2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't know much about your jw cult but aren't you the lot who have limited heaven tickets? PS ( look up the meaning of the word RANT old chap).
I don't believe your propaganda, do you understand? as far as i am concerned you are talking pants. Religion offers no more perpetuity for war than any other motive. Politics is equally as divisive and has killed way more people we never hear you crying about that do we, why not? because you are prejudiced against religion. 1,600,000 people have bee ...[text shortened]... rant like there is no tomorrow, i wont call you a hypocrite but its sure looks like that to me.
1 edit
Originally posted by OdBodHmmm. For your point to hold across the board, you have to dismiss out of hand those people—whether a minority or not (and that’s an empirical question)—whose religious convictions are precisely what leads them to stand against such atrocities. I could cite a number of examples from various religions—and I am not excluding secular humanists, by any means: just that the OP is about religion per se. It was precisely his religious convictions that led Rabbi Abraham Heschel, for example, to march with Martin Luther King, Jr. It was precisely his religious convictions that informed Archbishop Oscar Romero’s activities in El Salvador (which led to his murder). Etc., etc.
150 young people killed in Kenya because of religious differences. An Atheistic Humanitarian approach has got to be the way forward. Religion divides and hurts us!
If you want to paint such people as exceptions, then maybe. But, frankly, I think that the sentiment expressed in the OP is simplistic. Not that religion—or rather, dogmatic, unquestioning religious belief—isn’t responsible for a great many atrocities. It is. But so is unquestioning, dogmatic belief in non-religious ideologies.
Of course, one can narrow one’s definition of “religion” so that it excludes much of what the word has meant throughout history—and means today. For example, today I would class myself as “religious”—and yet I hold no unquestioning beliefs (at least, I hold no beliefs that I am unwilling to question; as a matter of fact, the particular religious paradigm that I find myself in requires that I question). I am not omniscient—I have many flaws and am ignorant about many things. And I don’t think that anyone here can claim omniscience with respect to moral questions.
I am not Catholic (or even Christian), but I think that Catholic theologian Urs Von Balthasar was spot on when he said: “When it comes to shaping one’s personal behavior, all the rules of morality, as precise as they may be, remain abstract in the face of the infinite complexity of the concrete.”
Again, the point in the OP is not totally off the mark—but it is simplistic. In my view.
____________________________________________________________
EDIT: By the way: many things divide us. That is likely to always hold. But I think that Jewish philosopher Martin Buber asked the right question: In our differences, do I see our relationship as one of “I-It”—that is, where I ignore your human subjectivity either because of your (opposing) beliefs, or because of what I can instrumentally gain from the relationship—or do I see it as one of “I-Thou”, wherein I recognize your essential humanness is the same as mine? And how does that inform my response?
Originally posted by OdBodPeople not Political or religions murder other people, people are the root
With political atrocities, in the end they are overcome, problem with religion it goes on and on and is justified through divine right.
cause not the means they justify themselves while they do it. It is amazing
how we attack everything but ourselves for our own hate! Next thing you
know someone feeling justified will call on people to burn down a town or
something and feel they are righteous in doing so.
-Removed-He was baptised a Catholic and since he never formally renounced his religion he is a Christian. After he left home he did not take part in any religious practices. His views on religion aren't very clear. Some in the Nazi party wanted to readopt Germanic Paganism, some wanted Protestantism. They couldn't easily settle on any one branch of Christianity, the Paganism idea was clearly wasn't a runner, or insist on no religion, since each option would alienate too much support. So they satisfied themselves with persecuting minorities.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou miss the blatantly obvious point once again due to your limited ability to engage your even more limited grey matter.
oh dear just like an atheist religious bigot to take a single quote out of context and try to use it to make a point. Please educate yourself, its well known and understood that Hitler used Christianity only as far as it served his aims, that fact that he professed Christianity does not make him any more a Christian than a rube like you.
‘ … or ...[text shortened]...
https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/#r20
"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
- hitler
"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."
- hitler (he wouldnt sound out of place in a kingdom hall)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou're acting as if the "non religious" wars would not have happened if only they were religious. Given the bitter and endless nature of religious wars, those "non religious" wars would likely have been much worse if religion was also a factor.
you think the people who are being killed care why they are being killed? 150 persons is minuscule in comparison to how many have been killed by the vehemently non religious.
Originally posted by OdBodNo, no, no!
150 young people killed in Kenya because of religious differences. An Atheistic Humanitarian approach has got to be the way forward. Religion divides and hurts us!
The massacre in Kenya was caused by evil men, not religion. Blaming evil acts by people who don't even properly follow a certain religion on that religion is completely asinine. 99% of normal followers of any religion don't kill people as a normal part of their day, so blaming the actions of a few evil men on their supposed religion, which they fail to properly follow anyways, is not only throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but it fails on so many levels of common sense.
Originally posted by SuzianneDo you ever blame the evil acts of people who are atheists on their atheism?
No, no, no!
The massacre in Kenya was caused by [b]evil men, not religion. Blaming evil acts by people who don't even properly follow a certain religion on that religion is completely asinine. 99% of normal followers of any religion don't kill people as a normal part of their day, so blaming the actions of a few evil men on their supposed religion, ...[text shortened]... t only throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but it fails on so many levels of common sense.[/b]