God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Seems that you haven't read your religions holy book. It endorses violence. And Slavery. Have you read the Book of Deuteronomy?

Deuteronomy 20:16: However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

Just because it contradicts itself like with passages such as Genesis 9:6 and Jesus talking about non violence doesn't mean people aren't going to read other parts of the bible and come to the opposite conclusion about what God wants from his followers.

It sounds like God says "Don't commit violence, unless I want you to".

If Religion is the justification for the war, then it is a religious war. One that would not have been justified without religion. There would have been NO Crusades or Jihads if there was no Christianity or Islam. It doesn't matter what it is or isn't supposed to endorse. The only thing that matters is that a significant amount of the followers believe that it calls for them to kill each other in their God's name and they act upon it.

Sure you Christians who aren't killing people should be innocent right? Doesn't matter, your/they aren't doing anything to put a stop to the actions of the ones that are, to put a stop to the misunderstandings of YOUR holy book. Instead you bicker and argue with each other about the right way to worship Jesus, accomplishing NOTHING.

And, don't get me started on that one. Don't put in 21st-century morals as the Bible is written in a completely different time. Nice job in ignoring all of the historical and cultural context. And, of course, I read my Bible.

And, you can clearly see in the Bible verse above that the command to kill was only given to the said ethnic groups. No open-ended command to kill everyone just like Islam, where fight all unbelievers until there is no more religion but Islam. (Quran 8:39) Regarding slavery, understand that no social welfare or charity exists in the Biblical world. Slavery is more preferable and a legitimate way of employment rather than dying due to starvation. But it's not that we're talking about.

And, I explained my biblical exegesis well. You then admitted that it doesn't matter what the religion is teaching, but that the followers believe in what they are doing and that their actions are right. Doesn't also matter what Communism is teaching, as long as the followers believe in what they are doing. Doesn't also matter what Atheism is teaching, as long as their followers believe in what they are doing? You're reinforcing a lot of my beliefs here.

And, that's where you're blatantly wrong. You undermine the actions Christians have done to promote pacifism, stop violence and do general good. Slavery is practiced in the Old Testament, but it's ironic that most of the initial opposition to slavery and the beginnings of the abolitionist movement have some Christian overtones. Most of the opposition to death penalty are also grounded in Christian principles (though death penalty is Biblical). Christian pacifism is also a thing. By the way, this discussion seems useless by now.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

How did religion make the Crusades possible in the first place? Because Catholics?

The First Crusade started when the Byzantine Empire asked the Pope to send aid to beat back the Turks.

And why exactly would the Pope be interested in committing to war? If he had a non-religious reason for committing to war, why would European armies march over there for the popes political concerns? Cuz Religion.

Political influence in the Middle East and leverage over the Byzantine empire, of course.

[Sociobiology]

on could argue most religious wars were political in origin, wars rarely have one cause.

You know, Sociobiology, you have a unique tone of language that makes you difficult to converse with, and I doubt we'll ever gain anything if we're going to attempt to refute each other by quoting every sentence and phrase. I admit that my knowledge of history and society is not sufficient enough to traverse the whole world and be able to investigate every single war, military campaign or machete done and know the cause (I think you also are unable to do that).

So, to let us get started, put our discussion more sensible and to try to point and just to make our conversation simpler, yes, I agree that many wars in history have some religious overtones, but I'm going to ask you, if you assert that wars rarely have one cause, why are you pointing out religion as the cause of several wars in history without even trying to point out the other contributing factors?

because you made the claim that Christianity and Islam were responsible for most religious wars.
You are falling into basic logical and cultural bias, you know more about judeochristian history but not much about others so you assume so you assume what you know is somehow representative.

[Vilatania]

Seems that you haven't read your religions holy book. It endorses violence. And Slavery. Have you read the Book of Deuteronomy?

Deuteronomy 20:16: However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

Just because it contradicts itself like with passages such as Genesis 9:6 and Jesus talking about non violence doesn't mean people aren't going to read other parts of the bible and come to the opposite conclusion about what God wants from his followers.

It sounds like God says "Don't commit violence, unless I want you to".

If Religion is the justification for the war, then it is a religious war. One that would not have been justified without religion. There would have been NO Crusades or Jihads if there was no Christianity or Islam. It doesn't matter what it is or isn't supposed to endorse. The only thing that matters is that a significant amount of the followers believe that it calls for them to kill each other in their God's name and they act upon it.

Sure you Christians who aren't killing people should be innocent right? Doesn't matter, your/they aren't doing anything to put a stop to the actions of the ones that are, to put a stop to the misunderstandings of YOUR holy book. Instead you bicker and argue with each other about the right way to worship Jesus, accomplishing NOTHING.

And, don't get me started on that one. Don't put in 21st-century morals as the Bible is written in a completely different time. Nice job in ignoring all of the historical and cultural context. And, of course, I read my Bible.

And, you can clearly see in the Bible verse above that the command to kill was only given to the said ethnic groups. No open-ended command to kill everyone just like Islam, where fight all unbelievers until there is no more religion but Islam. (Quran 8:39) Regarding slavery, understand that no social welfare or charity exists in the Biblical world. Slavery is more preferable and a legitimate way of employment rather than dying due to starvation. But it's not that we're talking about.

And, I explained my biblical exegesis well. You then admitted that it doesn't matter what the religion is teaching, but that the followers believe in what they are doing and that their actions are right. Doesn't also matter what Communism is teaching, as long as the followers believe in what they are doing. Doesn't also matter what Atheism is teaching, as long as their followers believe in what they are doing? You're reinforcing a lot of my beliefs here.

And, that's where you're blatantly wrong. You undermine the actions Christians have done to promote pacifism, stop violence and do general good. Slavery is practiced in the Old Testament, but it's ironic that most of the initial opposition to slavery and the beginnings of the abolitionist movement have some Christian overtones. Most of the opposition to death penalty are also grounded in Christian principles (though death penalty is Biblical). Christian pacifism is also a thing. By the way, this discussion seems useless by now.

Oh ok so it's ok to kill a certain ethnic group. Gotcha. Slavery is ok because theres no charity? BS. Slavery is never OK ever. Under any circumstances. Morrally wrong. NEXT.

Your next point is irrelevant. Atheists aren't starting wars to promote Atheism and destroy people who disagree with us. Communists? Totally off topic, as I have stated non-religious wars are not important in this discussion. If you need to know why please refer to my previous posts, I explained why.

I could care less about what Christians have done to promote pacifism. They start wars, any war is one war to many to be justified by your other actions. And please stop claiming that Christianity is not responsible for it's own holy wars.

[Vilatania]

Heres an analogy of what your doing Scrin.

You saying that Christian's can't be held accountable for the actions that are taken in the name of something that they jointly believe in is the same thing as a man handing a weapon to a terrorist and then claiming the result isn't his fault because he isn't the one that committed the act.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Wow, and I thought we atheists were the ones who were supposed to be moral relativists.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Heres an analogy of what your doing Scrin.

You saying that Christian's can't be held accountable for the actions that are taken in the name of something that they jointly believe in is the same thing as a man handing a weapon to a terrorist and then claiming the result isn't his fault because he isn't the one that committed the act.

Except you can't. The crusades were 800 years ago, and most Christians are just regular people.

Wow, and I thought we atheists were the ones who were supposed to be moral relativists.

And I thought you were a kettle.

[Vilatania]

Heres an analogy of what your doing Scrin.

You saying that Christian's can't be held accountable for the actions that are taken in the name of something that they jointly believe in is the same thing as a man handing a weapon to a terrorist and then claiming the result isn't his fault because he isn't the one that committed the act.

Except you can't. The crusades were 800 years ago, and most Christians are just regular people.

I entirely believe that history will repeat itself. Here is an example, not in the US but the subject is Christianity in general. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/afr ... story.html This occurred only a year ago.

Christian Anti-Abortionist movements are responsible for killing, kidnapping and other forms of terrorism including bombing of clinics if you want to side step from war back into general violence. Christianity does endorse the actions of those committing the acts, but they are being done in the name of religion none the less and my point in this argument is that they wouldn't be doing it if religion did not exist. You can't even say that they'd do it anyways because Christianity promoted the beliefs that lead to the violence in the first place. And we have no way of knowing and therefore it is irrelevant what they would believe/do in the event that religion was not a factor.

I'm not saying Christianity should be erased just because of violence and war caused by radicals of their religion, I have a long list of other reasons for that; reasons that when looked at as a whole make the entire thing a hugely negative part of society. What I am saying in this case is that if your religion is going to continue to exist you should at the very least get your shit together and figure out as a whole what is and isn't acceptable in Christianity and make sure people don't misinterpret it.

I could over look the crusades if Christianity wasn't responsible for countless acts of violence since.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Except you can't. The crusades were 800 years ago, and most Christians are just regular people.

I entirely believe that history will repeat itself. Here is an example, not in the US but the subject is Christianity in general. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/afr ... story.html This occurred only a year ago.

Christian Anti-Abortionist movements are responsible for killing, kidnapping and other forms of terrorism including bombing of clinics if you want to side step from war back into general violence. Christianity does endorse the actions of those committing the acts, but they are being done in the name of religion none the less and my point in this argument is that they wouldn't be doing it if religion did not exist. You can't even say that they'd do it anyways because Christianity promoted the beliefs that lead to the violence in the first place. And we have no way of knowing and therefore it is irrelevant what they would believe/do in the event that religion was not a factor.

I'm not saying Christianity should be erased just because of violence and war caused by radicals of their religion, I have a long list of other reasons for that; reasons that when looked at as a whole make the entire thing a hugely negative part of society. What I am saying in this case is that if your religion is going to continue to exist you should at the very least get your shit together and figure out as a whole what is and isn't acceptable in Christianity and make sure people don't misinterpret it.

I could over look the crusades if Christianity wasn't responsible for countless acts of violence since.

"i'm not saying it's Christianity's fault... But it's Christianity's fault."

Is what you're saying. Hey, at least they weren't some other religion like they would've been if Christianity wasn't a thing, right?

[Kainesia]

One exists, the other one doesn't.

Go figure.

[Vilatania]

I entirely believe that history will repeat itself. Here is an example, not in the US but the subject is Christianity in general. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/afr ... story.html This occurred only a year ago.

Christian Anti-Abortionist movements are responsible for killing, kidnapping and other forms of terrorism including bombing of clinics if you want to side step from war back into general violence. Christianity does endorse the actions of those committing the acts, but they are being done in the name of religion none the less and my point in this argument is that they wouldn't be doing it if religion did not exist. You can't even say that they'd do it anyways because Christianity promoted the beliefs that lead to the violence in the first place. And we have no way of knowing and therefore it is irrelevant what they would believe/do in the event that religion was not a factor.

I'm not saying Christianity should be erased just because of violence and war caused by radicals of their religion, I have a long list of other reasons for that; reasons that when looked at as a whole make the entire thing a hugely negative part of society. What I am saying in this case is that if your religion is going to continue to exist you should at the very least get your shit together and figure out as a whole what is and isn't acceptable in Christianity and make sure people don't misinterpret it.

I could over look the crusades if Christianity wasn't responsible for countless acts of violence since.

"i'm not saying it's Christianity's fault... But it's Christianity's fault."

Is what you're saying. Hey, at least they weren't some other religion like they would've been if Christianity wasn't a thing, right?

No I have made it clear with my posts that It is Christianity's fault and that they are accountable for the actions that are taken in it's name. Guilty by association and refusal to act upon their supposed disapproval of these actions. You also can't say that there would be a different religion to take it's place. You don't know that, nor do you know what that religion would do or not do if it were to have existed. Thus TOTALLY IRRELEVENT. This discussion is about what religions that DO exist are doing.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

"i'm not saying it's Christianity's fault... But it's Christianity's fault."

Is what you're saying. Hey, at least they weren't some other religion like they would've been if Christianity wasn't a thing, right?

No I have made it clear with my posts that It is Christianity's fault and that they are accountable for the actions that are taken in it's name. Guilty by association and refusal to act upon their supposed disapproval of these actions.

Thanks for blaming 2 billion people for the sins of theirs fathers.

You also can't say that there would be a different religion to take it's place. You don't know that, nor do you know what that religion would do or not do if it were to have existed. Thus TOTALLY IRRELEVENT. This discussion is about what religions that DO exist are doing.

No, this is about God and the world. A religious debate general, if you will.

Anyway, if the old Roman religion wasn't replaced, then either it would've persisted or been replaced by another religion. Remember, deism, secularism, and enlightenment weren't a thing.

[Vilatania]

I see your just going to continue to make assumptions about things you can't prove would or would not have occurred and entirely evade my point.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I see your just going to continue to make assumptions about things you can't prove would or would not have occurred and entirely evade my point.

And I see you don't like Christians enough to cut them some slack.

I need to prove the Romans had a religion?

Or do you mean I have to prove the Crusades were initiated for political reasons more than religious ones? Because I'm here wondering why the good Catholics needed to be asked by the Byzantines to help them if they were so religiously motivated. I also don't understand why humble and pious warriors bothered to bring back expensive stuff.

Or are you asking me to prove wars wouldn't have happened in the same quantity if Religion X didn't exist? Irrelevant, religious conflict is a drop in the bucket.

Or, do you think I need proof that all of Christianity shouldn't be blamed for a comparatively small number of bad eggs?

[Ardoki]

I see your just going to continue to make assumptions about things you can't prove would or would not have occurred and entirely evade my point.

And I see you don't like Christians enough to cut them some slack.

I need to prove the Romans had a religion?

Or do you mean I have to prove the Crusades were initiated for political reasons more than religious ones? Because I'm here wondering why the good Catholics needed to be asked by the Byzantines to help them if they were so religiously motivated. I also don't understand why humble and pious warriors bothered to bring back expensive stuff.

Or are you asking me to prove wars wouldn't have happened in the same quantity if Religion X didn't exist? Irrelevant, religious conflict is a drop in the bucket.

Or, do you think I need proof that all of Christianity shouldn't be blamed for a comparatively small number of bad eggs?

If you believe the Crusades were not religious, do you also believe ISIL is not religious?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

And I see you don't like Christians enough to cut them some slack.

I need to prove the Romans had a religion?

Or do you mean I have to prove the Crusades were initiated for political reasons more than religious ones? Because I'm here wondering why the good Catholics needed to be asked by the Byzantines to help them if they were so religiously motivated. I also don't understand why humble and pious warriors bothered to bring back expensive stuff.

Or are you asking me to prove wars wouldn't have happened in the same quantity if Religion X didn't exist? Irrelevant, religious conflict is a drop in the bucket.

Or, do you think I need proof that all of Christianity shouldn't be blamed for a comparatively small number of bad eggs?

So you're saying that it wasn't about Christianity because the people involved betrayed many of the tenets of their faith?

Remind me, before the most recent pope had it replaced, what was the pope's chair made of?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And I see you don't like Christians enough to cut them some slack.

I need to prove the Romans had a religion?

Or do you mean I have to prove the Crusades were initiated for political reasons more than religious ones? Because I'm here wondering why the good Catholics needed to be asked by the Byzantines to help them if they were so religiously motivated. I also don't understand why humble and pious warriors bothered to bring back expensive stuff.

Or are you asking me to prove wars wouldn't have happened in the same quantity if Religion X didn't exist? Irrelevant, religious conflict is a drop in the bucket.

Or, do you think I need proof that all of Christianity shouldn't be blamed for a comparatively small number of bad eggs?

If you believe the Crusades were not religious, do you also believe ISIL is not religious?

Nope, ISIL is hardline religious radical. The Crusades, however, were primarily political.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And I see you don't like Christians enough to cut them some slack.

I need to prove the Romans had a religion?

Or do you mean I have to prove the Crusades were initiated for political reasons more than religious ones? Because I'm here wondering why the good Catholics needed to be asked by the Byzantines to help them if they were so religiously motivated. I also don't understand why humble and pious warriors bothered to bring back expensive stuff.

Or are you asking me to prove wars wouldn't have happened in the same quantity if Religion X didn't exist? Irrelevant, religious conflict is a drop in the bucket.

Or, do you think I need proof that all of Christianity shouldn't be blamed for a comparatively small number of bad eggs?

So you're saying that it wasn't about Christianity because the people involved betrayed many of the tenets of their faith?

No, I'm saying it was primarily for political reasons. I know it had religious motivation behind it as well, but that was second chair.

Remind me, before the most recent pope had it replaced, what was the pope's chair made of?

Gold, IIRC. Your point?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Gold, IIRC. Your point?

That if the religious purpose of christians 800 years ago can be dismissed by referring to their devotion to material wealth, that the same can be said of the Catholic church, at least up until the most recent pope (And I don't think he's really changing that much below the surface.)

[Vilatania]

@Pretantia Here is a good article regarding this subject. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... tical-ends

I'm done with this argument. You are clearly not interested in what I have to say about the subject. Your picking little bits out of my wording and disregarding the actual point I was making.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Gold, IIRC. Your point?

That if the religious purpose of christians 800 years ago can be dismissed by referring to their devotion to material wealth, that the same can be said of the Catholic church, at least up until the most recent pope (And I don't think he's really changing that much below the surface.)

Yeah, so?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

@Pretantia Here is a good article regarding this subject. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... tical-ends

I'm done with this argument. You are clearly not interested in what I have to say about the subject. Your picking little bits out of my wording and disregarding the actual point I was making.

Good riddance. I tire of militant atheists who say other people had mental illnesses.

Also, read your link. Are you implying I'm a religious conservative or historical revisionist?

[Devils Reef]

I don't believe in god (or gods) but i have nothing against people who do.

[Vilatania]

@Pretantia Here is a good article regarding this subject. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... tical-ends

I'm done with this argument. You are clearly not interested in what I have to say about the subject. Your picking little bits out of my wording and disregarding the actual point I was making.

Good riddance. I tire of militant atheists who say other people had mental illnesses.

Also, read your link. Are you implying I'm a religious conservative or historical revisionist?

Stop picking little parts out of my statements and twisting them around to try and discredit me.

[Ardoki]

If you believe the Crusades were not religious, do you also believe ISIL is not religious?

Nope, ISIL is hardline religious radical. The Crusades, however, were primarily political.

Double standard.

If your people of your religion do something bad in its name, they are misguided and false christians, your religion is not to blame. If people of another religion do something bad in its name, they are religious radicals.