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

[Jute]

As far as I know, the only war permitted by the Quran is a defensive wars. Aggressive ones weren't supported by Mohammed or anyone, but of course it can be that some rulers/other people twist that definition.

Don't pretend being an Islamic scholar if you're really not one. ~

I'm not... It is what I read in a book in the library of my university, though, so I assumed that it was correct enough to share.

Firstly, it's a tad complicated. I'll be honest and say such a large conflict has many conflicting motives, so this is mostly my opinion. Second, I'm mostly referring to the earlier Crusades for the Holy Land.

Now back to "I'm right, you're wrong" mode. It's not the soldiers but the politicians who decide the purpose of the war, which was:

1.) Assist the Byzantines against the Turks and their allies;
2.) Take the Holy Land to reestablish routes into the Middle East and maintain pathways for pilgrims;
3.) Get rid of the knights who were wreaking havoc in Europe;
4.) Expand the power of the church (I consider this political).
5.) Establish their own kingdoms in the Levant.

The crusaders may have had religious motives, but they had political ones as well.

Now please tell me how the Crusades were started more for religious reasons than political ones.

You didn't answer my questions.

Do you deny that the motivations of the individual crusaders (peasants, knights and nobles alike) was religiously inspired?

He didn't deny that individuals might have been religiously motivated, but for those institutions declaring war religion was probably mostly just a pretext or an afterthought.

[Tanoshiiye]

I'm not... It is what I read in a book in the library of my university, though, so I assumed that it was correct enough to share.

Nope, it's not. The Quran has many verses condoning violence that are too open-ended. Take Quran 8:39, "fight them until there is no more unbelief".

[Jute]

Nope, it's not. The Quran has many verses condoning violence that are too open-ended. Take Quran 8:39, "fight them until there is no more unbelief".

Right, that book was by a Islam scholar, so I assumed they knew what they were talking about.
Also, you seem to misunderstand the line. It's not about waging aggressive holy wars against "Infidels".
Take the whole quote with an explanation:

Against persecution

Directives for action against persecution and unbelief:

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
—Quran (translator: Yusuf Ali), [Quran 8:39]

Source

[Jute]

You need to knock off the general trolling here. You don't appear to realize that Christianity, such as it is, is made up of a number of individual organizations, churches, efforts, and people. And they do not all a) get along, b) agree with one another, or c) hold the same beliefs. Amazing, I know, but it's a thing. Do a bit of research. You may be surprised.

So this thing of you going around shouting that 'Christianity ought to be erased' and 'You Christians need to get your shit together' and such are more than a little off-base.

Leaving aside any comparisons to other groups, lumping all Christians in together, and all Christian organizations/belief systems under one heading, and then condemning it all and slandering it as you please ... yeah, that's trolling. It'd be the same for any group you did it with, regardless of any relation to religion or the lack thereof. If you have questions, there's a lovely thread in Moderation that outlines all of this - The One Stop Rule Shop. Feel free to look into it. Thanks.

Everyone else? Kindy refrain from getting baity or trollish or flaming anyone else as well, mkay? Keep it clean, keep it civil. Whether or not others are. Appreciate it.

Biased sounding. Whether or not the different sects within Christianity deserve to be treated differently is a matter of opinion. And in my opinion, they are all the same thing. Otherwise It's like saying Americans aren't all Americans because we eat different food.

It's not. Being American isn't defined over food, but where you live, what you identify as and maybe via your passport. Whereas some Christianity denominations (sects are different things) don't even accept other ones as Christian.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Nope, it's not. The Quran has many verses condoning violence that are too open-ended. Take Quran 8:39, "fight them until there is no more unbelief".

Right, that book was by a Islam scholar, so I assumed they knew what they were talking about.
Also, you seem to misunderstand the line. It's not about waging aggressive holy wars against "Infidels".
Take the whole quote with an explanation:

Against persecution

Directives for action against persecution and unbelief:

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
—Quran (translator: Yusuf Ali), [Quran 8:39]

Source

Lol at Wikipedia explanation. BTW, I'm the same person as Tanoshiiye, so pretend that this Tanoshiiye replying. I just accidentally replied using a puppet nation.

But, anyway, it's better that they can come up with interpretations condoning peace rather than violence.

[Vilatania]

Biased sounding. Whether or not the different sects within Christianity deserve to be treated differently is a matter of opinion. And in my opinion, they are all the same thing. Otherwise It's like saying Americans aren't all Americans because we eat different food.

It's not. Being American isn't defined over food, but where you live, what you identify as and maybe via your passport. Whereas some Christianity denominations (sects are different things) don't even accept other ones as Christian.

I don't think it matters what some denominations think. They all claim to be Christian and they all claim they are the ones who are right.

@scrin Think what you will. I do want to point out that Morality is neither relative nor absolute nor subjective. This basically describes where I stand when it comes to morality more or less. http://www.godcontention.org/atheist/is ... r-absolute

I am however, NOT a robot. I think that slavery is detestable and that you can't justify it by calling it a favor.

I'm also quite well versed in Christianity. I've read the bible, studied it for years looking for all the various conflicts and contradictions while I was a skeptic. I found major problems with it on nearly every page, things that directly conflicted with things on the next page or the next book and so on. This has lead me to where I am now, I am in a position where I believe based on what I've seen in the Bible that not even Christians know what the bible says. I..just suck at debating because I get frustrated.

[The V O I D]

So, that escalated quickly. But, Vil, everyone here is right.
Not all Christians are the same. Saying so is very... prejudiced, honestly. Different sects have different beliefs and methods of carrying out those beliefs.
Labeling all Christians, as you have, as the same, or as mentally ill, is very wrong and prejudiced.
It's like saying that LeVeyan Satanism is the same as those Satanic Cults who sacrifice people. It's wrong, prejudiced, biased, and just plain rude.
I am a Catholic Christian. I am not the same as a Protestant Christian. Please refrain from labeling Christians as the same? Thanks.

[Paledonn]

So, that escalated quickly. But, Vil, everyone here is right.
Not all Christians are the same. Saying so is very... prejudiced, honestly. Different sects have different beliefs and methods of carrying out those beliefs.
Labeling all Christians, as you have, as the same, or as mentally ill, is very wrong and prejudiced.
It's like saying that LeVeyan Satanism is the same as those Satanic Cults who sacrifice people. It's wrong, prejudiced, biased, and just plain rude.
I am a Catholic Christian. I am not the same as a Protestant Christian. Please refrain from labeling Christians as the same? Thanks.

Agreed. It would be the exact same thing as saying all Muslims are terrorists because there is a group of them that believe they are destined to kill the 'infidels.'

[Jute]

So, that escalated quickly. But, Vil, everyone here is right.
Not all Christians are the same. Saying so is very... prejudiced, honestly. Different sects have different beliefs and methods of carrying out those beliefs.
Labeling all Christians, as you have, as the same, or as mentally ill, is very wrong and prejudiced.
It's like saying that LeVeyan Satanism is the same as those Satanic Cults who sacrifice people. It's wrong, prejudiced, biased, and just plain rude.
I am a Catholic Christian. I am not the same as a Protestant Christian. Please refrain from labeling Christians as the same? Thanks.

It would literally be the same as saying all atheists are like Stalin, or any other oppressive dictator who fought against religion (and despite his upbringing and everything else, it is very obvious he didn't think very fondly of Christianity at all.) There's the League of Militant Atheists who persecuted a lot of Christians, surely you don't want to be associated with them?

[Jute]

Right, that book was by a Islam scholar, so I assumed they knew what they were talking about.
Also, you seem to misunderstand the line. It's not about waging aggressive holy wars against "Infidels".
Take the whole quote with an explanation:
Source

Lol at Wikipedia explanation. BTW, I'm the same person as Tanoshiiye, so pretend that this Tanoshiiye replying. I just accidentally replied using a puppet nation.

But, anyway, it's better that they can come up with interpretations condoning peace rather than violence.

Obviously it's better, and I'm sure that is the "supposed" interpretation anyway, the one Mohammed would have agreed to.

[The V O I D]

So, that escalated quickly. But, Vil, everyone here is right.
Not all Christians are the same. Saying so is very... prejudiced, honestly. Different sects have different beliefs and methods of carrying out those beliefs.
Labeling all Christians, as you have, as the same, or as mentally ill, is very wrong and prejudiced.
It's like saying that LeVeyan Satanism is the same as those Satanic Cults who sacrifice people. It's wrong, prejudiced, biased, and just plain rude.
I am a Catholic Christian. I am not the same as a Protestant Christian. Please refrain from labeling Christians as the same? Thanks.

Agreed. It would be the exact same thing as saying all Muslims are terrorists because there is a group of them that believe they are destined to kill the 'infidels.'

Exactly! Thank you!

Jute: Thanks for agreeing with me. Associating one type of people with another just because of similar views is, well...
Quite frankly, idiotic.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Lol at Wikipedia explanation. BTW, I'm the same person as Tanoshiiye, so pretend that this Tanoshiiye replying. I just accidentally replied using a puppet nation.

But, anyway, it's better that they can come up with interpretations condoning peace rather than violence.

Obviously it's better, and I'm sure that is the "supposed" interpretation anyway, the one Mohammed would have agreed to.

If you actually look at the historical-grammatical context of Quran 8:39, you'll see it's not against persecution. But, I believe it's pointless to argue on Islamic hermeneutics (Don't know if that's what they call it) here because neither of us is a Muslim anyway.

[Ardoki]

You didn't answer my questions.

Do you deny that the motivations of the individual crusaders (peasants, knights and nobles alike) was religiously inspired?

He didn't deny that individuals might have been religiously motivated, but for those institutions declaring war religion was probably mostly just a pretext or an afterthought.

That is completely irrelevant though.

Yes, there were political reasons for the Crusades along with religious reasons.
However, if it were not for the religious reasons, the Crusades never would have attracted the Crusaders who carried it out. That is what I was arguing.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

He didn't deny that individuals might have been religiously motivated, but for those institutions declaring war religion was probably mostly just a pretext or an afterthought.

That is completely irrelevant though.

Yes, there were political reasons for the Crusades along with religious reasons.
However, if it were not for the religious reasons, the Crusades never would have attracted the Crusaders who carried it out. That is what I was arguing.

>Bloodthirsty knights wouldn't engage in the wanton slaughter of an expedition without condemnation unless it was for a ticket to heaven.
>Vassals wouldn't join their lords in war.
>Knights didn't want to establish territories in a new land for power and riches.
>Their ancestor needed an excuse.
>European kingdoms hadn't been fighting wars for centuries before without the church's condonation.
I'm not saying you said any of that; It's just my opinion on the matter.

Were they committing atrocities because God demanded i, or because they could get away with it?

[Ardoki]

That is completely irrelevant though.

Yes, there were political reasons for the Crusades along with religious reasons.
However, if it were not for the religious reasons, the Crusades never would have attracted the Crusaders who carried it out. That is what I was arguing.

>Bloodthirsty knights wouldn't engage in the wanton slaughter of an expedition without condemnation unless it was for a ticket to heaven.
>Vassals wouldn't join their lords in war.
>Knights didn't want to establish territories in a new land for power and riches.
>Their ancestor needed an excuse.
>European kingdoms hadn't been fighting wars for centuries before without the church's condonation.
I'm not saying you said any of that; It's just my opinion on the matter.

The Crusades never would have happened, if the Crusaders did not believe they would get a "ticket to heaven" for their actions regaining the Holy Land.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

>Bloodthirsty knights wouldn't engage in the wanton slaughter of an expedition without condemnation unless it was for a ticket to heaven.
>Vassals wouldn't join their lords in war.
>Knights didn't want to establish territories in a new land for power and riches.
>Their ancestor needed an excuse.
>European kingdoms hadn't been fighting wars for centuries before without the church's condonation.
I'm not saying you said any of that; It's just my opinion on the matter.

The Crusades never would have happened, if the Crusaders did not believe they would get a "ticket to heaven" for their actions regaining the Holy Land.

These are the same warriors who were roving the continent and raising hell without condonation. Most of them were just bloodthirsty. The Crusades were an outlet for hundreds of troublemakers in France and Germany who wanted riches.

The Crusades would've happened, whether the first one failed or succeeded or failed from lack of soldiers.

[Sociobiology]

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.

Yes, it's definitely true that Christianity and Islam in religion were responsible for most religious wars. That doesn't cut it when referring other worshippers of some other gods and then telling, "Hey, other religions do wars too, so not only Christianity and Islam". Those religious wars are nothing compared to the Crusades, and the various Jihad wars created in the name of Islam, the Crusades and the Jihads had led to much more death toll than some fringe Buddhist or Hindu war there.

but proportionally less than the Mayan wars and various tribal religious conflicts.

You point out some other war by a non-Christian or a non-Islamic religion when you don't realize, they're fringe, they're minor,

even thought they were proportionally larger?

and they're isolated compared to the known, infamous, bloody and violent Crusades and the Jihads by Islamic "whoevers"

can you name a religion more widespread than the Abrahamic one? you are confusing cause and effect. If you had several other equally wide spread religions that did not have holy wars you might have a point. when more than half the worlds population belong to one religion of course its wars are going to be more well known.

If Buddhism or Hinduism truly endorsed war, you have to expect so much violence and blood and so many severe Buddhist and Hindu religious wars, but history is a witness to the peaceful nature of the said two religions.

So you don't know anything about Hindu history or religion?
I recomend you read the Mahābhārata, and then consider how wars fought for an emperor is also a central holy figure is going to fall, but anything I bring up about the Hindu you are just going to blame on the Muslim so why bother.

[Vilatania]

Again, I did not say that Christians have mental disorders. I said they argue like people that have mental disorders.

A Christian is a Christian regardless of what sect. they are part of. A Baptist Christian is still a Christian, a Methodist Christian is still a Christian, a Catholic Christian is still a Christian. I categorize them the same way because they all follow the same God and the same Bible. The bible is what causes specific groups of them to do what they do.

This is not similar to my affiliation with Atheists. I share no direct association with other Atheists. The only thing we directly share is disbelief in God based upon evidence and science. This is only comparable to the shared belief in God by different religions. We don't have a book that tells us what to do and think, or at least not the same book.

As to the comment about being affiliated with militant atheists who persecute Christians. If you look up the definition of persecute I could argue that I get persecuted by Christians on a daily basis without fail regardless of whether I am looking for a debate or not. But you asked about how I would feel about being associated with the ones doing the persecuting.

I have no problem with that at all. Religion is literally the one and only thing I am intolerant of. I am extremely hostile towards religion, I make a point of only associating myself with people who are publically atheist or skeptical. I believe that Religion should be stamped out of society and should never leave the home. I don't believe that religion should be considered in any matters of state. I DONT believe that violence is an option, but I am not afraid to call the police and report door to door Christians for trespassing and harassment. I used to burn bibles, I use them for toilet paper now because it's cheaper than the real stuff. I do anything I can to STOP it's spread because I view it as a plague. There are exceptions, such as Ardoki's beliefs.

[Othelos]

I think that god was invented partially as a means to give people a purpose to continue living in a world that was and is still filled with suffering, inhumanity, and moral depravity.

[Highfort]

I think that god was invented partially as a means to give people a purpose to continue living in a world that was and is still filled with suffering, inhumanity, and moral depravity.

Well that's among the many reasons. I think many also saw it as a unifying force for common good when we stilled lived in tribes and engaged in petty feuds. Yet others would see it as a method of manipulating the credulous and the desperate to do their bidding.

[Jute]

I think that god was invented partially as a means to give people a purpose to continue living in a world that was and is still filled with suffering, inhumanity, and moral depravity.

Well that's among the many reasons. I think many also saw it as a unifying force for common good when we stilled lived in tribes and engaged in petty feuds. Yet others would see it as a method of manipulating the credulous and the desperate to do their bidding.

Like I (and other people on this forum) said, a tool that can be used for good and bad.

[The V O I D]

Again, I did not say that Christians have mental disorders. I said they argue like people that have mental disorders.

Really? OK, then what's this?

I stand by my opinion that Christians have some sort of mental disorder. That said, the Christians are the ones making the claim. It's time they provided some evidence. If these raisins can provide infallible evidence that God exists I will convert and change my national flag.

You self-deleted it, but you can't self-delete people quoting your words.
Oh, and this.

As I stated when I first joined the discussion many posts ago, I believe they have a disorder because they cannot face evidence without either ignoring it, or replying with more unprovable concepts. They think they have evidence, but when asked to provide it they can't. It's really just a label, theres no medical basis to it. Your all a bunch of kids with ADD to me.

So, you just flat out lied. You did, in fact, say all Christians have mental disorders.

A Christian is a Christian regardless of what sect. they are part of. A Baptist Christian is still a Christian, a Methodist Christian is still a Christian, a Catholic Christian is still a Christian. I categorize them the same way because they all follow the same God and the same Bible. The bible is what causes specific groups of them to do what they do.

You do realize this only supports my theory that you're prejudiced, right? You're being prejudiced and biased.
Not all Christians are the same. You'd know that if you knew all the sects and how they do things. Stop saying "if it's a type of christianity, it must be the same as all other things". And also, stop stating that just because people follow similar things must mean they're the same. That, again, makes prejudiced in lumping all terrorists as Muslims just because they're Muslim, or labels LeVeyan Satanists as the Satanic Cults who sacrifice people. Thanks.

This is not similar to my affiliation with Atheists. I share no direct association with other Atheists. The only thing we directly share is disbelief in God based upon evidence and science. This is only comparable to the shared belief in God by different religions. We don't have a book that tells us what to do and think, or at least not the same book.

Really? I'd like some examples of these 'books' you follow, as apparently we aren't all having the same science world wide.

As to the comment about being affiliated with militant atheists who persecute Christians. If you look up the definition of persecute I could argue that I get persecuted by Christians on a daily basis without fail regardless of whether I am looking for a debate or not. But you asked about how I would feel about being associated with the ones doing the persecuting. I have no problem with that at all. Religion is literally the one and only thing I am intolerant of. I am extremely hostile towards religion, I make a point of only associating myself with people who are publically atheist or skeptical.

Persecution: hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.
OK, so, if you join those militant atheists who persecute Christians, you're basically threatening to harass, harm and ill-treat them, and perhaps be extremely prejudiced and biased.Thanks for that.
Also, please do give some examples as to how we are persecuting you.

I believe that Religion should be stamped out of society and should never leave the home. I don't believe that religion should be considered in any matters of state.

Except it's not. Name one way that Church and State mix, as I don't see it.
And if, 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is your example, God can be defined as anything, based on your perspective. God can even be defined as the universe itself, or nonexistent, if that's your opinion.

I DONT believe that violence is an option, but I am not afraid to call the police and report door to door Christians for trespassing and harassment. I used to burn bibles, I use them for toilet paper now because it's cheaper than the real stuff. I do anything I can to STOP it's spread because I view it as a plague. There are exceptions, such as Ardoki's beliefs.

So... you don't support violence, but you do support the MILITANT ATHEISTS who THREATEN CHRISTIANS with HARM, HARASSMENT and OTHER SUCH THINGS.
Then you turn around and say even further than you'll report Christians, especially door-to-door ones to the POLICE... FOR HARASSMENT AND TRESPASSING?
Not only that, but you're saying you burn Bibles and such sounds a bit too baity for me, so I'm not touching that, but come on man. That's just... no. Sorry, it's wrong.

And Christianity is a plague? Um. No it's not. If you view it as that... well... still too baity to touch, so I won't.

[Twilight Imperium]

I believe that Religion should be stamped out of society and should never leave the home. I don't believe that religion should be considered in any matters of state.

Except it's not. Name one way that Church and State mix, as I don't see it.
And if, 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is your example, God can be defined as anything, based on your perspective. God can even be defined as the universe itself, or nonexistent, if that's your opinion.

Much as I admire your fervor here, and agree with most of the post, this section needs a little discussion.

Firstly, there's plenty of legislation that passes on religious grounds instead of legal ones. Prop 8, the push for intelligent design courses in schools, et cetera, et cetera. Sure, they go through the proper channels, but it's definitely got a religious basis. Whether or not that's a bad thing is left as an exercise for the reader.

As for the second part, while it's true that you can imagine "God" to be defined as anything, it's kind of silly to say that having "under god" in the pledge isn't fairly blatantly Christian, especially as it was added in the McCarthy era to provide a morale boost against "those Godless commies". If the wording was "America is great, praise Allah", you could similarly say that you could define "Allah" as anything, and you'd look just as silly doing so.

Gotta be careful to not go overboard when pointing out the speck of dust in someone else's eye, let you ignore the log in your own.

[The V O I D]

Except it's not. Name one way that Church and State mix, as I don't see it.
And if, 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is your example, God can be defined as anything, based on your perspective. God can even be defined as the universe itself, or nonexistent, if that's your opinion.

Much as I admire your fervor here, and agree with most of the post, this section needs a little discussion.

Firstly, there's plenty of legislation that passes on religious grounds instead of legal ones. Prop 8, the push for intelligent design courses in schools, et cetera, et cetera. Sure, they go through the proper channels, but it's definitely got a religious basis. Whether or not that's a bad thing is left as an exercise for the reader.

As for the second part, while it's true that you can imagine "God" to be defined as anything, it's kind of silly to say that having "under god" in the pledge isn't fairly blatantly Christian, especially as it was added in the McCarthy era to provide a morale boost against "those Godless commies". If the wording was "America is great, praise Allah", you could similarly say that you could define "Allah" as anything, and you'd look just as silly doing so.

Gotta be careful to not go overboard when pointing out the speck of dust in someone else's eye, let you ignore the log in your own.

Schools don't teach intelligent design as far as I know. Maybe private schools, but most private schools are funded by Churches and such anyways, that I know of.
Like, no public school teaches intelligent design. At all. I know several people online who can confirm that their school doesn't teach it. So, either you're wrong, or you've confused public schools with private schools. In which case, I have just corrected you.
But as for the second part with my under god thing, I can see your point.
However, it doesn't have to be taken as the Christian meaning, under modern context. Yahweh, Allah, God all mean the same thing- God. And God can be defined as a being who rules over a part of the universe, if you're not monotheistic. So yeah...

[Twilight Imperium]

Schools don't teach intelligent design as far as I know. Maybe private schools, but most private schools are funded by Churches and such anyways, that I know of.
Like, no public school teaches intelligent design. At all. I know several people online who can confirm that their school doesn't teach it. So, either you're wrong, or you've confused public schools with private schools. In which case, I have just corrected you.
But as for the second part with my under god thing, I can see your point.
However, it doesn't have to be taken as the Christian meaning, under modern context. Yahweh, Allah, God all mean the same thing- God. And God can be defined as a being who rules over a part of the universe, if you're not monotheistic. So yeah...

I'm unaware of any schools currently teaching it myself, though that's not stopping anyone from pushing. Also, proposition 8. Also also, those were just two handy examples. Church interfering in matters of state is much less widespread than it once was, but it's still a thing.

Seriously though, asking someone to pretend that God doesn't mean God in the pledge is silly at best and offensive at worst. It's like asking Cambodian school children to pledge allegiance with "one nation under Pol Pot", and telling anyone who gets offended that they can just pretend they're referring to a turkey bake.