RCAlyra2004

People who "believe" in a higher power are the ones who find it easiest to kill others, especially in the sense of war. A structured belief in the supernatural has also caused many religious people to kill others when they think some one else is "evil" in spite of the fact that there is a general lack evidence. Our ability to dehumanize each other using common religious texts is a flaw of the religions themselves (as indicated in their scriptures).

For this debate I am only using Christianity and Islam to make my point. There are thousands of religions, many of which are peaceful (and even more which have justified killing others in the course of their history).

*Evidence to support my point:

Sept 11 2001 - World trade centre was bombed by Islamic Fundamentalists who believe that USA is in league with the devil.

Salem Witch Trials - Christians Kill alleged Witches in USA (no need to explain)

Nazi Germany - 1936 - 1945 The ruling Nazi party (religion?) exterminated 12 million people in the name of Aryan Supremacy(religion!) and the perception of a threat against their motherland. Millions of Jews were exterminated after being deemed "less than human".

Iraq/Kuwait - 1990's Thousands were killed when Saddam Hussein sent troops into Kuwait to take back land that was believed to be Iraqi territory as promised by God. (This one is open to debate; it is Saddam's beliefs that are in question here not ours)

Israel – The ongoing conflict between Palestinians and Israelites, who both believe that they have a right to the holy land and have defended it. While the Israelites support the concept that Palestinians have a right to access to the holy areas, the Palestinians generally do not support the concept that Israel as a nation, has the right to exist. Both sides have dirty hands.

A few Bible verses that support the killing of unbelievers: Deuteronomy Chapter 3 - Kill all unbelievers (even your children if necessary), Psalm 110, Numbers 16:32-35, Acts 5:29, Psalm 58:10. There are many that I haven't listed here!

Note: There are many New Testament scriptures that, if taken out of context can be used to justify killing. It is not fair to use these to make my point. BUT it is important to note that they have been taken out of context and HAVE been used to justify killing in Jesus name during the Spanish inquisition and other such events. During the inquisition there were also rules of evidence (from spanish courts) that made it easier to take these scriptures out of context. E.g. "We saw a woman turn into a cat and run away, therefore she is a witch" would not be accepted as evidence in any North American court today, although it was good enough evidence at the time.

Koran Verses that support the concept of eliminating those who do not believe:
Koran -2:15, 2:85, 2:89, 2:90, 2:122, 2:154 (skip about 20 quotes) 3:5, 3:10, 3:12, 3:19, 3:28,3:118, 5:57, 5:67, 55:69 5:80-82 (skip a few) 6:5-8, 6:21, 6:23-27(skip some more) 6:125... Ok you get the point... Flip open you copy of the Koran to see what I mean. I only picked the obvious quotes where "kill the unbeliever" or "God will kill the unbeliever" or "unbelievers will burn in hell" was the theme.

Conclusion:
It is important to point out that both Holy Books contain moderate viewpoints along with fundamentalist views. The flaw that I am pointing out here is that people continually fall back to the fundamentalist view as a result of use of the religious text. This is indeed a major flaw of each religion. Once people are able to devalue another human according to the belief system it becomes quite easy to take the next step. Murder!

An example of de-valuing a human is this: “You are sinful according to my beliefs and you will contaminate the beliefs of my children, wife, community, etc. therefore I must remove you in order to protect their afterlife”

Does anyone care to debate this? "Those who are believers most often find justification to kill."

p.s You do not need to quote scripture to show me that each text says good things too, I know this, it is not the point of this debate.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

ubertuber

RCAlyra2004,

RCA - there are a lot of generalizations there... I agree with your most basic point, which is that systems of belief (whether religious, political, ideological) more often enable people to villify others as a class... However, I don't think this is limited in any way to Christianity or Islam though.

Maybe this discussion can look at this principal in the most general terms. I'm a little wary of the possible direction this could take.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Charlatan

I think there is an interesting kernal of debate inside the OP. I think that focusing on religion is way too narrow.

There are all sorts of ways we can demonize the Other and justify killing them.

For example the Hutus and Tootsies were tribal rather religious, the US and Soviet Union was ideological rather than religious.

This could go on but I think you see my point.

In most cases, disputes come down to who resources (land, power, capitol, mineral deposits, etc.). Religion and ideology are just lenses through which we can "rationalize" dispute.

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

martinguerre

Charlatan...furthermore, in Rwanda, the creation of "Hutu" and "Tutsi" has a whole lot to do with the colonial imperialism imposed on the people...while certain differences existed prior to the Belgians, it was their framework of evaluting that difference as supiriority/inferiority that created one piece of the rivalry and genocide.

But i disagree with your conclusion that religion comes after the fact as a rationalization. Religions historically have a history of both supporting and disrupting claims to resources...Hitler certainly claimed God(s?) was on his side, but religion was there at the Barmen declaration where churches claimed resistance.

Religious belief is not a necessary or sufficient condition for claims to violence, or claims to peace.

__________________
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

Toaster126

I think the concept of religion has saved more lives than it has taken. Religious sources were the places that spread educational things like reading and writing. They are also a sort of social safety net for the less fortunate. People who are religious may also be less likely to kill in a non-religious war.

This is about as provable as the OP's assertion, so I won't try and give random examples though.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

RCAlyra2004

I think you need to look a little closer at history. The dispute between the US and the OLD Soviet Union was as religious as it was ideological in the sense that conservative Christian politicians would not accept anything other than American style democracy, "praise god". No large mass of people died. Demonizing each other was the order of the day.

DOGMA IS DOGMA IS DOGMA.

Had there been a war, preachers all over the USA would have proclaimed that the faithless” Russian Atheists" must be routed out. The American Government would also have used any means necessary to justify this to their people.

The dispute between the Hutu’s and the Tootsies has everything to do with the religious history of each of the tribes. They have been enemies for ages and their religious beliefs have now accommodated this fact. To change the minds of the masses, away from a hatred for each other is now impossible.

The Tootsies and the Hutu's have to be able to kill each other without the penalty of eternal damnation according to their own religion.

Think about it another way, Why won't the Palestinians accept that the Jews control the holy grounds? Why won't they just live together in peace? To do so would fly in the face of each of their "faiths". (This is a provable fact based on their own religious texts) In the same way that an Atheist living next door threatens some peoples fundamental religious beliefs.

The Koran repeatedly says that unbelievers must be routed out, that they are an affront to God. So does Deuteronomy Chapter three. Oddly the Israelites have been more “mainstream” lately; they have actually been quite tolerant. PLease don't try to tell me that HAMAS isn't a religious organization first and political second.

Do the people run to the Holy texts and look to see if it is ok to kill? The religious belief set sets the context for them well in advance of the conflict.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

Charlatan

I will agree with that.

I suppose I was reacting to the OPs overtly stated opinion in one direction vs. another. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.

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

Charlatan

RCAlyra2004 sorry but you are misinformed.

The Hutus and Tutsies share the same religion and language.

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

Charlatan

The good of religion is far too often overlooked for the bad that has been done in the name of the same.

Humans being what they are will find excuses to justify their actions. Religion is but one excuse. There are many.


As for the Soviet/US conflict. Religion was but a tool in the tool box of persuasion. A method of further underscoring difference in the Other so as to demonize a foe. The true dispute was more about ideology and the world balance of power.

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

ubertuber

Also, I'd take issue with you classification of the Cold War as one where masses of people did not die... Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan (where we supported resistance to Soviet occupation, resulting in a decade of war) belie this assertion.

You say DOGMA IS DOGMA IS DOGMA and I agree with you - but that doesn't mean that I'd characterize the wars mentioned above as religious in character. I'd say that the causes fought over had a fervor to them that was similar to religions. Hence my point in post #2 - "systems of belief (whether religious, political, ideological) more often enable people to villify others as a class... " I still don't think that this is limited to religious systems.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

martinguerre

RCA...the point isn't about Hamas (or Israel for that matter) being religious or political first. I don't know that there is a clean cut line of separation. Political beleifs are one way of ordering one's experience of the world...and they have strong interaction with religious beleifs. Is Hamas religious or political? It's a null question, becuase it imples that the political program of its adherants can be separated from their experience of Islam...and that their formulation of Islam is isolated from their political history and experience of interaction with the West. And on the flip...Sharon was (is) pretty much an athiest...but was one of the hardest voices on expansion and expulsion of Palestinians. until his recent change of heart.

Also...i find it very hard to believe that the Cold War was about evangelical Christianity. Some of the hardest cold warriors were in fact Catholic...although some of their co-religionists were also in the socialist and sympathizer fringes. Religious affiliation did not predict stance on Communism.

Charlatan points out correctly that you're misrepresenting the history of the conflict in Rwanda.

There's a word for what you're doing here...and it's isogesis. It's the interpretation of events and texts by the impostition of a prior framework of expectations.

__________________
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 think that you've drawn too narrow a point here. War is simply politics by other, more violent means. All of your examples have funamental flaws in the religious nature of their roots. For instance:

September 11 - many people much smarter and better informed than I have pointed out that Al Qaeda's attack was political rather than religious in nature. That organization rejects America's presence in Saudi Arabia and the embrace of Israel as well as American suppression of popular (in many cases Islamist) democratic movements because they are not in America's best interest. Restricting your point to simply saying that they believe the US is in league with the devil doesn't acknowledge some very important facts.

Salem Witch Trials - religion was the excuse used to purge the community of Salem. This was a basic power struggle very similar to the USSR c. 1929-1939 with religion as the excuse rather than "wrecking" or "Trotskyism" that the Soviets used. Those in power chose to listen the accusers in order to seize their property.

Nazi Germany - I don't understand your point of including this example. The Nazi's were a purely political organization and were hostile to Christianity at times. They certainly were not driven by religious fervor any more than the Soviets at roughly the same time were motivated by it. One group persecuted by the Nazi's - the Jews - were a religious group, but the Nazi's also went after the Gypsys, homosexuals, Slavs and Communists. If anything, the Nazi's were more into the occult, but even that is a tenous claim.

Iraq/Kuwait - Saddam is notorious areligous. He attacked Kuwait for the oil profits. His excuse may have been that "God promised it to us", but that's clearly just the excuse for the attempt. I'm not sure where you've gotten this quote, since at the time he said that Kuwait was an Iraqi province and retaliation for Kuwaiti slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves. Please note that Iraq fought a prolonged war with the most militantly religous state in the region - Iran - in the 1980's. Also, many of the higher level Iraqis in his goverment were non-Muslim, most notably Tariq Aziz who is a Christian. There's also the fact that Saddam removed the Sharia laws from the books when he came to power, which is pretty much a direct rejection of fundamentalist Islam.

Israel - this is a real estate conflict with religion as a backdrop. The Palestinians basically got kicked off what they thought of as their own land by the Jews/Israelis. I think that you need to research the creation of the Israeli state. The two sides are of differing religions, but that's neither the source nor the continuing reason for the conflict.

Wars are very rarely religious in nature. With the exception of a couple of the Crusades (the Children's Crusade most notably), there really hasn't been a truely religious war that I can think of. There have been lots of wars where religion has been the backdrop, but the basic causes tend to be economic or political in nature. Whenever one group attacks another, it's because they feel oppressed or they want something like land or other resources. You are absolutely correct in saying that religion is often used to motivate the rank and file, but the leaders who decide whether or not to go to war in the first place are motivated by much more secular things than religious passages. Please show me an example of where a leader relied solely on religion as an impetous for war - I'll bet that you can't find one.

You can take snippets out of virtually any philosphy to make a case for or against war. I think that you've done the exact same thing with this topic - you've taken a snippet out of one of the causes for conflicts and bent it around to fit your arguement. You're falling into exactly the same trap as those that your critisisg.

__________________
"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

The_Jazz

BZZT - wrong. Thanks for playing. The Cold War was about who was going to control Europe. The religious overtones were simply one of the talking points. Any Cold War historian will tell you exactly the same thing, and the Soviets couldn't have cared less if the US were a bunch of religious zealots. Stalin just wanted to control Western Europe the same way he did the Eastern portion.

Edit - saying that conservative Christian politicians made the Cold War into a religious conflict is the same as saying that Civil was a religious war. Sure some people read religion into the events, but the majority did not. The Soviets for sure did not view it with as anything religious in nature other than to make their own use of our religious propaganda, which was a part of demonizing process. The Soviets even found their own use for religion when it served their purposes - Stalin allowed the appointment of a metropolitan of the Orthodox church during WWII, the first time that office had been held since Peter the Great got rid of it in the early 18th Century.

__________________
"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

Poppinjay

Another facet of the Nazi regime is that while the Holocaust could easily be the most horrific part of World War II, all of the aggression that Germany committed was against other countries with similar religious beliefs - Catholic and Protestant. The holocaust was essentially a by product of a tremendously insane man committed mostly against his own country.

The Cold War was entirely about ideology. Russia and the U.S. had far more in common in terms of faith (in essence, both were officially secular governments) than any of the countries they propped up to fight via proxy (Muslims, Shintos). It was all about the domino effect and how to get it started.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

RCAlyra2004

Charlatan... thats my point, in fact I think now that we actually agree.

It's like the British and French praying to Jesus for support during their battle against each other, The main problem is that according to the tenets of their beleif (both sides) they are allowed to kill each other and still make it to heaven. In essence their religion allows them to demonize and kill another group and NOT lose their own eternal life.

The history of conflict between the two African tribes began four centuries ago. The Tutsis are a warrior tribe of Hamatic origin. Sometimes called the "Watutsi", they invaded the Hutu in Rwanda from the North. The Hutu couldn't defend themselves and they were taken over by the Tutsi and reduced to serfdom. Each Hutu chose a Tutsi Lord who gave them use of cattle. There wasn't much conflict until 1959 when a civil war broke out when the leaders of both tribes were killed. The Hutu tried to get equality through the National Party of Hutu Emancipation. This did not work however. In 1960, elections were held under Belgium supervision. More Hutus won and the Hutus took over the government. The Hutu Gregoire Kayibanda was elected president. Two years later Rwanda won independence and the Hutus started mistreating the Tutsis. After independence, violence erupted between the two tribes. In 1973 Kayibanda was accused of being lenient with Tutsis who slaughtered thousands of Hutus in Burundi. The army was unhappy about this so they took over the government. General Habyarinew was appointed president of Rwanda. In 1990 the Tutsis began a civil war against the Hutu government. The Tutsis forced the Hutus to Zairian refugee camps. Since Zaire is a poor country and they couldn't support the Hutu refugees they forced the Hutus back to Rwanda. Finally in 1994 settlements seemed to be working out. Later in 1994 a plane crashed at Kigali, Rwanda's capital, with a Hutu leader on board. The Hutus thought the Tutsis were responsible for this act. Hutu extremists began their campaign of genocide after this. 500,000 Tutsis were killed by the Hutu extremists, who also killed Hutus who wanted to live peacefully with the Tutsis.

Again... their religion allows them to kill as illustrated in my original post.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

Charlatan

While the religion may allow for the killing (and that is largely debatable) it is ultimatley not the cause of the violence in all cases.

Humans will use any form of persuasion to convince themselves that they are right. The Hutus didn't not turn to GOD for this absolution. They turned to racist propaganda that stated the Tutsies were traitorous or sub-human. Sound familiar? The Nazis used similar terms for the jews.

Again, in this case it was not a religious thing. The fact that the Jews were of a different religion is practically immaterial.

I agree with martin: isogesis.

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

Poppinjay

No…. no… they’re not. In fact, there’s no way around the fact that they are committing a sin that will bar them from heaven.

Power is the only thing that really causes wars and killing. Many heads of state in history switched religions to increase their power, land, or personal lifestyle. Nobody has ever truly gone to war over religion, even though they may claim it. It’s always about how to make your wallet fatter or your kingdom mightier. Even the crusades, which were supposedly all about converting people to Christianity was really a war that was designed to increase the power and wealth of religiously affiliated clerics. You decide not to join, we kill you and take all of your stuff. You decide to join, great, you give us your offerings now.

While there may be footsoldiers who truly believe they are doing God’s work, no fool general believes it. Otherwise, why isn't bin Laden, the head of al Queda blowing himself up for 72 doe eyed virgins? Why does he have millions of dollars?

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Toaster126

I don't belive the bible says anything about a sin that bars people from heaven. If it does say murder or war are things that remove your possibility of heaven, I'd love for you to show it to me.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

ubertuber

I hope you're not asking for any practical reasons...

(Just kidding - couldn't resist)

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

RCAlyra2004

Interesting argument, but there is a flaw.. Bzzt wrong so say it on your own words.

Point 1 : The Islamic Pilot who flew the planes into the Tower SURE AS HELL beleived that they were going to a wonderful place after thier death. Funny thing is that the Koran confirms this thinking AND we don't even have to take it out of context. They REALLY beleived that they were attacking the devil. Any speculations that you care to make about why Al Qaeda wants the US out of the middle east is just speculation. You may be right, but the religion of these people still alows them to strap bombs to their chest and attack... and get a greater reward greater than that of the average Muslim. Their families will even get a reward, to the tune of thousands of dollars. Their pictures are put up high and they are declared Heros!

Point 2 With all due respect, the NAZI's were not just a political Organization. The were Aryan Supremacists, a unique and dangerous religious philosophy that was half heartedly grounded in the eugenics movement... I really don;t want to spend any time defending this point... but you may want to check on this for yourself.

Point 3 The salem witch trials. The people who made the claim that the salem witches were witches actually took these claims seriously enough to hang the "perpetrators" (witches) in a public place after the trial. The fact that they took the property of the witches and kept it is secondary to the fact they they knowingly and publically did what they did. NO ONE dared protest the decision of the court for fear that they would also be deemed a witch, or found to be in collusion with the witches.

Imagine yourself in a position to really beleive that someone is a witch who successfully casts curses on your home town... causing your crops to die, animals to get sick and for lightning to strike your fields. For you to beleive such a thing in the first place means YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS PERSON, as most people were in Salem, at that time.


Point 4 Your definition of Israel as a simple real estate issue defies any understanding of middle eastern politics. The Israelis and the Muslims have been waging war, periodically, for thousands of years. There is NO dipute over the fact that their systems of religion are at the root of the problem. read both of the Holy texts for yourself. Again Hamas is a religious organization, grounded in human rights issues, that has now become political.

No matter what war we look at , there is one aspect of it that is consistent. People who fight (not necessarily those who sit and watch from the top) beleive that what they are doing is acceptable from their own religious and ethical framework. What we think happens to us after we die plays a huge role in what we decide to do today, especially in matters of war.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

asaris

First point: I think you really *do* need to defend your point that Nazism was religious. Certainly some members of the Nazi party tried to use Christianity to defend their actions, but others didn't have much to do with Christianity. You can certainly make a case that the Crusades or the more modern-day Islamic jihadists are somehow religious in nature -- for the people in these organizations, their activity can either be characterized as religion fueling politics or politics fueling religion, depending on your view. But it seems clear to me that the Nazi aggression, both internal and external, was primarily naked ambition, with any religious motives used as a pretext.

Second Point: What about Stalin's massacre of millions upon millions of his own people? Did that have religious motivations? If so, you're using religious in a sense that I'm unfamiliar with.

__________________
"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

A broader point,

Both of the religious texts that I have quoted (deuteronomy chapter 3, 13 and the quotes from the Koran) CLEARLY say that those who observe that the faithful should "kill" those who try to lead them away from their "true" religion. You do not have to take these scriptures out of context in order to kill a non-beleiver.

Some of you say that I am makeing the mistake of isogesis when I claim that religious people who beleive their own sacred document to be accurate will follow those instructions and kill the nonbeleivers when directed by their generals, presidents etc. You say that I am making too narrow an argument.

Have you actually read these texts... or do you think I am making this shit up?

3:18 And I commanded you at that time, saying, The LORD your God hath given you this land to possess it: ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that are meet for the war.

3:22 Ye shall not fear them: for the LORD your God he shall fight for you.

This scripture also supports my main point:

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

(13:6-10) "Thine hand shall be first upon him."

If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death."

If Bible-believers followed this one, they would have to kill many of their own family and friends. I have heard it said that as many as 50 percent of Americans beleive that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.(seems little high to me) Either they do not know what their bible says... or they ignore it.

The major flaw with unfetterd "belief" in religion is that it periodically leads to the killing of those who disagree with it. It also leads to the victimization of those who quietly lead lives that are contrary to the scriptures.

.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

asaris

The reason we 'ignore' those commands is because we believe that they were delivered to a specific people at a specific point in time, when it was first of all more necessary to get rid of this sort of thing and second more in line with society's beliefs as a whole. Now, you might think this is just rationalization for something we don't want to do (and I suspect you do), but it seems to me it's an important point that we're not just ignoring things like this, we have reasons for doing so.

You'll probably say that, then, why do we follow other parts of scripture, all of which in some sense is directed towards a specific people at a specific time? My general rule, and one I think a lot of thinking Christians tend to work with, is this: We are justified in disregarding a specific command in scripture if and only if (1) we have a prima facie case for believing that it doesn't apply to us today and (2) we can discern and follow a general principle behind the specific command. In the case of the command you cite, I would say that the prima facie case is clear; few of us believe it's okay to kill unbelievers, merely because they're unbelievers. So what's the general principle? It's that we should avoid spending time with people if that time is going to end up leading us away from God. Not that we should avoid spending time with unbelievers, but that if the time we're spending with them is drawing us away from the faith, we need to cut down on that time.

Of course, you didn't respond to any of my substantive point above...

__________________
"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

Charlatan

RCAlyra2004 the bible also says we should stone people for doing things that are done everyday... why don't the laws of Leviticus get followed? If they are Christians they should follow it all, right? That's what you seem to be suggesting here.

There are some who might go to war or kill others because they misunderstand the teachings of their religion or have been taugh in a warped fashion, but the truth is far from what you are suggesting.

Additionally, National Socialism (Nazism) was not any more a religion than Republicanism is... not at all.

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

The_Jazz

First of all, to insist that National Socialism was a religious movement defies logic and any sort of understanding of the rationales behind it and the reasons for its rise. This was a purely economic creation of the Depression, much the same as the rise of Soviet Socialism 20 years earlier in the Russian Empire. The Nazis were never a religious organization, although some members of the party famously played with the occult. If anything, the Nazis were hostile to religion since they felt that it interfered with the debasement of the individual before the state.

Also, your original post limited the discussion to Christianity and Islam. If National Socialism is a "unique and dangerous religious philosophy that was half heartedly grounded in the eugenics movement", then are we opening the floor to discuss other religions? By the way, the eugenics movement was purely scientific and had little to no basis in religion. It is Darwinism at it's coldest.

As for the Islamic pilots and their cohorts, I completely agree that they all thought they were going to their promised reward but to state that that was the ONLY or even the PRIMARY reason that they did what they did is absurd beyond belief. If they were simply looking to die as martyrs, there were simpler, quicker ways to do it. I will certainly conceed that there was an overt religious element to their statement, but to insist that it was only a religious statement is naive. There is a definitely political statement contained within the horrors of 9/11, one that aims directly at US foreign policy. Do you really think that these guys weren't around during the Soviet invasion of Afganistan? Russia directly oppresses millions of Muslims, yet 9/11 was aimed at the US, not Moscow. The Indians have recently fought wars against Pakistan, Chinese outlawed Islam in several provinces and French meddled in Northern Africa on an almost daily basis, yet the US was the target. You don't see anything political there? I completely agree that these guys justified their "sacrifice" with religion, but the basic motivation was purely political.

The Salem Witch Trials had several motiviations, and I think that you've missed my point.

This was the basis of my arguement and is indeed the entire basis for the phrase "witch hunt". This is McCarthyism and Stalinism at their finest. Yes, religion is the backdrop for Salem, but the exact same thing happened in the 30's in the USSR with Trotskyism as the backdrop and in the 50's in the US with anti-communism. These were ways for people to persecute their enemies and take what they wanted. The Spanish Inquisition did the same thing 150 years before Salem. Whether or not you believed in witches (a most un-Christian belief, I might point out) was beside the point. As an accuser, you used witchcraft as the tool to rid yourself of those who had something you wanted, mainly property in Salem's case. I think that you need to go back and read some of the facts. Let me know if you want me to point you in the right direction.

Finally, Israel still boils down to a real estate dispute at its very core regardless of how you look at it. Both groups find some sites very important to them and demand complete control of them. The other group doesn't like that. As time goes on there are more and more attrocities committed by each group. However, in the last 500 years, the Jews living in Palestine got along fairly well with the Muslims until the 40's. There were no attacks by one side or the other, although there were certainly minor scirmishes here and there, and those were rarely deadly. The same scenario played itself out in Northern Ireland and is still going on in Sri Lanka and the Congo. Religion may be the differences between the groups, but it isn't the reason for their conflict. Please show me where in the Koran it says to kill Jews, since that's what we're talking about. Or you can find any sort of Talmudic reference, I'll accept that too. Neither religion preaches death to nonbelievers, although you can take passages out of any text to prove just about any point, as have the more feverent adherents of pretty much any religion out there.

By the way, how are your slaves doing? Have you beaten your wife lately? When was the last time that you sacrificed an animal to please God? All those are in the Old Testament. My point is that these texts are used to justify actions that people want to take anyway.

__________________
"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

Nimetic

I didn't realize that the Nazi's were religious.

The killings in WW1 weren't based on religion either as best I understand it.

Many died in communist China - and in communist Combodia.

My facts might be wobbly (I'm no historian), but I think they're essentially ok. I'm no great fan of religion really, but I don't know if we can blame it for the majority of killing.

It seems to me that humans will kill each other anyways... it just so happens that some of those who get involved in fighting also come from a religious background.

RCAlyra2004

HI everyone ... Back from work...
Point 1 for asaris:

Here are some of the "Holy sites" listed as shrines to the religion and ideology of Naziism (spelling?) I got this from one of many online site in which this issue is discussed, You should also check out Wegner, antisemitism in german schools ( I hope I have the title correct) In know Wegner wrote it,

Aryanism is a very old religion that started in Persia a very long time ago. This is not to be confused with Naziism... More on that one later....

Quote:
Holy sites
As, especially after World War II, Nazism became for many of its followers a spiritual path akin to a religion, it naturally had some sites of pilgrimage, which one might call "holy sites". Savitri Devi visited many of them during her pilgrimage in 1953.

Berchtesgaden, home of the Berghof.
Braunau am Inn, birthplace of Adolf Hitler.
Feldherrnhalle, site of, the end of, the failed Munich Putsch
Leonding, where the parents of Adolf Hitler were buried.
Linz, where Hitler went to school.
Landsberg am Lech, where Hitler was imprisoned.
Nuremberg, site of the enormous Nazi rallies.
Wewelsburg, headquarters of the SS.
Wunsiedel, burial site of Rudolf Hess.
Devi also visited some sites, as part of her pilgrimage, not directly connected to Nazism, but of Germanic spiritual, or German national significance:

Externsteine, pre-christian formation
Hermannsdenkmal, statue of Germany's national hero Arminius the Cheruscan
End Quote:


Point 2:

Stalin did Kill... he Killed a lot. Whats your point?... this dicussion is about the fact that religious beleif makes it easier (at times) for people to demonize and kill each other. I sense you are sensitive to this fact... when infact you should realise what it actually says in your Bible. The fact that an atheist can kill shouldn't be a surprise. Don't rationalize what you think happened in history...look at what historical facts you can find and make a decision based on that.

Point 3: Asaris

OK so you decide that you are going to Ignore portions of scripture. Perhaps we'll ignore the sticky parts and stay with the "nice stuff". The warm and fluffy. What have you just done for the 35 percent of Americans that beleive that the Bible is the inerrant "Word of God". Who are you and I to decide which parts to ignore? You are on a spiritual slippery slope here.

Here is what your actual answer should have been: Jesus ushered in the New covenant, in which only those who have not sinned would "throw the first stone". And of course that would mean that none of us should throw the stone. OK christians are off the hook... wait... I said that in my opening post.

In my opening post I said: Note: There are many New Testament scriptures that, if taken out of context can be used to justify killing. It is not fair to use these to make my point. BUT it is important to note that they have been taken out of context and HAVE been used to justify killing in Jesus name during the Spanish inquisition and other such events.

Point 4: Charlatan

"RCAlyra2004 the bible also says we should stone people for doing things that are done everyday... why don't the laws of Leviticus get followed? If they are Christians they should follow it all, right? That's what you seem to be suggesting here."

I think you actually get what I am saying but you are toying with me.

I am suggesting this; Many(not all) modern day people still refer to the Bible and the Koran as "God's word". Many take it at it's face value. Because it is held in such high esteem and because many people actually beleive what it says they can easily be inclined to follow it's words. 100 million people died during wars during the last century(fact) How many of them were killed by atheists? How many went to war beleiveing what their politicians, backed by their religious leaders told them? Why do the american armed forces have ministers of religion on staff? On my desk I have a copy of a book by Sam Harris in which he shows the results of survey that says 35 percent of United states residents beleive Jesus will return during their life time. Thankfully fewer canadians think that way, but you get my point. While we may find it hard to beleive everything written in the Good Book, and while we pick and choose what we beleive many people actually accept what they are told. Asaris makes a good point , not to accept everything written in scripture> I couldn't agree more!

Charlatan, Asaris... Check out this website... http://www.godhatessweden.com/
(warning very strong language for a Christian site)
They ACTUALLY think all Christians should follow the levitical standards. It is really important to mention that this website is NOT a Joke. There are thousands of followers in this church. And they make my point quite beautifully... which scriptures do we follow? why? who gets to choose?
Did you know that according to that church WE are going to hell becasue we don't follow the levitical standards! even though I have done none of those sins, but I don;t endorse the levitical point of view

Here is another set of statistics that I find quite compelling.
From Sam Harris's Book, The End of Faith.
Suicide Bombing in Defense of Islam
Is it Justifiable?
(please note: I typed this in by hand so forgive formatting errors)
Country %Yes %No %refused to answer

Lebanon 73 21 6
Ivory Coast 56 44 0
Nigeria 47 45 8
Bangladesh 44 37 19
Jordan 43 48 8
Pakistan 33 43 23

OK the list has 7 more countries on it... but if you add up the percentages this accounts for more than 200 Million people who support the defense of islam by using terroist methodology. Please Note... this Survey did not include IRAN, AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ, SAUDI ARABIA, and many other countries.

I can't imagine how bad things would have to be here for The American president to ask people to do what the leaders of Iran asked... (he actually encouraged his people to take part in the war against Israel only 2 months ago, using any method possible)

This quote is from the BBC news website profile of the leader of IRAN
Quote:
Iran leader defends Israel remark

Protesters in Tehran burned Israeli flags
Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity".

His initial comment provoked anger from many governments, and prompted Israel to demand Iran's expulsion from the UN.

Egypt said they showed "the weakness of the Iranian government". A Palestinian official also rejected the remarks.

If it is written in a scripture that we should hate -so and so, that scripture will still be around a thousand years from now when someone will use it to lead credulous people in a war against - so and so

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

Jazz

You said:

By the way, how are your slaves doing? Have you beaten your wife lately? When was the last time that you sacrificed an animal to please God? All those are in the Old Testament. My point is that these texts are used to justify actions that people want to take anyway.

I SAY:
This is My point... the bible actually says these things are acceptable. Even though you and I do not want slavery now ( I know... "speak for yourself RCA"...) These religious texts will be used to justify Slavery again at some time in the future.

It is a darned good thing that scriptures do not say we should let snakes bite us as we worship a Christian God or someone would try that... what? it does say that... people in arizona do let snakes bite them as they worship? Yep.
I dare say that they actually do that ONLY because the Bible says so...


Jazz... I think we come at this from two different perspectives. Your prespective seems to be (correct me if I have it wrong) that people will Use any method to Justify anything selfish, including religion. In this you are quite correct! (if thats what you really mean).

What I am saying is ... People do use religion to justify just about anything.That is the danger of having Outdated and Dangerous texts at the central core of any beleif system. While we may disagree on the Salem Witch trials and on the issue of Israel, we both know that people are using scripture to justify their hatred of others.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

A further point on religion

Not all religions are the same.. some are WAY more violent than others. I really hope that no one is offended when I say what I say about religion.. As far as I can tell No religion has perfectly "clean hands" they have all be used to justify "something" Hateful.

Again... It seems that christianity has to be taken "out of context" on order to justify hatred... a testament to the teachings of Jesus!

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

from adherents.com

Leni Riefenstahl's 1934 film about the Nuremberg Party Rally, Triumph of the Will, is in many ways profoundly religious. The film both makes use of Catholic religious imagery and draws on the Catholic sacramental tradition to give dignity and legitimacy to its construction of Adolf Hitler as the "god" of the Nazi movement... Since the beginning, Catholicism and Nazism had an uncomfortable coexistence. They jarred long before Riefenstahl began filming Hitler's rally in the summer of 1934... The Concordat, along with many other more famous agreements and treaties signed by the Fuehrer, was quickly violated, and the Church was ineffective in protecting Catholics from all manner of religious and cultural harassment. Alfred Rosenberg, the closest Nazism as an ideology ever came to having a philosopher, was consistently and virulently anti-Catholic... Hitler himself was not purely or simply anti-Catholic or anti-Church, and certainly not so before his rise to power. He was a baptized Catholic, as was his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, and a number of other prominent members of his administration. Interestingly, though both men rejected their Catholic faith and recognized...

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

From Atheism.com

A popular image of the Nazis is that they were fundamentally anti-Christian while devout Christians were anti-Nazi. The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. German Christianity was a divinely sanctioned religious movement which combined Christian doctrine and German character in a unique and desirable manner: True Christianity was German and True German-ness was Christian.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

from Nobeleif.com

Nazi photos

compiled by Jim Walker
created: 20 May 1998
additions: 29 Jan. 2006

The following photos provide a pictorial glimpse of Hitler, how his Nazis mixed religion with government, and the support for Hitler by the Protestant and Catholic Churches in Germany. In, no way, does this gallery of photos intend to support Nazism or anti-Semitism, but instead, intends to warn against them.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

Aryanism

Vaishnavism : Aryan Religion
Vaishnavism, the religion of the Aryans of nortern India, is one of the most important religions of the world. The concept of incarnation led to the most widely encompassing religion the world has seen; with the number of such avatars being infinite. Among the generally recognized incarnations are:


Brahma
Buddha
Jain Tirthankaras
Rama and Krishna

One-fourth of the population of Hindustan (North India) is Aryan-Vaishnavite, three-fourths in the Deccan and 3% in Dravidia. Smaller communities of Vaishnavites exist throughout the world.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

OK More about Hitler

Hitler Hated Catholicism... But loved certain parts of it. Believed in Aryan supremacy, but could not draw a clear line from the "Volkish Beliefs" of the Germanic State to the Persian Aryan religion. Lived in his own Pseudo-Religious world and affected the religion of many of his people with his ideology of Volkish, Germanic, Aryan supremacy.

In short while claiming to hate organized religion, was one of the most charismatic Semi-religious characters to lead the German people.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

From Ucalgary.com (university of Calgary)

The Christians were not the only group who claimed to be the true successors of Abraham. With the rise of Islam in the seventh century the Arabs also came to emphasize their descent from the Patriarch.
Interestingly, the descriptions of Abraham's life as found in the Koran are strongly influenced by Jewish traditions. They incorporate many events not mentioned in the biblical accounts, such as Abraham's disputes with his idol-worshipping father and his conflict with the wicked king Nimrod who cast him into a fiery furnace. All this provides ample proof that Mohammed had Jewish teachers.

The story of the akedah also found its way into the Koran (37:103), where the story conforms in most respects with the biblical version. Later Islamic tradition took it for granted that the sacrificed son was actually Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs.

Yet another aspect of the complex inter-relationships between Judaism, Christianity and Islam is demonstrated by the following example.

The covenant between God and Abraham, as described in Genesis 15, is accompanied by a queer ceremony of splitting the carcasses of various animals into pieces. Verse 11 relates, "And the birds of prey came down upon the carcases, and Abraham drove them away."

A medieval Yemenite midrashic anthology, the Midrash Ha-Gadol, explains this as meaning that "when Abraham laid the halves of the pieces over against each other, they became alive and flew away," this being God's way of demonstrating to him the doctrine of Resurrection of the Dead.

This detail is not mentioned, as far as I am aware, by any talmudic source, though it is alluded to in the Arabic translation of the great 10th Century scholar Rav Saadya Ga'on, who interpreted the Hebrew phrase vayashev otam Avram, normally rendered as "Abram drove [the birds] away," as "Abraham revived them."

The earliest attested version of the legend seems to be the following:

And when Abraham said: "Lord show me how you will revive the dead," He said, "What, do you not yet believe?" Said he, "Yea, but that my heart may be quieted." He said, "Then take four birds, and take them close to yourself; then put a part of them on every mountain; then call them, and they will come to you in haste; and know that God is mighty, wise."
The source for this midrash? It is found in the Koran (2:260)!
It would appear possible that later Jewish commentators were making free use of an Islamic tradition that provided corroboration for the Jewish belief in resurrection. The desire to find biblical support for the crucial doctrine of resurrection had long preoccupied the talmudic Rabbis, and Mohammed's exegesis offered a convenient proof-text. The interpretation sounded so "orthodox" that its true origin was eventually forgotten. The possibility should not however be discounted that Mohammed himself may have been citing an originally Jewish teaching which was not preserved in our own sources.

Jeff's Note... In some (only a few) of the texts I have read They show this as one of the central points of conflict between the Jewish Thologians and the Muslim Theologians. I don't know the answer but I know that both religions lay claim to the fatherhood of Abraham/Ibrahim. When a conflict between two groups gets this "specific" it has gone beyond simple economics. Often this happens when somone is looking for the last bit of evidence that allows them to know "for sure" that theyare right and the other person is wrong.


I have to travel today... so I wont be back to Debate much more today!

Have a great Day everyone !


Charlatan, Asaris, Jazz, You have all given me a lot to think about. Thanks for helping me refine my position!

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

For a comprehansive review about the history of the Arab Israeli conflict check out this site. the links on this page explain the role of religion in the conflict.

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israel...ct-2.asp#Clash

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

martinguerre

Man...i just have to laugh.

Did you know?

There's no such object as a religion?

Religion is a category of analysis imposed by western scholarship on certain patterns of behavior. But that doesn't mean that there is any such thing. Which is why it's hysterical to watch you so confidently declare that Nazism was a religion.

Religion is a made up word anyhow. You might as well be saying that it's a Thunderblatt for as much as it matters. There's no ontological affininty between "religious" rhetorics that makes them violent or non-violent...all this is a grouping of unlike objects into the same category of analysis in order to make a point about that same category of analysis.

This circularity means that this thread tells us infinitely more about how you think about "religion" than it does about the same.

__________________
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

Poppinjay

No murderer will enter into Heaven. (Galatians 5:21)

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

cyrnel

Do any of you theologians put credence behind the Dead Sea Scrolls' versions of the gospels? What little I know (very) is that the earlier versions were much more harsh. Closer to the Koran as far as penalties for unbelievers and the competition. The theory goes that the "modern" version of the bible was watered down to survive under rule that wouldn't harbor revolutionaries. (Romans, etc.)

Again, my knowledge here is poor but I haven't heard anything on this topic in a few years. It's interesting to me since it would indicate Christianity evolved into it's comparitively moderate (PC) position out of a need for self-preservation as opposed to an inherent tolerance.

__________________
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

The_Jazz

RCA - I think that we have finally found some middle ground here. My entire point has always been that you can take doctrine out of ANY religious text - Christian, Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, etc. - and use it as justification for war or killing. I don't think there's any debate about that. I think that you're still missing my fundamental point, though, which is that the religion is the justification not the motivation for war. Here's my challenge for you: find a war or even a long-term conflict such as Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials in the entirety of human history that was motivated solely by religion. I think that you will come up short. There is ALWAYS an underlying social, political or economic motivation for these conflicts, and religion is just the excuse used to remedy these conflicts. To say that people fight wars solely based on religious texts or even a preacher's say-so is to ignore basic human behavior.

Look, in every example that we've discussed, there has been some reason for one group to come into conflict with another. In Salem, there was property and control of a previously ungoverned community at stake. In Israel, it has always been control sacred sites, although in the recent past that has expanded into who controls the local economy. The 9/11 terrorists attacked US foreign and economic policy simply by the selection of their targets.

I think that you're confusing motivation and justification here, and there is certainly a set order of operations when it comes to any sizeable conflict like we're discussing. First people disagree over something, then as tensions rise they start looking for other diffences between the two groups and religion is often one of them. Looking to dogma for justification is simply a way of yelling "of course we're right" even louder.

Honestly, your point about some religions being more violent than others pretty much ignores historical evidence and basic human nature. There is no such thing as a culture that is more violent than any other, because an inherently violent culture would eventually kill off all of its members. Until the last 60 years or so, the Middle East was a relatively peaceful place, with only some minor scirmishes over territory and resources, the same as anywhere else in the world. The advent of Israel turned that on its head to an extent, although the end of 75 years of colonialism had something to do with the violence as well. There were Jews and Arabs living side by side along with Christians and everyone got along relatively well, the same as anywhere else. The Jewish seizure of power in 1947 upset that equalibrium, and that's the root of today's conflict. I enthusiastically conceed that there have been other issues piled upon that root, but that's what the modern conflict sprang from. If you want to go to earlier Muslim/Christian conflicts (we can't really talk about Muslim/Jewish conflicts because of the diaspora and lack of a united Jewish movement in the area until the mid-20th century), we have to go back to the Ottoman Empire, which was basically an expansionist power that conflicted with the other two expansionist powers in the area at the time, Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire. Neither of those conflicts had anything at all to do with religion but everything to do with economics (Russian access to the Black Sea and later the Mediterranean) and politics (Austro-Hungarian control of the Southeastern Europe). Let's not forget that France and England propped up the Islamic Ottoman Empire and its leader, the Sultan who was nominally the religious leader of all of his Islamic subjects, and these two powers successfully fought a war started by the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Tsar Nicholas I (Crimean War).

Basically, there's no inherent conflict between any two religions, and there are lots of examples where two religions that are in conflict in one part of the world live in relative harmony in another part. To insist that Jews and Muslims feel compelled by their respective Gods to make war on each other ignores all of the other, more important motivations that human beings have.

__________________
"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