The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > RELIGIOSITY AS A VALUE...

RELIGIOSITY AS A VALUE...

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All
Religion and violence go hand in hand ... as does violence in soccer and their fan base.

In soccer (as a player) if you are violent then you receive a penalty and possibly a red / yellow card ... there are a set of clearly agreed rules and outcomes.

While in religion it is more abstract; there are no teachings in Christianity that support violence, in fact you are to turn the other cheek. Who knows what the "rules" are for a violent act in the guise of religion - if you believe in God, then the referee will see you after your "game".

The link between religion and violence in the US can be argued in many ways, one could be those that are prone to violence look for redemption for these acts in a Sunday service, calling themselves religious without practicing.

The Ku Klux Klan is founded from a religious base, as is Al Queda and the Taliban - though their ideals certainly don't reflect their broader religious identities.

To me I come back to religion being the institution and spirituality being the practice. While many people are religious, few are spiritual.

Even less achieve what Boaz states as the outcome of believing in Christ: "Love, Joy, Peace, patience, Kindness, self control, goodness faithfulness"

Violence spawns more from ignorance than true understanding of religion, to link the two is just like linking the fan base of a soccer team and stating they are supporting the game.
Posted by Corri, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 9:40:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Naughty Vanilla :)

My full quote included these words......"unless it is a religion which specifically commands it".. to which I should add "When properly interpreted" (just like I have to 'properly' interpet an electronic schematic..or I blow myself up)

As Corri underlined, you cannot link the correctly interpreted words and works of Jesus in any way to 'commands toward violence' for Christians today. Where such things allegedly DO occur, they do so in CONFLICT with the values they supposedly espouse. (Oklahoma bombing? Give me a break)

I'm often criticized for allegedly lumping all religion X followers in the same basket.. the very thing I'm criticizing you for here, but in my various rants, I attack the 'religion X' not the 'followers'. I provide specific evidence of the basis for it.

And if these studies are to have any real value (your links) they should take the trouble to do the same... or highlight where it is unlikely that the violence etc lack of well being, comes from those fundamentals.

BUSHMANS study was flawed. Here are the reasons.

1/ The '97%' believers in God and the Bible.. were.. MORMONS.. who believe also that Satan and Jesus were brothers!

2/ The passages chosen would not in the remotest dream be used to justify any violence 'today' by Christians who have a basic understanding of the Bible (new testament especially) because they full know that what Jesus referred to was 'aggressive unbelievers attacking peaceful Christians"

I'm going to try to look more closely at this "study" a term I very loosely use btw. Its a clear example of why most therapists have 'a therapist' :)
Bushwhacker also refers to himSELF as an 'authority' in previous studies.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 2:30:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy: “My full quote included these words...…’unless it is a religion which specifically commands it’.. to which I should add ‘When properly interpreted’”

It’s irrelevant. This issue that I’ve brought up is not about whose religious dogma encourages violence and whose encourages peace, it’s about whether a correclation between poverty, violence, lack of well-being and religion exists. It does, as far as I can see, and no one has admitted any evidence to the contrary. This correlation does not appear to be too affected by which particular religion people follow. I am not making any observations about this correlation, I’m simply noting it. I agree with Foxy — a direct causal relationship is too easy. It’s complicated.

Boazy: "The '97%' believers in God and the Bible.. were.. MORMONS.. who believe also that Satan and Jesus were brothers!”
All religious people believe things that are untrue. Academics must choose groups to study. The author is up front about the community he studied. That you are not factionally aligned to this stripe of Christianity is not really relevant.

Boazy: “The passages chosen would not in the remotest dream be used to justify any violence 'today' by Christians who have a basic understanding of the Bible (new testament especially) because they full know that what Jesus referred to was 'aggressive unbelievers attacking peaceful Christians"
This is a meanlingless assertion. I believe you believe what you say, but the evidence clearly proves you wrong.

“Bushwhacker also refers to himSELF as an 'authority' in previous studies.”
All academics cite their own work. Not sure why you disaprove of this practice.

My sense is that you don’t want to discuss this issue but would prefer to continue to reiterate that the Bible, if properly interpretted, cannot lead to violence. I hazard a guess that this will lead in to a discussion about how Islam “doctrinally” permits — nay, insists on! — violence. But you have put me off Christianity enough to know I’m not interested in that discussion, so I’ll leave you to it
Posted by Vanilla, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 6:58:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we accept any notion of self-determination or free will, or any concept of human agency, then we must accept that it is the use of this agency, in other words, the choices of individuals, not merely influences and correlative factors, that are ultimately responsible for human actions.

So I guess you could say, "It's the people, Not Religion, not dogmas, not dialogue or rhetoric or crowds and mass opinion. These can influence decisions to be sure, but we are not automatons, and if we believe we have individuality and the right to choose and think for ourselves, then we must recognize that we, and ultimately we, as individuals, are responsible for our own decisions.

Take Saddam Hussein, for example. Hardly religious or even principled, Saddam was one of the worst perpetrators of horrific violence in modern memory. Yet, I won't say that Saddam did what he did because he was secular and not religious. The Cold War was hardly a war over religion, and yet I won't make the claim that it was political ideologies that caused it. The same goes for both World Wars, neither of which was religious in context.

On the other hand, if perhaps people actually lived the good principles and not the interpretations of the principles of religion, the world might, just might, be a better place.

Religion should not be condemned as a violence-causing or destabilizing force. It was this justification that led Hitler to slaughter Jews and Romans to slaughter Christians, among many other examples--in other words, fear of religion led to suppression and tyranny and...violence. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of the world is religious. Those people, and especially those leaders, who claim religion is dangerous should scare us just as much as those who claim religion is their divine mandate for violence.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 7:43:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting thread you started Foxy!

Thanks for the great links Vanilla. I've bookmarked them. There's lots I want to explore further.

Boazy, you obviously only classify your own particular brand of religiosity as valid and the only one that cause its followers to behave within a particular moral code.

Corri, of course, hit the nail on the head by pointing out that just because somebody is religious that doesn't mean that they actually live a spiritual life, or religious life.

Is it possible that with the premise in Christian belief that all humans are sinners, born as sinners, Christian communities subconsciously accept that sin is always to be expected, inevitable and understandable until and unless each person is 'saved'? To me that is why logically speaking there is more violence and 'immoral' behaviour in strongly Christian communities. It is logical that sinners sin.

This is THE point I've found most difficult to rationalize with Christianity. The virgin birth, the resurrection, raising Lazarus from the dead etc do not give me nearly as much issue.

Don't try Boazy, umpteen good people have quoted from the bible, spoken about free will, the original sin, etc. All of which, for arguments sake, could be the absolute truth, but that would only support my premise. Sinners sin, ergo sin is to be expected, inevitable and understandable.

So, if religiosity is to have a value, I would say, that depends on the religion.
Posted by yvonne, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 7:53:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It never fails to amuse me Boaz, every time you set yourself up as an authority on the conflict in Northern Ireland.

It particularly amuses me - in fact it often makes me laugh out loud - when you claim that the conflict there is without a basis in religious differences.

>>I reject the idea that it was primarily 'religious'.. the religious difference was historical based on English invasions, so I deem it political...<<

Micks and Prods have been at each others' throats forever.

And it was the Scots who colonized the six counties:

http://philnorf.tripod.com/scottish.htm

Further this population shift was not the result of an English invasion. The previous landowners fled to France - by sheer coincidence, they were Catholic - and were supplanted by Scottish Lowlanders - who just happened, I guess, to be Protestants.

Here are a couple more gobbets of Irish history for you, Boaz.

1541: Henry VIII declares himself King of Ireland in an attempt to introduce Protestantism. Ireland until that point had been Catholic since the St Patrick conversions of the fifth century.

1559: Elizabeth I outlaws the Catholic Mass as part of her attempt to impose Protestantism... for a while you could buy your way out of this requirement, but this indulgence came to an end when Pope Pius V mandated that all Catholics should ignore her, since she was a "pretend Queen"

1641: the Ulster Rebellion: the English were encouraged to believe that Catholics were massacring Protestants, which culminated in Cromwell's revenge massacre at Drogheda in 1649. Of Catholics.

1685 - 1690 James II abolished the anti-Catholic laws (since he was of that faith), but when the English enlisted William of Orange (who was a Protestant) to their throne, they naturally had a bit of a spat, which was resolved at the Battle of the Boyne.

Which you may have heard about, Boaz, because the Orangemen march, to this day, in commemoration of that event.

So what was it that cause a Dutchman and a Scot to fight so bitterly in Ireland?

Religion, Boaz. Religion.

You should open your eyes sometime.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 8:13:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy