Pull the lever

[tekkengod]

I hear this argument more often than not, that many religions, Islam in particular, have been "Hijacked" To say that people are motivated by their political ideas first, and then find a religious rationale to fit their agenda.
And i'll even grant the religious that. it happens all the time. there are numerous examples of religion being "exploited" for political, military, even cynical means. But we should not draw the wrong lesson from that. As Sam Harris once said. "A lever only works if its attaced to something"
someone, after all, must believe in god, for talk of god to be politically efficacious and, personally, i thinks its more or less self evident that when large numbers of people turn themselves into bombs, the rationale behind those actions has ceased to be "political" if you don't believe some rather incredible things about the universe, namely life after death, you're not very likely to wake up sunday and consider Grenades and nails a suitable work attire. point in question. do you, or do you not believe that the ability for a religion to effectively be used as a scapegoat depends on the rationality of its followers?

[Shrukin89]

I heard something like that. I'm guessing it was for honor, and for the afterlife that they'll have their granted rewards given to them by killing themselves.

Say that I had cancer if I was a muslim and that I was about to die anyway. I would honor my nation, and by believing in the good afterlife that I would be able to receive and good fortune to the people.

Instead of going in shame, some people just want to retailate to regain power and honor. More or so like Germany in WW1 and WW2. I dunno I think it's a similarity, only that Hitler wanted to conquer and make him famous and felt like he wanted to see some action, very close to reaching his goal. Only that his strategies weren't perfect or went as to planned.

If Osama, had the right technology, just as advanced as the U.S but not as much hardware.

His goal i'm guessing would to be the most recognised terrorist in the world for his people, and to respect him for that and his country. "To take on maybe some vengence?"

And hey probably blessed to have a excellent afterlife.

[wrydolphin]

As opposed to all the people who do it for nationalism, statehood, angst and pure spite?

You are looking at a phenomenon that transends religion, however, you do want to look at that part do you? Or are you honest enough to admit that you just want to ignore that part and confirm your pre-existing beliefs?

[Thelistmaker]

This is a series of lectures on exactly this topic

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2004/

[Yama Tombo]

Yes, people do use religion to fit their agendas. Too many people have come and gone claiming to do God's work. Hell, religious issue come be used as a distraction from other events.

[Thelistmaker]

Too often it’s about people wanting control over other people and using religion as a means to do it and in the process convincing themselves of their own righteousness.

What could be more attractive to the ego maniac than thinking your petty dictates are vindicated by a higher power.

Never underestimate people who lust for power over their fellow mortals.

Belonging to a particular religion is also a nice reason to believe you are superior to other people aswell as the good old identity to cling to.

Also I cant' recomend enough the lecture in my earlier post, their exceedingly good :love: , especily lecture 5 'I am right, you are dead'

[Yohan]

do you, or do you not believe that the ability for a religion to effectively be used as a scapegoat depends on the rationality of its followers?

Yes, of course it does.

I think it's rather self evident.

[Taiji Butterfly]

This thread is about fascism not religion really imho :mad:
Religion is just a mask to cloak that fascism, as is the 'quest for democracy and freedom' (lol) - almost a religion these days in some quarters... :D
Killing of other human beings is not permitted in any legitimate religion as far as I know, and certainly not the indiscriminate killing that suicide bombers go in for (or the people doing the 'war on terror' for that matter - same same imo) :bang:
Therefore no legitimate religion or religious agenda can possibly justify the killing we currently see in the world - only extremist discrimination ie fascism
Human beings are doing all this, not god(s) - damn them all :yeleyes:

[tekkengod]

Killing of other human beings is not permitted in any legitimate religion as far as I know, and certainly not the indiscriminate killing that suicide bombers go in for (or the people doing the 'war on terror' for that matter - same same imo) :bang:
Therefore no legitimate religion or religious agenda can possibly justify the killing we currently see in the world

You are mistaken my friend, the Koran and the Bible both very clearly allow killing of non-believers.

[Yama Tombo]

You are mistaken my friend, the Koran and the Bible both very clearly allow killing of non-believers.

The bible never urges it's followers to go on a rampage and kill non-believers; it says that God, himself, will strike down his enemies. In the Old Testament, those that were put to death were those that broken laws of that time.

I don't know about the Koran, so I won't speak about the Koran.

[tekkengod]

I don't know about the Koran, so I won't speak about the Koran. The bible never urges it's followers to kill non-believers; it says that God, himself, will strike down his enemies. Instead In the Old Testament, those that were put to death were those that broken laws.

wrong, it is directly said "If there are any who would not have me reign over them, bring them before me and slay them before me"

[Yama Tombo]

wrong, it is directly said "If there are any who would not have me reign over them, bring them before me and slay them before me"

Tell me the passage.

[tekkengod]

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not say that i should reign over them, bring hiter, and slay them before me" - Jesus.

a direct instruction from jesus to kill those who wouldn't submit to his rule.

and a related note, somehow i don't think the phrases "loving father" and "reign over them" can ever have much relation let alone meaning.

[Yama Tombo]

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not say that i should reign over them, bring hiter, and slay them before me" - Jesus.

a direct instruction from jesus to kill those who wouldn't submit to his rule.

and a related note, somehow i don't think the phrases "loving father" and "reign over them" can ever have much relation let alone meaning.

The "Minas" parable illustrates disciples being productive in preaching. In that parable, Jesus was not instructing his people to kill his enemies for him.

That last line was relating back to an actually king that had slaughter his enemies, you know? Like a movie based on true events. Even, if it were the meaning, then Jesus's followers would have uprised at the arrest of Jesus? Also, the disciples would not have continued to preach in such a peaceful fashion as they did.

[tekkengod]

The "Minas" parable illustrates disciples being productive in preaching. In that parable, Jesus was not instructing his people to kill his enemies for him.

That last line was relating back to an actually king that had slaughter his enemies, you know? Like a movie based on true events. Even, if it were the meaning, then Jesus's followers would have uprised at the arrest of Jesus? Also, the disciples would not have continued to preach in such a peaceful fashion as they did.

ok, i see, a movie base on true events, nice analogy. but can you prove that to me? otherwise its just another person telling me that my evidence is part of another peaceful riddle.

[Yama Tombo]

ok, i see, a movie base on true events, nice analogy. but can you prove that to me? otherwise its just another person telling me that my evidence is part of another peaceful riddle.

Ok? The King in Jesus's parable is Herod Archelaus. Another thing, if Jesus was telling his disciples to actually kill non-believers, why would they continue to preach peacefully?

[tekkengod]

Ok? The King in Jesus's parable is Herod Archelaus. Another thing, if Jesus was telling his disciples to actually kill non-believers, why would they continue to preach peacefully?


Because society demanded it.
just like now a days, religious views on gays have changed, because society demanded it,

[Yama Tombo]

Because society demanded it.
just like now a days, religious views on gays have changed, because society demanded it,

Jesus never urged anyone to kill non-believers; he--himself--never hurt anyone. He taught his disciples to treat others as they want to be treated.

[tekkengod]

but his "dad" espoused it quite often. so either the bible i'm reading is wrong, or your wrong. ?

[Capt Ann]

As Sam Harris once said. "A lever only works if its attaced to something" Personally,I think it's more like, "A counterfeit only works if it imitates something."

I've never heard of any criminal trying to counterfeit three-dollar bills, or art forgers trying to mimic a classroom of kindergarten fingerpainters. Forgeries and counterfeits only exist because -
1. the 'real thing' exists, AND
2. the 'real thing' is very valuable.

When I see the shams and frauds in religious circles, I grieve that God is being so misrepresented. At the same time, I am reminded that the shams and frauds only exist because what is 'real' about God is there for us to know and find, and because knowing Him is so valuable that it's worth the search.

[Socrastein]

Capt Ann

Keeping in line with your analogy, counterfits of money counterfit something that is "real" and "valuable", but those things are only "real" and "valuable" because humans made them up and subjectively give them value. The shams and frauds in religious circles don't indicate that God physically/metaphysically exists in any way - they could simply be counterfits of a made up, subjectively valuable belief system.

[Zamfoo]

The idea of a religion being hijacked is something that should be greatly looked into. Christianity was hijacked by the Romans as a pacifier, Islam has been hijacked by power hungry war lords. Christianity's oppression of minorities stopped for the most part, because the society had much more freedom than current Islamic society today. Nowhere in the Koran does Allah urge people to kill outright, especially innocents. The rules set out for wars repeated many times that you must stop if the aggressors stop and that every action should be in self defense.

Obviously, as Muhammad was being attacked by large armies, you are going to have passages about slashing and beheading the polytheists. Bottom line, they started it. People take this lines with a political view in mind, demonize a group (oh, how about the Jews) and insite their followers to "kill the polytheists as Allah has commanded." When no one can stand up to question this (they are heretics and are not tolerated) it becomes ingrained in the society. There is nothing (to my knowledge) about matyrdom in the Koran. It's become a part of the society however. Just like the hijab (covering of women), it's not in the Koran, but show me an Islamic country that doesn't follow it. (I know someone will point to the hadith, but a version of the lord's prayer was once reported to be said by the prophet, it's not reliable.)

To pick on the Christians again, who seriously could sit and think that money would get them out of punishment for sin when Jesus lived like a beggar? In a society where there was some freedom, this was questioned and stopped. And right about then, Protestantism got hijacked as a way to free countries from Holy Roman rule.

Religion is powerful and power corrupts, so it should be assumed this power has been abused. That doesn't mean it's false, that means it has been altered and is not as true as it was.

[blessed_samurai]

Because society demanded it.
just like now a days, religious views on gays have changed, because society demanded it,

Religious views have not changed in regards to homosexuality. Some people have chosen to ignore certain aspects of Christianity to make it more PR.

[Capt Ann]

The shams and frauds in religious circles ...... could simply be counterfits of a made up, subjectively valuable belief system.A legitimate critique of the analogy and a valid point. (Score 1 Socrastein ;) ) However, the original still must have value, whether subjectively or objectively.

[Capt Ann]

To pick on the Christians again, who seriously could sit and think that money would get them out of punishment for sin when Jesus lived like a beggar? In a society where there was some freedom, this was questioned and stopped. And right about then, Protestantism got hijacked as a way to free countries from Holy Roman rule.You have your history backwards. The Christians didn't believe that money could free them from sins - this was taught by a corrupt and politicized group within the largest established church. The Christians were the ones who stood against the idea, and witnessed the Reformation and the Counter Reformation (Wittenburg? 95 theses?). The society didn't have freedom that allowed a reformation - everywhere Christianity entered and spread, the ideas of personal accountability, individual liberty, worth of the individual, inalienable rights, and the limits of human authority and monarchs also spread. Thus Christianity became the wellspring for personal and political liberty in Europe.

[Zamfoo]

People did believe the corrupt policy but others did stand up. I disagree with your subjective definition. The Christians are those who follow Christianity on the basest level. At the time, this meant the vast majority of Europe. I agree with you that the policy was corrupt and basically a cash cow. It seems you would call Pope John Paul II a Christian but not Pius XII. A "good" Christian is a completely different thing.

I say Protestantism got hijacked because it only happened once Luther stood up. If these nations were so concerned, why didn't they take the first action?

[WatchfulAbyss]

From another thread=

Are you really going to allow these people to use religion as a scape gote for their actions?

I mean sure, if there had never been religion then religious wars wouldn't exist, I will grant that. But it's people pulling the lever, it's ignorance that follows the greedy. Someone has to point the finger at a cause to fight. Someone has two follow. There are wars over land, money, and a variety of other things. What do we do about that?

The options are censor all things that could be influencial to the week minded and all things that the greedy and violent could use as cause to rally support for their agendas. Or, we educate people so they are less likley to follow obviously flawed ideas. One idea is just merely excepting ignorance as ok. It's telling someone, "your stupid, now give me the toy and stand in the corner."


To add to this.....

By saying that religion is at fault and not people, you are in a way granting them the luxury of saying they are nothing more than victims. It's their fault, they need to change, they are guilty of their own actions.

[WatchfulAbyss]

ok, i see, a movie base on true events, nice analogy. but can you prove that to me? otherwise its just another person telling me that my evidence is part of another peaceful riddle.


Read 19 from the start through :27 he is telling a story. (I bolded the words of Jesus)


19
He came to Jericho and intended to pass the town.
2
Now a man there named Zacchaeus, who was a chief tax collector and also a wealthy man,
3
was seeking to see who Jesus was; but he could not see him because of the crowd, for he was short in stature.
4
So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree in order to see Jesus, who was about to pass that way.
5
When he reached the place, Jesus looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house."
6
And he came down quickly and received him with joy.
7
When they all saw this, they began to grumble, saying, "He has gone to stay at the house of a sinner."
8
But Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, "Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I shall give to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone I shall repay it four times over."
9
2 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham.
10
3 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost."
11
4 While they were listening to him speak, he proceeded to tell a parable because he was near Jerusalem and they thought that the kingdom of God would appear there immediately.
12
So he said, "A nobleman went off to a distant country to obtain the kingship for himself and then to return.
13
He called ten of his servants and gave them ten gold coins 5 and told them, 'Engage in trade with these until I return.'
14
His fellow citizens, however, despised him and sent a delegation after him to announce, 'We do not want this man to be our king.'
15
But when he returned after obtaining the kingship, he had the servants called, to whom he had given the money, to learn what they had gained by trading.
16
The first came forward and said, 'Sir, your gold coin has earned ten additional ones.'
17
He replied, 'Well done, good servant! You have been faithful in this very small matter; take charge of ten cities.'
18
Then the second came and reported, 'Your gold coin, sir, has earned five more.'
19
And to this servant too he said, 'You, take charge of five cities.'
20
Then the other servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your gold coin; I kept it stored away in a handkerchief,
21
for I was afraid of you, because you are a demanding person; you take up what you did not lay down and you harvest what you did not plant.'
22
He said to him, 'With your own words I shall condemn you, you wicked servant. You knew I was a demanding person, taking up what I did not lay down and harvesting what I did not plant;
23
why did you not put my money in a bank? Then on my return I would have collected it with interest.'
24
And to those standing by he said, 'Take the gold coin from him and give it to the servant who has ten.'
25
But they said to him, 'Sir, he has ten gold coins.'
26
'I tell you, to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
27
Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.'"

[Topher]

There seems to be three separate factors in terrorism: the METHOD, the MOTIVE (or ideology), and the CAUSE (or “trigger”).

Let's look at each...

- The METHOD, which is the means in which they hold to their ideology, is usually dogmatic, irrationality, faith held beliefs, and perhaps superstition. An unwillingness to admit you’re wrong, or engage in rational discourse et cetera

- The MOTIVE (or ideology) can be many things, such as politics (e.g. Red Army Faction, IRA), religious (e.g. Islamic extremism), ethnic (e.g. hate crimes), or social (e.g. single-issue such as anti-abortion).

- The CAUSE (or “trigger”) is what activates people's need to act, and this can be criticism, disagreement or offence (e.g Dutch Mohammed cartoons or Theo Van Gogh murder), nationalism, social, or as in many cases, political.

The MOTIVE is where the problem lies, not the CAUSE.

There will always be issues that cause people to react as per their motive/ideology (unless of course their ideology was adopted or concede to). Simply amending the current situation/issue is merely a temporary solution; it is really papering over/ignoring the real problem which remains. If, for example, we tried to change our foreign policy to minimize the conflict with certain brands of Islam, something else will simply take over and cause a reaction. Or, if a terrorist organisation is fighting for animal liberation, unless we liberated animals, there will always be a problem, and by extension it means there will always be issues which will cause the organisation to react to. Resolving one issue will simply not solve the fundamental problem. It will still be there ready to react to another issue.

Because of the dogmatic method and approach taken in both cases, rational discourse is not an option. You can’t compromise. If we don’t accept their demands, we are regarded as the enemy, and as the enemy we are liable to inadvertently trigger further reaction.

[tekkengod]

There seems to be three separate factors in terrorism: the METHOD, the MOTIVE (or ideology), and the CAUSE (or “trigger”).

Let's look at each...

- The METHOD, which is the means in which they hold to their ideology, is usually dogmatic, irrationality, faith held beliefs, and perhaps superstition. An unwillingness to admit you’re wrong, or engage in rational discourse et cetera

- The MOTIVE (or ideology) can be many things, such as politics (e.g. Red Army Faction, IRA), religious (e.g. Islamic extremism), ethnic (e.g. hate crimes), or social (e.g. single-issue such as anti-abortion).

- The CAUSE (or “trigger”) is what activates people's need to act, and this can be criticism, disagreement or offence (e.g Dutch Mohammed cartoons or Theo Van Gogh murder), nationalism, social, or as in many cases, political.

The MOTIVE is where the problem lies, not the CAUSE.

There will always be issues that cause people to react as per their motive/ideology (unless of course their ideology was adopted or concede to). Simply amending the current situation/issue is merely a temporary solution; it is really papering over/ignoring the real problem which remains. If, for example, we tried to change our foreign policy to minimize the conflict with certain brands of Islam, something else will simply take over and cause a reaction. Or, if a terrorist organisation is fighting for animal liberation, unless we liberated animals, there will always be a problem, and by extension it means there will always be issues which will cause the organisation to react to. Resolving one issue will simply not solve the fundamental problem. It will still be there ready to react to another issue.

Because of the dogmatic method and approach taken in both cases, rational discourse is not an option. You can’t compromise. If we don’t accept their demands, we are regarded as the enemy, and as the enemy we are liable to inadvertently trigger further reaction.
couldn't have said it better myself.

[WatchfulAbyss]

And what is motive without some fool buying into the obviously flawed idea in the first place?

Dangerous ideology by itself is worthless. It takes a person of a pretty questionable nature to carry out these actions. People take it to far, not the other way around. Religion by its self is nothing, it takes an extremist to cause a problem.

I mean, do we censor all things that can be used as a motive?

Race, politics, freedom of speech, religion, thought, land, money....Etc..

( We could just cut everyones hands and feet off, and call it a day.)

I geuss I keep telling my self that there has to be middle ground somewhere. Maybe the only way is to kill off all religious followers. I just assume that since the christians aren't burning witches at the stake anymore, that there could be another way with islam.


But anyway, motive is the problem, not people, right?

- The MOTIVE (or ideology) can be many things, such as politics (e.g. Red Army Faction, IRA), religious (e.g. Islamic extremism), ethnic (e.g. hate crimes), or social (e.g. single-issue such as anti-abortion).


May I ask where these forms of motive come from? Because that would infact be the root of the problem. I was of the opinion that it was people who came up with, and twisted this stuff to their own agendas. I honestly wasn't aware these things existed independent of people.

I geuss if people want to blame religion for the worlds problems that's their choice, but, it takes a person to set these things in motion. I thought working on the source would be the best way to go. I also thought that if less people were so easily guided into this stuff, it would be a big step in working on these problems.

[Topher]

I mean, do we censor all things that can be used as a motive?
Of course not. But we must encourage critical thinking and rationality, and not give dogmatic and faith-like thinking an intellectual pass from rational and critical discourse, regardless of the issue, be it religion, politics, race and so on. In the case of religion, because we have done precisely this for hundreds of years, many people have not been exposed to criticism nor have they been obliged to be self-critical of their own ideas, beliefs and opinions, this is foreign to a lot of people, and thus when faced with it they react in a manner which is entirely out of proportion to the original issue, such as Theo Van Gogh’s murder, or the Mohammed cartoons. Part of this is caused by the dogmatic practice which has been allowed to foster for centuries (e.g. the more convinced you are, the most virtuous you are seen…) along with the sheer confidence that they are absolutely right and by extension, everyone else is absolutely wrong. Ergo, it’s impossible to compromise or have rational and critical discourse with people who do not themselves adhere to such methods. There conviction blocks this. Such thinking can be applied to any motive, but especially problematic in religion, since in religion, it’s allowed and never questioned.

I just assume that since the christians aren't burning witches at the stake anymore, that there could be another way with islam.
The problem is while you can bend Christianity to justify a lot of goals, it’s not often easy. It’s not that hard to do in regards to Islam however, since the notions of jihad and martyrdom, the idea that if infidels do not convert, they should be subjugated or killed and the us (good/holy) vs them (evil) mentality are prevalent in the doctrine. Moderates ‘solve’ this by diluting or simply expelling these notions from the moderate doctrine. People, especially moderates, tend to deny that a certain view of Islamic doctrine causes the behaviour that it does. They argue that radical Islam is a hijacking of the more ‘real moderate Islam’. They can’t bring themselves to accept this worldview/ideology is easily obtainable from such a prevalent religions doctrine. Since they themselves can’t or refuse to ‘see’ this interpretation, they say it can’t come from there.

But anyway, motive is the problem, not people, right?
People need a motive to act, and how they act demands on which motives and ideology they subscribe to.

Looking at their motive/ideology may give you an indication at possible actions that may occur.

For example, if you look at the more moderate brand of Islam you don’t expect to get suicide terrorism, or indeed any terrorism, since, as I said above, the notions and ideologies that can bring about these results have been diluted or simply expelled from the moderate doctrine.

Look at Christianity and you also do not expect to see such actions.

You examine radical Islam however and you see an ideology/system that easily and specifically supports the means to suicidal ends.

If the CAUSE (politics…or disagreement/criticism etc), for example, were the problem, why do political conflicts not always result in the same ends? It’s because the MOTIVE changes, and thus so does the results.

Let’s examine this;

If politics was the specific reason people under oppression in the Middle East act as they do you would see people act in barbaric ways regardless of their brand of Islam. Yet we don’t see this. Those of a more moderate brand of Islam don’t blow themselves up, despite living under the same socio-political conditions and caught up in the same war as those who do blow themselves up! These people follow a different brand of Islam and thus we get different results.

This is practically a Science experiment. Take a country which was under oppression and now in war, give the people the same socio-political conditions, but give them slightly different brands of their religion, and see what happens.

If the problem lied with politics you would see people acting in a barbaric way regardless of their brand of Islam. But this is not what you see. What you see is that those who have a radical brand of Islam are the ones who are acting barbarically.

Not everyone who has a strong political disagreement and/or utter conviction in an ideology blows themselves up or forms a death cult. Something else is needed, which in the case of radical Islam is the dogmatic conviction in a specific understanding of Islamic doctrine. People can and often do have just as much of a strong political disagreement and strong conviction in what they believe as the radical Muslims do, but these people lack belief in the ideology that radical Muslims have, thus you don’t see the same actions.

For instance look at the radical 9/11 conspiracy theorists (Alex Jones etc). They have political differences and a sheer conviction in their ideology that is easily on par with the radical Muslims, and yet, they don’t blow themselves up. This is because they have different motives/ideologies.

Also look at the Tibetan Buddhists. They have been under Chinese oppression for decades, they have been tortured and placed in extremely poor conditions, yet we don’t see them acting as we see radical Muslims do. Again, this is because they do not share the same ideology.

May I ask where these forms of motive come from? Because that would infact be the root of the problem. I was of the opinion that it was people who came up with, and twisted this stuff to their own agendas.
I don’t think there is one single source or factor. In most cases indoctrination, dogmatic thinking, an us vs. them mentality, lack of self-critical analysis et cetera, can cause issues.

Read this article from the Terrorism Research Centre:

http://www.terrorism.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5671&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

See these two points from the article:

“Terrorism may be motivated by political, religious, or ideological objectives. In a sense, terrorist goals are always political, as extremists driven by religious or ideological beliefs usually seek political power to compel society to conform to their views.”

”Religion may be the most volatile of cultural identifiers because it encompasses values deeply held. A threat to one's religion puts not only the present at risk but also one's cultural past and the future. Many religions, including Christianity and Islam, are so confident they are right that they have used force to obtain converts. Terrorism in the name of religion can be especially violent. Like all terrorists, those who are religiously motivated view their acts with moral certainty and even divine sanctions. What would otherwise be extraordinary acts of desperation become a religious duty in the mind of the religiously motivated terrorist. This helps explain the high level of commitment and willingness to risk death among religious extremist groups.”

I honestly wasn't aware these things existed independent of people.
I never said they did exist independent of people. I don’t know where you got that idea from.

I geuss if people want to blame religion for the worlds problems that's their choice
Please don’t stawman what I have said. I never once said religion was the blame of the world problems. In fact I specifically acknowledged multiple factors. I do however think religion can be and often is one of these factors.

I thought working on the source would be the best way to go. I also thought that if less people were so easily guided into this stuff, it would be a big step in working on these problems.
I agree, and this is precisely my point. You can change the cause (for instance, politics… foreign policy) all you want, but as long as people still adhere to a motive/ideology, there will always be potential problems. Temporarily solving a 'cause' for action is not solving the 'problem' itself, which will remain unless there ideology is adopted.

If we don’t accept their demands, we are regarded as the enemy, and as the enemy we are liable to inadvertently trigger further reaction.

I don’t know what the solution is, but I think part of it involves what I said at the top of this reply.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Of course not. But we must encourage critical thinking and rationality, and not give dogmatic and faith-like thinking an intellectual pass from rational and critical discourse, regardless of the issue, be it religion, politics, race and so on. In the case of religion, because we have done precisely this for hundreds of years, many people have not been exposed to criticism nor have they been obliged to be self-critical of their own ideas, beliefs and opinions, this is foreign to a lot of people, and thus when faced with it they react in a manner which is entirely out of proportion to the original issue, such as Theo Van Gogh’s murder, or the Mohammed cartoons. Part of this is caused by the dogmatic practice which has been allowed to foster for centuries (e.g. the more convinced you are, the most virtuous you are seen…) along with the sheer confidence that they are absolutely right and by extension, everyone else is absolutely wrong. Ergo, it’s impossible to compromise or have rational and critical discourse with people who do not themselves adhere to such methods. There conviction blocks this. Such thinking can be applied to any motive, but especially problematic in religion, since in religion, it’s allowed and never questioned.

I have know argument with this. If people would be more willing to question and make decisions based on reason matched with some common sense when it came to this type of stuff, it would be a non issue. People don't need to be absolutes and unmitigated when it comes to concepts that they drift towards.


The problem is while you can bend Christianity to justify a lot of goals, it’s not often easy. It’s not that hard to do in regards to Islam however, since the notions of jihad and martyrdom, the idea that if infidels do not convert, they should be subjugated or killed and the us (good/holy) vs them (evil) mentality are prevalent in the doctrine. Moderates ‘solve’ this by diluting or simply expelling these notions from the moderate doctrine. People, especially moderates, tend to deny that a certain view of Islamic doctrine causes the behaviour that it does. They argue that radical Islam is a hijacking of the more ‘real moderate Islam’. They can’t bring themselves to accept this worldview/ideology is easily obtainable from such a prevalent religions doctrine. Since they themselves can’t or refuse to ‘see’ this interpretation, they say it can’t come from there.



I'm not of the opinion that it's a hijacking. I feel that terrorist are way back on the list of critical thinking. I geuss that is my point in a nut shell though, people need to change. (Wishfull thinking I know...) There is always going to be dangerous ideology, we can't stop that. We are all surrounded by this stuff, but we don't all buy into it. So that's why my blame goes to people.


People need a motive to act, and how they act demands on which motives and ideology they subscribe to.


Looking at their motive/ideology may give you an indication at possible actions that may occur.

For example, if you look at the more moderate brand of Islam you don’t expect to get suicide terrorism, or indeed any terrorism, since, as I said above, the notions and ideologies that can bring about these results have been diluted or simply expelled from the moderate doctrine.

Look at Christianity and you also do not expect to see such actions.

You examine radical Islam however and you see an ideology/system that easily and specifically supports the means to suicidal ends.

If the CAUSE (politics…or disagreement/criticism etc), for example, were the problem, why do political conflicts not always result in the same ends? It’s because the MOTIVE changes, and thus so does the results.

Let’s examine this;

If politics was the specific reason people under oppression in the Middle East act as they do you would see people act in barbaric ways regardless of their brand of Islam. Yet we don’t see this. Those of a more moderate brand of Islam don’t blow themselves up, despite living under the same socio-political conditions and caught up in the same war as those who do blow themselves up! These people follow a different brand of Islam and thus we get different results.

This is practically a Science experiment. Take a country which was under oppression and now in war, give the people the same socio-political conditions, but give them slightly different brands of their religion, and see what happens.

If the problem lied with politics you would see people acting in a barbaric way regardless of their brand of Islam. But this is not what you see. What you see is that those who have a radical brand of Islam are the ones who are acting barbarically.

Not everyone who has a strong political disagreement and/or utter conviction in an ideology blows themselves up or forms a death cult. Something else is needed, which in the case of radical Islam is the dogmatic conviction in a specific understanding of Islamic doctrine. People can and often do have just as much of a strong political disagreement and strong conviction in what they believe as the radical Muslims do, but these people lack belief in the ideology that radical Muslims have, thus you don’t see the same actions.

For instance look at the radical 9/11 conspiracy theorists (Alex Jones etc). They have political differences and a sheer conviction in their ideology that is easily on par with the radical Muslims, and yet, they don’t blow themselves up. This is because they have different motives/ideologies.

Also look at the Tibetan Buddhists. They have been under Chinese oppression for decades, they have been tortured and placed in extremely poor conditions, yet we don’t see them acting as we see radical Muslims do. Again, this is because they do not share the same ideology.



My problem isn't with bad ideology though, it's with the fact that these people can't think for themselves, they are all to willing to except it as law. My Idea of a step up, is when these ideas are floating around and they don't catch on. This is way out of reach for the time being sadly...Imho




I don’t think there is one single source or factor. In most cases indoctrination, dogmatic thinking, an us vs. them mentality, lack of self-critical analysis etcetera, can cause issues.

Read this article from the Terrorism Research Centre:

http://www.terrorism.com/modules.ph...order=0&thold=0

See these two points from the article:

“Terrorism may be motivated by political, religious, or ideological objectives. In a sense, terrorist goals are always political, as extremists driven by religious or ideological beliefs usually seek political power to compel society to conform to their views.”

Exactly, and these people go for it. I mean, hitler would have been nothing without his followers. I just don't understand how anybody could rationalize a waste bomb, or even worse, strapping one to one of your loved ones.

”Religion may be the most volatile of cultural identifiers because it encompasses values deeply held. A threat to one's religion puts not only the present at risk but also one's cultural past and the future. Many religions, including Christianity and Islam, are so confident they are right that they have used force to obtain converts. Terrorism in the name of religion can be especially violent. Like all terrorists, those who are religiously motivated view their acts with moral certainty and even divine sanctions. What would otherwise be extraordinary acts of desperation become a religious duty in the mind of the religiously motivated terrorist. This helps explain the high level of commitment and willingness to risk death among religious extremist groups.”


If the people change, the ideology is worthless. For example, how many times have you seen a kkk member that can't even explain why his views are what they are. Yet he is correct. My opinion is, the idea he excepted isn't the problem, he is.



I never said they did exist independent of people. I don’t know where you got that idea from.


Then we don't have a problem there I geuss. It just sounds funny when people blame religion, almost like it has taken on an identity of it's own and we are merely puppets.

For example;

Many religions, including Christianity and Islam, are so confident they are right that they have used force to obtain converts.

I always convert this to the adherents of such and such have done this or that/ believe this or that.... etc......

It sounds like the idea alone has done these things, and that's just not so. For example, I don't see the Koran carrying a waste bomb into any super markets. Maybe I'm just reading to much into the wording........

Please don’t stawman what I have said. I never once said religion was the blame of the world problems. In fact I specifically acknowledged multiple factors. I do however think religion can be and often is one of these factors.


I just assumed you were deffending TGs position, that it is. I formally apologize for that.

I personaly don't feel religion is the problem, I feel it's the people wearing that mask. I see it as a vehicle basically, and somebody has to be driving. You are considering 234, I flat out blame 1.


I agree, and this is precisely my point. You can change the cause (for instance, politics… foreign policy) all you want, but as long as people still adhere to a motive/ideology, there will always be potential problems. Temporarily solving a 'cause' for action is not solving the 'problem' itself, which will remain unless there ideology is adopted.

If we don’t accept their demands, we are regarded as the enemy, and as the enemy we are liable to inadvertently trigger further reaction.

I don’t know what the solution is, but I think part of it involves what I said at the top of this reply.

Agreed. I think.....

[Yohan]

do you, or do you not believe that the ability for a religion to effectively be used as a scapegoat depends on the rationality of its followers?

Yes, but looking at it in individual cases isn't the right way to look at it. There are six billion people in the world, and a large percentage of them live in one of 2 countries. With a large enough sample size, you are likely to find whatever you are looking for, and it just so happens that beleiving in god is popular.

[NamSagoon]

I think this is a problem with virtually any belief system. In the case of Islam, I think it comes out of a rejection of modernity and its lack of central authority. Look at Religious fundamentalism in the US. It tends to be in religious sects that have little or no central authority, who reject the modern world. Both groups also display an inability to engage openly with groups or people they disagree with. I think the case of Islam is complicated by the fact that there are other problems in that region feeding the religious extremism.

[Zamfoo]

Islam is not rejecting modernity because of its nature; Islam is in the Middle East and they are trying to throw off the yoke of "Imperialist Masters." The Middle East is looking for their own identity; as Europe approached the modern era, they took over the Middle East. Ever since, western thought and current "modernity" has been seen as evil western influence from imperialists that had exploited them in the past.

Do look at religious fundamentalists here, megachurches are HUGE, they have huge TV, projectors, bands, not really a rejection of modernity.

Central authorities have done wonderfully for Christianity too. It's not like the Pope's stranglehold on knowledge damned scientists like Copernicus to hell.

Islam is a very different religion in a very different region, it cannot be approached in the same way others have been.

[NamSagoon]

But the violence in Islam is not only directed at "european imperialists". What middle east country is governed by a foreign power? Middle east countries are independant. The only people oppressing Arabs are Arab rulers, with perhapd the exception of the Israli-Palestinian situation. There is something about Islam, today, that gives it a greater propensity for violence than other religions. Look at the violence Muslims commit against each other as well. There is an extremism in Islam that accepts, even glorifies violence in the name of God.

Its not just in the middle east. Places like southern Thailand must contend with Muslim violence as well. The "imperialist yoke" as ages ago. America has not imperialized the middle east. To simply argue that Islam is different and therefore can't be approached this way, strikes me as an unusual line of reasoning. How then can we approach Islam. It seems that any time someone is critical of it, the response is, well its different. Extremism is growing in the middle east. I know Arabic, and read magaiznes and newspapers from the region. Some of the things I have encountered are just frightening. There is a very serious problem in Islam, that is only getting worse.

[Zamfoo]

I'm not saying that they are still under control but frankly, the modern Middle Eastern countries are still based on British colonial lines. Why would any Iraqi want to be in a country with Kurds or visa verca? They hate each other; the countries are European ideas of where the Ottoman Empire should be cut up. Due to this fact, Middle Eastern states are independent, yes, but most of their history has been subjugation from an outside power, be it the Il-Khanate, Ottomans or Europeans. Considering that the Western Powers continued to meddle in their "independent governments" until at least WWII and then meddled in other places, like the US in Latin America, it is not hard to imagine that Middle Easterners see any Western influence as evil.

Thailand is a rare case where they've managed to stay free, however, Thai culture is very Westernized (Pizza chains are booming in that country) and we find Muslims trying to fight that. But, Indonesia, the Philippines or most other places fighting terrorism? They are share the common factor of being controlled by Europeans.

And finally, Islam is inherently different. The closest they to a central authority figure is a group of thousands of scholars from hundreds of different schools of thought. There is no one that can call for a reform of Islam. If a couple imams did band together and call for it, they would be killed by the others. The power structure does somewhat resemble that of priests during the Middle Ages; the priests had the control on whether you went to heaven or not. Now, these Muslim scholars write up shari'a whatever way they please and if you disagree, you are killed as a heretic. This group is clinging onto its power in the face of a very individual, modern world and their power plays are what cause such extremism.

The whole ulama structure is the great irony of Islam. It is a very, very individual religion when you consider it. There are no priests, teachers or anything talked about in the Qu'ran. It is heresy to raise a human being above another with regards to spiritual matters, only Allah can judge us. Muhammad is the last prophet, so no one after him can tell you what to do. The Qu'ran is perfect and you should be able to know what Allah does not want and what he does. Large groups of people don't work this way, though. They need written rules. Example: the traditional veil, hijab, is not spoken of in the Qu'ran; it only tells women to cover their bosoms when unfamiliar men are near (good idea in my book). Muhammad's wives, however, were instructed to where the veil so they did not feel like celebrities. Muslim women then decided they also should wear the veil and it has been cemented in shari'a ever since. People need leaders. Muhammad left us with none, so the Caliphs took over. From then on, these leaders have worked hard to keep Islam under their control and not let the people rise.

[NamSagoon]

South east asia was also cut up and the lines arranged by Europeans. Yet the situation there is totally different. yet the only ones causing problems there are the muslims.

I dont think we disagree about the lack of centralized authority. i was simply comparring it to some protestant groups that lack a central authority as well. I think the call for a reformation is very misguided. If you look at the reformation in Europe it caused more violence than it stopped. But in order for there to be a reformation you need a central authority to rebel against, which islam does not have. My point is, Muslims cannot keep blaming colonialism for all their problems. Every region has issues to contend with. Until the 'pervasive religiosity' in the middle east declines, the different sects will keep slaughtering one another and waging Jihad on us.

As for the Quran being perfect. It is a book just like any other. It draws heavily on Christian and Jewish writings. I agree it is beautifully written, and Arabic is a very poetic language which makes it even more powerful. But I think part of the problem is how seriously they take the book itself.

[Zamfoo]

I totally agree, they can't blame anything, I was simply trying to point to a few more historic factors that would motivate such action and not just Islam itself.

I was refering to the Quran as perfect as how Muslims should view it. The words are unchangable and forever which makes it different from the Bible and Torah and other stories that could have been "edited."

Their seriousness is a problem, even with regard to a book that specifically says (I'm paraphrasing) "Part of this is allegory and part is truth, Allah trusts you to figure it out." But I don't see any way these terrorists get around the whole rules of jihad stating that you can't kill people aggressively.

[Verx]

There is an extremism in Islam that accepts, even glorifies violence in the name of God.


No, there is extremism in Muslims not Islam. People take things out of context and make them extreme to fufill personal ambitions or out of ignorance of there religion. The Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) has said "Extremism leads to destruction" and that "Islam is the middle way (as in not extreme)" or something along those lines.

[Verx]

The problem is while you can bend Christianity to justify a lot of goals, it’s not often easy. It’s not that hard to do in regards to Islam however, since the notions of jihad and martyrdom, the idea that if infidels do not convert, they should be subjugated or killed and the us (good/holy) vs them (evil) mentality are prevalent in the doctrine. Moderates ‘solve’ this by diluting or simply expelling these notions from the moderate doctrine. People, especially moderates, tend to deny that a certain view of Islamic doctrine causes the behaviour that it does. They argue that radical Islam is a hijacking of the more ‘real moderate Islam’. They can’t bring themselves to accept this worldview/ideology is easily obtainable from such a prevalent religions doctrine. Since they themselves can’t or refuse to ‘see’ this interpretation, they say it can’t come from there.


Could you give me any sources that, that has happened in early Islam (time shortly after the Prophet's death) or any religious scriptures? As far as I know the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) would keep prisoners of war in conditions better than he himself lived in and then realeased them. He never enforced upon them Islam or killed any of them. In fact, The Quran states that "God guides whom He wills." as in God guides whom He wills to his religion.

Also about Jihad; Jihad means to struggle and does not always mean physical struggle. It refers to any struggle in the way of God. In fact, the Prophet (PBUH) has said that "The greatest Jihad is the Jihad of oneself" meaning that struggling against evil in yourself and your actions is the greatest of all Jihad.

[Strafio]

I can't really argue with you on the content of Islam as I am not an expert on this.
What I can do is point you to my sources. Faith Freedom (http://www.faithfreedom.org/) is a website run mostly by ex-muslims. They were brought up in Islam and are very knowledgable about the Koran and have experienced the Muslim lifestyle and culture first hand. They have also kept an interest in Islamic political issues for many years.

Their conclusion is that you are defending your culture and upbringing but you are not aware of the beast you are trying to defend. It is possible that they are the ones that have misunderstood Islam and have based their conclusions on some rogue Muslims. However, I think it is worth you hearing their side of the story. It'd be good if you could keep us posted of your opinions, where you agree/disagree with these guys. Best wishes! :)

[NamSagoon]

Also about Jihad; Jihad means to struggle and does not always mean physical struggle. It refers to any struggle in the way of God. In fact, the Prophet (PBUH) has said that "The greatest Jihad is the Jihad of oneself" meaning that struggling against evil in yourself and your actions is the greatest of all Jihad.


Okay, but the word can also mean a holy war. Muslims have been playing this game for years. The word has many meanings. But the one that matters here is Jihad as holy war. You can point to the fact that the word is complex with many shades of meaning, but that does not change the reality. There is a serious problem in Islam right now. You may not believe in waging holy war. But there are plenty who do. And they are blowing stuff up and killing people. So before you get picky with people for criticizing your religion, you should how about speaking out against the people who are killing in God's name?

[Zamfoo]

And here is where most normal Muslims argue about their religion being hijacked. The Qu'ran is a book that tells us Allah looks down on aggression and killing. Only in self defense is killing ok. There are, however, passages about beheading the polytheists or whatever it says exactly. At the time, Islam was under attack and those battles were quite defensive. Today, though? The aggression in the world mainly comes from these extremists, not people trying to kill Muslims.

Conversion by the sword is directly spoken against in the Qu'ran in 2:256, it says something along the lines of There shall be no compulsion in religion; truth stands clearly away from darkness.

From reading the Qu'ran on my free time, I've come to 2 choices, that either I have an apologist, terrible translation, or that Islam, as it was given to us in the Qu'ran, has not been practiced since the death of the Prophet.

[Strafio]

I'm not sure if you've read all of the Qu'ran but surely you must have come across some of these passages? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tNw87A1f3Y)
I understand that in this video they are not in context, but I think what they say is quite clear and I don't see how context could change thing unless after each one the prophet said "only joking, lol!"

I know the majority of them talk about what Allah will do to unbelievers rather than what Muslims should do to unbelievers but there are passages that encourage violence and the general tone is about how worthless unbelievers are and how they are the enemy. I'm also sure that there's a lot more to the Qu'ran than the passages of violence and there are some good teachings in there as well. That's meant to be the thing about the Qu'ran, it can promote anything provided you find the right passage. Many Muslims look for the promotion of peace but many also look for the promotion of violence towards non-believers and they find it.

Conversion by the sword is directly spoken against in the Qu'ran in 2:256, it says something along the lines of There shall be no compulsion in religion; truth stands clearly away from darkness.
This passage have been studied (http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=588) and it seems your interpretation isn't the only one. Again, I'm not an expert myself but the people I'm quoting are.

[NamSagoon]

And here is where most normal Muslims argue about their religion being hijacked. The Qu'ran is a book that tells us Allah looks down on aggression and killing. Only in self defense is killing ok. There are, however, passages about beheading the polytheists or whatever it says exactly. At the time, Islam was under attack and those battles were quite defensive. Today, though? The aggression in the world mainly comes from these extremists, not people trying to kill Muslims.

Conversion by the sword is directly spoken against in the Qu'ran in 2:256, it says something along the lines of There shall be no compulsion in religion; truth stands clearly away from darkness.

From reading the Qu'ran on my free time, I've come to 2 choices, that either I have an apologist, terrible translation, or that Islam, as it was given to us in the Qu'ran, has not been practiced since the death of the Prophet.

One of the problems with the Qu'ran is that it is written in poetic verse, which is very hard to understand if you are not an expert in Arabic. Which translation do you have? It is very important to use an accurate translation. Remember, the Qu'ran is not the only text Islam uses. The Hadith are also very important.

[Zamfoo]

I don't have it with me now, so I'll get back to you on the translation. That's a major reason I'm going to try to learn arabic soon, so I actually know what is going on.

Obvious the poetic language comes into play. Arabic is a language where telling someone to shut up can be the same as cut your tongue out, and that throws confusion onto the whole "cut off the hands of a thief." I think the translation in the video are probably on the more literal, violent side and others, probably the one I have, are more peaceful.

But like the Bible doesn't have any violence in it or the Bhagavad-gita. Hindu scriptures have so much carnage the blood is described to fill seven lakes, and if these are the heroes we should aspire to be, isn't violence a part of that?

Most of these scriptures have a common element and that is divine justice. Arjuna doesn't just slaughter people, Samson either, they have God (or Krishna) telling them that this is what needs to be done. Most of the violent passages in the Qu'ran are about how Allah will do things to unbelievers and they must be looked at in context, within the Qu'ran and within history to fully understand what they mean. We can't explain away verses that look peaceful and then take violent ones out of context.

[Strafio]

I'm familiar with 'divine justice' in the Bible and I don't think it translates to real justice at all. (Perhaps when you talk of historical context you mean that what seems barbaric to me was actually a step forward for more primitive civilisations) Apart from that I don't really have any arguments with your defense of the qu'ran. You could be right that the Arabic language allows so many levels of interpretation and that the intended one hasn't come through of late.

In the meantime, Islam as interpreted by the majority of Muslims appears to be a serious problem.

[TRMcKelvey]

wrong, it is directly said "If there are any who would not have me reign over them, bring them before me and slay them before me"

Careful here, an isolated verse a doctrine does not make. This sounds more like the Bible reporting on an event and not a doctrinal position. I could not find this verse, could you supply a reference?

[WatchfulAbyss]

Careful here, an isolated verse a doctrine does not make. This sounds more like the Bible reporting on an event and not a doctrinal position. I could not find this verse, could you supply a reference?


Pg #2 post #28 (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1093154&postcount=28)

[TRMcKelvey]

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not say that i should reign over them, bring hiter, and slay them before me" - Jesus.

a direct instruction from jesus to kill those who wouldn't submit to his rule.

and a related note, somehow i don't think the phrases "loving father" and "reign over them" can ever have much relation let alone meaning.

Dude, TOTALLY out of context!!!!! This is part of a parable, Jesus is describing a king's judgement on an unfaithful servant. All part of a story He is telling. He was catagorically NOT telling people to kill those not submitting to His rule.

[TRMcKelvey]

Pg #2 post #28 (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1093154&postcount=28)

Yes, you have the context, but notice that Jesus was describing the "coming of the Kingdom of God" (vs 11). At the very most you could tie this to the Great Judgement Day, certainly NOT to here and now. Nor do you hear Jesus saying after the parable, "Go and do thou likewise".

[TRMcKelvey]

but his "dad" espoused it quite often. so either the bible i'm reading is wrong, or your wrong. ?

You mean like when He was ready to spare Sodom & Gomorrah if there were 10 good people in the cities? Or like the stay of judgement on Ninevah when Jonah preached against their sins and the city repented? You mean THAT Dad? You're into the area of judgement against sin versus mercy and there's alot of mercy in both Old and New Testaments, but there is also judgement for evil. I can't pretend to know exactly when a nation has "crossed the line", but He certainly isn't sitting there waiting to "zap" us. A just God can't ignore evil forever, can He? That's not justice. Otherwise we'd all have been grease spots long ago :D

[WatchfulAbyss]

Yes, you have the context, but notice that Jesus was describing the "coming of the Kingdom of God" (vs 11). At the very most you could tie this to the Great Judgement Day, certainly NOT to here and now. Nor do you hear Jesus saying after the parable, "Go and do thou likewise".


Did you read the whole thread? I was defending Yama Tombo's
position by showing it in context.

[TRMcKelvey]

Did you read the whole thread? I was defending Yama Tombo's
position by showing it in context.
Sorry, not as carefully as I should have :o

[tekkengod]

Dude, TOTALLY out of context!!!!! This is part of a parable, Jesus is describing a king's judgement on an unfaithful servant. All part of a story He is telling. He was catagorically NOT telling people to kill those not submitting to His rule.
no, its not. we've been over this a thousand times. when you can muster a defense stronger than "oh thats bad, so its automatically out of context/wrong/mistranslated/overlooked/misinterprited/you don't understand." just like alllll the other halfbaked ones.

maybe i'll listen.

[WatchfulAbyss]

no, its not. we've been over this a thousand times. when you can muster a defense stronger than "oh thats bad, so its automatically out of context/wrong/mistranslated/overlooked/misinterprited/you don't understand." just like alllll the other halfbaked ones.

maybe i'll listen.


Yes it is. Read it in context. He praised Zacchaeus for going against his former ways and sharing his wealth, then told him a story in contrast. He was trying to illustrate a point, that point seems to show just what greed can do to a person. He was pleased to see that a man of wealth could detach from it so willingly.


But that's not even the real issue, you should be taking issue with the fact that there is room for it to be misunderstood and applying it to your point.


Read 19 from the start through :27 he is telling a story. (I bolded the words of Jesus)


19
He came to Jericho and intended to pass the town.
2
Now a man there named Zacchaeus, who was a chief tax collector and also a wealthy man,
3
was seeking to see who Jesus was; but he could not see him because of the crowd, for he was short in stature.
4
So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree in order to see Jesus, who was about to pass that way.
5
When he reached the place, Jesus looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house."
6
And he came down quickly and received him with joy.
7
When they all saw this, they began to grumble, saying, "He has gone to stay at the house of a sinner."
8
But Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, "Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I shall give to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone I shall repay it four times over."
9
2 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham.
10
For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost."
11
While they were listening to him speak, he proceeded to tell a parable because he was near Jerusalem and they thought that the kingdom of God would appear there immediately.
12
So he said, "A nobleman went off to a distant country to obtain the kingship for himself and then to return.
13
He called ten of his servants and gave them ten gold coins 5 and told them, 'Engage in trade with these until I return.'
14
His fellow citizens, however, despised him and sent a delegation after him to announce, 'We do not want this man to be our king.'
15
But when he returned after obtaining the kingship, he had the servants called, to whom he had given the money, to learn what they had gained by trading.
16
The first came forward and said, 'Sir, your gold coin has earned ten additional ones.'
17
He replied, 'Well done, good servant! You have been faithful in this very small matter; take charge of ten cities.'
18
Then the second came and reported, 'Your gold coin, sir, has earned five more.'
19
And to this servant too he said, 'You, take charge of five cities.'
20
Then the other servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your gold coin; I kept it stored away in a handkerchief,
21
for I was afraid of you, because you are a demanding person; you take up what you did not lay down and you harvest what you did not plant.'
22
He said to him, 'With your own words I shall condemn you, you wicked servant. You knew I was a demanding person, taking up what I did not lay down and harvesting what I did not plant;
23
why did you not put my money in a bank? Then on my return I would have collected it with interest.'
24
And to those standing by he said, 'Take the gold coin from him and give it to the servant who has ten.'
25
But they said to him, 'Sir, he has ten gold coins.'
26
'I tell you, to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
27
Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.'"

[TRMcKelvey]

no, its not. we've been over this a thousand times. when you can muster a defense stronger than "oh thats bad, so its automatically out of context/wrong/mistranslated/overlooked/misinterprited/you don't understand." just like alllll the other halfbaked ones.

maybe i'll listen.
No, I doubt you will...obviously, you've decided this isolated verse, is the "proof" of your so-called arguement. Your arguement doesn't even make it to the "halfbaked" stage. Gimme a break, if that's what it meant, the disciples would have went out and started killing people. Jesus had plenty of enemies, it wouldn't have been hard to grab a few...I can argue for suicide from two isolated segments of scripture: "Judas went and hanged himself", and "go and do thou likewise"...so the Bible promotes suicide...WRONG!

The purpose of the parable is given in verse 11: the Kingdom of God was not appearing at once. The parable can be summed up as follows: King rejected by some, servants given stewardship responsibilities. King goes away, but will be coming back. In the mean time servants should be busy because when the king returns there will be an accounting for both servants and those who rejected the king. No fancy interpretation, just what's there, if you read the whole thing.

If you argued that "the king" in this parable represents Jesus, and that He will command all non-believers to be killed after His kingdom is established at the end of time, you might have something.

Unless you have something stronger than one isolated, and yes, out of context verse, I reject your arguement as wrong.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Tg, you can check it out further her http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke19.htm it has footnotes, makes it easy to follow.



TRMcKelvey

I know you are taking issue with his tone. But, you have to understand that someone picking at the religion forces those that believe, to take a deeper look at what it is they follow. It may not turn someone atheist, but atleast they aren't burning witches at the stake either. It took alot of inward thinking for christianity to get to promoting a widely excepted peaceful outlook, and that's still not a position that's set in stone.

For example Tg is not stupid, if he can misread it, so could a christian. Take a good look at reverend fred phelps and their twisted doctrine. How could anyone follow that guy's teachings? But people do...

The fact is, a christian should have come in long before I did with the answer, especially since I'm atheist.

[TRMcKelvey]

Tg, you can check it out further her http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke19.htm it has footnotes, makes it easy to follow.



TRMcKelvey

I know you are taking issue with his tone. But, you have to understand that someone picking at the religion forces those that believe, to take a deeper look at what it is they follow. It may not turn someone atheist, but atleast they aren't burning witches at the stake either. It took alot of inward thinking for christianity to get to promoting a widely excepted peaceful outlook, and that's still not a position that's set in stone.

For example Tg is not stupid, if he can misread it, so could a christian. Take a good look at reverend fred phelps and their twisted doctrine. How could anyone follow that guy's teachings? But people do...

The fact is, a christian should have come in long before I did with the answer, especially since I'm atheist.

Perhaps I was too flippant with my first response...although I suspect Tg would have responded the same, regardless of what I said. And you're right, his tone and attitude is what I took issue to in his reply. He misread it, and refused to accept the possibility that he had misread it. It also touched on one of my "hot buttons" which is twisting scripture to say what one wants rather than what it really says. That's how we ended up with witch burnings and Fred Phelps, and I guess I read that into Tg's response, perhaps unfairly.

I want to compliment you on your responses. :) Being atheist, you have no reason to point out misreading of Christian holy writings, other than your committment to honesty. I respect that!

[WatchfulAbyss]

Perhaps I was too flippant with my first response...although I suspect Tg would have responded the same, regardless of what I said. And you're right, his tone and attitude is what I took issue to in his reply. He misread it, and refused to accept the possibility that he had misread it. It also touched on one of my "hot buttons" which is twisting scripture to say what one wants rather than what it really says. That's how we ended up with witch burnings and Fred Phelps, and I guess I read that into Tg's response, perhaps unfairly.

He is just straight foward in his opinion is all. He is honest about his opinion as well, that is how he read it.



I want to compliment you on your responses. :) Being atheist, you have no reason to point out misreading of Christian holy writings, other than your committment to honesty. I respect that!

It's kinda scary isn't it. :D

[tekkengod]

No, I doubt you will...obviously, you've decided this isolated verse, is the "proof" of your so-called arguement. Your arguement doesn't even make it to the "halfbaked" stage. Gimme a break, if that's what it meant, the disciples would have went out and started killing people. Jesus had plenty of enemies, it wouldn't have been hard to grab a few...I can argue for suicide from two isolated segments of scripture: "Judas went and hanged himself", and "go and do thou likewise"...so the Bible promotes suicide...WRONG!

The purpose of the parable is given in verse 11: the Kingdom of God was not appearing at once. The parable can be summed up as follows: King rejected by some, servants given stewardship responsibilities. King goes away, but will be coming back. In the mean time servants should be busy because when the king returns there will be an accounting for both servants and those who rejected the king. No fancy interpretation, just what's there, if you read the whole thing.

If you argued that "the king" in this parable represents Jesus, and that He will command all non-believers to be killed after His kingdom is established at the end of time, you might have something.

Unless you have something stronger than one isolated, and yes, out of context verse, I reject your arguement as wrong.

what argument? that 1 particular line isn't really that serious IMO. Im much more concerned with the actual topic of this thread and how its affecting the world.

[TRMcKelvey]

what argument? that 1 particular line isn't really that serious IMO. Im much more concerned with the actual topic of this thread and how its affecting the world.

And I share your concern. Maybe that's why I was debating you on that line. I'm obviously a Christian, and I've seen some real doozies passed off as Scriptural teaching (check out the "Should Christians own Cats?" thread). Unfortunately people hook up with "spiritual leaders" who have some ****-eyed "revelation", and leave their brains at the front door. These leaders become parent figures to their followers and gain unquestioned influence and power. Groups, and ultimately nations go off on "holy wars" based on one person's screwed up interpretations. Can't say for sure about Islam, still studying that one. Christianity can and has been "hijacked" at times because people don't check what they are being told against what they claim is their source of belief. So, maybe we agree after all...peace and no hard feelings, I hope.

[TRMcKelvey]

And I share your concern. Maybe that's why I was debating you on that line. I'm obviously a Christian, and I've seen some real doozies passed off as Scriptural teaching (check out the "Should Christians own Cats?" thread). Unfortunately people hook up with "spiritual leaders" who have some ****-eyed "revelation", and leave their brains at the front door. These leaders become parent figures to their followers and gain unquestioned influence and power. Groups, and ultimately nations go off on "holy wars" based on one person's screwed up interpretations. Can't say for sure about Islam, still studying that one. Christianity can and has been "hijacked" at times because people don't check what they are being told against what they claim is their source of belief. So, maybe we agree after all...peace and no hard feelings, I hope.

Unrelated aside...I got "bleeped"for referring to a rooster's eyes :eek: :D

[Verx]

So before you get picky with people for criticizing your religion, you should how about speaking out against the people who are killing in God's name?

I wasn't getting picky, I was just explaining. Also, you are assuming that I am a Muslim. Could someone explain to me what the latter part of that sentence means since Nam is banned at the moment?

[tekkengod]

And I share your concern. Maybe that's why I was debating you on that line. I'm obviously a Christian, and I've seen some real doozies passed off as Scriptural teaching (check out the "Should Christians own Cats?" thread). Unfortunately people hook up with "spiritual leaders" who have some ****-eyed "revelation", and leave their brains at the front door. These leaders become parent figures to their followers and gain unquestioned influence and power. Groups, and ultimately nations go off on "holy wars" based on one person's screwed up interpretations. Can't say for sure about Islam, still studying that one. Christianity can and has been "hijacked" at times because people don't check what they are being told against what they claim is their source of belief. So, maybe we agree after all...peace and no hard feelings, I hope.

and there in lies the problem!! Theology allows those types of validation. Modern christianity for example, is an absolute masterpiece of marketing, it appeals to every tired, sad depressed, heartbroken screw up there is, i mean to say, its so self fulfilling and light handed as to be almost perfect for its purpose. Also. realistically, nothing validates your interpritation to be any more useful or correct than that of Phelps or Falwell. And that is where the problem stands, the maladaptive open ended nature of theology is what makes it such a perfect engine for breeding hatred and terrorism. The group solidarity of it is mind boggling. So, "hijacked" isn't really an appropirate term. It would more or less be the result of the logical expression of an idea. It is after all, perfectly logical for the suicide bomber and the fundementalists, to do exactly what they do, given what they are allowed to believe without a proper amount of critisizim. The accomplishments of religion will always come at the failures of education.