Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
god hates ireland??
Options
Comments
-
CerebralCortex wrote: »I can sympathise with your emotions. I think the only way to deal with those people is a high powered assault rifle with armour piercing rounds. :mad:
Too quick. Need something a little more Prometheian.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I'm just highlighting that it's a bit simplistic to blame religion for peoples failings.Depeche_Mode wrote: »Firstly I didn't say religion was the only cause of group mentality, so I don't see why you took issue with this.
I don't believe religions in essence try to destroy individuality.Secondly are you actually saying religion does promote individuality?
Teaching a code of practice doesn't equate to the denial of the individual. By that logic - surgeons have a code of practice - does medicen deny the individual?It gives all humans a set of guidelines to follow or else they are condemned.
No need. The church was just that - the people, and back then people weren't very agreeable to differences.The early Christian Church is famous for its persecution of people who had opinions which differed from the mainstream and this behaviour continued for centuries, they were heretics and need I spell out in detail what the Church did to heretics?
As I said, I was raised a christian. I was taught about all the other religions, what they stood for and their histories. I was taught basic philosophy. I was taught about morals and ethics. The reason I was taught all this: so I could make an informed decision for myself. I and all in my school were taught to find our own path. Now I understand you can retort with: underneath it all I was in effect brainwashed, but then by that fact, you are acknowledging everyone who is taught is brain washed and there really in no free choice regardless. But then the whole debate is moot as that stands for teaching, not just religious teaching.You must have a very broad definition of individuality if you feel that Christianity has ever actively encouraged its faithful to find their own path in life.
Ok, so you are saying that it wasn't directly religions fault, but because it existed a tool existed that could be abused?I wasn't referring to how the orthodox church behaved after the Revolution, I was more generally speaking about how the power structure it had developed over the poor and uneducated masses for centuries was taken and used by Stalin to great effect.
No it was Hitlers fault. Religion doesn't teach the mass execution of russians, gypsies, jews and homosexuals.Of course it absolutely was religions fault.
Because that is the church - not the religion. They are not one and the same.How on Earth can you suggest that though the Lutheran and Catholic Churches heavily indoctrinated their followers that the Jews were "Christ Killers" and bred a climate of anti-Semitism in Germany, they can now plead innocence and say "We had nothing to do with it", the mind boggles.
Please - do you distinguish between religion and the church? Because if you don't we can't continue. If you don't my position is: I agree with you with a but...It is also a leap to completely absolve religion of its responsibilities because of this.
Ok, so we are descending into the realms of being uncivil now? Do you want to continue this discussion, or do you expect my to submit and say - wow, you're right, I'm a moron?Sorry? Did you actually read my whole sentence there or did it bore you and you stopped half way through, if you did read it I'm sure you would have found that I clearly pointed out that
No he wasn't. So it wasn't religion that was the cause of what he did, now was it? He used the church as a tool, but it was religion.Stalin certainly wasn't religious.
Fair enough - a bit more through than my summation, but it's the same in essence.well, I've had said that religion is the ideology, the church is the institution and resource owner, and the believers are the people.
True, but wouldn't you agree that he is not the religion?Bin Laden is using religious ideology to promote violence:
I was thinking more along the lines of the third level institutions we have here in Ireland, that provide courses in philosophy and thelogy and the like.Religious schools exist to propagate religions, not to question them except in the most cursory way. Are you actually familiar with what goes on in religious schools, sunday schools and the like?
No but I accept that certain churches have little more than brain washing camps.Have you read the thread on Jesus Camp here?
Again though, wasn't all that a product of the church and not the actual religion?There's little evidence that he could have. In summary, he acquired power using catholic backing, he sustained it using pre-existing christian-derived anti-semitic propaganda and policies, and emulated many of the forms and rites of christianity during his time in power.
perhaps that's because it can be hard to distinguish between church and religion?This is a topic that comes up here frequently and there's little point in going over it again.
Hardly. I fail to see how that proves religion is responsible for bad people doing bad things, or the cause of "good people doing bad things"'nuff said!0 -
I dont think anyone is actually saying, belief in God, or in the teachings of a particular prophet etc causes evil. I think that no matter if you are an athiest or a devout theist you have to accept the fact that throughout history religion was used as a very convenient excuse to commit some of the worst atrocities, and it's still happening today. Religion may not be the real reason, but it is certainly the excuse and more importantly the motivating factor for most of the people comitting the atrocities.
Sorry Aidan, you're right of course about the churches doing enough damage themselves. In my rant I didn't explain what I was thinking properly. I mean people like him, who are obviously nutjobs, sort of overshadow normal religious or spiritual people. The people following him obviously do so with no proper thoughts and with no real love in them (I hate it when I sound like a hippy
). Leaving the door open for us all (non-athiests) to be labeled nut cases and branded sheep. 0 -
I think one or two might be. If they're not, then we're all in agreement and arguing the same point from different angles!! (which probably isn't a first) Are we?helena.ryan wrote: »I dont think anyone is actually saying, belief in God, or in the teachings of a particular prophet etc causes evil.
I totally accept that.I think that no matter if you are an athiest or a devout theist you have to accept the fact that throughout history religion was used as a very convenient excuse to commit some of the worst atrocities, and it's still happening today.
I have a problem with this though. Replace "the" with "a" and I'm happy.Religion may not be the real reason, but it is certainly the excuse and more importantly the motivating factor for most of the people committing the atrocities.
Sorry I know is appears as a subtle difference, but it does make a difference wouldn't you agree?
0 -
-
I think one or two might be. If they're not, then we're all in agreement and arguing the same point from different angles!! (which probably isn't a first) Are we?
I totally accept that.
I have a problem with this though. Replace "the" with "a" and I'm happy.
Sorry I know is appears as a subtle difference, but it does make a difference wouldn't you agree?
LOL Zulu, if we're going to get technical............ for some people religion may be A reason, ie: witchtrials - personal issues with people were sometimes as much of a factor here as religious beliefs.
But if you look at the crusades - how many young men marched off with this idea that they are doing it for God? Marching to their deaths, murdering people with religion as their main motivating factor. Bringing it to modern times with the war on terror, what other reason could the suicide bombers have other than religion? I think in that case it is safe to say it is the motivation.0 -
Ok, so we are descending into the realms of being uncivil now? Do you want to continue this discussion, or do you expect my to submit and say - wow, you're right, I'm a moron?
I apologise, I was tired and grumpy when posting that. That said I still stand by my points that religion does not promote the individual and that the actions of a Church should not reflect badly on the religion behind it.
When I look at the Bible it seems to be just one big effort to deny the individual their right to make significant life choices on their own. God gives you free will, but your decisions you freely make must agree with what we tell you to do or else. It kills off peoples desires for greater truths and understanding by providing them with simplistic answers dressed up as profound which it claims are all we need to know. Now of course you could come up with some exceptions but I would suggest that their individuality flourished in spite of religion and not because of it.
As for the teachings of Christianity being innocent of the crimes of the Churches it spawned I again have to object. The religion pointed out the blood of Christ would be on the Jews and their descendents, I think it is unfair to blame the phenomenon of anti-Semitism on the Catholic Church and Martin Luther misrepresenting what the Gospels said. They believed in the literal truth of the Gospel stories and it is quite easy to see how they could condemn the Jews because of this. I stand by my point that if a moral code leaves itself open to interpretation of what it means, and therefore can be used to justify atrocities, then that morality is inherently flawed.
As for the Bible not teaching the mass murder of Russians, Gypsies etc you are entirely correct. I don't know if either are mentioned at all in the Bible. However it does give plenty of examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing which God endorsed which could quite easily set dangerous precedents for justification of the mass murder of Russians and Gypsies.18AD wrote:I don't know if it would really make a difference. Violence is still violence no matter what its cause is, be it lack of resources, survival or meme spreading of any kind, be it political or moral. Violence is an inherent part of being human. Maybe instead of people doing things in the name of god they'd just be doing it in their own name.
http://www.livescience.com/health/08...-cravings.html
Don't get me wrong, violence would most certainly continue to exist with or without religion, however I would be slightly less concerned about Nuclear War if I knew that the people who held them didn't believe they could get eternally rewarded for employing them aggressively because of the message they get from their Holy Book.0 -
I do! And thanks. I do agree that it is used as a reason and a tool. All I'm saying is, in it's own right, it's not the cause.helena.ryan wrote: »LOL Zulu, if we're going to get technical............ for some people religion may be A reason, ie: witchtrials - personal issues with people were sometimes as much of a factor here as religious beliefs.
I believe, that even without religion, suicide bombers would exist. I honestly believe that it stems from disparateness and injustice, and once again religion is being used as an excuse. But ultimately, religion isn't the fault, it isn't the cause - it's a scape goat.
@ Depeche_Mode - no worries buddy, did you get caught in the M50 disaster? It's friday! And you final point, about nukes - I too would be a lot happier if I knew fanatics couldn't get their hands on them.
But I do believe that religions, when taught correctly do promote the individual. As a product of such, it's clear to me, but it's improvable. As is the reverse though. All we could do is go back through the ages finding examples of good and bad to back up either side - and in essence all we'd be doing is proving that their are good people and bad people!
...but it unequivocally states "you should not kill". Lets face it, as far a christianity is concerned, there are the 10 rules that can't be broken, which ultimately sum up to "be nice to each other". That to me is the religion. The whack job that can justify killing a homosexual from that, is a whack job - and they are the danger! (Not the religion)However it does give plenty of examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing which God endorsed which could quite easily set dangerous precedents for justification
My point is, they'll do it anyway - they're not right in the head.0 -
I think we might all be arguing the same point here from different angles as zulu said earlier. :rolleyes:
Except Zulu I want it to be written that you agree that for some people, religion is the only motivting factor - ah go on, give me that one!! 0 -
Depeche_Mode wrote: »Don't get me wrong, violence would most certainly continue to exist with or without religion, however I would be slightly less concerned about Nuclear War if I knew that the people who held them didn't believe they could get eternally rewarded for employing them aggressively because of the message they get from their Holy Book.
Yeah.
The less excuses for violence, the better.
I can't help but wonder about the psychological repercussions of worshipping an infallible deity.
Although the conspiracy theorist in me would think that religion is used to gather support from the masses. Governments have their own personal reasons.
All the best.
AD.0 -
Advertisement
-
Do you need that on the record, or will a PM sufficehelena.ryan wrote: »Except Zulu I want it to be written that you agree that for some people, religion is the only motivting factor - ah go on, give me that one!!
the politician in me is getting ready to give a completely non committal response0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement