The Hazards of Belief

Peregrinus

Well, it wouldn't be the first time the Indo has overstated things a bit.

I know little about the Palmarians, but my reasonably confident guess is that they avoid unnecessary interaction, or social interaction with non-Palmarians, or something of that kind.

silverharp

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, firstly, on a side note, I think it's interesting that you would say that Judaism is not proselytising when the word proselyte comes from the hebrew phrase ger toshav which refers to a convert to Judaism.

On the wider point, while there are jews who will tell you they don't feel bound by their crazier books, there are plenty of Jews out there who do feel bound by them, like this guy:



Similarly, there are quite a few muslims out there who don't feel bound by what's in their book. I've been drinking with Muslims, have had some very nice bacon sandwiches with one or two and even known a couple of guys who were unfaithful despite the severe sanctions in their book.

I've yet to see any convincing argument though why any of this behaviour is inherently linked to the ideas in their holy books rather than the social, economic and cultural environment in which these people live.




OK, to clarify once again. The story in Matthew 15 concerns Jesus having an argument with the Pharisees. In the story Jesus is rebuked by the Pharisees for the disciples not washing their hands before they eat in line with tradition. Jesus responds by admonishing the Elders for upholding the Rabbinical tradition while not following the commandments laid down by God. The example that Jesus gives is that people are no longer executed for dishonouring their mother and father. In doing so, Jesus is reminding the Pharisees that they are not only bound to follow the commandments but also their prescribed punishments. Included in these commandments is the commandment against apostasy and its punishment by death.

As for the early church being a bunch of hippy communes, that depends on what you define as early. Certainly the church in 1099 couldn't have been described as a hippy commune. Certainly not after the siege of Jerusalem where Fulcher of Chartres writes:

"In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared"

what has the church in 1099 got to do with anything? christians today are not bound by what the church then , they would probably all agree that it was wrong. that doesnt answer my point at all. why are you responding with irrelevant points?

As for your picture of the jew on the plane? again whats your point? where have I said we are dealing with other religions that are highly rational? it still comes back to the point that the model man in Islam is Mohammed and the model man in Christianity is Jesus, which one was a rapist a pedophile a murdering warlord? luckily most people compartmentalise their beliefs and just use their beliefs to get through the day but if you are saying that it makes no difference whether Jesus or Mohammed is the front man of your religion I almost dont believe you

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

. . . but if you are saying that it makes no difference whether Jesus or Mohammed is the front man of your religion I almost dont believe you

Nobody is saying that it makes no difference. What they are saying is that just because you characterise Muhammed as you do, it doesn't follow that Muslims are fated to be more violent, bloodthirsty, etc than Christians, or that this explains why, currently, they are. Just at the moment, Islamic extremism is conspicuously violent and Christian extremism rather less so, but at other times the opposite has been the case, and, if we're honest, over the broad sweep of history the Christians probably have the worse record. But both are in the "also ran" category when compared against the record of extremist followers of certain secular ideologies. None of this fits easily with your glib demonisation of Muhammed.

What it suggests, I think, is that the character of the leader/founder figure has little do with the tactics adopted by extremists. These are usually a response to more immediate and more transient factors. I don't think we can say that Islamist extremists adopt terrorism because Muhammed, because that begs the question as to why previous generations of extremists didn't adopt terrorism, despite being just as much influenced by Muhammed, and why the great bulk of Muslims today reject terrorism, despite the same consideration.

If we really want to know why they adopt terrorism, we probably should look at factors that they have in common with other movements that adopt terrorism. A founding figure who can be characterised as you characterise Muhammed is usually not the answer.

robindch

A new study find a correlation between a belief in a punitive god with emotional problems.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/religion-mental-health-angry-god-brain_n_3097025.html

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nobody is saying that it makes no difference. What they are saying is that just because you characterise Muhammed as you do, it doesn't follow that Muslims are fated to be more violent, bloodthirsty, etc than Christians, or that this explains why, currently, they are. Just at the moment, Islamic extremism is conspicuously violent and Christian extremism rather less so, but at other times the opposite has been the case, and, if we're honest, over the broad sweep of history the Christians probably have the worse record. But both are in the "also ran" category when compared against the record of extremist followers of certain secular ideologies. None of this fits easily with your glib demonisation of Muhammed.

but again it matters what you believe , Nazis for instance (if that is an example of an extreme "secular" ideology) because of their beliefs could do their job thinking they were not doing anything wrong. they didnt stretch their "beliefs" beyond breaking point, they just implemented an extreme version of them.

Sure christianity has a large amount of blood on its hands , but what way are you going to argue? that they took a perfectly valid reading of their religion? surely you are going to say that the churches took invalid interpretations of their bible or at least didnt "cherry pick" enough and didnt use the hippy lad and quarantine the "nuttier" books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy. What are Muslims supposed to do?


here is one example from the Hadith where Mohammed orders a man to be stoned to death for some sexual crime. How do you reform that from within the initial books of Islam? this is a straightforward the prophet did. Now nothing here suggests that individual Muslims should go around stoning people to death but it does mean that Muslims are not wrong if they have a legal system which carries out these sentences

Sahih Bukhari 7.63.196:

Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.

Peregrinus wrote: »

What it suggests, I think, is that the character of the leader/founder figure has little do with the tactics adopted by extremists. These are usually a response to more immediate and more transient factors. I don't think we can say that Islamist extremists adopt terrorism because Muhammed, because that begs the question as to why previous generations of extremists didn't adopt terrorism, despite being just as much influenced by Muhammed, and why the great bulk of Muslims today reject terrorism, despite the same consideration.

If we really want to know why they adopt terrorism, we probably should look at factors that they have in common with other movements that adopt terrorism. A founding figure who can be characterised as you characterise Muhammed is usually not the answer.

sure there are other factors but if you compare a Catholic member of the IRA when he was killing civilians, he couldnt defend a position that he was using Jesus as an example. whereas your Islamic terrorist can tap into the idea that he is carrying on Mohammed's war in some shape or form.
Surely it behoves any critic of a religion or ideology to point out the flaws in the belief system? one ex muslim I heard said that reading the Qur'an is what turned him away from his faith.

robindch

A Canadian family trusts in the healing power of prayer. Twice. And was let down. Twice.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/12/02/canadian-family-kept-dead-fathers-corpse-in-bedroom-for-six-months-in-hopes-god-would-resurrect-him/
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5165939-hamilton-family-left-corpse-upstairs-for-six-months-expecting-resurrection/

Nodin

silverharp wrote: »

................
sure there are other factors but if you compare a Catholic member of the IRA when he was killing civilians, he couldnt defend a position that he was using Jesus as an example. whereas your Islamic terrorist can tap into the idea that he is carrying on Mohammed's war in some shape or form.
.................

Being mostly atheistic lefties it would be fairly unlikely to happen. However some did, in liberation struggle, reconcile Christianity with armed insurgency, most commonly in Latin America
http://web.wm.edu/so/monitor/issues/07-1/6-williams.htm

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

A new study find a correlation between a belief in a punitive god with emotional problems.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/religion-mental-health-angry-god-brain_n_3097025.html

A correlation between belief in a punitive god with emotional problems and what?

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

A correlation between belief in a punitive god with emotional problems and what?

You need to join this group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/IrApPrSo/

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

You need to join this group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/IrApPrSo/

Thank you. In my defence though, the christian god is a punitive god with emotional problems, so I think my question was reasonable.

MrP

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

You need to join this group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/IrApPrSo/

All the best people are in it

Shrap

MrPudding wrote: »

Thank you. In my defence though, the christian god is a punitive god with emotional problems, so I think my question was reasonable.

MrP

That was the way I read it first as well Had to read it again and insert "with people having emotional problems".

Amirani

John Kerry just said ISIS is made up of killers, kidnappers & apostates.

Not a single actual religious person amongst them I guess. :rolleyes:

Nodin

"Icelanders flock to religion revering Sumerian gods and tax rebates
Ancient Zuist movement enjoys revival as thousands join as part of protest against requirement that citizens pay taxes to state church"

More than 3,100 people – almost 1% of Iceland’s population – have joined the Zuist movement in the past two weeks in protest at paying part of their taxes to the state church and other religious bodies. Followers of Zuism will be refunded the tax element earmarked for religion.

Icelanders are required to register their religion with the state, with almost three-quarters of the population affiliated to the established Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland. There are more than 40 other registered religious bodies that qualify for “parish fees” paid through the taxation system. The amount set in next year’s budget is the equivalent of about $80 (£53) per taxpayer over a year."
“There is no opt-out. Those who are unaffiliated or belong to unregistered religions effectively just pay higher taxes,” said Sveinn Thorhallsson, a Zuist spokesperson. An opinion poll published in September showed 55% of respondents want an end to the system."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/08/new-icelandic-religion-sumerian-gods-tax-rebates-zuism

The principle of the thing I suppose. Hopefully the Zuists don't give you a clay tablet application form.

silverharp

Ex Muslim with a donkey size pair of cojones :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndpsuvg48fc

Eeden

Religious children are harsher and less generous than atheist children, according to a new study.

Walter Bishop

http://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/former-miss-ireland-claims-her-cancer-was-cured-through-the-power-of-prayer-34276007.html

A model claims that it was prayer that cured her cancer, and not all the medical care and treatment and stuff:

Although Rachelle has great admiration for the doctors at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, she firmly believes all the care and treatment they gave her was not enough on its own to rid her of cancer.

If you're a medical professional you can probably rise above that sort of thing but if someone said that to me after I'd saved their life it'd piss me right off.

Cabaal

Pope to Catholics....don't try to convert those Jews

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35061357

The Vatican has told Catholics that they should not seek to convert Jews and stressed that the two faiths have a "unique" relationship.

It is seen as a new Vatican attempt to distance itself from centuries of Christian-Jewish tension and prejudice.

Nodin

Cabaal wrote: »

Pope to Catholics....don't try to convert those Jews

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35061357

"unique" is certainly an interesting way of describing it.

Thargor

Walter Bishop wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/former-miss-ireland-claims-her-cancer-was-cured-through-the-power-of-prayer-34276007.html

A model claims that it was prayer that cured her cancer, and not all the medical care and treatment and stuff:



If you're a medical professional you can probably rise above that sort of thing but if someone said that to me after I'd saved their life it'd piss me right off.

I don't believe that chemotherapy or treatment would have cured me on its own, it was the power of prayer that saved me."During prayer, when the hand of a Christian faith healer was laid on my head, I could feel my fingertips and legs and toes tingle with pins and needles.
"I believe this was the cancer exiting my body. I believe I was truly touched by the hand of God that evening. After this, everything in my life changed.
"New life was breathed back into my body. The colour returned to my face and I even had rosy cheeks.
"My appetite returned and I started to put on weight. The doctors never again found a cancerous cell in my body.
"No amount of chemo could kill any of my blood cells, which were too strong. I remember the doctors were astounded and kept giving me stronger doses to knock my blood counts down in case, on the off-chance, one cell was still hiding in my body, but my counts continued to rise regardless of what dosage of chemo was given to me. To me this was a miracle in itself.

*Vomits*


Loving the smug tone from her aswell, is she implying the families of all her dead friends in the cancer ward didn't pray hard enough or something?

robindch

The Vatican releases a document which states that (a) Jews can go to heaven (paragraph 36); (b) it's not the responsibility of Catholics to get them there (paragraph 42); and restates support for a 1965 comment that (c) anti-Semitism is bad.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html

Just on a side-note, these guys really need to get their headline marketing sorted out. I read cryptographic algorithms which are far easier to figure out than this stuff.

looksee

First create a massive problem, then celebrate when you go to enormous and complex lengths to solve it!

recedite

robindch wrote: »

The Vatican releases a document which states that (a) Jews can go to heaven (paragraph 36)

I'm pretty sure John waters must be writing this stuff for them now.

That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. It is therefore no accident that Paul’s soteriological reflections in Romans 9-11 on the irrevocable redemption of Israel against the background of the Christ-mystery culminate in a magnificent doxology:

I mistook that last word for bolloxology at first :pac: but anyway I think I can answer the question; the early Christians considered themselves to be a sect within Judaism, hence early Christians quite happy to assert that salvation comes from the Jews. Simples.

On a side note, it is reassuring to see they are still writing on vellum, and have developed the technology to upload calf or goat skin onto the interweb.

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

I'm pretty sure John waters must be writing this stuff for them now.

I mistook that last word for bolloxology at first :pac: but anyway I think I can answer the question; the early Christians considered themselves to be a sect within Judaism, hence early Christians quite happy to assert that salvation comes from the Jews. Simples.

On a side note, it is reassuring to see they are still writing on vellum, and have developed the technology to upload calf or goat skin onto the interweb.

'We used to hate them, but sure we don't anymore. Isn't that mad altogether? Now here's an aul favourite.........'

The Black Oil

https://twitter.com/JohnBurnsST/status/675810065778155520

https://twitter.com/MarySmyth9/status/530287072930975744


:pac:

Nodin

The Black Oil wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JohnBurnsST/status/675810065778155520

https://twitter.com/MarySmyth9/status/530287072930975744


:pac:

Pope Frank the gay Jihadi.



I knew it all along, just didn't want to let on.

robindch

A man enters a classroom in Paris, yells "This is Daesh. This is a warning!”, grabs a Stanley knife and hacks at the teacher, thankfully non-fatally.

http://www.thejournal.ie/paris-teacher-stabbing-2500411-Dec2015/

robindch

And more entertainingly, a town in North Carolina rejected a planning application lodged by a company which had wanted to build a solar farm:

http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2015/12/08/woodland-rejects-solar-farm/

A retired science teacher said that she was concerned that the farm would soak up all the sunlight and stop plants growing in the area.

Shrap

robindch wrote: »

A retired science teacher said that she was concerned that the farm would sock up all the sunlight and stop plants growing in the area.

But if only they did work like that. We could steal sunlight from other places!! Mwahaaahaaaaa! *Evil laugh*

looking_around

robindch wrote: »

And more entertainingly, a town in North Carolina rejected a planning application lodged by a company which had wanted to build a solar farm:

http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2015/12/08/woodland-rejects-solar-farm/

A retired science teacher said that she was concerned that the farm would sock up all the sunlight and stop plants growing in the area.

Probably a creationist teacher instead of "science". Many schools in the US teach creation as real. .....