How can religions claim to be peaceful?

Freiheit

When all the major religions are laced with violence?. The Old Testament , common to both Judaism and Christianity is full of violent acts sanctioned by an angry and vengeful God. All male babies to be killed, hence the need for Moses to enter a basket. The sea parting and killing all the baddies in Exodus. A merciful , forgiving God killing his own son in Jesus. Numerous passages of the Koran are bolstered by the sword too.

Yet all claim to be peaceful and revealed by a loving God?.

How is this argument sustainable?.

A priest says God is loving and forgiving yet he killed his own son....

Freiheit

Freiheit wrote: »

When all the major religions are laced with violence?. The Old Testament , common to both Judaism and Christianity is full of violent acts sanctioned by an angry and vengeful God. All male babies to be killed, hence the need for Moses to enter a basket. The sea parting and killing all the baddies in Exodus. A merciful , forgiving God killing his own son in Jesus. Numerous passages of the Koran are bolstered by the sword too.

Yet all claim to be peaceful and revealed by a loving God?.

I'm not religious, and yet even I can see you're taking things out of context. Think of religion as being a set of marketing tools over centuries. It changes slightly and in subtle ways to fit the times, and the types of people it seeks to join. So when the world was a lot more savage and superstitious, the bible (and other religions) provided a testament which appealed to that more brutal nature. After all, it was what people expected from religion at that time. Just as in later centuries, peoples in central Europe wanted a harsh and unforgiving god, and they got a church which encouraged the Inquisitions and other similar practices.

Religion changes to suit the masses. Nowadays (and the last few centuries), its been fashionable to be the all forgiving and helpful religion, but that's reflective that the Catholic Church has gained "supreme" power and can afford to be more sympathetic. So the interpretation of the Bible reflects such, with the exception of areas which can be a threat to the power base of that religion. In the M.East, most countries follow a harsher interpretation of the Koran, even though some of the richer more "free" countries have adopted a lenient interpretation of its influences.

How is this argument sustainable?.

Its sustainable because people want to believe in something. Religion just provides that focus. Just as Capitalism does for others, or as Communism did for many. Hell, personally, I figure Science is as much a religion in many respects considering the way they talk about aspects they don't understand, but still find ways of "explaining" them. All you have to do is "understand" the concepts and appreciate the probabilities of the theories involved.

A priest says God is loving and forgiving yet he killed his own son....

Technically, God didn't kill his own son. Free will which was given to Man... provided the situation where Jesus was killed by Man. If anything Jesus committed suicide, since he had the power (as the son of God) to save himself, but rather gave himself to save all of human kind. Self-sacrifice is very noble and is appreciated by most civilizations and can be explained in oh-so-many ways. Although I often wonder how the Catholic Church explained that, when suicide was considered a quick trip to hell, and couldn't be buried in sanctified ground for many decades. Still, religious organisations always find a way to say one thing, enforce it a certain way, and manage to wiggle out of little flaws like that.

Probably should have noted at the beginning how cynical I am about religions.... A belief set apart from the man-made trappings of religious political statements.. Now.... That's different.

Dades

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not religious, and yet even I can see you're taking things out of context.

That word "context" is shamelessly used (not by you, klaz!) to justify the genocidal actions of a God, based on the 'times' in which the acts were committed - and a more ridiculous argument you'll never hear.

As if the creator of life, matter, the universe and time itself would need to justify his murderous actions in bronze age Middle East within a "context". How very human of Him.

Denerick

This idea that religion is peaceful and reliant on peaceful co-existance with rival faiths is a relatively new one. The Islamic Empires didn't tolerate their Jewish and Christian minorities because they respected their right to belief, they did it because they needed their loyalty and obvious commercial benefits. Ibid with Christendom, who tolerated Jews in their ghettoes for a time simply because Kings and Princes required their financial services.

Dades, I really like your Sig.

CDfm

It is like asking how politicians can claim to be peaceful.

In Catholicism, thou shalt not kill is interpreted as thou shalt not murder and executions are permissable for the general good.

The same with war, you have a duty to protect yourself and your own for the general good. There is a difference between the state and the individual too.

I know its a hackneyed example, but, WWII against the nazi's was a just war against an evil regime as was the intervention in Rwanda.

The theology behind it is well known.

Manach

Within all major movements there are internal stresses between the essentially peaceful wings and those espousing more confrontational polices. For instance during the 19th century in Europe, working class reform movements divided into the militant communard types seeking a violent re-casting of the state to the Social Democrats who wish to evolve the state into a better system for the workers.
Likewise religions have gone through a series of internal struggles to better the best path to follow.

CDfm

CDfm wrote: »

I know its a hackneyed example, but, WWII against the nazi's was a just war against an evil regime as was the intervention in Rwanda.

IMHO it still comes down to a marketing ploy. The passing of information and the creation of certain loyalties or sympathies. For all the historic facts regarding the Nazi killing machine, the Allies performed their own acts which went directly against the strictures they applied to Germany. As did the Soviets to a harsher degree, and yet the Allied command in full knowledge distorted the information made available to the public during the war, and for decades thereafter.

The point is that religion does the same. It is a man made construction. A political machine to protect the interests of those in power. Religion or propaganda (Democratic or otherwise) is just a useful tool to control the masses.

BengaLover

The Old Testament , common to both Judaism and Christianity is full of violent acts sanctioned by an angry and vengeful God. All male babies to be killed, hence the need for Moses to enter a basket. The sea parting and killing all the baddies in Exodus. A merciful , forgiving God killing his own son in Jesus.

At the time the Bible books were written, it was common for tribes and nations to war with one another, and various forms of genocide took place, there was child sacrificing and mass murder commited by Baal worshippers, but it should be noted God never approved of this behaviour, and warned against it many times. Great thing about free will is, that some people chose to carry on anyway, so you can't blame God if the outcome for them was less than happy.
The reference to male babies being killed was not something God ordered or did, it was a king that did so.
When the sea parted the Egyptians who had recieved MANY MANY warnings were killed, their own fault really!
God did not kill Jesus, man did. Rather, Jesus offered up his own life out of love for humankind and his father.
(Its ok, he's in heaven now though)

Modern religions ARE laced with violence today, consider the act of blessing a bomb, or blessing troops going to war, there are too many to mention.
Doesnt mean God condones or approves though!

Denerick

BengaLover wrote: »

At the time the Bible books were written, it was common for tribes and nations to war with one another, and various forms of genocide took place, there was child sacrificing and mass murder commited by Baal worshippers, but it should be noted God never approved of this behaviour, and warned against it many times. Great thing about free will is, that some people chose to carry on anyway, so you can't blame God if the outcome for them was less than happy.
The reference to male babies being killed was not something God ordered or did, it was a king that did so.
When the sea parted the Egyptians who had recieved MANY MANY warnings were killed, their own fault really!
God did not kill Jesus, man did. Rather, Jesus offered up his own life out of love for humankind and his father.
(Its ok, he's in heaven now though)

Modern religions ARE laced with violence today, consider the act of blessing a bomb, or blessing troops going to war, there are too many to mention.
Doesnt mean God condones or approves though!

Tosh. God committed Genocide against the Egyptian first born and regularly endorsed the murder of those who would mislead the righteous. He also endorsed the stoning of homosexuals among other happy things. Nothing is to be served by wrapping the old testament up in rose tinted lenses. If you're a believer it makes you a heretic, if you're not then your making excuses for other people. I'm not part of this 'religion is the root of all evil' crap, but a little honesty please.

CDfm

Deleted User wrote: »

IMHO it still comes down to a marketing ploy. The passing of information and the creation of certain loyalties or sympathies. For all the historic facts regarding the Nazi killing machine, the Allies performed their own acts which went directly against the strictures they applied to Germany..

I think the shock of the Germans and Nazi's is that so many ordinary people were involved and ethically their behavior after 1933 onwards was wrong and complicit.

These werent acts of war these were before the war.

CDfm

CDfm wrote: »

I think the shock of the Germans and Nazi's is that so many ordinary people were involved and ethically their behavior after 1933 onwards was wrong and complicit.

As were many countries who expelled the Jews and other ethnic backgrounds during that same period, many of whom become members of the allied war efforts. The true shock is if people will actually do the research and realise how little the world cared about what the Germans were doing, and in some cases approved of such actions. Hell, many of those occupied countries jumped at the chance to join in on the destruction of the Jewish (and other ethnic) groupings. It was only when war was declared that the political dialogue changed.

These werent acts of war these were before the war.

So after the surrender of the German forces in Europe, when thousands of German pow's starved to death due to Allied inaction, that was different? Or the fire bombing of Dresden which hit civilian area's? Its interesting when the British talk about the Blitz, but fail to realise their own bombing campaigns killed far more innocents and often in a more horrible manner.

Its about playing on people's sympathies. Hitler played on the world's sympathies which gave him the time to rebuild the German armed forces, and to instigate his awful plan. Its not as if he really hid what he was doing. The world just didn't care. Nor did the allies especially if you consider the depth of their intelligence operations which "failed" to identify the death camps.

Politicians play the world just the same as popes do. Its just a different name to the same "game".

DS333

Freiheit wrote: »

When all the major religions are laced with violence?. The Old Testament , common to both Judaism and Christianity is full of violent acts sanctioned by an angry and vengeful God. All male babies to be killed, hence the need for Moses to enter a basket. The sea parting and killing all the baddies in Exodus. A merciful , forgiving God killing his own son in Jesus. Numerous passages of the Koran are bolstered by the sword too.

Yet all claim to be peaceful and revealed by a loving God?.

How is this argument sustainable?.

A priest says God is loving and forgiving yet he killed his own son....

Most of the time it's people creating God in their own image and likeness and placing their words in that God's mouth. It provides them with what they believe to be an irrefutable argument in their favour. God might well be spreading his arms in despair and saying, 'It has nothing got to do with me.'

Freiheit

Was reading the Koran yesterday and to be honest felt mentally ill afterwards. So much reference to war, violence against non-believers, misogny,blood,torment etc. I could quote it but I'd fear reprisal. It's beyond my intellect how this book, which make's no sense at all, holds such sway 1400 years after revelation.

You know it's sad how we feel it's ok to criticise Christianity but there's a fear around knocking Islam.

DS333

Freiheit wrote: »

Was reading the Koran yesterday and to be honest felt mentally ill afterwards. So much reference to war, violence against non-believers, misogny,blood,torment etc. I could quote it but I'd fear reprisal. It's beyond my intellect how this book, which make's no sense at all, holds such sway 1400 years after revelation.

You know it's sad how we feel it's ok to criticise Christianity but there's a fear around knocking Islam.

Christianity won't chop your head off.:D

nozzferrahhtoo

Freiheit wrote: »

You know it's sad how we feel it's ok to criticise Christianity but there's a fear around knocking Islam.

I have absolutely no such fear. I am equally willing to knock both.

Maybe your impression comes from the fact Islam is relatively small in our country. The reason it _seems_ we are knocking Christianity and not Islam is merely because Christianity is by far the dominant religion here and so we meet it more often.

I am quite happy to point out the failings in Islam. I am happy to point out that they subscribe to the commandments that say not to worship anyone but god yet they apparently worship a man called Mohammad. I am happy to point out that that mad was a practising pedophile who suffered from Cynophobia. I am happy to point out that they worship him so much that some people extrapolate from that Cynophobia into mad ideas like getting their blind daughter a seeing eye dog instead of a seeing eye horse. I am happy to point out that a book is only a book and that the reaction muslims have to damage to that book is no better than a kid having a tantrum when the head falls off their doll.

I am happy to point out that the concept of hell is one of the most perfect mind games in the attempt to inspire violence in those who follow your religion.

All of this is irrelevant to me however as I attack religion at its base in a way that means I attack equally Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any religion you wish to name: Which is to simply point out that the core tenet of them all, that there exists a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe is entirely baseless and has not god a single piece of argument, evidence, data or reasons going for it.

Manach

I believe the section for blanket condemnations of all things religious is in the A&A forum?

Eramen

Freiheit wrote: »

When all the major religions are laced with violence?. The Old Testament , common to both Judaism and Christianity is full of violent acts sanctioned by an angry and vengeful God. All male babies to be killed, hence the need for Moses to enter a basket. The sea parting and killing all the baddies in Exodus. A merciful , forgiving God killing his own son in Jesus. Numerous passages of the Koran are bolstered by the sword too.

Yet all claim to be peaceful and revealed by a loving God?.

How is this argument sustainable?.

A priest says God is loving and forgiving yet he killed his own son....

I agree with klax on the OP taking things out of context, but my views differ greatly. Where he has expounded of religion solely in social-anthropological terms I think religion must be thought of in its proper context, as an understanding of the universal, the underlying laws of the universe and pre-/nature. That being said I've seen numerous arguments such as the above trying to deflect the truth on the actual state of the nature of man in general and of his relation to a higher power; that is to say mankind's collective and individual vices and virtues, his passions, necessary requirements (bodily, social, spiritual and otherwise), his wants and desires and so on.

Religion is a product of the intellect, of the surging of thought into the metaphysical realm that can only be described through analogy, fable and aphorism in order to quest out the supra-reality which men the world over have held to be of vital importance. In the words of Sir Richard Payne Knight, in understanding the universal through religion:

"The ancient theologists knew that we could form no positive idea of infinity, whether of power, space, or time; it being fleeting and fugitive, and eluding the understanding by a continued and boundless progression. The only notion we have of it is from the addition or division of finite things, which suggest the idea of infinite, only from a power we feel in ourselves of still multiplying and dividing without end."


Religion is simply the 'action' side of metaphysic and spirituality, which in turn are found in the philosophic or wisdom quarter of life; and this which was held as the highest form of thought man could be capable of by the ancient Greeks & Chinese. It is the action one takes in accordance with the universal principles, which produces faith, justice, friendship, truth - the very concepts we fathom or picture of the universals' themselves (in reality one can never even picture or conceive of the infinite/universal; think about it..). This is all that religion consists of, it is the interpretation of unifying principles where movements such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc are counted as religious Traditions, all necessary for the social aspects of religion (the congregation or church, the 'earthly body' of an absolute value in 'practical form') and for the well-being of society itself. In this way, appeals to 'civic/social moralism' and the 'human of humanism', which is so common in modern society and indicative of a complete absence of ethics, are rendered null due to the recognition of the absolute value present in every single thing, which can be applied to all. Once one can achieve and aspires to the latter, he is said to be religious, or that he follows religion.

Now that we know what religion is, we should not mix things up as you have in your argument. Violence, conflict etc are a result of free will and nothing else. Violence is neither 'good or bad', but the ends of this motion are good or bad. The world has always been violent, and in modern times, is even more violent when we consider all aspects of the term. This in a time when secularism and humanism are preferred by so many in the West at least. Conflict is a fact of life, and is represented in religious texts as such; but it is mentioned with specific intent with a keen desire to propel the adherent 'upward' so to speak, unlike say a present-day Hollywood film, where violence is summoned for the sake of itself.

It was necessary the Pharaoh was destroyed by the sea, was is not? Should violent conflict always be frowned upon? Couldn't one say the Pharoahs army needed to be destroyed as the Nazis of modern history where destroyed? As Eastern communism was opposed etc?

We have to look at the motive being acted upon to determine whether it is religious or not, just because someone says they 'do blank for god' means nothing and could be the furthest thing away from religion imaginable. Religion: right action, free action devoid of self-motives yet with precise intent via the 'losing' of the self or the individual in the movement of action while being unmoved by its results; it is simply doing what needs to be done, regardless of the consequences of pain or pleasure, profit or loss. Only then can we consider to have acted in complete freedom, without being subject to vice or strictly self-intentions. Of course, I am not arguing for violence with this, but I would point out that modern attitudes of striving for 'permanent peace' as the most noble goal is childlike, as knowledge of free-will teaches us otherwise. Violence is sometimes necessary when we act with unity in mind, and not with divisiveness, ill-intention and over-passionately; and lastly the human sphere of emotion would not be complete without a means for violence in the first place.

Man has always misused violence, along with deceiving people about what 'religion' actually is, and has misused violence in the name of a said religious tradition. God has not failed (in whatever way you interpret that universal God/principle/cause), God is unable to be violent as he is an absolute value, he has no material or discerning representation on this earth whatever; it is a select few men have failed us!


"Above all the grace and the gifts that Christ gives to his beloved is that of overcoming self." - St. Francis of Assisi

"The only representative of God on earth is the soul." - Meister Eckhart

nozzferrahhtoo

A wonderfully written and articulate post above and a great start for someone with only 3 posts to their name. Someone willing to discuss rather than preach. I look forward to more. Keep it coming!

It is a little easy however to exonerate religion from blame of violence however by claiming it is being misused or misinterpreted, or by indicating that we can not always be sure that if someone claims they have done their misdeed “for god” that we can not always be sure they really mean it.

You are so right that looking at the individual actions of someone religious clearly does not help however. “Person X is religious and person X did violence therefore religion is bad” is a horrifically bad argument to make.

It also does not help that we have one term “religion” for all the ways of thinking out there that we can fit into the category. It really is a word like “sport” which encapsulates a vast variety of endeavours. Snooker and Boxing are both “sport” but they have nothing in common save for using your hands.

Instead one has to look at what each religion teaches and see if one can find a causal link between those teachings and violence. In such a search one finds many causal links. Too many to mention but I will give two examples to give the idea.

One example is the fact that most of the religions are based on entirely unsubstantiated claims. There simply is no evidence, argument, data or reasons forthcoming to suggest that the claim there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe is one that deserves even a modicum of credence. In maths and science and politics for example when there is disagreement the disagreement is solved (ideally) by discourse. People do not just declare their beliefs, but can discuss their reasons and evidences for them.

Given the claims of religion appear entirely invented however, discourse is impossible. People can not discuss their reasons for their own interpretation of religion. They simply believe it because they believe it and they call this “Faith”. Yet it has been said where words do not cross borders armies do. If discourse can not resolve differences only violence can, even if the religions contain, and MOST of the adherents follow, teachings of peace and non-violence. There simply is no forum of discourse available to reconcile the different claims of the 33,000+ recognised and registered branches of Christianity which contain diverse sometimes mutually exclusive claims, let alone the differences between Islam and Christianity.

Another example is that the concepts held by many religions naturally breed violence. Imagine, if you would, the reaction to the average Joe Soap upon walking into a room to find a man torturing or raping his daughter. Normally his response is physical and the retribution he visits upon the criminal is not usually proportional to the requirements of stopping that individuals actions, but rather are proportional to the desire to let that person know exactly how poorly the actions are viewed… if not preventing him physically from being capable of every performing them again.

Yet a good torturing or an afternoon of relatively pleasant rape would be viewed as a welcome and pleasurable holiday from the kinds of hell some of the religions we have preach the existence of. If a brief rape or torture, which less face it can be over in minutes, can illicit such violent response then imagine the reaction of a loving father to the actions or even the mere words of the “heathen” who in their beliefs is putting the very souls of loved ones at a risk that is not just infinitely more unpleasant than rape, but is also eternal.

Stories recently come to us from the US only in recent months of parents who watch their children die of easily treatable forms of diabetes because their religion teaches them that certain forms of medical intervention put their children at risk of eternal damnation. In other words religion is capable of taking the purest love we as a species know and cause people with their hearts in the right place to perform the most egregious of actions.

These, among other examples and ideas, lead me to believe that religion inherently must lead to not just violence but other crimes, and the most tragic part of those crimes is the knowledge that the hearts of those who perform them are likely pure and in the right place. The actions of some people, like the parents I mention above, may seem “insane” or “evil” or “criminal” but they are in fact perfectly justifiable actions given what the people performing them believe.

Beliefs held on insufficient evidence are dangerous toys to be played with and religion (and faith) by definition ARE beliefs held on little, or more often no, evidence and if I can affix a verbal warning label, equivalent to an actual physical warning label such as we place on many products, to such ideas wherever I go then I will be moved to do so.