Religions of peace? A thread for sober discussion.

[Superphil]

They're rather good lyrics if you believe in Christianity but not very good if you don't. It stinks of trying to scare people again. Sorry if that offends you but that the words of that song merely try to belittle those that don't believe.

The lyrics were written by Geezer Butler, the music was written by Tony Iommi, sung by Ozzy Osbourne

http://youtu.be/fkmyZ8juZWw

 

[Questions]

My sister found God in her thirties and now it's impossible to talk with her without her imaginary friend coming into the conversation sooner or later. It seems to have made her happy though so I don't engage in debate with her about his existence. She even quoted The Old Testament to me once about the rights of the Israilites and its relavence to their rights nowadays. Anyway I still love her even if she is a bit mad.

 

[BigGully]

My sister found God in her thirties and now it's impossible to talk with her without her imaginary friend coming into the conversation sooner or later. It seems to have made her happy though so I don't engage in debate with her about his existence. She even quoted The Old Testament to me once about the rights of the Israilites and its relavence to their rights nowadays. Anyway I still love her even if she is a bit mad.

I too have close friends that have also found God, they do not preach to me and I wish them well, but I am sometimes just a little uncomfortable with the way they smile, slightly unnerving.

 

[beorhthelm]

I have to admire an atheist's faith.

atheists do not have "faith", one cannot have faith in the non-existance of something. i find it amazing that those with a faith cannot conceive of the absence of faith/belief. and most scientists (especially those of the conventional faiths) would recognise that intelligent design is a fudge and that nothing in the world is designed with very much intelligence.

 

[daveinprague]

charged with behaving in a threatening or abusive manner by violating a security cordon,charged with shouting and failing to desist and causing fear and alarm,pleaded guilty to all counts,seems fair enough to me especially as the plank has form with a breach of the peace conviction for throwing paint at Clegg. Activists like that are just morons who dont add anything constructive to political debate.

Yeah I read he had form. Did he really cause Cameron 'fear & alarm' ? I doubt it. Shouting in a an abusive manner? Thats freedom of speech isnt it? Who is drawing up the rules for this freedom?

 

[Triggaaar]

Essentially, I view the term as “religion of peace” to be an elephant in the room. For society to progress I believe that all the major faiths need to emerge from their denial and acknowledge that they have some grisly skeletons in their cupboard. I would contend that this needs to happen in order to underline how the faiths can “evolve”, thereby explaining why they exist along the peaceful paths we would wish to see.

So they're supposed to edit the Bible (to remove 'an eye for an eye' etc) and the Quran? Even if the faith leaders agree with you, I don't see what they can do about it. Those that want to wage war will always have the text you've mentioned (even if it's now changed) to backup their warped agenda.

 

[Don Quixote]

But we possess considerably more facts now than we did when religions where in their infancy yet a lot of those of faith cling don't accept change or modernisation. Take the issue of female bishops, in 'biblical times' man led the family/tribe etc so it stands to reason that those writing to the stories will do so from their perspective, a bit like history is always written by the victor! In the 21st century, women should be equal but not in the eyes of many religions. Take homophobia, I think it is in Leviticus where he states man should not lie with a man, or words to that effect. How do we know that Leviticus wasn't a homophobe? Or maybe he was a homosexual but didn't come out of the closet. Based on that, for many centuries and even now, there are so called christians that denounce homosexuality.

Perhaps it would be easier if those that believed in life after death and the power of prayer just did that and didn't follow the rules and ceremonies laid down by other men in the name of different religions.

Leviticus wasn't a person.

 

[Questions]

I too have close friends that have also found God, they do not preach to me and I wish them well, but I am sometimes just a little uncomfortable with the way they smile, slightly unnerving.

I have often thought about hedging my bets but the holocaust or the tsunami always brings me back to my senses.

 

[pastafarian]

I have to admire an atheist's faith. I personally find it amazing that you can't conceive the possibility that there may be a creator. Many scientists believe in the possibility of intelligent design. Others, such as Penrose claim that they have found the possible scientific justification for the existence of the conscious mind after death. I have faith, you do not and I totally respect your position. However I can't understand your conclusion. If one approaches the question of God, faith etc scientifically, it is only possible to come to a definite conclusion through possession of all the facts. We don't possess that knowledge.

I am going to make a presumption you are a christian,if this is the case have you not yourself decided to reject Vishnu,Duc Cao Dei,Budda,Fujin,Waheguru and the thousands of other Gods that people worship today throughout the world.What made you choose the particular creator you believe in and reject all the others?

All atheists do is believe in one less God than you do.

 

[piersa]

Religion makes life cheap. Other than that, it's a great concept that I still fail to grasp.

 

[Hillian1]

Yeah I read he had form. Did he really cause Cameron 'fear & alarm' ? I doubt it. Shouting in a an abusive manner? Thats freedom of speech isnt it? Who is drawing up the rules for this freedom?

Freedom of Speech is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

This should not be confused with the right to offend for the sake of offending.

 

[daveinprague]

Thats the whole issue though isnt it? Some people like to offend for the sake of offending, and describing it as their free speech. Some peoples tolerance is lower than other peoples, and can be offended easily.

 

[looney]

We've been down this road 100 times already on NSC and I'm not going back down it today. Instead let me ask you a different question. Let's say you were offered a lucrative, tax-free contract in Saudi. Would you immediately grow a beard and spend your free time in a mosque or would you be more inclined to head to an ex-pat party to drink whisky from Liptons Ice Tea bottles and compare your bank balances, as my wife's cousin who lived in Saudi for 20 years often observed?

Thats got be the worst question I have read in a long time, why would bushy convert? if a saudi ex-pat?

I give up on this thread, wall to wall ignorant drivel so far.

 

[looney]

Religions don't have much to do with God. They're just human organisations, and like all organisations, they're corrupt and the scum rises to the top. That said, they make the rules for those that worship...

If there were ever any religions of peace, they'd have been eaten by one of the big monotheistic religions by now.
The tribe that worshiped the religion of peace would have been destroyed by a tribe that worshiped the religion of war. Hence the big two that are left (in our part of the world) have historically been warlike. They got there because they won.

Paladins were some of the first northern european converts to christianity, frankish knights, they went and butchered the heathen saxons, who were yet to convert.

I dont know where to begin with this woefully ignorant rubbish and misrepresentation of history.

There is no Duelism between Christianity and Islam. Firstly Christianity spread through its unique selling point that no other religions had, an immortal soul. This is why the majority of converts where by Missionaries. If the Frankish nights did butcher the saons as you claim it was an exception. I say claim as I have done a quick search and cant find any reference to it.

Islam found that most territory was already occupied by christians so was spread by violence, here they did take on a peaceful religion, erm, Christianty. Through forced conversions, massacres and oppression. still today a lot of Muslim countries are barely more than 50% muslim.

I mean seriously, do want a type of top trumps of religious massacres? You would soon run out of christian ones. In fact I could probably add a few to pad out your meagre list.

So could you provide a lik to the Paladins/Fraks butchering heathen Saxons and why?

 

[looney]

Freedom of Speech is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

This should not be confused with the right to offend for the sake of offending.

this is confused rubbish.

Nobody is forced to listen to what they dont want to hence free speach is a right to say what other people dont want to be said(not hear).

As for your second line, I cannot controll who is offended by what I say. Why should i face an accusation that i have offended for the sake of it? Ad be expected to defend it? Surley Those objecting need to explain why beyond a weak ad hominem?

As For Charlie Hebdo, its target readership can be given as being NOT the muslim community hence any "deliberate" offence would be stretching it a bit.

 

[Hillian1]

this is confused rubbish.

Nobody is forced to listen to what they dont want to hence free speach is a right to say what other people dont want to be said(not hear).

As for your second line, I cannot controll who is offended by what I say. Why should i face an accusation that i have offended for the sake of it? Ad be expected to defend it? Surley Those objecting need to explain why beyond a weak ad hominem?

As For Charlie Hebdo, its target readership can be given as being NOT the muslim community hence any "deliberate" offence would be stretching it a bit.

Tell George Orwell, he wrote it.

 

[Wilko]

I have to admire an atheist's faith. I personally find it amazing that you can't conceive the possibility that there may be a creator. Many scientists believe in the possibility of intelligent design. Others, such as Penrose claim that they have found the possible scientific justification for the existence of the conscious mind after death. I have faith, you do not and I totally respect your position. However I can't understand your conclusion. If one approaches the question of God, faith etc scientifically, it is only possible to come to a definite conclusion through possession of all the facts. We don't possess that knowledge.

If we approach the scientific question of God then you arrive at the realisation that there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever. An all powerful, omnipotent god that is capable of anything can only speak to a few men in their sleep several hundred years ago. I teach religion day in day out, I have attended hundreds of lectures, read about the subject enthusiastically for years and not one person has ever provided a single, clear piece of evidence that god exists. The best they can come up with is 'It says so in a book'.

As someone else has mentioned, atheism is not based on faith. Faith means to believe in something without proof. Atheists follow scientific, empirical evidence with proof. Quite a difference.

 

[drew]

The lyrics were written by Geezer Butler, the music was written by Tony Iommi, sung by Ozzy Osbourne

http://youtu.be/fkmyZ8juZWw

But the point is they were written from the perspective of someone with faith.

Leviticus wasn't a person.

My bad! Shall we refer to whomever wrote the Book of Leviticus then.

 

[jimhigham]

So they're supposed to edit the Bible (to remove 'an eye for an eye' etc) and the Quran? Even if the faith leaders agree with you, I don't see what they can do about it. Those that want to wage war will always have the text you've mentioned (even if it's now changed) to backup their warped agenda.

You are probably right that it is impossible to put the violent genie back in the bottle. Rather than edit the Bible (or Quran or Torah) I would just like to see religious leaders make more of a strenuous effort to contextualise the violent texts and provide a meaningful explanation as to why they should be discounted now. There is too much denial that such verses even exist. Green Cross Code Man, who I disagree with on matters of faith, did a very good job on is earlier in this thread. I just wish I had more clergy do likewise. To ignore violence is to be its enabler.

 

[Triggaaar]

You are probably right that it is impossible to put the violent genie back in the bottle. Rather than edit the Bible (or Quran or Torah) I would just like to see religious leaders make more of a strenuous effort to contextualise the violent texts and provide a meaningful explanation as to why they should be discounted now.

I don't think they need to be discounted altogether, just explained better. An eye for an eye should mean that a person that has committed a crime should be punished - it doesn't mean that you can punish people that have a different faith or come from a country that has caused harm to people in your country etc. As the quotes from the Bible and Quaran can be twisted to justify violence, I'm sure they can all be explained in a way that promotes peace. Religious leaders that want peace should be preaching the way god would want these things interpreted.