Anxst

I think this is being looked at in the wrong way, personally.

The issue here isn't that religion makes it easier for people to kill other people, but that most people are not sociopaths. A reason OF ANY KIND makes it easy to kill people, because you have a rationalization for it. Even sociopaths only kill people who attempt to make them deviate from their goals or fit their victim profile, for which they have a 'reason'.

So, the issue at stake is how much easier reasoning makes it for us to kill someone. I think that strength of belief is directly proportional to ease of killing in the name of. If you strongly believe your family is in danger, you would have an easier time killing for it than you would for, perhaps, believing your country was in danger. It's about how strongly you believe.

I think that's why Nationalism of different sorts and religion are being so intertwined in this discussion. Both are strong belief systems, but that doesn't make Nationalism a religion. It just makes it a belief. Believing that the sky is green doesn't make it a religion, after all. Nor does it make it true. That doesn't mean the zealot down the street won't kill you for believing it's blue.

__________________
Don't mind me. I'm just releasing the insanity pressure from my headvalves.

Charlatan

Where to start?

1) I am pretty sure that we can all agree that religion can be and has been used to justify some very horrible things.
2) Turning #1 into a Universal statement about all religions and all people who practice religions completely ignores the millions (billions?) of people who practice their religion in peace.

There is no way you can convince me that Nazism in the 30s and 40s was in anyway a religion. To say that Triumph of the Will is religious entirely misses the point of propaganda. Riefenstahl and the Nazi PR machine were geniuses when it came to the image and manipulating the public.

They knew the imagery that would sell Hitler. They understood what the public wanted to see. You have to remember that Hitler was one of the frist politicians to use modern mass communications to sell himself. If you have a Catholic audience, you use their imagery. This is the same thing as someone like George W. Bush, a native of Maine, adopting a folksy accent. It's what the people want.

The mass rally at Nuremburg and the film that documents it, also use symbolism from ancient Rome, Wagner and Faust. Does this mean that National Socialism is also a Pan-Theist, opera-loving, literary genius? No. It means they knew how to play on the heart strings of a nation. Again, it is for these same reasons that advertisers associate their products with certain things (Come to Canada and ally your product with hockey. It will do well.).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Ustwo

I think the problem with some people is they confuse religion with culture.

A religion is part of the culture, but it is just a part. If a culture is violent, expansive, and warlike, religion will be used to foster that. If a culture is peaceful or isolationist, the same religion can be used to foster that.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

snowy

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

May I also remind people that one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill."

People have always twisted God's word to suit their needs. It's really nothing new.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Ustwo

Read the book of Judges and you might see that 'God' is very flexible there.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

The_Jazz

I agree that this is a very important point about the distinction between religion and culture, but I have to disagree with the supposition that some cultures are violent, expansive and warlike. Cultures aren't any of these things although their governments are. Cultures don't decide to go to war - governments do. Cultures don't persecute minorities - governments do. I certainly grant that individuals are complicit in the sins of the government, but blaming the entire German people (including the Austrians and Volga Germans in the USSR) for the sins of the Nazis is grossly unfair. It's the same story with the Inquisition - it was the Church hierarchy that did the persecution with the assistance of the monarch, not the people at large, although I am sure that there were individuals who were just as guilty as the Inquisitors.

Culture is a constant. It is a commonly held language, maybe a common religion (although not always), morals and customs. Cultures don't expand or contract on their own volition; they do so in pursuit of resources.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Ustwo

A culture is what allows a government to operate as it does. Governements are the instrument of that culture. Now what creates the culture is the real meat of the question.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

martinguerre

cyrnel...

The dead sea scrolls are buried before Jesus. There are no gospels there.

There is a vast collection of Hebrew scriptures and other materials....

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

martinguerre

Read the book of Judges, and you might notice that the narration avoids praise of much of the actions that take place there...

"And in all Israel, the people did what they thought was right, for there was no King."

Broadly, i'm not saying you don't have a point. But going to judges is a odd place to justify that point.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

cyrnel

Martin, what I recall is a number of entries that were extremely similar to later Biblical accounts. That's what was fascinating to me, though I became sidetracked professionally and never followed up. This thread reminded me of the connection, and the possible influences. I was hoping those of you better read than myself could draw lines as it related to the OP. Don't want to threadjack and at this point I'm well on my way.

I'd be happy with pointers to good reading material. Something readable by a mono-lingual layman. Translations and interpretations over the past decade from whatever perspectives.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

asaris

Sorry if this repeats anything said already -- I just noticed there's a second page now.... I really like Anxst's post, btw.

The fact that you put 'holy sites' in quotes, and later on characterize the Nazis as 'pseudo-religious' and borrowing elements from Catholicism, indicates that the Nazis as such weren't truly religious, that they only used religion to further their own ends.

Well, to the extent that you're willing to say that any system of belief, not just religious belief, makes it easier to kill, I guess I don't really disagree with you. Anything worth living for is worth dying for, and it's quite a short step from something's being worth dying for, and that thing's being worth killing for.

That doesn't work since Christ says he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Because of specific commands in the NT, we can ignore the purity laws of the OT. But it's not clear that the laws you cite are purity laws, so I just didn't want to go into that.

This is interesting and leads to my larger point here. Yes, Christians killed people during the Spanish inquisition, but the Catholic church actually objected to the harshness of the Spanish inquisition, much the same way as it objected to the harsh treatment of the Native Americans in the New World. The point is, religion in general and Christianity in particular has been responsible for a lot of good things in the world, not just some of the bad things. That's what sets religion apart from Stalinism or Nazism. Those two didn't contribute anything good to the world, where Christianity contributed science, the university, abolition of slavery, civil rights, and that's just Christianity and just off the top of my head. To focus on the bad things that have been done in the name of Christianity and religion is to skew the picture, and to skew it rather badly.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

RCAlyra2004

Asaris... Well said

There are some who read my original post and asumed that I say religion enables Murder "all the time". I simply didn't say that. Also.. Thanks for helping me define more clearly the role of Ideology as a whole, not just religious ideology.

Good stuff!

There is one very interesting point in what you said here... The greater catholic church objected to the spanish inquisition. You are correct as far as I know. In most cases, where religion is used to justify violence it is not a universal effort. It seems to happen one country/party at a time.

I still struggle with the whole "not to abolish the law but to fullfill it" quote from the Bible. I have always struggled with it, since there is some pretty nasty stuff in the old testament. Although, from a theological perspective... you are bang on correct!

Have a great day

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

Jazz.. Very good point... after a lot of thought about this one I can only come up with weak examples by which to disagree with you. But I am not quite yet willing to concede. Let me try this last argument on for size.

I just grabbed this from Wikipedia: So take it for what it's worth. Although it does agree with my Myers Psych TextBooks from University

"In psychology, motivation is the driving force behind all actions of human beings, animals, and lower organisms. It is an internal state that activates behavior and gives it direction. Emotion is closely related to motivation, and may be regarded as the subjectively experienced component of motivational states."

If a person were to read in the bible that the world is Flat would they be motivated to deny the truthfullness of the claim "the world is actually round" as it was made a few centuries ago. Would they be motivated by scripture to correct the person who denies what scripture says?

Judaism, christianity and Islam have similar problems with their texts.. They use the "Doctrine of faith".

If I have it right... The doctrine of faith is this: You are requred to beleive in order to be saved by your faith.

New testament (also from Wikipedia ...just now) Bear with me this point takes a while.

John 3:16 (chapter 3, verse 16 of the Gospel of John) is one of the most widely quoted verses from the Christian Bible. It has been called the "Bible in a nutshell" because it is considered a summary of some of the most important doctrines of Christianity:

For God so loved the world... - God is a God of love and this love motivates his action in the rest of the verse
...that he gave... - there was God giving something, his son as a sacrifice
...his only begotten Son... - the human Jesus of Nazareth is also the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity
...that whosoever... - that the salvation is open to all
...believeth... - being saved is based on belief or faith, rather than based on human works. However, belief is proved by ones works as one believes into Christ.
...in him... - the belief being in Jesus, the Saviour
...should not perish... - implies the fate of those who do not believe, that is the doctrine of hell
...but have everlasting life. - shows the reward of those who believe, that is the doctrine of heaven

(or... the Doctrine of faith)

Don't give up on me yet!

So if I did not beleive the Bible... and told a 15th century, devout Catholic man's children that I thought the bible was "wrong" or tried to influence a change away from their religion... the devout man would defend his kids based on his own want for their salvation... because if they "believe" me they would go to hell.

In this case religious belief is definitly both the "motivator" and "justification" for action.

Of course this doesn't mean that the man would kill me...

But, if he also beleived the Old testament (Deuteronomy chapter 13) he would be OBLIGATED to kill me. ( Motivation and justification. )

Based on this point I beleive that you are actually incorrect. BUT... as you said there MUST have been 'other' reasons why people went to war. Although this does explain why those who lead the crusades were considered "Defenders of the Faith" > Oddly suicide Bombers are seen in the same light in modern times.

Now that I look at it this way I can think of many who perished as they challenged scripture..Most of them were scientists of old.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

martinguerre

Aw, man this just gets better.

Mainstream Judiasm does not have a concept of justification by faith.

John did not have a Trinity in mind when they wrote. The concept had not yet been invented.

Nor does 3:16 imply hell. Belief at the time would have indicated that many simply would not rise in the end of time, and stay dead since they did not deserve to live eternally. Their lives would end at mortal death, nothing more.

I quibble with this all since this is the problem of your whole argument. You can't get there from here...and you're picking up all sorts of anachronisms and particularities along the way. The end result is a description of these beleifs that is deeply twisted by your analytical framework.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

The_Jazz

I was right there with you until you got to the Old Testament. Let's keep with your analogy of a 15th Century devout Catholic man who you've told that the Bible is "wrong". I completely agree that this hypothetical guy would probably keep his kids away from you at the very least, especially considering that the 15th Century was the beginning of the Reformation and the Protestant churches. There may be one passage in the Old Testament that obligates him to kill me, but there are other passages that prohibit him from eating pork, and we know that there was certainly no such ban among Catholics at the time.

Let's look at that guy's neighbor, the devout Jew, who is going to ONLY subcribe to the Old Testament including Deuteronomy 13. Now, when you tell this same individual that you don't believe in the Bible and more specifically the Old Testament that he subscribes to, are you going to fear for your life. The obvious answer is no, and I don't see any reason where it would ever be yes except in circumstances that are outside the religious aspect (he wants to kill and rob you, he's a psychopath, etc.). Your basic premise is that the Old Testament commands death to nonbelievers, and the historical record just doesn't support that arguement. There is no record of Jewish armies wrecking havoc on their enemies and committing genocide against the unfaithful in the 15th Century or otherwise.

I don't see where you've faulted my logic or my arguement. There are certainly competing passages within the Old and New Testament concerning the treatment of nonbelievers, but individuals interprete them and discard the ones don't seem relevant. I don't think that there's been any sort of historical genocide, before or after the word was coined after the post WWI slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks, that was solely motivated by Scripture. Please point out what I've missed.

As far as the Crusades go, most of them were pretty blatant attempts to either annex territory from the Byzantines, go on plundering expeditions, defend the Byzantines or recapture territory lost from previous Crusdades. The men involved were most certainly considered "defenders of the faith", but that had little or nothing to do with why they went in the first place.

Suicide bombers typically aren't out to acheive martyrdom - that's a fringe benefit. They're out to inflict injury on their enemy. That's why the translation for "jihad" is "holy war". It's a war with motivations rooted very firmly in the secular world.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

RCAlyra2004

Well at least we are that close in our thinking... By the way I don't really fault your logic...except to say that, for the reasons I have mentioned above, those who spoke out against the church were threatened with death. and many were killed.

You asked me to show you a case where people were killed based on scripture... I did.

However... I must ask... how did AntiSemitism during the 1500's 1600's etc really work? Why did the average Anglican of the 1600's consider the jew to be "faithless"? The answer is that it says so ... right in the copy of the anglican prayer book I have here on my desk.(The "faithless" jew was not considered to have been saved by grace, consequently many were tortured by catholics or forced to convert (fact)) This happened in many parts of the world... not just spain.

Again.. there may have been other motivations lurking.. but they were still killed.

It wasn't till 1965, that that particular prayer book changed. (I have both versions) By the way the 1600's version was originally derived from the Catholic prayer book. At the back it describes the "Romish"(Means Catholic) faith as "repugnant". There is no question that these documents encouraged bigotry, the first step toward hatred...

So what's next
... I'll go online and look for as many examples of Anti semetic history as I can


Lets look and see how and why the Jews were persecuted...

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

erics

man will kill whether or not religion plays a factor. it's instinctual and survival.

religion only provides one means to justify

the idea that it's cultural based I would believe to be inaccurate.

Nazi Germany, wasn't a characteristic of the worse Germans, it would a characteristic of the worst humans.

__________________
"What's the benefit of laughing
When you only have to cry?
Why take the big adventure
When you're only left to die???
"

RCAlyra2004

Religious anti-Semitism, or anti-Judaism. Before the 19th century, most anti-Semitism was primarily religious in nature, based on Christian or Islamic interactions with and interpretations of Judaism. Since Judaism was generally the largest minority religion in Christian Europe and much of the Islamic world, Jews were often the primary targets of religiously-motivated violence and persecution from Christian, and to a lesser degree, Islamic rulers. Unlike anti-Semitism in general, this form of prejudice is directed at the religion itself, and so generally does not affect those of Jewish ancestry who have converted to another religion, although the case of Conversos in Spain was a notable exception. Laws banning Jewish religious practices may be rooted in religious anti-Semitism, as were the expulsions of the Jews that happened throughout the Middle Ages.


Anti-Judaism in the New Testament
The New Testament is a collection of 'books' written by various authors. Most of this collection was written by the end of the first century. The majority of the New Testament was written by Jews who became followers of Jesus, and all but two books (Luke and Acts) are traditionally attributed to such Jewish followers. Nevertheless, there are a number of passages in the New Testament that some see as anti-Semitic, or have been used for anti-Semitic purposes, most notably:

Jesus speaking to a group of Pharisees: "I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God." (John 8:37-39, 44-47, RSV)
Stephen speaking before a synagogue council just before his execution: "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it." (Acts 7:51-53, RSV)
"Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie -- behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you." (Revelation 3:9, RSV).
Some biblical scholars point out that Jesus and Stephen are presented as Jews speaking to other Jews, and that their use of broad accusation against Israel is borrowed from Moses and the later Jewish prophets (e.g. Deut 9:13-14; 31:27-29; 32:5, 20-21; 2 Kings 17:13-14; Is 1:4; Hos 1:9; 10:9). Jesus once calls his own disciple Peter 'Satan' (Mk 8:33). Other scholars hold that verses like these reflect the Jewish-Christian tensions that were emerging in the late first or early second century, and do not originate with Jesus. Today, nearly all Christian denominations de-emphasize verses such as these, and reject their use and misuse by anti-Semites.

Drawing from the Jewish prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34), the New Testament taught that with the death of Jesus a new covenant was established which rendered obsolete and in many respects superseded the first covenant established by Moses (Heb 8:7-13; Lk 22:20). Observance of the earlier covenant traditionally characterizes Judaism. This New Testament teaching, and later variations to it, are part of what is called supersessionism. However, the early Jewish followers of Jesus continued to practice circumcision and observe dietary laws, which is why the failure to observe these laws by the first Gentile Christians became a matter of controversy and dispute some years after Jesus' death (Acts 11:3; 15:1ff; 16:3).

The New Testament holds that Jesus' (Jewish) disciple Judas Iscariot (Mk 14:43-46), the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate along with Roman forces (Jn 19:11; Acts 4:27) and Jewish leaders and people of Jerusalem were (to varying degrees) responsible for the death of Jesus (Acts 13:27); Diaspora Jews are not blamed for events which were clearly outside their control.

After Jesus' death, the New Testament portrays the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem as hostile to Jesus' followers, and as occasionally using force against them. Stephen is executed by stoning (Acts 7:58). Before his conversion, Saul puts followers of Jesus in prison (Acts 8:3; Gal 1:13-14; 1 Tim 1:13). After his conversion, Saul is whipped at various times by Jewish authorities (2 Cor 11:24), and is accused by Jewish authorities before Roman courts (e.g., Acts 25:6-7). However, opposition from Gentiles is also cited repeatedly (2 Cor 11:26; Acts 16:19ff; 19:23ff). More generally, there are widespread references in the New Testament to suffering experienced by Jesus' followers at the hands of others (Rom 8:35;1 Cor 4:11ff; Gal 3:4; 2 Thess 1:5; Heb 10:32; 1 Pet 4:16; Rev 20:4).

[edit]
Early Christianity
A number of early and influential Church works -- such as the dialogues of Justin Martyr, the homilies of John Chrysostom, and the testimonies of church father Cyprian -- are strongly anti-Jewish.

During a discussion on the celebration of Easter during the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, Roman emperor Constantine said

...it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. (...) Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way.

Prejudice against Jews in the Roman Empire was formalized in 438, when the Code of Theodosius II established Roman Catholic Christianity as the only legal religion in the Roman Empire. The Justinian Code a century later stripped Jews of many of their rights, and Church councils throughout the sixth and seventh century, including the Council of Orleans, further enforced anti-Jewish provisions. These restrictions began as early as 305, when, in Elvira, (now Granada), a Spanish town in Andalusia, the first known laws of any church council against Jews appeared. Christian women were forbidden to marry Jews unless the Jew first converted to Catholicism. Jews were forbidden to extend hospitality to Catholics. Jews could not keep Catholic Christian concubines and were forbidden to bless the fields of Catholics. In 589, in Catholic Spain, the Third Council of Toledo ordered that children born of marriage between Jews and Catholic be baptized by force. By the Twelfth Council of Toledo (681) a policy of forced conversion of all Jews was initiated (Liber Judicum, II.2 as given in Roth). Thousands fled, and thousands of others converted to Roman Catholicism.

[edit]
Anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages

1239. In the course of a disputation, Pope Gregory IX ordered the Talmud burned (note a non-heretical book floating above the fire). A 15th century painting by Pedro Berruguete.In the Middle Ages a main justification of prejudice against Jews in Europe was religious. Though not part of Catholic dogma, many Christians, including members of the clergy, have held the Jewish people collectively responsible for killing Jesus (see Deicide), a practice originated by Melito of Sardis. As stated in the Boston College Guide to Passion Plays, "Over the course of time, Christians began to accept... that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for killing Jesus. According to this interpretation, both the Jews present at Jesus’ death and the Jewish people collectively and for all time, have committed the sin of deicide, or God-killing. For 1900 years of Christian-Jewish history, the charge of deicide has led to hatred, violence against and murder of Jews in Europe and America."[4] This accusation was repudiated in 1964, when the Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI issued the document Nostra Aetate as a part of Vatican II.

As the Black Death epidemics devastated Europe in the mid-14th century, rumors spread that Jews caused it by deliberately poisoning wells. Hundreds of Jewish communities were destroyed by violence. "Never mind that Jews were not immune from the ravages of the plague; they were tortured until they "confessed" to crimes that they could not possibly have committed. In one such case, a man named Agimet was ... coerced to say that Rabbi Peyret of Chambery (near Geneva) had ordered him to poison the wells in Venice, Toulouse, and elsewhere. In the aftermath of Agimet’s "confession," the Jews of Strasbourg were burned alive on February 14, 1349. (Source: Jews: The Essence and Character of a People by Arthur Hertzberg and Aron Hirt-Manheimer, p.84)

Among socio-economic factors were restrictions by the authorities, local rulers and frequently church officials who closed many professions to the Jews, pushing them into marginal occupations considered socially inferior, such as local tax and rent collecting or moneylending, a necessary evil due to the increasing population and urbanization during the High Middle Ages. Catholic doctrine of the time held that moneylending for interest was a sin, and as such Jews tended to dominate this business. This provided support for claims that Jews are insolent, greedy, engaged in usury, and in itself contributed to a negative image. Natural tensions between creditors (typically Jews) and debtors (typically Christians) were added to social, political, religious and economic strains. Peasants who were forced to pay their taxes to Jews could personify them as the people taking their earnings while remaining loyal to the lords on whose behalf the Jews worked.

[edit]
The demonizing of the Jews
From around the 12th century through the 19th there were Christians who believed that some (or all) Jews possessed magical powers; some believed that they had gained these magical powers from making a deal with the devil. See also Judensau, Judeophobia.

[edit]
Blood libels
Main articles: blood libel, list of blood libels against Jews

On many occasions, Jews were accused of a blood libel, the supposed drinking of blood of Christian children in mockery of the Christian Eucharist. According to the authors of these blood libels, the 'procedure' for the alleged sacrifice was something like this: a child who had not yet reached puberty was kidnapped and taken to a hidden place. The child would be tortured by Jews, and a crowd would gather at the place of execution (in some accounts the synagogue itself) and engage in a mock tribunal to try the child. The child would be presented to the tribunal naked and tied and eventually be condemned to death. In the end, the child would be crowned with thorns and tied or nailed to a wooden cross. The cross would be raised, and the blood dripping from the child's wounds would be caught in bowls or glasses. Finally, the child would be killed with a thrust through the heart from a spear, sword, or dagger. Its dead body would be removed from the cross and concealed or disposed of, but in some instances rituals of black magic would be performed on it. This method, with some variations, can be found in all the alleged Christian descriptions of ritual murder by Jews.

The story of William of Norwich (d. 1144) is the first known case of ritual murder being alleged by a Christian monk while the story of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (d. 1255) said that after the boy was dead, his body was removed from the cross and laid on a table. His belly was cut open and his entrails removed for some occult purpose, such as a divination ritual. The story of Simon of Trent (d. 1475) emphasized how the boy was held over a large bowl so all his blood could be collected. Simon was regarded as a saint, and was canonized by Pope Sixtus V in 1588. The cult of Simon was disbanded in 1965 by Pope Paul VI, and the shrine erected to him was dismantled. He was removed from the calendar, and his future veneration was forbidden, though a handful of extremists still promote the narrative as a fact. In the 20th century, the Beilis Trial in Russia and the Kielce pogrom represented incidents of blood libel in Europe, while more recently blood libel stories have appeared a number of times in the state-sponsored media of a number of Arab nations, in Arab television shows, and on websites.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

The Crusades
The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns sanctioned by the Papacy that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. They began as Catholic endeavors to capture Jerusalem from the Muslims but developed into territorial wars.

The mobs accompanying the first three Crusades attacked the Jewish communities in Germany, France, and England, and put many Jews to death. Entire communities, like those of Treves, Speyer, Worms, Mayence, and Cologne, were slain during the first Crusade by a mob army. About 12,000 Jews are said to have perished in the Rhenish cities alone between May and July, 1096. Before the Crusades the Jews had practically a monopoly of trade in Eastern products, but the closer connection between Europe and the East brought about by the Crusades raised up a class of merchant traders among the Christians, and from this time onward restrictions on the sale of goods by Jews became frequent. The religious zeal fomented by the Crusades at times burned as fiercely against the Jews as against the Muslims, though attempts were made by bishops during the First crusade and the papacy during the Second Crusade to stop Jews from being attacked. Both economically and socially the Crusades were disastrous for European Jews. They prepared the way for the anti-Jewish legislation of Pope Innocent III, and formed the turning-point in the medieval history of the Jews.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

Anti-Semitism in 19th and 20th century Catholicism
Throughout the 19th century and into the 20th, the Catholic Church still incorporated strong anti-Semitic elements, despite increasing attempts to separate anti-Judaism, the opposition to the Jewish religion on religious grounds, and racial anti-Semitism. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) had the walls of the Jewish Ghetto in Rome rebuilt after the Jews were released by Napoleon, and Jews were restricted to the Ghetto through the end of the papacy of Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), the last Pope to rule Rome. Additionally, official organizations such as the Jesuits banned candidates "who are descended from the Jewish race unless it is clear that their father, grandfather, and great-grandfather have belonged to the Catholic Church" until 1946. Brown University historian David Kertzer, working from the Vatican archive, has further argued in his book The Popes Against the Jews that in the 19th and 20th century the Roman Catholic Church adhered to a distinction between "good anti-Semitism" and "bad anti-Semitism". The "bad" kind promoted hatred of Jews because of their descent. This was considered un-Christian because the Christian message was intended for all of humanity regardless of ethnicity; anyone could become a Christian. The "good" kind criticized alleged Jewish conspiracies to control newspapers, banks, and other institutions, to care only about accumulation of wealth, etc. Many Catholic bishops wrote articles criticizing Jews on such grounds, and, when accused of promoting hatred of Jews, would remind people that they condemned the "bad" kind of anti-Semitism. Kertzer's work is not, therefore, without critics; scholar of Jewish-Christian relations Rabbi David G. Dalin, for example, criticized Kertzer in the Weekly Standard for using evidence selectively. The Second Vatican Council, the Nostra Aetate document, and the efforts of Pope John Paul II have helped reconcile Jews and Catholicism in

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

Anti-Semitism and the Muslim world
Anti-Semitism within Islam is discussed in the article on Islam and anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism in the Arab World is discussed in the article on Arabs and anti-Semitism

The Qur'an, Islam's holy book, accuses the Jews of corrupting the Hebrew Bible. Muslims refer to Jews and Christians as a "People of the book"; Islamic law demands that when under Muslim rule they should be treated as dhimmis - from the Arab term ahl adh-dhimma. The writer Bat Ye'or introduced the modern word Dhimmitude as a generic indication of this Islamic attitude. Dhimmis were granted protection of life (including against other Muslim states), the right to residence, worship, and work or trade, and were exempted from military service, and Muslim religious duties, personal law and tax. They were obligated to pay other taxes (jizyah and land tax), and subject to various other restrictions regarding the contradiction of Islam, the Qur'an or Muhammad, proselytizing, and at times a number of other restrictions on dress, riding horses or camels, carrying arms, holding public office, building or repairing places of worship, mourning loudly, wearing shoes outside a Jewish ghetto, etc.

Anti-Semitism in the Muslim world increased in the twentieth century, as anti-Semitic motives and blood libels were imported from Europe and as resentment against Zionist efforts in British Mandate of Palestine spread. While anti-Semitism has certainly been heightened by the Arab-Israeli conflict, there were an increasing number of pogroms against Jews prior to the foundation of Israel, including Nazi-inspired pogroms in Algeria in the 1930s, and massive attacks on the Jews in Iraq and Libya in the 1940s (see Farhud). George Gruen attributes the increased animosity towards Jews in the Arab world to several factors including: The breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; domination by Western colonial powers under which Jews gained a disproportionatly large role in the commercial, professional, and administrative life of the region; the rise of Arab nationalism, whose proponents sought the wealth and positions of local Jews through government channels; resentment over Jewish nationalism and the Zionist movement; and the readiness of unpopular regimes to scapegoat local Jews for political purposes.[7]

Anti-Zionist propaganda in the Middle East frequently adopts the terminology and symbols of the Holocaust to demonize Israel and its leaders. At the same time, Holocaust denial and Holocaust minimization efforts have found increasingly overt acceptance as sanctioned historical discourse in a number of Middle Eastern countries.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

erics

the crusades is man's flaw to have to validate their opinon, because we are not strong enough to believe that we may be wrong in things of this nature

__________________
"What's the benefit of laughing
When you only have to cry?
Why take the big adventure
When you're only left to die???
"

RCAlyra2004

I agree with you.... good point.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

erics

which could be argued as to why we ultimately kill. Religion is one excuse of several

__________________
"What's the benefit of laughing
When you only have to cry?
Why take the big adventure
When you're only left to die???
"

The_Jazz

RCA - I think that you're still missing the basic point here. You are arguing that the SOLE basis for the Crusades (and now anti-semitism) and other wars was religious doctrine. Please go back and read what you wrote in Post #59, specifically the second sentence of the first paragraph. The Crusades were all about territorial expansion and control of various chunks of real estate, whether Jerusalem or elsewhere. Remember that Arabs controlled trade with India and China at the time, and that this was at least in part an attempt to gain further control of that trade at the outset of the First Crusade.

I'm not sure why this has now devolved into a discussion into anti-semitism, but I'll jump into the fray. Again, your arguement that the SOLE basis for violent anti-semitism is religious, and I just can't accept that under any circumstances. Now I will grant that mob action is very different than what we've previously discussed, that being organized violence and warfare. It is certainly possible for a preacher to whip up an afternoon of violence on an otherwise slow day and convince people to go lynch some jews. However, an orchestrated and lengthy campaign such as what was seen in the Russian Bund in the late 19th Century had less to do with religion and more to do with distracting the non-jewish population during a time of stress. The Black Hundreds appeared as an offical governmentally sanction hate group to oppress revolutionaries, many of whom were jews, and that group is best known for their pogroms.

As far as mob violence goes, we're again faced with the difference between motivation and justification. The mob acts because they are dealing with a percieved threat or by revenge. There are very few reasons that violent mobs form. Once the violence is done, leaders may justify the actions using scripture, but standing on a street corner and screaming that the Old Testament commands Christians to kill nonbelievers would only get you odd looks on most days in most places. There are obvious exceptions, such as when rumors were sweeping St. Petersburg that Jews were responsible for Alexander II's assassination in 1881, but again, this violence was revenge for perceived sins.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Charlatan

Which has been my point all along.

Given the good that we know stems from religion it is impossible to make a universal statement that religion is all about "helping humans to kill each other."

People will kill for myriad reasons... religion is but one excuse. Remember that religions are created by people. People are falible. Why should you expect anything different?

Secular law has parts in it that allow us kill others and justify war. Religion is just another tool in the toolbox.

That said, secular law, like religion has does a lot of good as well. In fact, I would argue, they are mostly good, with some very bad examples. Bad examples that you are focusing on to the exclusion of the good.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

RCAlyra2004

*Tries to be patient with Martinguerre*



"Abraham was justified by faith, his faith was reckoned unto him as righteousness." Apparently, legend has it, that was before the deuterocannonical books were written.

Firstly... the trinity is not necessary for "justification by faith" in the old testament (old covenant). (in the NEW testament covenant, 'yes' the trinity is needed)

(Please dont confuse the doctrine I refer to with the catholic commuinity called the "community of the doctrine of faith", they have a whole other purpose.)

I mean doctrine in the simplest theologoical sense: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school.

"Abraham believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6).

So righteousness was needed... but faith did the trick... hence the beginnings of the doctrine of faith. The story of abaham is the source of the doctrine in which "FAITH" was a means of salvation.

"By faith Abraham, even though he was past age – and Sarah herself was barren – was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise" (Hebrews 11:11). (new testament...)

THE STORY OF ABRAHAM IS THE SOURCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH.
It originated in the OLD testament writings. Old testament Law was written in the deuterocanonical books, the same books that recorded the story of Abraham (for the first time)

Now that that is out of the way...

According to Rabbinic Judaism
Gehenna is fairly well defined in rabbinic literature. It is sometimes translated as "Hell", but this doesn't effectively convey its meaning. In Judaism, Gehenna is not hell, but rather a sort of Purgatory where one is judged based on their life's deeds. The Kabbalah describes it as a "waiting room" (commonly translated as an "entry way") for all souls (not just the wicked). The overwhelming majority of rabbinic thought maintains that people are not in Gehenna forever; the longest that one can be there is said to be 12 months. Some consider it a spiritual forge where the soul is purified for its eventual ascent to Olam Habah (heb. עולם הבא; lit. "The world to come", often viewed as analogous to Heaven). This is also mentioned in the Kabbalah, where the soul is described as breaking, like the flame of a candle lighting another: the part of the soul that ascends being pure, and the "unfinished" piece being reborn.

Geenna (or Gehenna) is the name of a real place. It comes from Hebrew and means "Gorge of Hinnom (Ge-Hinnom)". This gorge can still be visited today near Jerusalem. In the time of the Old Testament it was a place where children were sacrificed to the Ammonite god Molech (2 Kings 23,10)(Old testament). That cultic practice was, according to the Old Testament, imitated by King Solomon in the 10th Century B.C.E. and under the leadership of king Manasseh in the 7th Century B.C.E. and in times of crisis until the time of exile of the Jews in Babylon (6th Century B.C.E.). The prophet Jeremiah, who condemned that cult strictly, called the valley the "gorge of killing" (Jeremiah 7,31-32; 19,5-9). Gehenna became later a central garbage dump, to stop the practice of child sacrifice. At the turn of the 1st Century C.E. the gorge was used also to burn the dead bodies of criminals after their execution. The imagination of burning dead bodies probably inspired Jewish, and later Christian theologians to translate that place into the word "hell".

He's the Catch... If they do not go to heaven (as a result of thier sins against God) where do they go? Gehenna for 12 months? As some have said they just lie in the ground. Or do they "burn" as the historical account, above, says? If you had to choose between gehenna and eternal life with God... wouldn't you be choosing between heaven and hell? It's not even a stretch as you say it is.

If you were a faithful man from days of Old which would you choose. The spiritual forge? or "heaven"?

By the way Martinguerre: Eisegesis is the approach to Bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to "force" the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine. People who interpret the Bible this way are usually not willing to let the Bible speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may. They set off with the up-front goal of trying to prove a point they already believe in, and everything they read and interpret is filtered through that paradigm. Stated another way, they engage in what the Bible refers to as "private interpretation"

Honestly... Martinguerre I sense this about your arguments.

Here are just a few of the translations of John 3:16.. Now that you understand what hell is, in a theological sense, perhaps you'll see these in a slightly different Light.

Translation John 3:16 Greek

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. ( I can't read greek either)

American Standard Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Amplified Bible
For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.

Contemporary English Version
God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die.

English Standard Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Geneva Bible
For God so loved the world, that he hath given his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have euerlasting life.

GOD'S WORD
God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.

Good News Translation
For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but have eternal life.

International Standard Version
For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

Jerusalem Bible
Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not be lost but may have eternal life.

King James Version For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

HSV For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Living Bible
For God loved the world so much that He gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The Message This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.

New American Bible
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

New American Standard Bible
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

New American Standard Bible Update
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

New English Bible
God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, that everyone who has faith in him may not die but have eternal life.

New English Translation
For this is the way God loved the world: he gave his one and only Son that everyone who believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

New International Version For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

New Jerusalem Bible For this is how God loved the world: he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

New King James Version For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

New Living Translation For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

New Revised Standard Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

New Simplified Bible
For God loved the world so much, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever has an active faith (believes) in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

New World Translation
For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

Revised English Bible
God so loved the world that he gave he gave his only son that everyone who has faith in him may not perish buy have eternal life

Revised Standard Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Revised Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Today's New International Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

William Tyndale
For God so loveth the world, that he hath given his only son, that none that believe in him, should perish: but should have everlasting life.

World English Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The Word on the Street Cos
God's so passionate about the planet that he donates his one and only Son. Whoever invests their life in his Son doesn't die, but gets given this limitless life.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

JAZZ,, Charlatan et al.

If you got the impression that I think religion is the SOLE reason why people kill... I can't figure why... MY original post says "Systems of religious belief help humans to kill each other." Of course there are other reasons... I am not sure but I think someone else said it earlier...

Whatever the case is.. I agree with you... it's not the ONLY reason... but we all know it is one more reason... Really this is what I was trying to say..

BY the way... you are all a fun bunch to chat with...

Sometimes, when I think about why I am an atheist, the discussions I end up in seem so odd.


HAVE GREAT DAY EVERYONE!

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

FINALLY, why did I include a bunch of historical bits about Antisemitism?

Because each of them describes how the Jews were/are not tolerated based on their "religious" beleifs. If you would like, I can also post a whole other pile about why the Jews were/are not tolerated based on their RACE.

Someone (can't remember who) challenged me to show just one example of religious intolerance resulting in killing... I gave you a whole bunch..

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

chelsea_9

as an atheist, i view death as the absolute end. i believe there is no life after death, which has consequently given me a higher respect and value on a person's life. i view the span of a human's life seems extremely short; where regretting anything and not living a full life is something i fear just as much as a christian would the devil.
also as a passivist, i truly do not believe anyone one this earth should have their life taken from them. whether by murder, war, crimnal punishment, etc.
as far as religion helping humans to kill eachother, i do find some examples of this to be rather hard to avoid. in particular, the direct attacks toward abortion clinics and patients are almost always connected to religous groups. there is a common rationalization that abortion is against god's will, and it is his people's duty to get rid of such sinners.
[and perhaps i should clarify that i do not view a fetus as a human being. they have not yet been born, and are therefore not yet a being. but to each his own]

honestly though, is there really any moral rationalization for murder? in general human instinct and overall good morals. to use one's god as a reason to kill another is almost contradictory. in some relgions, though not all, a god is seen as a creator of everything. so, to kill one of his creations [especially humans, who are regarded as the top of the food chain] would be to defy one's creator and god. with religion as a catalyst, should that person who killed another also deserve to die? for god?
quite the snowball effect. i dont agree with that, but it seems pretty contradictory.

im just kind of building my thoughts as i go along. i think i got somewhere.. hahaha. i just wanted to comment on the issue.

__________________
all good dreamers pass this way some day
hiding behind bottles in dark cafes

tecoyah

This is...without a doubt in my mind....the absolute truth

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Charlatan

I guess what we are also reacting to is that many who make this arguement get a bit myopic in their statements of war and religion.

They tend to make it the only purpose of religion. Reading back you have avoided this but not come out and said it specificlly until further on.

I suspect this is where the confusion stems.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

RCAlyra2004

Charlatan.... I really enjoyed the debate! You helped me clarify a lot in this topic... thanks!!!

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

nanotech

Just a quick note:

It is assumed to be muslim fundamentalists but there were 400 Jewish people who were phoned as to not come to work this day. Muslims don't do such things as I live in Lebanon and there are many areas with muslims here. They are nice, forgiving, people who live along with christian neighbors and get along.

Note: I respect Jewish, Christian, and Muslim people and consider them all to be good people. The 400 Jews who didn't go to work in the world trade centers is just the news i heard and doesn't reflect any view or opinion on Jews.

The_Jazz

Congratulations, you've heard an urban rumor. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm

Are you naive enough to think that none of these Jews would tell their gentile friends that an attack was coming? Or are you just a dumbass? I knew 5 guys at Aon Re that were in South Tower, and 2 of them were Jewish. None of them made it out alive. You obviously have an agenda and an opinion by posting this shit here, and I'm about as offended as I get by this kind of post. Go crawl back into your anti-semitic hole and try to get your facts straight.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo