Does Religion Have Any Good Side?

mohawk

deise go deo wrote: »

In another thread someone was makeing the argument that religion has no redeaming features and that no athiest he knows can see any good side to it, As that thread is not about that topic I have decided to open a new thread,

Personally I believe it has its problems and its fair share of bad people but on the whole is a positive influence on the world.
Now I understand that most people here wont agree with that but what I want to know is if people here can see any good side to it wether or not they see it as good or bad on the whole.

I see several good sides to it, for example

Charitable work,
Bringing people within a given community together
Promoating a sence of morality and right and wrong,and encourging people to live good lived

I would like to hear your opinions on this

I would have to disagree with what are listed as the good points of religion above. I think things like charitable work and a sense of morality would be there without religion. Most people are capable of empathy and sympathy which have a strong influence on your morals.

Religion only brings a sense of community to those in the same religion those who arent part of that can be left out in the cold.

IMO a positive side to religion would be when people lose a loved one it comforts them to believe that they are in heaven or whatever. Many people need this.

mohawk

Noreen1 wrote: »

Obviously, I can't speak for religions that I don't have any great familiarity with - but certainly, if the teachings of the Christian Churches were adhered to, there would be more peace - "Love thy neighbour." "Thou shalt not kill." etc.

I think the primary reason for wars is greed, and/or desire for power.
People with said motivations are not above misusing Religion, and conveniently forgetting the primary teaching of said religion/s to attain those ends, though!

Noreen

On one hand it says love thy neighbour but the old testament also has that eye for an eye stuff. the bible contradicts itself many times over on such matters.

RachPie

Course there's good sides to it. Good and bad to most things in life!
I was brought up a Catholic, and even though I may not still follow the religion, I've taken away good points of it with me.
Morals, for example. I try to be good in every way that I can (without sounding like a sap here :P)
I treat everyone with kindness and respect and am just a better person for being brought up with religion. I was lucky enough to experience the good side to it and not the evil, like so many other people.

Mark Hamill

Noreen1 wrote: »

Like I said, I can't speak for anything other than Christian religions - I simply do not have the understanding of their faith that would be required. Neither do I have the in-depth knowledge of History.

Christian faith, however, does not condone, or promote, genocide in its teachings.

Noreen

Have you actually read the bible?

1 Samuel 15:2-3 (New International Version) wrote:

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

God seems pretty ok with genocide, when someone pisses him off.

Ickle Magoo

RachPie wrote: »

Course there's good sides to it. Good and bad to most things in life!
I was brought up a Catholic, and even though I may not still follow the religion, I've taken away good points of it with me.
Morals, for example. I try to be good in every way that I can (without sounding like a sap here :P)
I treat everyone with kindness and respect and am just a better person for being brought up with religion. I was lucky enough to experience the good side to it and not the evil, like so many other people.

I wasn't brought up religious and I have morals...

I try to be good, treat people with kindness, volunteer to help others...it's almost as if religion isn't even necessary for any of those things... :eek:

Mark Hamill

Noreen1 wrote: »

Christian faith does not advocate the killing of those who are not believers, either.

You said that already. I just pointed out nearly all religions do to, so to point it in terms of christianity is moot.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I think some people misuse religion for those purposes, yes. I also think it's a truly horrendous thing to do.
I don't believe that is the primary reason for the existence of religions. Certainly, my religion has never brought me either any financial gain, or power. Nor do either of those elements have any bearing on why I believe what I do.

Noreen

I never said financial, why do people always think in terms of money?
People get a massive power from inventing religion in two fundamental ways.
Firstly, the general public get power over their fear of death. They just no longer need to worry about what happens in the great unknown, because they now have rules they can live by, which will guarantee them happiness in the next life.
Secondly, the people who make up these religions get a monstrous amount of power because the people who now believe the religion, will believe pretty much any nonsense they spout.
Now the power over death aspect of religion, is so old that very few people actually realise it, as they have not experienced the complete cluelessness about the world that people had when religions first came along. The power "because everyone believes everything you say "aspect, is actually recognise by most people today (although a bit subconsciously), hence you hear a lot of poeple saying they are catholic but they dont like the vatican - they like the power over death their belief gives them, but dont like the power over them it gives others.

Truley

mohawk wrote: »

On one hand it says love thy neighbour but the old testament also has that eye for an eye stuff. the bible contradicts itself many times over on such matters.

A 'real' Christian would follow the New Testament only. Christianity, ie the following the teachings of Jesus Christ, is based on the New Testament while the Old Testament is based on pre-Christianity.

Ickle Magoo

Let's face it, with so many different sects and religious groups all claiming to be following the same book as it should be interpreted, you could make pretty much anything you like be sanctioned by a holy book. You would think if there was a god who was really so bothered about what we were all doing, he might have made "his word" a little less subjective.

deise go deo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Have you actually read the bible?

God seems pretty ok with genocide, when someone pisses him off.

My god man, are you actually quoteing scripture? Irony anyone?:D

Dades

Truley wrote: »

A 'real' Christian would follow the New Testament only. Christianity, ie the following the teachings of Jesus Christ, is based on the New Testament while the Old Testament is based on pre-Christianity.

Pre-Christianity being his father's younger days when He was a bit of a hellraiser.

Hang on, aren't they same person?

Noreen1

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Others conveniently forget the paragraphs relating to stoning, pillaging, raping and murdering in order that their religion appear to be a peaceful one as well though, to be fair...

mohawk wrote: »

On one hand it says love thy neighbour but the old testament also has that eye for an eye stuff. the bible contradicts itself many times over on such matters.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Have you actually read the bible?



God seems pretty ok with genocide, when someone pisses him off.

Christians follow the teachings of the New Testament, not the Old Testament. The Old Testament is regarded more as a History of the Jewish people, and a link to the Genealogy of Jesus. It is also used to compare the teachings of Jesus to those of his contemporaries.
The story of the good Samaritan, for example, was very radical, since it was a huge affront to the Jews to suggest that an "impure" Samaritan could actually be morally superior to "Gods Chosen people".
It is a lesson that is still valid today.:D:D
And, yes, I have read the Bible, and studied it's historical context, though I am no expert!! I just took the moral teachings, had a look at the context of the times they were offered in - and - yes - actually gave some thought to whether or not I believed them/thought they were good moral beliefs.:D

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You said that already. I just pointed out nearly all religions do to, so to point it in terms of christianity is moot.

I see and accept your point, but, as I said, I cannot quote the teachings of Islam or Hindu, for example, because I quite simply am not familiar with them. Hence, I am not in a position to either agree or disagree with said teachings.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never said financial, why do people always think in terms of money?
People get a massive power from inventing religion in two fundamental ways.
Firstly, the general public get power over their fear of death. They just no longer need to worry about what happens in the great unknown, because they now have rules they can live by, which will guarantee them happiness in the next life.

You're assuming we all manage to live by these rules perfectly, there!:D

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secondly, the people who make up these religions get a monstrous amount of power because the people who now believe the religion, will believe pretty much any nonsense they spout.

Er, any religion worthy of the name requires its believers to think about, or meditate on its teachings. Blind adherence is required by cults.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Now the power over death aspect of religion, is so old that very few people actually realise it, as they have not experienced the complete cluelessness about the world that people had when religions first came along. The power "because everyone believes everything you say "aspect, is actually recognise by most people today (although a bit subconsciously), hence you hear a lot of poeple saying they are catholic but they dont like the vatican - they like the power over death their belief gives them, but dont like the power over them it gives others.

I think there are a lot of reasons for people some people not liking the Vatican, ranging from not believing in some of it's teaching, to actually disagreeing with it's behaviour over certain issues, or recognising that the structures that have developed over the centuries are far removed from Christianity in its earliest form, and a desire to get closer to the way the church was structured originally.

Noreen

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think that the primary reason for religions are greed and the desire for power.

Religions are more subtle than that -- quite a few parasitize upon people's need for respect, group-identity, moral clarity, teleological direction, chain of authority and so on.

The desire for power isn't applicable to all religious believers, nor even most religious I think, at least most of the time.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Pre-Christianity being his father's younger days when He was a bit of a hellraiser. Hang on, aren't they same person?

They certainly were the same person when believers remembered that Jesus was a jew and that he thought himself as the jewish Messiah, the guy who would come to complete and fully implement god's plan for earth while he was alive.

That's changed since Jesus died in Roman times and most christians now view Jesus as his own god, so to speak.

Ickle Magoo

I thought the christian trinity or godhead was three eternal persons...the father, the son and holy ghost...unless you happen to be oriental orthodoxy, of course.

Noreen1

robindch wrote: »

Religions are more subtle than that -- quite a few parasitize upon people's need for respect, group-identity, moral clarity, teleological direction, chain of authority and so on..

There's a certain amount of truth in that. Some of these "Religions" might be better described as cults.
In other cases, people find it easier to accept someone telling them what is acceptable, than actually going to the trouble of thinking the matter through for themselves. Others either may not have sufficient time/education to do so.

robindch wrote: »

The desire for power isn't applicable to all religious believers, nor even most religious I think, at least most of the time.

No argument there.

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I thought the christian trinity or godhead was three eternal persons...the father, the son and holy ghost.

The trinity was a late development, perhaps as late as the second or third century, and the three characters are never referred to as the "trinity" in any of the early biblical or christian writings.

Neither was Jesus or the HG mentioned in the OT and Jesus only claims to be the same as god in the gospel of John, written perhaps sixty or so years after Jesus died. The other three slightly earlier gospels completely omit this crucial detail about Jesus' identity. Paul, who never met Jesus, believed that Jesus was god and is the principal source of the trinitarian belief.

The HG makes a vague kind of sense in a Platonic scheme, where he's the Form of god/Jesus -- essentially the perfect entity from which both are derived in a real universe. Hence the warning about denying him being an unforgivable sin. But outside of that, the HG is a rather mysterious character about which little is known, but much is still written.

Ickle Magoo

So what constitutes one of these "real" christians I keep hearing about if the religions are just made up as they go along and are completely unrecognisable from their earliest forms.

Noreen1

robindch wrote: »

They certainly were the same person when believers remembered that Jesus was a jew and that he thought himself as the jewish Messiah, the guy who would come to complete and fully implement god's plan for earth while he was alive.

That's changed since Jesus died in Roman times and most christians now view Jesus as his own god, so to speak.

Not quite, we view him as further revelation and explanation of the teachings that had previously been given. Even as a "sign of contradiction" of some that had been misinterpreted by scholars.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I thought the christian trinity or godhead was three eternal persons...the father, the son and holy ghost...unless you happen to be oriental orthodoxy, of course.

Three in one. Three separate "roles" to fulfil, but one purpose. Or we could go back to St Patricks analogy.

Anyway, no offence, but, this is all off topic!
I posted in the thread Deise go Deo referred to as his reason for opening this thread.
Hence, my reason for visiting this forum was to find out what atheists opinions were about religion, not to debate about Religious beliefs.
I generally don't debate religious beliefs, because I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that one should be free to believe, or disbelieve, whatsoever one chooses.

In the original thread, someone posted that millions of atheists worldwide hate religion. I made the point that it would be illogical to hate everything about religion, though entirely possible to disagree with/dislike/hate certain aspects of any given religion.

Hence, I'm curious about opinions re: religion.

Do people hate the whole thing, or, as Deise posted, maybe hate some aspects of it, while recognising that it can also be a force for good?

I'm genuinely interested.

Noreen

Mark Hamill

deise go deo wrote: »

My god man, are you actually quoteing scripture? Irony anyone?:D

I am quoting scripture to someone who holds to the scripture in order to show the flaws in the scripture. So its not just irony, its delicious irony.

robindch

Noreen1 wrote: »

we view him as further revelation and explanation of the teachings that had previously been given.

Yes, that's the view these days. That was not the view for the first few centuries.

Mark Hamill

Noreen1 wrote: »

Christians follow the teachings of the New Testament, not the Old Testament. The Old Testament is regarded more as a History of the Jewish people, and a link to the Genealogy of Jesus. It is also used to compare the teachings of Jesus to those of his contemporaries.
The story of the good Samaritan, for example, was very radical, since it was a huge affront to the Jews to suggest that an "impure" Samaritan could actually be morally superior to "Gods Chosen people".
It is a lesson that is still valid today.:D:D
And, yes, I have read the Bible, and studied it's historical context, though I am no expert!! I just took the moral teachings, had a look at the context of the times they were offered in - and - yes - actually gave some thought to whether or not I believed them/thought they were good moral beliefs.:D

Have you read Matthew 5:17-19?

Matthew 5:17-19 (King James Version) wrote:

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law[of the old testament], or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Kinda seems like Jesus was saying that everything in the old testament still applies, and will still apply until the end of the earth.

Noreen1 wrote: »

You're assuming we all manage to live by these rules perfectly

You may not, but you try.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Er, any religion worthy of the name requires its believers to think about, or meditate on its teachings. Blind adherence is required by cults.

Up until the point where you start questioning fundementals, and then you get various accusations thrown at you and your life/livelyhood becomes in danger eg the islamic cleric who was threatened with execution for disagreeing with the veil in Iran, or Galileo, who was tried for heresy for disagreeing with a church teaching.

Ickle Magoo

Noreen1 wrote: »

Three in one. Three separate "roles" to fulfil, but one purpose. Or we could go back to St Patricks analogy.

Anyway, no offence, but, this is all off topic!

My post was in relation to Robinch, he's a mod round these parts so if it was OT disallowed I'm sure he would point that out. A&A tends to be a bit more lax about the OT stuff which leads to some interesting debates.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Do people hate the whole thing, or, as Deise posted, maybe hate some aspects of it, while recognising that it can also be a force for good?

In an ideal world I'd snap my fingers and religion would disappear off the face of the planet and I think the world would be a better place for it. I struggle to see anything good about organised religion that cannot and is not replicated without religion being involved which means whatever good it does in part is negated by the bad and absolutely no reason to keep the whole.

It's not an ideal world so I'll just settle for people believing in whatever they want but organised religion stopping demanding a greater say in laws and policies that effect everyone, no religious influence in schools, hospitals or other state funded bodies and it being safe to put my kids to bed without fear of the doorbell going and being harassed by some religious nut trying to ram their beliefs down my throat.

robindch

Noreen1 wrote: »

Do people hate the whole thing, or, as Deise posted, maybe hate some aspects of it, while recognising that it can also be a force for good?

Religion can certainly inspire people to do good, decent or useful things, but then again, certain teachings of Russia's Communist Party inspired people too. From the utilitarian perspective, the question one should ask is whether the overall amount of "good" in the world would be larger or smaller if religion did not exist. I believe that it would be significantly larger.

Generally, when I see things like the recent parallel debates in A+A and the christianity forum about whether or not parents should clobber children, I'm reminded of Steven Weinberg's rather pointed comment:

Steven Weinberg wrote:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

or Galileo, who was tried for heresy for disagreeing with a church teaching.

And one of the --AFAIR four -- bishops who signed his conviction document was Irish

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

, or Galileo, who was tried for heresy for disagreeing with a church teaching.

Eh

Earlier, Pope Urban VIII had personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool.
...
However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope

Mr Clever Galileo was personal friend to the pope and made fun of him in the personally-requested book. Not a smart thing to do. I'd say the trial was more about that than the ideas.

strobe

Kooli wrote: »

I would absolutely agree that community activities or community centres that are not run by a particular religion would be better for the whole community. I just didn't think many of these existed - who runs them? Who funds them?

I know there's a community centre down the end of my road where you can go to weight watchers, or pilates, or table tennis, but this is just a hall being rented out by various parties who then charge for classes. I'd love if it had all the stuff you describe above in your community centre, but I can't see who would organise all that stuff unless it was paid staff. And then whose going to fund that?

Well in the case with my one people used to buy a community centre card once a year and the money raised from that would go towards the cost of the centre. They used to also have loads of fund raising things. They held plays and the like. I remember once a professional sportsmen that had grown up in the area bought a load of sporting equipment for indoor soccer so they generated some income from charitable donations aswell. Most of the people that "worked" in the place did it voluntarily. My Ma used to organise all the badminton related stuff for example. She had free time and loved badminton so there was no question of her looking for payment for her time, just wanted to give something back sort of thing.

Who funds the church run services.......apart from the people that use them?

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd say the trial was more about that than the ideas.

Possibly, but Galileo was still prosecuted and convicted in accordance with the laws against blasphemy.

Neither the original accusations, nor the the Pope's final condemnation, nor Galileo's recantation mention anything about Galileo pulling the Pope's plonker, against which there were other laws available to the prosecutors.

From that, I'm inclined to think -- in the absence of other evidence -- that much of the recent "he was prosecuted for being rude" argument looks very much like a Texas-board-of-education-style rewriting of history to exonerate religion.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Possibly, but Galileo was still prosecuted and convicted in accordance with the laws against blasphemy.

Neither the original accusations, nor the the Pope's final condemnation, nor Galileo's recantation mention anything about Galileo pulling the Pope's plonker, against which there were other laws available to the prosecutors.

From that, I'm inclined to think -- in the absence of other evidence -- that much of the recent "he was prosecuted for being rude" argument looks very much like a Texas-board-of-education-style rewriting of history to exonerate religion.

Do you think so?
I can imagine, for example, someone being fired on a technicality but the real reason being personal dislike!
I don't know, ever since I found that part out I get a bit antsy at the idea that it was purely the heresy part

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

I can imagine, for example, someone being fired on a technicality but the real reason being personal dislike!

Well, in medieval times, state law and church law were close and people convicted under church law would frequently be handed over to the secular authorities for (literally!) execution of the punishment. The catholic church had plenty of rules regarding the authority and respect due to the pope -- see the list under the heading "Excommunications specially reserved to the pope" at

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

...and I'd have imagined that Galileo could have been prosecuted for at least half of these "offenses" without putting themselves to too much trouble. And if the pope were genuinely offended, then he was certainly powerful enough (and Galileo was sufficiently weak) that the pope would almost certainly have sought to preserve his reputation by prosecuting Galileo openly for open disrespect. That the pope didn't, and instead chose to prosecute him for publishing heretical material, suggests to me that the pope was worried more about the loss of scriptural (and thereby, institutional) authority than personal authority. I suspect because things like the King James bible (published a few years before Galileo's prosecution) and corresponding rise of protestantism in the previous 60 or so years (also linked strongly to the dissemination of printed, heretical material), were more potent threats to the church's institutional power than any wind-ups that Galileo could produce -- he was known a serious scientist after all, not a gag-merchant.

Could be wrong about all of this and the matter would almost certainly be settled by something like a personal letter from the pope saying that he'd been insulted by Galileo but would prosecute for something else. However, I'm fairly sure that there isn't any such letter. And either way, it seems more likely to me that this whole thing was not personal fight fought through non-personal legislation, and instead, a straightforward fight related to the church's institutional authority.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

or Galileo, who was tried for heresy for disagreeing with a church teaching.

Oops, not the final conviction document, but the initial findings of the church's equivalent of a Grand Jury -- basically, finding if Galileo had a case to answer. And there were eleven, not four.

There he is, top of the list: Petrus Lombardus, Archbishop of Armagh!

Truley

Dades wrote: »

Pre-Christianity being his father's younger days when He was a bit of a hellraiser.

Hang on, aren't they same person?

Accounts of Jesus' father in the Old Testament were not based on the words of Jesus Christ and so if one was to actually follow 'Christianity' they would follow Christ's teaching of God not what was previously taught by others in the Old Testament, I would imagine anyway.

chops1990

The way I see it is, I believe in God. I don't need a church to tell me how i should worship and how to act. They just did too much bad now in my eyes to see the catholic church having any merit. I don't mean to tar them all with the one brush, but thats life.

But it is good for some things. People with a strong faith can gain solace from the church i suppose. Other than that all religion really does is cause conflict and seperation of races.

Everyone should look this thing called ZeitGeist. It deals with religion and how America is soooo corrupt amoung other things. Kinda conspiracy/Documentary type thing. It's interesting to say the least!

strobe

chops1990 wrote: »

Everyone should look this thing called ZeitGeist. It deals with religion and how America is soooo corrupt amoung other things. Kinda conspiracy/Documentary type thing. It's interesting to say the least!

Zeitgeist is certainly interesting but it is also utterly littered with half-truths and out and out falsehoods. Take anything you seen in it with a touch of salt, at the very least look to back up any assertions it makes from more reliable sources.

Denerick

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I thought the crusades were to recapture the holy lands from being overrun by muslims which is why Alixius I deliberately appealed to the head of christianity rather than heads of states. Military campaigns against the enemies of the church...seems predominantly religiously motivated to me. I also thought the primary motivation behind the first crusade was to heal "the great" schism and take back jeruselum from those who had "stolen" it? Again, religiously motivated.

The papacy was a head of State at the time. An extremely powerful head of State. Alexius appealed to him because he was the only individual who could marshal the Princes of Europe under one banner. On the other hand, Alexius only wanted a small detachment. Think of it instead as a corporate CEO writing to another corporate CEO in order to recommend a decent junior vice executive on the market. Most historians will agree that the Muslims and the Christians were not fighting over the finer details of doctrine and dogma but over political supremacy. Really, its rather lazy to generalise all conflict as having its roots in religion.

P.S- Jerusalem was under Muslim control for centuries at this stage.

Ickle Magoo

Denerick wrote: »

The papacy was a head of State at the time. An extremely powerful head of State. Most historians will agree that the Muslims and the Christians were not fighting over the finer details of doctrine and dogma but over political supremacy. Really, its rather lazy to generalise all conflict as having its roots in religion.

The papacy is a head of state now, too, but that's rather missing the point - deliberately I assume - the option to have a political campaign rather than religious was ignored and willfully taken up by the head of christianity. That muslims and christians were not fighting over finer details of doctrine and dogma does not mean the conflict was not waged by, for and because of the religious. In much the same way I'm sure you could argue the palastinians and isrealis are not fighting over the finer details of doctine now but to suggest the conflict has nothing to do with religion would just be dishonest.

As you've accused me of being lazy, perhaps you could point out where I suggested all conflict had it's roots in religion?

Denerick

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The papacy is a head of state now, too, but that's rather missing the point - deliberately I assume - the option to have a political campaign rather than religious was ignored and willfully taken up by the head of christianity. That muslims and christians were not fighting over finer details of doctrine and dogma does not mean the conflict was not waged by, for and because of the religious. In much the same way I'm sure you could argue the palastinians and isrealis are not fighting over the finer details of doctine now but to suggest the conflict has nothing to do with religion would just be dishonest.

As you've accused me of being lazy, perhaps you could point out where I suggested all conflict had it's roots in religion?

There is a gigantic difference between what the papacy was in the 11th century and what it is now. For one thing it owned a **** load of land. For another thing it had a **** load of money. Neither of which it has now.

It was also deeply permeated into the cultural context of the time and the church was a transnational organisation that in many, very real ways (Resulting in bloodbaths like the Investiture contest) was superior to temporal law.

So no, you cannot compare the papacy of the early middle ages with its 21st century incarnation. When Alexius contacted Urban, he wasn't contacting the Pope. He was contacting the equivilent of the Director General of the UN.

And I'm more than willing to admit that I may be lazy.

Ickle Magoo

Only if the director general of the UN had a particular interest in reversing the islamic conquests in the holy land...

Of course, nowadays the papacy is more interested in propagating AIDS and hiding child abusers....haven't they come far. :pac:

Denerick

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Only if the director general of the UN had a particular interest in reversing the islamic conquests in the holy land...

No offense, but you interpret it much too simply. While the promised absolution for the average person should they take the cross was clearly religious, the motivations of the papacy were for solely political purposes.

Ickle Magoo

Why is so much to do with religion based on interpretation? I may interpret it much too simply, I am no expert. I do know there are no documented accounts of actual motivations or intentions from the time so any assumptions - on either side - are just that.

I would suggest there are as many people who would rather distance religion from conflict and deliberately try to exaggerate political motivation while at the same time trying to minimise the religious as there are those who aren't interpreting things the way you wish. :cool:

deise go deo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Only if the director general of the UN had a particular interest in reversing the islamic conquests in the holy land...

Of course, nowadays the papacy is more interested in propagating AIDS and hiding child abusers....haven't they come far. :pac:

You equate reservations about condoms due to a moral concern about the role of sex in a relationship to the disire to see AIDS spreading?

Intresting logic:rolleyes:

Denerick

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why is so much to do with religion based on interpretation? I may interpret it much too simply, I am no expert. I do know there are no documented accounts of actual motivations or intentions from the time so any assumptions - on either side - are just that.

I would suggest there are as many people who would rather distance religion from conflict and deliberately try to exaggerate political motivation while at the same time trying to minimise the religious as there are those who aren't interpreting things the way you wish. :cool:

No offense, but I didn't understand your second paragraph. Its not even logically consistent.

Either way, I'm only telling you what the prevailing historical consensus is. Should you choose to disagree, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that. Nobody ever said that militant atheism ever had to be concerned with the truth.

I'm agnostic by the way, so don't try and categorise me as some kind of Catholic apologist.

Ickle Magoo

deise go deo wrote: »

You equate reservations about condoms due to a moral concern about the role of sex in a relationship to the disire to see AIDS spreading?

Intresting logic:rolleyes:

19 million people have died of AIDS, today over 42 million people live with HIV, over 95% in the third world. Do you think that the church's preaching of not using condoms is stemming the spread of AIDS? Or propagating it? Despite usually being monogamous and abstaining as a single woman, a married woman is at the highest risk of contracting HIV.

I suppose stories spread from the vatican like condoms have tiny holes that let AIDS through are supposed to help?

Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids

If the preservation of innocent life is paramount then the suggestion that condoms shouldn't be used or don't work are morally reprehensible.

No offense, but I didn't understand your second paragraph. Its not even logically consistent.

Either way, I'm only telling you what the prevailing historical consensus is. Should you choose to disagree, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that. Nobody ever said that militant atheism ever had to be concerned with the truth.

I'm agnostic by the way, so don't try and categorise me as some kind of Catholic apologist.

I was under the impression that the current historical consensus is still up for debate thanks to lack of evidence. I hardly think pointing out the lengths some people go to, to distance religion from aggression is militant atheism, nor denying "the truth".

Denerick

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I was under the impression that the current historical consensus is still up for debate thanks to lack of evidence. I hardly think pointing out the lengths some people go to, to distance religion from aggression is militant atheism, nor denying "the truth".

Everything is technically still up for debate on everything due to 'lack of evidence'. Lack of evidence is not a satisfactory excuse to hold an opinion based solely on ones irrational hatred of religious organisations. What rational and reasonable people do is try their best to understand the past through the medium of the sources left behind. They don't just issue a dismissive handwave, saying 'there is a lack of evidence here, I decree that all opinions are of equal value'.

Valmont

If someone is religious and finds strength or purpose through praising the lord then that's their business. I think there is an element of subjectivity that we can't really ignore here.

goingpostal

Valmont wrote: »

If someone is religious and finds strength or purpose through praising the lord then that's their business. I think there is an element of subjectivity that we can't really ignore here.

If only they could keep it their business and not tell me about it. However, most religious people don't seem to be happy unless I believe in the same myths that they believe. And give them money.

Denerick

goingpostal wrote: »

If only they could keep it their business and not tell me about it. However, most religious people don't seem to be happy unless I believe in the same myths that they believe. And give them money.

You are not required to talk to religious people or give them money.

While we're on the topic, atheists are far worse for evangelicism than any Catholic I've ever come across. It would almost make me want to rejoin the church, just to get away from their smug air of superiority.

Ickle Magoo

Denerick wrote: »

Everything is technically still up for debate on everything due to 'lack of evidence'. Lack of evidence is not a satisfactory excuse to hold an opinion based solely on ones irrational hatred of religious organisations. What rational and reasonable people do is try their best to understand the past through the medium of the sources left behind. They don't just issue a dismissive handwave, saying 'there is a lack of evidence here, I decree that all opinions are of equal value'.

For the....fourth...is it....time now? I have no idea who started the first crusade, nor why. Truth be known, I don't actually care. I think it's nigh on impossible in most historical cases to differentiate where true religious motivation begins and wholly political motivation ends - and visa versa. Depending on ones perspective and motivation, in lieu of actual evidence, subjective pontification is all that is left. I don't think one direction of unevidenced assumptions can be deemed rational and reasonable and others not.

Denerick wrote:

You are not required to talk to religious people or give them money.

While we're on the topic, atheists are far worse for evangelicism than any Catholic I've ever come across. It would almost make me want to rejoin the church, just to get away from their smug air of superiority.

I have never ever had an atheist stop me in the street, rattle a box under my nose, or wake up the kids ringing the bell at night - who are these evangelical atheists you speak of? The ones who force you to read their books? Or read their posts? Or?

goingpostal

Denerick wrote: »

You are not required to talk to religious people or give them money.

While we're on the topic, atheists are far worse for evangelicism than any Catholic I've ever come across. It would almost make me want to rejoin the church, just to get away from their smug air of superiority.

That doesn't stop them trying. In case you haven't noticed, religious people don't have tattoos on their foreheads saying which denomination of fantasy they subscribe to, but they are not shy about introducing the topic into the conversation at the first and every subsequent possible opportunity. And while we are on the topic of smug airs of superiority, hows about professing to know for a fact not only that God exists but also to know precisely how God wants to me to live my life in oh so many tiny details. That takes some beating for arrogance and presumption.

Denerick

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

For the....fourth...is it....time now? I have no idea who started the first crusade, nor why. Truth be known, I don't actually care. I think it's nigh on impossible in most historical cases to differentiate where true religious motivation begins and wholly political motivation ends - and visa versa. Depending on ones perspective and motivation, in lieu of actual evidence, subjective pontification is all that is left. I don't think one direction of unevidenced assumptions can be deemed rational and reasonable and others not.

The difference is that you are entirely motivated by an irrational hatred of religion and thus instantly categorise the First Crusade as a religious war, while in reality the truth is much more complex and has led most historians to conclude that the war aims were entirely secular, materialistic and political. What is so hard to understand about that?

Denerick

goingpostal wrote: »

And while we are on the topic of smug airs of superiority, hows about professing to know for a fact not only that God exists but also to know precisely how God wants to me to live my life in oh so many tiny details. That takes some beating for arrogance and presumption.

One could argue that not holding such a belief (Were God to exist) is arrogant and presumptous. Hence why both sides stare at each other in mutual frustration and annoyance.

Why does the phrase 'Dialogue of the Deaf' run through my mind right now?