god hates ireland??

Dades

18AD wrote: »

Is modern christianity based on the new testament alone?

When you quote a Christian nasty bits of the OT they will probably say that is the case! Jews = OT, Christians = NT.

The distinction seems suspiciously like one of convenience however due to some of the embarrassing stuff in the OT. It's the same God after therapy in the NT.

I only posted because I thought you were replying to Dashticle's post:

And to the best of my knowledge there are no such sentiments in the New Testament.

Pompey Magnus

I'm sure it eats up alot of the New Testament biased Christians that Jesus, in his Earthly ministry, went and completely forgot to condemn homosexuality and abortion. They could have gotten rid of the Old Testament and saved themselves alot of defending if he had.

18AD

Dades wrote: »

I only posted because I thought you were replying to Dashticle's post:

Yeah, you're right. My source was quoting the OT while refering to the NT god. How convoluted...

Thanks.
AD.

robindch

18AD wrote: »

Is modern christianity based on the new testament alone?

Depends on who you ask. Protestants will generally tell you that the Jesus canned a lot of the stuff in the OT, though there's no real agreement amongst protestant sects on exactly which bits he canned. A lot of catholics are generally unaware of what's in the OT, and quite a few are genuinely surprised at the vehemence of its nasty side and tend to avoid mentioning it where possible.

Despite these diametrically opposing approaches, both sides will tell you that they're interpreting the bible in the correct, even obvious way, and that their variation of christianity is therefore the right one.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

The point I was trying to make is that it he appeared to be suggesting that the majority were educated, middle class, etc. etc. and that they weren't from disparate circumstances. To be honest I don't really believe this.

Any particular reason you don't believe this, other than it was something I said?

Zulu wrote: »

Well in fairness were you not making a comment that applied to all suicide bombers?

Well that would be a bit silly because I'm pretty sure you would dig up an example of a single suicide bomber who didn't fit that criteria and proceed to beat me over the head with that. :rolleyes:

I was speaking of the majority of suicide bombers, or at least suicide bombers in the modern conflict areas. The majority of suicide bombers in recent areas where the method is used, such as the US, Europe, the Middle East or Muslim Asia, are middle class and educated.

You can refuse to believe that all you wish.

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

Any particular reason you don't believe this, other than it was something I said?

Wicknight, I've bothered to read the "proofs" you provided. Suffice to say there is no proof there.
The first link surmises that middle class would be effective.

The second link had you bothered to quote the whole thing states: "Economist Alan Krueger’s excellent work on terrorism — which we’ve discussed before — comes to the conclusion that suicide bombers tend to be surprisingly well-educated. They are not generally the poorest of the poor; in fact, they are more likely to be middle class members of society.
Now it turns out that further support for Krueger’s assertions is coming from an unlikely source: the video game Halo 3.
Clive Thompson, extremely well-educated and certainly middle-class at the least, describes in Wired how Halo 3 turned him into a suicide bomber." Again, I don't see any proof."

The third link refers to a study, but is an opinion piece.

I believe people kill themselves because they are desperate, not because of religion. Until I see proof to the contrary, I'll continue to believe that.

I was speaking of the majority of suicide bombers, or at least suicide bombers in the modern conflict areas. The majority of suicide bombers in recent areas where the method is used, such as the US, Europe, the Middle East or Muslim Asia, are middle class and educated.

That is fine, that's what I was thinking, and my issue wasn't with the fact that they are or aren't educated, that is just a straw man. They are still desperate people. My issue was with the suggestion that it was a myth that "They are disparate. For a start, striking back at their aggressor is a motivation. The fact their poverty stricken families will be rewarded is another".

You can refuse to believe that all you wish.

Of course I can, and you can provide real proof if you wish.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

Again, I don't see any proof.

As I asked, what the heck are you talking about when you say "proof" ??

Another piece that you will probably dismiss -

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/667/

"Research suggests that today’s suicide bombers tend to be middle-class. According to a study from 2003, where one third of Palestinians live in poverty, only 13 per cent of Palestinian suicide bombers lived in poverty; 57 per cent of suicide bombers had been educated beyond high school compared with 15 per cent of the general population"

And the research it talks about

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/oct/featdialogue/

"His recent work has focused on suicide terrorism. He has marshaled evidence that indicates suicide bombers are not poor and crazed as depicted in the press but well-educated and often economically stable individuals with no significant psychological pathology.
...
What sort of scientific research indicates that suicide bombers are sane?
A: Some of the earlier research was by Ariel Merari, who is a psychologist at Tel Aviv University and also a terrorism expert. He interviewed suicide bombers--survivors who were wounded and didn't die or whose bombs didn't go off--as well as their families or recruiters. Like most psychologists in the 1980s, he thought that this was individual pathology, like the idea that racists come from fatherless families or have a history of family trouble. He made a 180-degree turn and found out that no, the bombers span the normal distribution and were slightly above it in terms of education and in income.

Nasra Hassan, who is a Pakistani relief worker working in Gaza for a number of years, interviewed about 250 family members, recruiters, and survivors, completely independently. She was not aware of Merari's work, and she found exactly the same thing."

I could go on, but how about you describe what you would consider "proof" to actually be and maybe I can try and find that for you. Maybe someone counting every single suicide bomber there has ever been ... :rolleyes:

Zulu wrote: »

I believe people kill themselves because they are desperate, not because of religion.

Well you are wrong. But sure don't let that stop you ....

Pompey Magnus

Zulu wrote: »

I believe people kill themselves because they are desperate, not because of religion. Until I see proof to the contrary, I'll continue to believe that.

Wierd how we don't see desperate Tibetans taking part in suicide bombings against Chinese military and civilian targets. They probably aren't desperate enough though. I mean it takes something really bad to commit a suicide attack, like Bin Laden and his middle-class, well educated terrorists who were dismayed that the infedel Americans have military bases in the land of Mohammed that they flew planes into buildings...funny though how the not quite so religious Germans aren't blowing themselves up because they suffer the same. But wait, I hear you cry, they also were making a stand for the downtrodden Palestinians. The problem with that is the Palestinians in the greater Arab world are about as popular as a bacon salesman with a name like Abraham Joshua Goldmannstein. They only use the excuse of the Palestinians in order to justify their hatred of Israel and the west.

Isn't it wierd that apparently the only people who are "desperate" enough to carry out suicide bombings are the ones who are brought up believing a Holy Book which can be interpreted as promoting such acts. I'm sure it is just a coincidence though and if we had Jainist believers or atheists in similar desperate situations they too would be committing the same atrocities. And of course if an atheist opposed abortion he is just as likely as a Christian fundamentalist to go out and shoot a doctor, yeah?

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

Maybe someone counting every single suicide bomber there has ever been ... :rolleyes:

You may be as facetious as you like Wicknight, you've only succeded in propagating two points. One, that you only wish to argue over your straw man (wheither or not suicide bombers come from the middle classes). And two, that you have no real intention of having a discussion; that you wish for an argument.

For the first point: perhaps they do, frankly it doesn't really change a great deal. These are still people coming from desparte circumstances.
For the second: there's little point in me continuing (with you), so I wont.

robindch

Zulu wrote: »

These are still people coming from desparte circumstances.

Wicknight has shown quite clearly that suicide bombers need not come from what you term "desperate circumstances", by which I think you mean financial poverty. Which was an implication of one of my points from some while back too.

You are free to disagree, but you will not be doing so with the benefit of any supporting evidence.

Zulu

robindch wrote: »

Wicknight has shown quite clearly that suicide bombers need not come from what you term "desperate circumstances", by which I think you mean financial poverty. Which was an implication of one of my points from some while back too.

You are free to disagree, but you will not be doing so with the benefit of any supporting evidence.

Wicknight has provided some opinions that supported his opinion that these people possibly come from middle classes and are educated, but you can be from the middle class, educated and desperate.

Iraq and the Gaza strip/West bank (which I'm assuming you'd agree that a number of these people come from) are not pleasant places to live.

What I'm suggesting is that people don't tend to blow themselves up out of a want for something better to do. The decision to kill ones self isn't easily reached - ergo it's made out of desperation. That decision is then backed up/encouraged by extra circumstances. Like support for the family left behind, but I'm now sorry I ever mentioned that, as it seems yourself and Wicknight have a real issue with this individual point, and it's distracting from the overall issue (that it can be a motivating factor - one of many).

Pompey Magnus

But you haven't managed to clarify why it is only members of one faith who do take part in suicide attacks, plenty of people are desperate and don't do this.

Desperate + Muslim = Suicide Bomb.
Desperate + Buddhist = No Suicide Bomb.
Desperate + Hindu = No Suicide Bomb
Desperate + Atheist = No Suicide Bomb etc

Some people would look at the trend and say that perhaps faith might play a bigger role than you imply.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

Iraq and the Gaza strip/West bank (which I'm assuming you'd agree that a number of these people come from) are not pleasant places to live.

They certainly aren't. But the people you find in Gaza and Iraq who become suicide bomber have a lot better lives that most of the population.

As I already quoted

"According to a study from 2003, where one third of Palestinians live in poverty, only 13 per cent of Palestinian suicide bombers lived in poverty; 57 per cent of suicide bombers had been educated beyond high school compared with 15 per cent of the general population"

If being a suicide bomber is a result of desperation why are relatively wealthy and educated making up most of the suicide bombers? Are you honestly suggest that they are more "desperate" than an illiterate poverty striken Palestinian? What do you even mean when you say "desperate"

Zulu wrote: »

What I'm suggesting is that people don't tend to blow themselves up out of a want for something better to do. The decision to kill ones self isn't easily reached - ergo it's made out of desperation.

That is rather faulty and simplistic logic Zulu.

Members of the armies of Western countries sign up knowing they may be killed in battle. That is a hard decision to undertake, being prepared to die for your country and your fellow service men, or at least understanding that you are putting yourself in a position where it may happen.

It is certainly not one to be taken lightly. But that in no way implies that a person making that decision does so out of desperation of alternatives. I'm sure some of them do, the armies of the western world are famous for providing a paying job to the uneducated poor. But it certainly wouldn't explain why most sign up, including officers from wealthy backgrounds.

Zulu wrote: »

as it seems yourself and Wicknight have a real issue with this individual point

Well it is a very important point. To dismiss suicide bombers as simply people driven to desperate action is to ignore fundamentally what they are, and the danger posed by their type of faith.

Zulu

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

But you haven't managed to clarify why it is only members of one faith who do take part in suicide attacks

I know. I wasn't setting out to (but by the looks of things you are?).

plenty of people are desperate and don't do this.

Naturally. I'm not saying all desperate people are suicide bombers.
Perhaps, you should start another thread on suicide bombers with a bit more focus?

Some people would look at the trend and say that perhaps faith might play a bigger role than you imply.

I honestly think you should start another thread, as you seem to want to discuss a particular religion? Remember, all I'm suggesting is that:

Zulu wrote:

While you are right that many atrocities, and hate hides behind a "belief in God", or "God's work", it's really just an excuse for nasty people to do nasty things. If there was no concept of a god/God, the atrocities would continue, they are a part of human nature.

robindch

Zulu wrote: »

Wicknight has provided some opinions that supported his opinion that these people possibly come from middle classes and are educated, but you can be from the middle class, educated and desperate.

Which suggests that you've just redefined "desperate" from meaning "poor" to meaning something else.

Zulu wrote: »

The decision to kill ones self isn't easily reached - ergo it's made out of desperation.

Huh? If you're going to define "desperation" as what causes people to blow themselves up, then obviously everybody has to be "desperate". But you haven't actually said what you mean by "desperate" and the meaning that I infer from your use of the word certainly isn't what I usually understand from the word. Irritatingly, you redefined the word "religious" to suit your argument earlier in the thread too (see the last few lines of your post here).

If it's not possible to agree on common meanings for words, then there's not really much point in trying to debate

Zulu wrote: »

[...]it's distracting from the overall issue (that it can be a motivating factor - one of many).

Er, so you now agree that religion is a motivating factor in suicide bombings?

...in which case we agree in principle, and all we're doing now is working out *how* much of a motivating factor it is.

Zulu

robindch wrote: »

Which suggests that you've just redefined "desperate" from meaning "poor" to meaning something else.

No it doesn't. I never suggested that "poor"="desperate", that was a conclusion that was jumped at.

Huh? If you're going to define "desperation" as what causes people to blow themselves up, then obviously everybody has to be "desperate". But you haven't actually said what you mean by "desperate" and the meaning that I infer from your use of the word certainly isn't what I usually understand from the word.

I am using the common meaning of the English word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desperate

Irritatingly, you redefined the word "religious" to suit your argument earlier in the thread too (see the last few lines of your post here).

Well it's equally lazy and irritating to say that the church and the religion are the same thing. I'm sorry if separating the two makes it more awkward for you, but there you go.

If it's not possible to agree on common meanings for words, then there's not really much point in trying to debate

While I agree whole heartedly, I'm not changing the meaning of words as you suggested, so I fail to see why this comment is relevant. And tbh it's very irritating that you'd suggest it.

Er, so you now agree that religion is a motivating factor in suicide bombings?

Did I suggest the contrary at any point?

Look, I'm starting to get the impression that people would rather pick my English apart than actually progress or discuss the topic at hand. While this may be very satisfactory to the poster and give them a sense of one-up-man-ship or victory, let me save them the hassle:
<insert posters name> you are so right! Wow, you've really opened my eyes. I was such a fool not to have realised that you opinion was better than mine.

In the mean time, in the spirit of the actual topic, I've posted an opinion which I still believe, as I can't see or haven't read anything to the contrary here. Nothing only speculation and opinion contradicts my original position that: it's really just an excuse for nasty people to do nasty things. If there was no concept of a god/God, the atrocities would continue, they are a part of human nature.

CerebralCortex

Zulu wrote: »

... If there was no concept of a god/God, the atrocities would continue, they are a part of human nature.

Why?

Pompey Magnus

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why?

Ah, come on, just look at the way those secular Godless Swedes keep slaughtering the Norwegians. They are just doing what's natural.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

Look, I'm starting to get the impression that people would rather pick my English apart than actually progress or discuss the topic at hand.

I'm getting the impression that you would rather back track that simply admit that you were mistaken.

What exactly would you like to contribute to this discussion?

Zulu wrote:

it's really just an excuse for nasty people to do nasty things.

More simplistic nonsense.

"Nasty" people tend not to kill themselves. Nasty people tend to selfish and interested in self presevation at the expense of others.

That is not the criteria of a suicide bomber.

Studies have been done that show that suicide bombers tend to have the same personality traits that we would normally associate with "heros", that being selflessness, a strong connection with family and friends, devotion to religion and spiritual beliefs.

They don't tend to be angry or aggressive people. They tend to be helpful and caring to those around them. They don't tend to have psycholocial problems, nor do they tend to be psychopathic (itself characterised by a need for self preservation).

robindch

Zulu wrote:

Well it's equally lazy and irritating to say that the church and the religion are the same thing. I'm sorry if separating the two makes it more awkward for you, but there you go.

Well, you'll recall from this post that I defined the two as completely and unawkwardly separate

Zulu wrote:

If there was no concept of a god/God, the atrocities would continue, they are a part of human nature.

Ok, I've posted several tracts of many that call upon religious people to commit violence. And I think we're in agreement that religions are a contributory factor in a lot of violence, and a principal one in my opinion.

So, what makes you think that the violence would continue at the same level if the religions weren't present?

ie, Why do you think that the WTC attackers would have been as enthusiastically suicidal if they didn't believe that they'd be delivered into the warm bosoms of 72 virgins for a life of eternal bliss at the right hand of the creator of the universe?

Zulu

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why?

Why is it part of human nature? Good question - in short, I dunno, but I could hazard some wild guesses!

Greed could be a product of a basic animal urge; the more food I can gather, the more successful my chances are to procreate as I'm viewed as a good provider. ...but that is only a wild guess, and pure speculation.

Why do you think? (or are would you suggest that it's not part of our nature?)

Zulu

robindch wrote: »

Well, you'll recall from this post that I defined the two as completely and unawkwardly separate

Very true - why then accuse me of irritatingly changing the meaning of words? ...or was it only to "rise" me?

So, what makes you think that the violence would continue at the same level if the religions weren't present?

Because violence exists where religion isn't present, we know that religion isn't the only reason.
Once we've established that violence can happen where no religion is involved, we can then attempt to understand why that particular violence occurs - what are the motivations. If we establish these, we can then consider if these motivations are present, where religion is present. If we do this, we can consider that religion isn't the sole cause.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

Because violence exists where religion isn't present, we know that religion isn't the only reason.
Once we've established that violence can happen where no religion is involved, we can then attempt to understand why that particular violence occurs - what are the motivations. If we establish these, we can then consider if these motivations are present, where religion is present. If we do this, we can consider that religion isn't the sole cause.

Christ this is ridiculous

Zulu no one ever claimed that religion is the sole reason for viloence

What people are saying is that religious faith is a very strong factor in the motivation of a suicide bomber.

You are now inventing arguments to debate against.

Dave!

Zulu you haven't addressed Wicknight's previous post, and in other posts you have selectively quoted some parts and ignored the important/difficult parts!

Zulu

DaveMcG wrote: »

Zulu you haven't addressed Wicknight's previous post, and in other posts you have selectively quoted some parts and ignored the important/difficult parts!

I know I haven't addressed his points. Have you read my posts?
Please feel free to highlight the "important/difficult parts", I missed.

robindch

Zulu wrote: »

Very true - why then accuse me of irritatingly changing the meaning of words?

Because you did

Zulu wrote: »

If we do this, we can consider that religion isn't the sole cause.

You may have missed this sentence from my earlier post: "I think we're in agreement that religions are a contributory factor in a lot of violence, and a principal one in my opinion." (relevant section highlighted for emphasis). So I'm slightly perplexed as to why you think we need to lurch backwards to reach a conclusion that we've already agreed upon.

The journey might have been a bit rocky, and the views somewhat fogbound, but such pleasures shouldn't mean that we have to join hands, go back to square one and make the journey to this point all over again.

Whispered

Wicknight wrote: »

Christ this is ridiculous.

:D:D:D:D:D

Zulu

robindch wrote: »

Because you did

Where? We've established it's not the religion/church divide, and it's not the maning of desprate - so where? (or are you trying to rise me?)

You may have missed this sentence from my earlier post: "I think we're in agreement that religions are a contributory factor in a lot of violence, and a principal one in my opinion." (relevant section highlighted for emphasis). So I'm slightly perplexed as to why you think we need to lurch backwards to reach a conclusion that we've already agreed upon.

I don't I'm trying to be clear. You accuse me of being unclear, then when I reaffrim my point, you accuse of lurching back to a previous point. ...all the while, without actually making any points yourself.

robindch

Zulu wrote: »

or are you trying to rise me?)

No.

Zulu wrote: »

...without actually making any points yourself...

Gosh. Haven't checked, but I'd imagine that you must be the only poster who thinks I don't make the occasional point hereabouts! Here's one for yeh.

I give up.

Zulu

robindch wrote: »

No.Gosh. Haven't checked, but I'd imagine that you must be the only poster who thinks I don't make the occasional point hereabouts!

...Well robindch perhaps can you understand why I might be getting frustrated by your accusations?
Personally, I'd rather discuss the topic, than defend false accusations of me changing the meanings of words.