaven" but turn around and be complete vampires to the rest who either wasn't of their religion, homosexuals etc..
I do not believe in a religion that outcasts a group of people. It goes against my morals and beliefs. I was naive when I was younger until I actually decided to study religions and watch the entire world as a whole. "Once you've learn what true pain is, you will think before hurting someone"
I've been called many things for having this strong belief and that's fine. I rather be what others call me since it wont matter because at the end of the day I believe in God and will keep my morals intact.
If being a tolerant and accepting person is so wrong then I will always be 'wrong'
This is exactly what I am talking about. If your idea of god is the Catholic version, but you don't believe in Catholicism, then what exactly about that god do you believe in, and why? I only ask because there are thousands of different versions of 'god,' each one describes him differently.
Some of them describe him in a deistic way, some of them in a theistic way, and some of them in a polytheistic way. I just find it funny that you would choose to believe in a god that's described by a religion you don't believe in.
I became agnostic because I was sick and tired of watching every religion out there do the same thing "Be good only to insure their spot in heaven" but turn around and be complete vampires to the rest who either wasn't of their religion, homosexuals etc..
Agnosticism is a position of not claiming knowledge, not to be confused with not claiming belief. Are you stating that your position of claiming knowledge regarding religion stems from the way some people from those religions act, and not from the actual religion itself?
I wouldn't think that the way religious people act has anything to do with whether or not you believe in their religion or claim to know whether or not their religious claims are true.
I do not believe in a religion that outcasts a group of people. It goes against my morals and beliefs. I was naive when I was younger until I actually decided to study religions and watch the entire world as a whole. "Once you've learn what true pain is, you will think before hurting someone"
I've been called many things for having this strong belief and that's fine. I rather be what others call me since it wont matter because at the end of the day I believe in God and will keep my morals intact.
If being a tolerant and accepting person is so wrong then I will always be 'wrong'
I do not hold religious beliefs because there is no compelling evidence which gives me a justified reason to believe the various claims of religion, including but not limited to: existence of supernatural beings, miracles, divinity/divine command, origin of the universe, and the afterlife.
From that position of unbelief, I have also made a claim that religious belief has led some people to behave in a manner which is not consistent with the well being and progress of humanity. This claim is well established and supported by extensive evidence within nearly every single major religion and many of the smaller ones, to the point where anyone questioning the validity of the claim is obviously not willing to consider the facts.
However, my unbelief and my opinion of certain religious behavior have absolutely nothing to do with each other. With you, it seems like your religious beliefs are 100% informed by the negative actions of religious people, and your belief in god has nothing to do with religion at all.
I'm extremely curious to know what god you actually do believe in, and why.
I've read every drop, hence why I quote and respond to your entire posts by paragraphs. Your words have not gone ignored, they have merely not persuaded me.
Just because you quoted what I said, doesn't mean you actually read it. Some of the things you've said have contradicted other things you've said, while some of them have contradicted me at one point, then agreed with me later on the same point.
It's hard to know where your logic is coming from because it's seemingly inconsistent.
I'm telling you that it's the individual's choice to decide what they are influenced by.
Actually it's not. Most religion indoctrinates people when they are young children, completely susceptible to having their opinions formed without being capable of making any personal choices.
It's like telling children that Santa Claus exists. Most children will believe it simply because they are told. It takes children years to figure out that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and that usually only happens out of social peer pressure in attempts to convince each other that Santa Claus is really Mom & Dad.
When it comes to religion, most people follow the religion they are born and raised in. Based on the religion in question, there is usually a strong social pressure to conform to the religion, which usually eliminates most chances of questioning or rejecting it. So when you say that it's up to an individual to choose what he is influenced by you're ignoring the social pressures that reside within the individual's life.
In Islam, the punishment for choosing to leave Islam (for whatever reason) is death. That's a huge social pressure NOT to leave Islam, pretty much removing your rational ability to choose not to be influenced by Islam.
From there it's a really small step go from believing in your religion for irrational reasons, to doing something violent that your religion condones, for irrational reasons.
Religion can influence to an extent, but once an adult, you have the freedom to believe what you want and work how your mind works.
The critical part of human development for logic and reasoning is around age 7, that's when people start forming their own beliefs and opinions. If children are spending the first 18 years of their life indoctrinated, with 11 of those years being post logic and reasoning development, what do you think the chances are of people changing their mind once they become an adult?
The evidence suggests that the chances are staggering low, since only a small percentage of the world's are not religious.
People like you have chosen to not follow any religion, that is your choice and I can respect it. You are influenced by people's claims about the disproved existance of God.
Actually no. This is 100% wrong. It's great that you respect people's choices, but your understanding of science, skepticism, and rational thinking is tragic. First, it is rationally impossible to disprove the existence of something. Just think of Russel's teapot. Secondly, my choice not to believe in religion has nothing to do with the claims of anyone else. My choice is influenced by the fact there is currently zero evidence which supports the claims of religion. Lastly, the moment there IS any evidence to support the claims of religion, every single scientist in the world will acknowledge said evidence and there will be a sufficient reason to believe the claims of religion.
This idea that you are justified in believing religion and their claims at this point in time is where you're making a big mistake.
I have grown up in a religious household, questioned it when I was younger, it is only normal as a child. I even questioned that if we can't see God, how does he exist. My parents weren't entirely religious, merely did the basics. Once I hit high school, instead of the usual being swayed by the masses, I felt my purpose in life was shifted, and my perception of reality changed. I noticed how so many students my age were easily swooned over by preteen boy bands, interrupted classes and created chaos amongst the playground, I didn't want to fall into that domain. I never used to care about practicing religion, merely did it because I had to, but once I understood, took the time to understand the meanings and had a sister who was in the same situation to help me. I made up my mind to stick strongly with Islam.
So in a nutshell, you grew up in the Islamic faith as a muslim, with a moderate muslim family, and when you became a young adult, you not only burrowed deeper into Islam, you made absolutely zero attempt at doing anything otherwise.
I'm sorry, but questioning whether or not god is real as a child, is not the same as doing it when you are an adult and can fully understand the implications of religion and religious claims. Islam is claiming that Allah is the one true god, that he cares about you specifically and has a plan for your life, that he created you, and the universe you exist in. And when you die, you will be resurrected and reside forever in heaven with Allah so long as believed in the 5 pillars of Islam and followed the 6 articles of faith.
The point at which you arrived at your belief in these things has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not these things are actually true and supported by evidence. This is a signal that you are a believer based on childhood indoctrination and social pressures rather than arriving at that point after a sound and objective look at the evidence.
If you said that initially, then I wouldn't have said you generalised it.
I've said it at least once with every response to you. The fact it's taken you this long to acknowledge what I've been saying all along shows that you really haven't been reading my posts. Well, not thoroughly, anyway.
If you are so bent on wanting to persuade the masses that religions promote violence, isolate the verses in the major religions. Do not create an open hole by not providing the evidence. The verses you brought up initially were relevant, as I informed you how to understand them, and that they were not at all hateful, merely logical. Providing facts and evidence that Islam is not a belief that spouts hate or violence.
I'm not trying to persuade the masses of anything. I'm simply pointing out the fact that with most religions, anyone can justify violence and hatred based on scripture alone. It's been done for thousands of years, and will not stop with Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. It would be like that if scriptures were free of those passages to begin with.
Yes they are important. They were not my interpretation, it was a summed up paragraph of the history and context that related to the time that the verses of the Qu'ran that were released, to help you understand it. As well as more literal arabic-to-english translations.
One who understands the meaning thoroughly IS different to the person who takes it out of the context and does not follow it accurately. It gives false images of those who do follow the practice accordingly.
He was influenced by his own mind not rationally understanding the context.
It isn't important, because we're not talking about people who think, feel, and act like you. We are talking about people who think, feel, and act in a completely different manner than you, based on their religious beliefs. Context is largely subjective, which is why there are so many different religious denominations out there to begin with.
The only argument that you can make about interpretation is whether or not you personally agree with it and how that impacts you. When we're talking about another person's interpretation, yours ceases to matter completely, because they aren't going to consider your interpretation and then decide to act differently.
They are only going to consider their interpretation, no matter how wrong you might think it is, and then act based on their beliefs. It's basically a game of semantics where innocent people lose all day and the only thing you can say about it is you don't agree, which is entirely moot and does nothing to solve the actual problem.
It's good that you're making better choices and holding slightly superior beliefs, but it has absolutely zero relevance to the situations where innocent people are being hurt or killed by other members of your religion.
The way you speak, is like censorship. The US holds a death penalty, if the law was censored each time to cover any mention of imprisonment, sentenced for life, death sentence or corporal punishment do you believe that would stop the violence that runs in America?
The 'violence' you mention, is punishments of those who do wrong. Like you would discipline a child. Generally there's a warning, if it is passed once again, punishment will happen.
It's not censorship at all. I'm not saying that some authority should come along and remove all instances of violence or hatred from your holy book. I'm saying that as a rational, logical, and intelligent people (if that's true), muslims should take it upon themselves to improve the Quran by removing those passages themselves. And while you're at it, do the same thing with all the supernatural stuff too.
The point is that no one can tell your religion what to do. We can only tell you what you SHOULD do, based on the benefits to be gained by society as a whole. The only way to better yourselves as a religion and a society is to change your beliefs, because as long as your actions are informed by harmful beliefs, you will harm others and be harmed yourself. The problem is that as soon as you invoke the word 'religion' you are saying that no change will be possible, and that becomes a problem, especially when your religion values an unchanging dogmatic approach where the value of life is only secondary to the strength of your faith.
It's painful and inhibitive across the board, which is sad, because there truly is a better way for everyone, muslims included.
The statement should be. People do commit acts of violence based on their environment and beliefs. You're refusing to see it any other way, which is typical of anyone.
I don't know if it's a language barrier or what, but it's like I'm talking to a brick wall. The statement I've made at least a dozen times now is 'beliefs inform our actions.' Which is the exact same thing as saying 'people commit acts of violence based on their beliefs.' Environment certainly plays a big part of it, which is what I said earlier about social pressure and indoctrination. If you are brought up in a religious environment, then you are at a predisposition to be irrational about your beliefs. If you are holding irrational beliefs, such as 'all infidels deserve to die' then it is very much informing your actions if you then strap a bomb vest on and suicide bomb an embassy.
Religion is every bit as responsible for teaching certain beliefs as anything else in life. Since actions are informed by belief, then it is religion that is responsible for violent actions as described by scripture.
It's really a 'derp' kind of statement, and I don't understand why you're in such contention over it.
Because there isn't enough time in the world to mention the possible harm a person can commit without knowledge. Do not mix up people who don't have the oppurtunity to experience the world due to their environment to the likes of someone like you and I, who have access to the internet and interactive knowledgable sources.
It's funny that you mention the internet and access to knowledge/information. I'm not going to provide any links or mention any groups in particular (as a safety concern) but you can find plenty of militant Islamic groups utilizing the internet and it's information in their cause.
I don't think it's a fair assumption to make that these people simply don't have access to information so they are all pissy and violent out of ignorance.
Once again I'm not Christian, so I want agree with you on that point either way.
Just to try to illustrate my point, I'll list for you the 10 commandments that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai:
1: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
2: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
3: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
4: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
5: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
6: 'You shall not murder.'
7: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
8: 'You shall not steal.'
9: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
10: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
My point earlier was that our laws in the US are not based on religious laws. For example, if they were, we would have a law against all 10 of these things. Instead, we only have laws against stealing and killing, for obvious reasons.
We have secular morality and laws in the US.
I'm not freaking out. It's possible to have morality without it, its why we have a conscience. The conscience though needs nourishment at times, we sometimes gets so blinded by our negative actions, we see them as normal, and that's where spirituality comes in. To bring us back to balance.
What? This is one of those claims that needs to be backed up by some evidence.
I'm not saying secularism is bad, but it is not perfect. It is only a temporary method of civilisation and constantly shifts, so there will either always be people in the loop or out of it.
The way of life, Islam is seen as now, has been practiced for thousands of years. Judiasm and Christianity were its early stages, and slowly perfected over the years till the seal of the prophets, Prophet Muhammad (SAW). It is why till 600 years after his death, Muslims still follow the original and refuse to change it. Why millions each year line up to attend pilgrimage, wherever you are, you can find and trace the same sources. The Qu'ran and the way the Prophet live. Nothing has changed - yet we still correlate with today's modern society.
No, secularism does not 'constantly shift,' and it's certainly not a 'temporary method of civilization.'
Under secular morality, decisions are made based on the impact those decisions have on the whole group, and consequences are metered out accordingly. This means that each circumstance is different, and laws carry a more realistic punishment that fits the crime. Under religious morality, decisions are made based on what the holy book of that religion says to do. This means that circumstances do not matter, and laws carry with them a disproportionate level of punishment that has a 'one size fits all' level of rationality applied.
This is why the punishment for being an Islamic Apostate in the Middle East is death, and the punishment for being an Islamic Apostate in America is social awkwardness (and that's not even guaranteed).
The important aspect of secularism is to understand reality in a way that addresses each individual circumstance in a realistic way, considering the facts and evidence associated with reality, and dismissing claims that are irrational, unreasonable, or unsupported by any evidence.
For instance, we don't have a law against killing in the US because it's a sin punishable by eternity in hell (which is not supported by a single shred of evidence). We have a law against killing in the US because every death represents a loss to society and no one deserves to lose their life. So when someone does kill someone else, we remove them from society for a period of time in which the person has a chance to reconcile what they did and make changes to their behavior in hopes of reentering society as a better person.
Like I said, secularism is not bad, and put in to avoid confliction between beliefs and duties of politics within a society where so many different beliefs exist. It assures standards are met and no one cheats there way.
Secularism would not work in a naturally religious society. Where the dominanating belief system is already in work.
Incorrect again. Secularism exists as a means to establish a system of society in which people get along under a standardized set of rules that accommodate everyone equally regardless of religious or individual belief. It has nothing to do with preventing hostility between religions or politics within society. On top of which, the US is a highly religious society that follows secular laws and morality.
The problem that has occured here is that the basic foundations of both religions, have the same god and share the same monotheistic belief. If the Torah wasn't lost over the years, its texts would be similar. Both sides have the same prophets that preached the message of God Islam just came afterwards to conclude and disrupt confusions. It's one of the reasons when I can't find Halal foods in the supermarket, I can find Kosher food and still trust to eat it.
No, the problem is that two different groups of people are fighting over a portion of land and thus killing each other. The cause of that problem is a religious book which was written by men a long time ago, claiming that a supernatural being which has no supporting evidence, promised that particular land to one of those groups of people, but not the other.
It's a situation where as long as no proof of the authenticity of the claim actually exists, people will continue to kill each other over said land for as long as there are two different people who think that it belongs to them.
This is not rational or reasonable behavior, and any onlooker can tell you why. If these were two secular groups there would never be any fighting to begin with.
Psychotic, there is your answer. She obviously wasn't following the word. Religion may have stemmed it, but it was her OWN irrationality that committed the action. Like a Police man can carry a gun and choose to use it only in the case of self-defence, or use it take the shortcut and simply shoot the enemy even when vulnerable.
It was the act of killing her 5 children that was ruled as 'psychotic.' What caused her to kill her 5 children was her belief in god as a real being who was going to judge all of her kids and condemn them to hell for their sins. So instead of allowing them to become adults and thus sinners, she decided to take on all their sins by killing them one by one in a bathtub, in hopes of giving them the chance to make it to heaven without having ever sinned.
Like I keep trying to tell you, beliefs inform actions, and in this case it was her religious beliefs that caused her to kill her children. Whether or not she was psychotic before or after she killed them is obviously debatable. What's not debatable is the fact that without a belief in god, sin, and the afterlife, she never would have killed her 5 children.
This does my head in each time someone pulls that out as an excuse of the 'brutality' that Islam harbours. Someone either follows Islam completely or not. There's no inbetweeners. You can be in the case of learning and striving to achieve your best. But there is no extremist, and no modern Muslim. Only someone who understands, and someone who doesn't or has not yet.
And you are hopelessly delusional. We don't classify a Muslim based on whether he does or doesn't commit a violent act. We classify a Muslim based on his belief in Allah and the Prophet Muhammed. Likewise, we don't classify a Christian based on whether he does or doesn't commit a violent act. We classify a Christian based on his belief in God and Christ. Someone can be both a good person and a Muslim. Just like someone can be both a murderer, and a Muslim.
Oh beliefs influence actions, I agree with you on that. But I do not agree that it is the final attribute in a person committing the action. People forget you have the power to choose what you want to do. But your own choice isn't always the cleanest option.
Unfortunately I've explained it to you several times. Making a choice is an action, your actions are informed by beliefs.
It's either you follow the creed of a religion or you don't. Some one won't be seen as being more religious, if they're not even following the words that it preaches. Those bastards that kill innocents are more twisted in the head than anything, and I refuse to believe they are religious.
You can refuse to believe whatever you want to, that doesn't discount the evidence which disagrees with you. There's a reason why we use the word 'fundamental' or 'extremist' to describe people who literally follow the words of their scriptures. Like I said before, just because someone commits an act of violence doesn't make them less religious than you.
Read the Qu'ran. No not just read and treat it like an ordinary book. No do not simply look at and judge it by perceptions you have heard of before. Take a chance to learn the history behind it, the meaningful lessons in it.
Here's some of the minor signs of Judgement Day fortold 1400 years ago.
I've already talked about 'predictions.' If your justification for believing them is that they have 'come true' then all I have to say is LOL.
I'm not going to bother addressing your list of predictions, because I can guarantee that they don't mean jack shit. Claiming that 'X will happen' is not a prediction, unless X is accurate down to the date, the time, the year, the location, and the people involved.
Notice the difference between 'you have a card in your wallet with something written on it.'
And 'You have a card in your wallet with a 20 digit number written down on it, and that number is 29504395021038753954.'
It's generally accepted that people have cards in their wallets with stuff on them, because that's what a wallet is for, storing personal information on little cards along with your money and other financial resources.
However, it's not generally accepted knowledge to know the exact thing I have written on a card in my wallet, down to what it is and exactly what it looks like. That would be amazing. What would be even more amazing is if it could be done at will with everyone.
Do you understand what I am saying now? What you are doing is literally the equivalent of what fraud psychics do. They take vague and meaningless information and spin it into something you want to hear. They do it enough times so that you latch onto the few things that were accurate and completely ignore everything that wasn't. Then afterward, you remember them as being great psychics who got everything right, instead of the fraudulent scammers that only got a couple things close to right.
My suggestion is, schools should be allowed to teach all this, but not force it as a part of the compulsory syllabus. It's good to be educated, but if someone doesn't want to learn something, they won't.
Schools should only be allowed to teach what is factual and can be demonstrated to be such. I don't need my child to enter the school system and be taught things that aren't supported by a single shred of evidence.
By the way, I'm religious and believe in both the Big Bang and Evolution. There are mentions of it within the Qu'ran. Just to the vast extent than humans arrived from an ancestor of the monkey.
No, there is no mention of the Big Bang theory or Evolution in the Quran. You'd have to stretch what the Quran actually says about the origin of the universe and the origin of species in order to get 'Big Bang' or 'Evolution' out of it.
And just looking at your interpretations of 'doomsday predictions' that's something that you're well versed in. I'm sorry, but you're stretching the words of the book to find meaning that's not there.
Extremism is a product of understanding the context of religion wrong.
Extremism comes from a literal interpretation of scripture and a willingness to carry out it's doctrines at all costs, even suicide and the deaths of innocents. I really don't know why you keep insisting that these people aren't really religious.
They very much in fact, are.
But people don't see it that way, and will continue as it is impossible to have every person on board. I believe this life's a test, and that the heart and intentions of one person are more stronger than anything. So if you really seek peace for all and the well being of others, I'm sure your message will reach others.
Of course people don't see it that way. They instead believe that their views are superior to others, and are willing to fight to the death over it. There is no compromise, there isn't even any skepticism or self questioning.
It's just accept everything as an article of faith and that's how you know to kill the other guy who's claiming the same land as you.
I'm not telling people not to question, ignoring that factor is going against basic human curiousity. A person seeking spirituality does not blindly follow a faith, they look for the most logical root and settle from there. It's best for people to be rational in a society that is secular.
When I say to 'question,' I'm not saying to question their faith or their religious conviction. I'm saying they need to question the facts and the evidence. If you take a stance of skepticism then you don't believe things until there is justified reason to, aka facts and evidence.
You can never go from a position of skepticism regarding religion or other supernatural things to a position of belief based on evidence or facts, because they just don't exist. So when you say 'people follow logic' to religion, that's pretty much never the case. Anyone who believes in religion does so because of indoctrination or irrationality. Not because of rationality or logic.
Depends what religion you are talking about. I probably sound annoying contiously bringing up Islam, but it's right there for humanity. Doubt is obtained from either not knowing the entire truth, unable to reach the truth, or raised in the wrong truth. That truth though is for you to decide.
The truth is not for you to 'decide.' The truth is always supported by facts and evidence. That's what separates the truth from things that are not true. You can choose to decide whether or not you believe the truth, but the truth itself is objective, not subjective.
Doubt is a tool of skepticism, you only have doubt when you are questioning the value of a claim to have sufficient evidence or not. It's like the claim 'god created the universe.' You accept that claim as true based on these premises:
1. The universe appears to exist as a product of creation or design.
2. You don't know how that could happen without invoking a supernatural force.
3. Your religious belief describes this supernatural force.
4. You don't see a logical flaw in the explanation.
5. You then hold the belief in the claim as being true.
At no time in any of these steps do you actually question the claim in the face of the evidence or the facts.
When someone comes to me and says 'god created the universe' here's what I do:
1. Is the claim supported by facts or evidence?
2. No.
3. Belief not established.
At such a time when there ARE facts and evidence to support the claim, then I will hold that it's true, and begin to believe it. Until then, it's a waste of time, and potentially harmful to myself and those within my close proximity.
-The witch burnings, including the Joan of Arc
- The Crusades
- The Black Discrimination and slavery
- The invasion of the New World
- The Prosecution of people like Galileo and Copernicus
-The crusades was caused by Muslims attacking people in the land then when the peeps asked the catholic church for help they started the crusades.
-Black discrimination was not caused by christianity. If you knew your history you would know that blacks could get free after 7 years like any normal indentured servant. Then when the colonists essentially got lazy they passed a law so that all indentured servants children are slaves for life. Native americans and black people both had to deal with this slavery but there were far more blacks as slaves.
-Invasion of the new world was not christianity.(How was it even bad in the first place?) The amount of people alive at that time in europe was growing rapidly and was already very high. Living conditions were poor, not enough food, etc... and then with the european countries at war did not help either. People wanted somewhere else to go which led to finding a new world. There was already knowledge of land near north america because of the trips Spain had done. So many attempts to settling was tried by Spain and other countries and eventually they finally succeeded in surviving in the new world.
Also just because people claim they are christian does not mean they are christian like catholics. If something is needed to be a christian other than belief by faith that Jesus is Lord and died for your sins. Then it is not christian. John, Peter, Jesus, etc... all said that nothing else is needed except that belief. Which is why you also cannot tell if someone is a christian or not because they might believe it but not act like a christian. Which is why Jesus says do not judge.
You can never go from a position of skepticism regarding religion or other supernatural things to a position of belief based on evidence or facts, because they just don't exist. So when you say 'people follow logic' to religion, that's pretty much never the case. Anyone who believes in religion does so because of indoctrination or irrationality. Not because of rationality or logic.
The truth is not for you to 'decide.' The truth is always supported by facts and evidence. That's what separates the truth from things that are not true. You can choose to decide whether or not you believe the truth, but the truth itself is objective, not subjective.
Doubt is a tool of skepticism, you only have doubt when you are questioning the value of a claim to have sufficient evidence or not. It's like the claim 'god created the universe.' You accept that claim as true based on these premises:
1. The universe appears to exist as a product of creation or design.
2. You don't know how that could happen without invoking a supernatural force.
3. Your religious belief describes this supernatural force.
4. You don't see a logical flaw in the explanation.
5. You then hold the belief in the claim as being true.
At no time in any of these steps do you actually question the claim in the face of the evidence or the facts.
When someone comes to me and says 'god created the universe' here's what I do:
1. Is the claim supported by facts or evidence?
2. No.
3. Belief not established.
At such a time when there ARE facts and evidence to support the claim, then I will hold that it's true, and begin to believe it. Until then, it's a waste of time, and potentially harmful to myself and those within my close proximity.
my personal believe dont really give a crap if you quote this cause i aint gunna reply back to this message, that even if you dont believe in god or the devil etc. hey thats your believe i have nothing against you, and yes i do believe in god and christ, anyways read the book of revalation and the other pages in there, everything that is happening today and in the past is in that book, and theres stuff scientist cant understand but its right in your face
my personal believe dont really give a crap if you quote this cause i aint gunna reply back to this message, that even if you dont believe in god or the devil etc. hey thats your believe i have nothing against you, and yes i do believe in god and christ, anyways read the book of revalation and the other pages in there, everything that is happening today and in the past is in that book, and theres stuff scientist cant understand but its right in your face
I'm still of the belief that atheism is a belief which comes from the feeling that one is too good for religion. I think westerners and europeans in general want to believe that they are better than religious people.
You look at religious people (the orthodox ones) and in general you see the high level of moralilty among them.
--Invasion of the new world was not christianity.(How was it even bad in the first place?) The amount of people alive at that time in europe was growing rapidly and was already very high. Living conditions were poor, not enough food, etc... and then with the european countries at war did not help either. People wanted somewhere else to go which led to finding a new world. There was already knowledge of land near north america because of the trips Spain had done. So many attempts to settling was tried by Spain and other countries and eventually they finally succeeded in surviving in the new world.
INvasion was not bad? ... Seriously? A community has problems in their own country and moves to another place hoping for improved living conditions - that's understandable.
A community has bad living condition moves- to invade another country, kills of the natives there, snatche and steals their lands , destroys their civilization and establishes their own by transfering their own bad conditions of living to the natives ...
Religion or no religion, I don't see how it is not bad.
INvasion was not bad? ... Seriously? A community has problems in their own country and moves to another place hoping for improved living conditions - that's understandable.
A community has bad living condition moves- to invade another country, kills of the natives there, snatche and steals their lands , destroys their civilization and establishes their own by transfering their own bad conditions of living to the natives ...
Religion or no religion, I don't see how it is not bad.
I agree with you, it's pretty bad and quite horrible to say the least. Allow me to play devil's advocate though (my favorite game xd)
Actually, when they came to the America's, the natives and settlers were peaceful. Sure, there was some stuff previously that happened, and especially after; but the people who reall came here (not the military or anything, the people), they didn't have a problem. In fact, there was so much land, the natives didn't even care really. Also, they were more concerned with their own battles.
The tribe that helped the Pilgrims grow food had actually made a pact with them. This is the part that's left out of the Thanksgiving story. The natives made a trade; they'd teach them how to grow food, and in return, the settlers had to help them wipe out a rival tribe.
So these people were having problems to begin with...we just stepped in as a third party and ended it. I wonder if they hadn't been so violent in the first place, maybe the USA wouldn't exist now...or not as we know it.
Note: Thanksgiving has nothing to do with the natives and the pilgrims. It was somehow linked to that, but really the celebration is about the Civil War.
I agree with you, it's pretty bad and quite horrible to say the least. Allow me to play devil's advocate though (my favorite game xd)
Actually, when they came to the America's, the natives and settlers were peaceful. Sure, there was some stuff previously that happened, and especially after; but the people who reall came here (not the military or anything, the people), they didn't have a problem. In fact, there was so much land, the natives didn't even care really. Also, they were more concerned with their own battles.
The tribe that helped the Pilgrims grow food had actually made a pact with them. This is the part that's left out of the Thanksgiving story. The natives made a trade; they'd teach them how to grow food, and in return, the settlers had to help them wipe out a rival tribe.
So these people were having problems to begin with...we just stepped in as a third party and ended it. I wonder if they hadn't been so violent in the first place, maybe the USA wouldn't exist now...or not as we know it.
Note: Thanksgiving has nothing to do with the natives and the pilgrims. It was somehow linked to that, but really the celebration is about the Civil War.
The guy I was replying to was asking " How invasion" is bad..
@ you: Europeans who made the deal were not violent at all? Was the Europe peaceful at the time?
Sure everyone came in peace and just for business then proceed to colonisation for getting the business done on their terms and get maximum profit out of it no matter what and somehow people who originally were the owners of the land find themselves alienated, out of the power and out of the main stream of the their own country.
If the natives not had some weakness they wouldn't have been so easy to be exploited or to be defeated. You told me how it became easier for Europeans to invade Natives of America. But what invaders did remains the same.
Sure everyone came in peace and just for business then proceed to colonisation for getting the business done on their terms and get maximum profit out of it no matter what and somehow people who originally were the owners of the land find themselves alienated, out of the power and out of the main stream of the their own country.
And the guy I was replying to was asking " How invasion" is bad.
Well, first you must acknowledge that countries are a problem. There shouldn't be any countries...countries are gangs; no different than the ones on the streets. One gang (country) decides to take over another country (gang). This is not evil...it's stupid. Why didn't both countries decide to become one and live together? Religion.
This is why I don't believe in religion...I believe in truth. I believe in the one, true, Elohim (god if you must U_U). He does not declare war on anyone...He is not a religion, but instead truth. Religion is the problem...it implies that a man is in charge...and men are weak.
Urban II's movement took its first public shape at the Council of Piacenza, where, in March 1095, Urban II received an ambassador from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos asking for help against Muslim (Seljuk) Turks who had taken over most of formerly Byzantine Empire Anatolia. A great council met, attended by numerous Italian, Burgundian, and French bishops in such vast numbers it had to be held in the open air outside the city. At the Council of Clermont held in November of the same year, Urban II's sermon proved highly effective, as he summoned the attending nobility and the people to wrest the Holy Land and the eastern churches generally from the control of the Seljuk Turks.
There exists no exact transcription of the speech that Urban delivered at the Council of Clermont on 27 November 1095. The five extant versions of the speech were written down quite a bit later, and they differ widely from one another. All versions of the speech except that by Fulcher of Chartres were probably influenced by the chronicle account of the First Crusade called the Gesta Francorum (dated c. 1102), which includes a version of it. Fulcher of Chartres was present at the Council, but his version of the speech was written c. 1100–1106; Robert the Monk may have been present, but his version dates from about 1106. The two remaining versions were written even later by authors who certainly did not witness the speech. The five versions of Urban's speech reflect much more clearly what later authors thought Urban II should have said to launch the First Crusade than what Urban II himself actually did say. As a better means of evaluating Urban's true motivations in calling for a crusade to the Holy Lands, there are four extant letters written by Pope Urban II himself: one to the Flemish (dated December 1095); one to the Bolognese (dated September 1096); one to Vallombrosa (dated October 1096); and one to the counts of Catalonia (dated either 1089 or 1096–1099). It is Urban II's own letters, rather than the paraphrased versions of his speech at Clermont, that reveal his actual thinking about crusading. Nevertheless, the versions of the speech have had a great influence on popular conceptions and misconceptions about the Crusades, so it is worth comparing the five composed speeches to Urban's actual words. Fulcher of Chartres has Urban say this:
I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to pers*e all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
You must be registered for see links
Relegious people are supposed to bring peace not start a 500 year war . . . or do u think the Christians never invaded its neighbors? The Muslims did the same.
Invasion is a political movement hardly anything religious.
-Black discrimination was not caused by christianity. If you knew your history you would know that blacks could get free after 7 years like any normal indentured servant. Then when the colonists essentially got lazy they passed a law so that all indentured servants children are slaves for life. Native americans and black people both had to deal with this slavery but there were far more blacks as slaves.
Well the loving Papacy didnt bother to correct the people when they used the Bible to justify slavery . . . they even excommunicated ML King but did not say anything about the Fascists or the Natzi.
-Invasion of the new world was not christianity.(How was it even bad in the first place?) The amount of people alive at that time in europe was growing rapidly and was already very high. Living conditions were poor, not enough food, etc... and then with the european countries at war did not help either. People wanted somewhere else to go which led to finding a new world. There was already knowledge of land near north america because of the trips Spain had done. So many attempts to settling was tried by Spain and other countries and eventually they finally succeeded in surviving in the new world.
Inter caetera ("Among other [works]") was a papal bull issued by Pope Alexander VI on 4 May 1493, which granted to the Catholic Monarchs and their heirs of the Crown of Castile exclusively all lands to the "west and south" of a pole-to-pole line 100 leagues west and south of any of the islands of the Azores or the Cape Verde Islands. [1] [2][3]
The heirs of crown of Aragon was excluded.[4] It remains unclear to the present whether the pope was issuing a "donation" of sovereignty or a feudal infeodation or investiture. Differing interpretations have been argued since the bull was issued, with some arguing that it was only meant to transform the possession and occupation of land into lawful sovereignty. Others, including the spanish monarchy and the conquistadors, interpreted it in the widest possible sense, deducing that it gave full political sovereignty to the crown of Castile.
You must be registered for see links
Read a bit and u will know that the Papacy 'granted' the new lands . . . . also if invasion are not bad why did they worry about Muslim invaders, they live is harsh conditions and need living space too. So they have a right to come to ur home, kick u out and take it as their own without permission.
Also read the Tuchi's post.
Also just because people claim they are christian does not mean they are christian like catholics. If something is needed to be a christian other than belief by faith that Jesus is Lord and died for your sins. Then it is not christian. John, Peter, Jesus, etc... all said that nothing else is needed except that belief. Which is why you also cannot tell if someone is a christian or not because they might believe it but not act like a christian. Which is why Jesus says do not judge.
Great dont judge homosexuals, atheists and every other people, they are under God and he shall judge them . . . unless ur athourity is greater than God's.
Science? . . . do u mean the obsolete, partially represented, selectively chosen and usually misunderstood science which are paraded about by some people who study specifically to prove the Christian origin story correct when there are other religious texts and their proofs to consider?
