god hates ireland??

Whispered

Have you seen the God Hates Ireland website?? I'm seething, it's people like him that give religion a bad rep. I don't understand how someone can say that they believe in god, are god fearing etc etc and speak about anybody else like that. Surely that website cannot be legal, or at least some of the things he says, when he singles out specific people?

death1234567

helena.ryan wrote: »

Have you seen the God Hates Ireland website?? I'm seething, it's people like him that give religion a bad rep. I don't understand how someone can say that they believe in god, are god fearing etc etc and speak about anybody else like that. Surely that website cannot be legal, or at least some of the things he says, when he singles out specific people?

He's an idiot. Who cares what he thinks about anything,.

Whispered

Thats a better way of reacting to it than me I suppose.

CerebralCortex

I can sympathise with your emotions. I think the only way to deal with those people is a high powered assault rifle with armour piercing rounds. :mad:

Pompey Magnus

Apparently God hates Heath Ledger as well, his funeral is next on their agenda.

Anyways as I was saying in another thread, the reason these horrible people get away with things like that is because they can interpret the Bible as justifying them.

Dades

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055128604

FYI

Whispered

OOPs sorry

Dades

helena.ryan wrote: »

OOPs sorry

Heh. Don't worry - searching seems to be sooo last year.

robindch

helena.ryan wrote: »

I don't understand how someone can say that they believe in god, are god fearing etc etc and speak about anybody else like that.

There's no real link between belief in god, and being a nice person, although a lot of people who believe in god will tell you that there is.

The issue is that Phelps, like every other christian, is exerting what the Vatican refers to as the "Supremacy of Conscience", which basically boils down to the notion that one's own ideas are more important than anybody else's. Phelps has simply interpreted the bible to suit his own prejudices, just as more decent people interpret it to support being decent.

Whispered

robindch wrote: »

There's no real link between belief in god, and being a nice person, although a lot of people who believe in god will tell you that there is.

What I mean is that most religions preach God as love, so in theory being religious should make you a nicer person. But it obviously does not work that way. I know I'm using this as website as an example of hatered caused by belief in God but go back to the crusades, witch trials etc. It amazes me how many atrocities are committed in the name of God. How much hatered is caused by belief in God etc

robindch

helena.ryan wrote: »

What I mean is that most religions preach God as love, so in theory being religious should make you a nicer person.

Yes, that's what you'd expect, but that's not what seems to happen in practice. I think this arises from the fact that listening to preaching about love and being decent are two different things. The first doesn't take much effort, but the second one certainly does take effort. So the first one is more common.

I suspect I'll be accused of cynicism here, but that's the way it seems to work to me!

robindch

helena.ryan wrote: »

know I'm using this as website as an example of hatered caused by belief in God

Phelps is about as nasty as you can get and his following is pretty small. But some of the mainstream websites contain what I regard as pretty inflammatory material too. Here's a page from the most popular creationist website, AiG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/chapter5.asp

In it, the authors say that a marriage between a christian and a non-christian will result in "negative consequences for the couple and their children" and implying that non-christians are under the influence of Satan.

As an atheist, I find it quite offensive that somebody will preach, with the infallible mandate of god, the idea that I can't be a decent parent or even a decent human because I don't believe that an invisible deity lives in the sky. What do you think would happen if I tried to marry the daughter of some impressionable person who believed this stuff?

Scofflaw

robindch wrote: »

Yes, that's what you'd expect, but that's not what seems to happen in practice. I think this arises from the fact that listening to preaching about love and being decent are two different things. The first doesn't take much effort, but the second one certainly does take effort. So the first one is more common.

I suspect I'll be accused of cynicism here, but that's the way it seems to work to me!

There's a sort of trichotomy, though: listening to preaching about love, being decent, and following what it says in the Bible.

One of the things that reinforced my early decision to be an atheist was that there was a complete divergence between the content of the Bible, and what people claim to be the message of Christianity - that "God is Love".

Funnily enough, "I'm going to get Biblical" does not mean "I will now be loving".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Whispered

That is just sickening, really ridiculous. This annoys me no end, someone I know will go to mass, he was brought up with it. I was brought up with mass too, but dont go. I put more thought into my life and the good (and bad) things I do than he does, yet he tells me the God would be unhappy with certain beliefs I have. Surely, whether you are athiest or theist or somewhere in between (like me) it is more important to live your life well than declare you believe in God then proceed to say and do hateful things to other people. I know I'm preaching to the converted here (:D:D:D) but I just wanted a bit of a rant.

Zulu

helena.ryan wrote: »

...I know I'm using this as website as an example of hatered caused by belief in God but go back to the crusades, witch trials etc. It amazes me how many atrocities are committed in the name of God. How much hatered is caused by belief in God etc

I think that's a little unfair. While you are right that many atrocities, and hate hides behind a "belief in God", or "God's work", it's really just an excuse for nasty people to do nasty things. If there was no concept of a god/God, the atrocities would continue, they are a part of human nature.

Zulu

helena.ryan wrote: »

Surely, whether you are athiest or theist or somewhere in between (like me) it is more important to live your life well than declare you believe in God then proceed to say and do hateful things to other people. I know I'm preaching to the converted here (:D:D:D) but I just wanted a bit of a rant.

I don't go to mass, and would consider myself agnostic, but I was raised a christian, and any priest I ever spoke to told me the same thing everytime: you don't need to be a christian, you just need to be a good person. If you go to mass and believe and have faith etc. well and good, but a good person is a good person, and a bad person, bad no amount of mass will change that.
The "God Hates..." people are just bad people. If their is a hell, they'll have a lot of explaining to do to get out of it I'd imagine!

Whispered

I didn't say otherwise Zulu. I said "committed in the name of God", is this not the case?
I know that if there was no concept of God these atrocities would still happen, just with different excuses. I just find it hard to grasp that these things happened in the name of ANYTHING which in another breath will be described as "all powerful" "all loving" etc. I cant see how, even to the most devout person, this makes sense. (Or made sense as the case is with the crusades/witch trials etc).

Say you are brought up a devout christian, God loves you, God loves sinners, sinners will be judged by God etc etc, where does it make sense for you to then go along with mass killing in the name of someone who you know loves these people you are killing (or punishing). You have been told from the start that God loves these people despite their "sins" and that God will judge them? I dont understand how it can turn around like that. It seems to go against everything that it preached.

Whispered

Zulu wrote: »

If you go to mass and believe and have faith etc. well and good, but a good person is a good person, and a bad person, bad no amount of mass will change that.

couldn't agree more

robindch

Zulu wrote: »

If there was no concept of a god/God, the atrocities would continue, they are a part of human nature.

That's a bit like killing somebody and saying that it's ok because the victim would have died sooner or later anyway. Wouldn't stand up in court...

In the simple case that I mentioned up above, where AiG implies that I'm a moral degenerate, do you think that this kind of prejudice would exist if religion wasn't there to create it?

Zulu

helena.ryan wrote: »

I didn't say otherwise Zulu. I said "committed in the name of God", is this not the case?

Sorry I picked you up wrong so.
Say you are brought up a devout ... I dont understand how it can turn around like that. It seems to go against everything that it preached.[/QUOTE]I know the mind boggles! I guess that why we commonly refer to them as whacko!

Pompey Magnus

Zulu wrote: »

but a good person is a good person, and a bad person, bad no amount of mass will change that.

Or as Steve Weinberg said “With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

Dave!

helena.ryan wrote: »

Say you are brought up a devout christian, God loves you, God loves sinners, sinners will be judged by God etc etc, where does it make sense for you to then go along with mass killing in the name of someone who you know loves these people you are killing (or punishing). You have been told from the start that God loves these people despite their "sins" and that God will judge them? I dont understand how it can turn around like that. It seems to go against everything that it preached.

The problem is, they aren't all brought up in the manner you described. I dunno what sent Fred Phelps nuts, but he turned into a "not very nice person", and ended up raising all his kids in the same way. He's clearly a rather terrifying person for any kid, and it's not really surprising that he was able to instill the same values in his kids. The family is so close that you can hardly see too many of the kids, after years of mental abuse, turning their back on what their dad says. Another generation later and you've got more kids instilled with the same beliefs, and parents to enforce them. They live rather insular lives, are not permitted to marry people who aren't members, and have the domineering presence of Fred Phelps in their family. Until he dies, I'm sure the same crap will continue, unless there's someone similar to him to fill the void.

Unless he does some sort of Ian Paisley-esque turnaround......... Cant see that happening though

I'm still expecting him to turn up somewhere in bed with an Irish-Swedish gay jewish bloke.

Zulu

robindch wrote: »

That's a bit like killing somebody and saying that it's ok because the victim would have died sooner or later anyway. Wouldn't stand up in court...

Not really. I don't see how you are drawing that connection. Care to explain?

I'm saying that a murderer will murder regardless of their supposed belief, not that a death will occur regardless. A homophobe will continue to hate homosexuals regardless of religion.

In the simple case that I mentioned up above, where AiG implies that I'm a moral degenerate, do you think that this kind of prejudice would exist if religion wasn't there to create it?

Sorry, what AiG? But to answer your question, yes in a sense. I honestly believe, these people would still hate difference.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Or as Steve Weinberg said “With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

Yea, I have a problem with that though, because I believe fundamentally it's not accurate. People can be made/encouraged to do bad things. (Nazi Germany is littered with examples) But religion is just a lazy scapegoat because it's so widely spread.
It's group mentality, it's bigger than religion - it's human nature. If our society says it's ok/good, then we are encouraged to do it and it becomes easy for us to do. (Our society here could be religion, government, social circle, family...)

But it's not exclusive to religion.

robindch

Zulu wrote: »

Not really. I don't see how you are drawing that connection. Care to explain?

I'm saying that excusing an evil by claiming that somebody else would do it if it wasn't you is no defense at all.

Zulu wrote: »

I'm saying that a murderer will murder regardless of their supposed belief, [...] A homophobe will continue to hate homosexuals regardless of religion.

More than likely, they won't hate them if they haven't been brought up to believe, usually with religious backing, that being gay is intrinsically evil, to pick one nasty example of what the Vatican currently says.

Likewise, if belief in god didn't exist, then being an atheist would have no meaning, and people like AiG wouldn't be able to assert (and get people to believe) that I'm a moral degenerate and utterly unsuitable as a partner and as a parent.

I'm also a bit perplexed that you think that religion doesn't encourage murder. Didn't you, for example, ever read any of the fatwas issued ahead of the WTC attackers that define the religious duty of muslims to murder Americans, jews and others?

Zulu

I distingush between a religion and a church.
I have yet to come across a religion that encourages murder.

Whispered

Very interesting the way this has gone.

Zulu, I also distinguish between religion and church and that is my point exactly. The church is a representative of that particular religion. But only to a point. What sort of faith, blinds someone to what their church is doing, in the name of their religion. Where is the line that people just wont cross. There doesn't seem to be one. The fact that people let their church overstep such marks speaks volumes about what people are actually looking for. I wonder how many people over history have thought "I know deep down that this is wrong, but my church tells me to do it, therefore it is not my fault"

If there was no religion, I think that homophobes (sp?) and other ignorant people would exist, people who are afraid of anything different to themselves. But the would not have the mask of religion to hide behind.

Zulu

helena.ryan wrote: »

I wonder how many people over history have thought "I know deep down that this is wrong, but my church tells me to do it, therefore it is not my fault"

Who knows! How many cowards* were there in history? Pick a number, and keep multiplying it I guess. <edit: maybe cowards is a bit harsh?>

But the would not have the mask of religion to hide behind.

True, although I've no doubt they'd find something else - people taking their jobs and the likes!

robindch

Zulu wrote: »

I distingush between a religion and a church.

Perhaps we're arguing using different terminology. Can you explain what you understand the difference to be?

Zulu wrote: »

I have yet to come across a religion that encourages murder.

That's easy!

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html (Bin Laden says kill people)
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm (Bin Laden says kill people)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7201.htm (Bin Laden says kill people)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2020:12-13;&version=31; (Leviticus says kill people)

There's plenty more out there.

Pompey Magnus

Zulu wrote: »

Yea, I have a problem with that though, because I believe fundamentally it's not accurate. People can be made/encouraged to do bad things. (Nazi Germany is littered with examples) But religion is just a lazy scapegoat because it's so widely spread.
It's group mentality, it's bigger than religion - it's human nature. If our society says it's ok/good, then we are encouraged to do it and it becomes easy for us to do. (Our society here could be religion, government, social circle, family...)

But it's not exclusive to religion.

I agree with you to a point, religion certainly isn't the root of all evil, but I believe it can provide a fertile breeding ground for these roots to develop. Religion promotes group mentality and does not encourage individuality or critcal thinking and to have entire populations who are used to such unquestioning loyalty is obviously open to abuse.

The Russian Orthodox religion and its centuries of serf mind-control made it easy for Stalin to do what he did without a mass uprising, Hitler took advantage of the anti-semitism taught by the Catholic church and Luther to justify his persecution of the Jews. Emperor Hirohito was a God to the Japanese people and they believed that the entire moral structure of their country would collapse should they rise up against him. Mussolini fostered good relations with the Catholic Church to win over the hearts of the deeply religious Italians. The same with General Franco.

It is possible that none of these men may have been truely religious (Stalin and Mussolini certainly weren't and Hitler probably wasn't) but that isn't the point. They saw an opening and used religion to first gain and later abuse their positions. If their subjects had been brought up without the sheep mentality that religion promotes and instead taught to be critical thinkers, as people who felt free to question their leaders without fear of divine retribution, would they have so willingly followed them into committing acts of unspeakable evil? I personally would doubt it. This certainly isn't to say that without religion evil wouldn't happen, just that it makes it easier.

aidan24326

helena.ryan wrote: »

I'm seething, it's people like him that give religion a bad rep

In all fairness Helena it isn't. The catholic church and other mainstream religious organisations have done a pretty good job of that by themselves, without any help from the Phelps family. We know the Phelps and their minions are just twisted sickos, and despite all their ranting and raving they don't have many followers anyway. What's worst of all imo is that they're given a platform at all, being invited on tv shows etc.

godhatesireland wrote:

Ireland is notorious for being huge supporters of the evil monstrosity that is the Catholic "church." You can't get much more demonic than supporting an institution that damns souls to Hell on a daily basis.

They do make sense just the odd time however.

rgt320q

godhatesireland wrote:

Ireland is notorious for being huge supporters of the evil monstrosity that is the Catholic "church." You can't get much more demonic than supporting an institution that damns souls to Hell on a daily basis.

Ooh, the hypocrisy.

legspin

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I can sympathise with your emotions. I think the only way to deal with those people is a high powered assault rifle with armour piercing rounds. :mad:

Too quick. Need something a little more Prometheian.

CerebralCortex

legspin wrote: »

Too quick. Need something a little more Prometheian.

What do you suggest? (besides something Promethian).

legspin

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What do you suggest? (besides something Promethian).

Having his liver pecked out on a daily basis would be a good start imo.

Zulu

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps we're arguing using different terminology. Can you explain what you understand the difference to be?

hummm, religion is the theory, the church is the people.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html (Bin Laden says kill people)...

Yes he does, but Bin Laden isn't a religion. My point stands.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I agree with you to a point, religion certainly isn't the root of all evil, but I believe it can provide a fertile breeding ground for these roots to develop. Religion promotes group mentality and does not encourage individuality or critcal thinking and to have entire populations who are used to such unquestioning loyalty is obviously open to abuse.

Well that's not fair either. Firstly, ok, religion promotes group mentality, but then so does political ideals, employment and any other coming together of a group of people. Secondly, to say religion doesn't encourage individuality is untrue. Religion doesn't deny the individual. Thirdly, on the point of critical thinking that's not true either, hence the amount of theological, and philosophical schools associated with the various religions.
As for the final point on populations, religion isn't really the fault here either, it's the society.

The Russian Orthodox religion and its centuries of serf mind-control made it easy for Stalin to do what he did without a mass uprising,

The russian orthodox church capitulated to protect itself, and was riddled with spies like every other aspect of stalins russian

Hitler took advantage of the anti-semitism taught by the Catholic church and Luther to justify his persecution of the Jews.

So you are suggesting the Hitlers issues stemed from Religion? :rolleyes: come on - thats a serious unfounded leap. So he "took advantage", but that wasn't the religions fault now was it. He'd have done it without religion.

Emperor Hirohito was a God to the Japanese people and they believed that the entire moral structure of their country would collapse should they rise up against him.

Japanese culture was heavily based on pride and honour. Again, it's a leap to blame religion.

Mussolini fostered good relations with the Catholic Church to win over the hearts of the deeply religious Italians. The same with General Franco.

...still not religions fault. You're firing out examples, but your blame is misplaced.

It is possible that none of these men may have been truely religious (Stalin and Mussolini certainly weren't and Hitler probably wasn't) but that isn't the point.

Truly religions!?! :eek: Are you aware of Stalins opinions of religion? I suggest you research that one.

They saw an opening and used religion to first gain and later abuse their positions. If their subjects had been brought up without the sheep mentality that religion promotes and instead taught to be critical thinkers, as people who felt free to question their leaders without fear of divine retribution, would they have so willingly followed them into committing acts of unspeakable evil?

In a word - yes. Stalin wanted to destroy the church. ...that kinda destroys your point.
Look it isn't religion that causes populations to have "sheep mentality", it's society. It isn't religion that makes you obey your government. Sure it's another group structure, but it's not the cause.

robindch

Zulu wrote: »

hummm, religion is the theory, the church is the people.

well, I've had said that religion is the ideology, the church is the institution and resource owner, and the believers are the people. It's easier to map out religious interactions using these divisions.

Zulu wrote: »

Bin Laden isn't a religion. My point stands.

Huh? Bin Laden is using religious ideology to promote violence:

OBL wrote:

Therefore efforts should be concentrated on destroying, fighting and killing the enemy until, by the Grace of Allah, it is completely defeated. The time will come -by the Permission of Allah- when you'll perform your decisive role so that the word of Allah will be supreme and the word of the infidels (Kaferoon) will be the inferior. You will hit with iron fist against the aggressors. You'll re-establish the normal course and give the people their rights and carry out your truly Islamic duty.[...] and so on and so on [...]

...the same with the other quotes I gave you, and thousands of others that I could have.

Zulu wrote: »

Thirdly, on the point of critical thinking that's not true either, hence the amount of theological, and philosophical schools associated with the various religions.

Religious schools exist to propagate religions, not to question them except in the most cursory way. Are you actually familiar with what goes on in religious schools, sunday schools and the like? Have you read the thread on Jesus Camp here?

Zulu wrote: »

So you are suggesting the Hitlers issues stemed from Religion? :rolleyes: come on - thats a serious unfounded leap. So he "took advantage", but that wasn't the religions fault now was it. He'd have done it without religion.

There's little evidence that he could have. In summary, he acquired power using catholic backing, he sustained it using pre-existing christian-derived anti-semitic propaganda and policies, and emulated many of the forms and rites of christianity during his time in power. This is a topic that comes up here frequently and there's little point in going over it again.

Zulu wrote: »

Look it isn't religion that causes populations to have "sheep mentality", it's society.

John 10:14-15 wrote:

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me -- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father -- and I lay down my life for the sheep.

'nuff said!

Overheal

When you consider some of the horrendous acts across history that were done in the sake of a religious body (wars, terrorism, jihads, etc) and some of the twisted 'religious' bodies out there (like Scientology) and the corrupting bodies like Catholocism...

...would we not be better off without religion?

____________

EDIT: Have moved Overheals new thread (first post above) to here as that exact discussion was already underway in this thread...
Thanks
Dades

2Scoops

Overheal wrote: »

... and some of the twisted 'religious' bodies out there (like Scientology)

Eh, what? :mad:
[salute]To LRH! [/salute]

Pompey Magnus

Zulu wrote: »

Well that's not fair either. Firstly, ok, religion promotes group mentality, but then so does political ideals, employment and any other coming together of a group of people. Secondly, to say religion doesn't encourage individuality is untrue. Religion doesn't deny the individual. Thirdly, on the point of critical thinking that's not true either, hence the amount of theological, and philosophical schools associated with the various religions.
As for the final point on populations, religion isn't really the fault here either, it's the society.

Firstly I didn't say religion was the only cause of group mentality, so I don't see why you took issue with this. Secondly are you actually saying religion does promote individuality? Where? It gives all humans a set of guidelines to follow or else they are condemned. The early Christian Church is famous for its persecution of people who had opinions which differed from the mainstream and this behaviour continued for centuries, they were heretics and need I spell out in detail what the Church did to heretics? You must have a very broad definition of individuality if you feel that Christianity has ever actively encouraged its faithful to find their own path in life.

The russian orthodox church capitulated to protect itself, and was riddled with spies like every other aspect of stalins russian

I wasn't referring to how the orthodox church behaved after the Revolution, I was more generally speaking about how the power structure it had developed over the poor and uneducated masses for centuries was taken and used by Stalin to great effect.

So you are suggesting the Hitlers issues stemed from Religion? :rolleyes: come on - thats a serious unfounded leap. So he "took advantage", but that wasn't the religions fault now was it. He'd have done it without religion.

What are you talking about? Of course it absolutely was religions fault. How on Earth can you suggest that though the Lutheran and Catholic Churches heavily indoctrinated their followers that the Jews were "Christ Killers" and bred a climate of anti-Semitism in Germany, they can now plead innocence and say "We had nothing to do with it", the mind boggles. Just so you know Hitler and the Nazi Party did not introduce hatred of the Jews to Germany. As a matter of fact Jews were not even recognised as citizens of any German State prior to the 1800s.

Japanese culture was heavily based on pride and honour. Again, it's a leap to blame religion.

It is also a leap to completely absolve religion of its responsibilities because of this. Also the culture of honour was heavily entwined with the divine, religion was certainly not seperate and independent from this.

Truly religions!?! :eek: Are you aware of Stalins opinions of religion? I suggest you research that one.

Sorry? Did you actually read my whole sentence there or did it bore you and you stopped half way through, if you did read it I'm sure you would have found that I clearly pointed out that Stalin certainly wasn't religious. I don't think I'm the one who needs to carry out more research to be honest.

Pompey Magnus

Overheal wrote: »

...would we not be better off without religion?

Probably. It won't happen for a long, long time though (that is assuming they don't take all of us down with them before then in a glorious Holy Nuclear-War).

Hooky 25

Would we not be better without the men who use religion as an excuse,

"IT IS NOT THE RELIGION BEHIND THE MAN BUT THE MAN BEHIND THE RELIGION"
Wars are not caused by religion they are caused by man looking for more money and more power.

18AD

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

(that is assuming they don't take all of us down with them before then in a glorious Holy Nuclear-War)

Step into the light, brother!


I don't know if it would really make a difference. Violence is still violence no matter what its cause is, be it lack of resources, survival or meme spreading of any kind, be it political or moral. Violence is an inherent part of being human. Maybe instead of people doing things in the name of god they'd just be doing it in their own name.
http://www.livescience.com/health/080117-violent-cravings.html

I think tradition plays an important part in the whole thing and really hinders advancement. Ancestors believing their way was the right one. Maybe for the time, but times change. I'm not really sure where this self-impotance comes from, or is it a fear of change...

That said, maybe it would be one less thing to worry about.

Violence appears to be on the decrease anyway. Would this have any corelation to a decrease in religion?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/163

I wonder are there any cultures that have no religion? I wonder how they get on...

All the best.
AD.

Zulu

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Firstly I didn't say religion was the only cause of group mentality, so I don't see why you took issue with this.

I'm just highlighting that it's a bit simplistic to blame religion for peoples failings.

Secondly are you actually saying religion does promote individuality?

I don't believe religions in essence try to destroy individuality.

It gives all humans a set of guidelines to follow or else they are condemned.

Teaching a code of practice doesn't equate to the denial of the individual. By that logic - surgeons have a code of practice - does medicen deny the individual?

The early Christian Church is famous for its persecution of people who had opinions which differed from the mainstream and this behaviour continued for centuries, they were heretics and need I spell out in detail what the Church did to heretics?

No need. The church was just that - the people, and back then people weren't very agreeable to differences.

You must have a very broad definition of individuality if you feel that Christianity has ever actively encouraged its faithful to find their own path in life.

As I said, I was raised a christian. I was taught about all the other religions, what they stood for and their histories. I was taught basic philosophy. I was taught about morals and ethics. The reason I was taught all this: so I could make an informed decision for myself. I and all in my school were taught to find our own path. Now I understand you can retort with: underneath it all I was in effect brainwashed, but then by that fact, you are acknowledging everyone who is taught is brain washed and there really in no free choice regardless. But then the whole debate is moot as that stands for teaching, not just religious teaching.

I wasn't referring to how the orthodox church behaved after the Revolution, I was more generally speaking about how the power structure it had developed over the poor and uneducated masses for centuries was taken and used by Stalin to great effect.

Ok, so you are saying that it wasn't directly religions fault, but because it existed a tool existed that could be abused?

Of course it absolutely was religions fault.

No it was Hitlers fault. Religion doesn't teach the mass execution of russians, gypsies, jews and homosexuals.

How on Earth can you suggest that though the Lutheran and Catholic Churches heavily indoctrinated their followers that the Jews were "Christ Killers" and bred a climate of anti-Semitism in Germany, they can now plead innocence and say "We had nothing to do with it", the mind boggles.

Because that is the church - not the religion. They are not one and the same.

It is also a leap to completely absolve religion of its responsibilities because of this.

Please - do you distinguish between religion and the church? Because if you don't we can't continue. If you don't my position is: I agree with you with a but...

Sorry? Did you actually read my whole sentence there or did it bore you and you stopped half way through, if you did read it I'm sure you would have found that I clearly pointed out that

Ok, so we are descending into the realms of being uncivil now? Do you want to continue this discussion, or do you expect my to submit and say - wow, you're right, I'm a moron?

Stalin certainly wasn't religious.

No he wasn't. So it wasn't religion that was the cause of what he did, now was it? He used the church as a tool, but it was religion.

robindch wrote: »

well, I've had said that religion is the ideology, the church is the institution and resource owner, and the believers are the people.

Fair enough - a bit more through than my summation, but it's the same in essence.

Bin Laden is using religious ideology to promote violence:

True, but wouldn't you agree that he is not the religion?

Religious schools exist to propagate religions, not to question them except in the most cursory way. Are you actually familiar with what goes on in religious schools, sunday schools and the like?

I was thinking more along the lines of the third level institutions we have here in Ireland, that provide courses in philosophy and thelogy and the like.

Have you read the thread on Jesus Camp here?

No but I accept that certain churches have little more than brain washing camps.

There's little evidence that he could have. In summary, he acquired power using catholic backing, he sustained it using pre-existing christian-derived anti-semitic propaganda and policies, and emulated many of the forms and rites of christianity during his time in power.

Again though, wasn't all that a product of the church and not the actual religion?

This is a topic that comes up here frequently and there's little point in going over it again.

perhaps that's because it can be hard to distinguish between church and religion?

'nuff said!

Hardly. I fail to see how that proves religion is responsible for bad people doing bad things, or the cause of "good people doing bad things"

Whispered

I dont think anyone is actually saying, belief in God, or in the teachings of a particular prophet etc causes evil. I think that no matter if you are an athiest or a devout theist you have to accept the fact that throughout history religion was used as a very convenient excuse to commit some of the worst atrocities, and it's still happening today. Religion may not be the real reason, but it is certainly the excuse and more importantly the motivating factor for most of the people comitting the atrocities.

Sorry Aidan, you're right of course about the churches doing enough damage themselves. In my rant I didn't explain what I was thinking properly. I mean people like him, who are obviously nutjobs, sort of overshadow normal religious or spiritual people. The people following him obviously do so with no proper thoughts and with no real love in them (I hate it when I sound like a hippy ). Leaving the door open for us all (non-athiests) to be labeled nut cases and branded sheep.

Zulu

helena.ryan wrote: »

I dont think anyone is actually saying, belief in God, or in the teachings of a particular prophet etc causes evil.

I think one or two might be. If they're not, then we're all in agreement and arguing the same point from different angles!! (which probably isn't a first) Are we?

I think that no matter if you are an athiest or a devout theist you have to accept the fact that throughout history religion was used as a very convenient excuse to commit some of the worst atrocities, and it's still happening today.

I totally accept that.

Religion may not be the real reason, but it is certainly the excuse and more importantly the motivating factor for most of the people committing the atrocities.

I have a problem with this though. Replace "the" with "a" and I'm happy.

Sorry I know is appears as a subtle difference, but it does make a difference wouldn't you agree?

robindch

Zulu wrote: »

perhaps that's because it can be hard to distinguish between church and religion?

It's not if you use the tentative definitions that I gave up above.

Zulu wrote: »

True, but wouldn't you agree that he is not the religion? [...] Again though, wasn't all that a product of the church and not the actual religion?

If you're going to define religion as "the theory", then obviously in that restricted usage, "religion" is never going to do anything. Ideas in people's heads are immaterial and can't, for example, pull the trigger of a gun. I don't quite understand how you can claim in any reasonable sense that the actions of a church and its believers are independent of the ideology that drives them.

In summary, ideologies encourage people to perform actions by creating environments within which certain courses of action are promoted or otherwise, and the examples I've given you -- AiG, Bin Laden, Jesus Camp and others -- clearly show religious ideologies being used to motivate and to legitimize violence.

Whispered

Zulu wrote: »

I think one or two might be. If they're not, then we're all in agreement and arguing the same point from different angles!! (which probably isn't a first) Are we?

I totally accept that.
I have a problem with this though. Replace "the" with "a" and I'm happy.

Sorry I know is appears as a subtle difference, but it does make a difference wouldn't you agree?

LOL Zulu, if we're going to get technical............ for some people religion may be A reason, ie: witchtrials - personal issues with people were sometimes as much of a factor here as religious beliefs.

But if you look at the crusades - how many young men marched off with this idea that they are doing it for God? Marching to their deaths, murdering people with religion as their main motivating factor. Bringing it to modern times with the war on terror, what other reason could the suicide bombers have other than religion? I think in that case it is safe to say it is the motivation.

Pompey Magnus

Zulu wrote: »

Ok, so we are descending into the realms of being uncivil now? Do you want to continue this discussion, or do you expect my to submit and say - wow, you're right, I'm a moron?

I apologise, I was tired and grumpy when posting that. That said I still stand by my points that religion does not promote the individual and that the actions of a Church should not reflect badly on the religion behind it.

When I look at the Bible it seems to be just one big effort to deny the individual their right to make significant life choices on their own. God gives you free will, but your decisions you freely make must agree with what we tell you to do or else. It kills off peoples desires for greater truths and understanding by providing them with simplistic answers dressed up as profound which it claims are all we need to know. Now of course you could come up with some exceptions but I would suggest that their individuality flourished in spite of religion and not because of it.

As for the teachings of Christianity being innocent of the crimes of the Churches it spawned I again have to object. The religion pointed out the blood of Christ would be on the Jews and their descendents, I think it is unfair to blame the phenomenon of anti-Semitism on the Catholic Church and Martin Luther misrepresenting what the Gospels said. They believed in the literal truth of the Gospel stories and it is quite easy to see how they could condemn the Jews because of this. I stand by my point that if a moral code leaves itself open to interpretation of what it means, and therefore can be used to justify atrocities, then that morality is inherently flawed.

As for the Bible not teaching the mass murder of Russians, Gypsies etc you are entirely correct. I don't know if either are mentioned at all in the Bible. However it does give plenty of examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing which God endorsed which could quite easily set dangerous precedents for justification of the mass murder of Russians and Gypsies.

18AD wrote:

I don't know if it would really make a difference. Violence is still violence no matter what its cause is, be it lack of resources, survival or meme spreading of any kind, be it political or moral. Violence is an inherent part of being human. Maybe instead of people doing things in the name of god they'd just be doing it in their own name.
http://www.livescience.com/health/08...-cravings.html

Don't get me wrong, violence would most certainly continue to exist with or without religion, however I would be slightly less concerned about Nuclear War if I knew that the people who held them didn't believe they could get eternally rewarded for employing them aggressively because of the message they get from their Holy Book.

Zulu

helena.ryan wrote: »

LOL Zulu, if we're going to get technical............ for some people religion may be A reason, ie: witchtrials - personal issues with people were sometimes as much of a factor here as religious beliefs.

I do! And thanks. I do agree that it is used as a reason and a tool. All I'm saying is, in it's own right, it's not the cause.

I believe, that even without religion, suicide bombers would exist. I honestly believe that it stems from disparateness and injustice, and once again religion is being used as an excuse. But ultimately, religion isn't the fault, it isn't the cause - it's a scape goat.

@ Depeche_Mode - no worries buddy, did you get caught in the M50 disaster? It's friday! And you final point, about nukes - I too would be a lot happier if I knew fanatics couldn't get their hands on them.

But I do believe that religions, when taught correctly do promote the individual. As a product of such, it's clear to me, but it's improvable. As is the reverse though. All we could do is go back through the ages finding examples of good and bad to back up either side - and in essence all we'd be doing is proving that their are good people and bad people!

However it does give plenty of examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing which God endorsed which could quite easily set dangerous precedents for justification

...but it unequivocally states "you should not kill". Lets face it, as far a christianity is concerned, there are the 10 rules that can't be broken, which ultimately sum up to "be nice to each other". That to me is the religion. The whack job that can justify killing a homosexual from that, is a whack job - and they are the danger! (Not the religion)

My point is, they'll do it anyway - they're not right in the head.

Whispered

I think we might all be arguing the same point here from different angles as zulu said earlier. :rolleyes:

Except Zulu I want it to be written that you agree that for some people, religion is the only motivting factor - ah go on, give me that one!!

18AD

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, violence would most certainly continue to exist with or without religion, however I would be slightly less concerned about Nuclear War if I knew that the people who held them didn't believe they could get eternally rewarded for employing them aggressively because of the message they get from their Holy Book.

Yeah.
The less excuses for violence, the better.
I can't help but wonder about the psychological repercussions of worshipping an infallible deity.

Although the conspiracy theorist in me would think that religion is used to gather support from the masses. Governments have their own personal reasons.

All the best.
AD.