Radical religion

admin: Ah, of course...because Conservative Christians are TOTALLY on the same level as members of Boko Haram. In fact, I martyr two infidels before breakfast each day.

Dassault Papillon: I'm not saying all conservative Christians. Not all conservative Christians are into guns at all. I'm just concerned about the degree of violence among both conservative Islam and Christianity.

nzlockie: I'm pretty sure she's a crazy chick. Some people smile during national crises - Especially crazy chicks. I practically always have a goofy smiles on my face, especially when I'm holding big ass rifles like that.

Silly thing to ask, but you guys have noticed that it was a joke right? Look at the comment underneath the pic. She is making fun of the people who were making fun of hobby lobby.

ADreamOfLiberty: Bit of context: this is the girl who made a pic in support of Hobby Lobby. It is a joke, but the joke she's making is the complaints have been coming from Hobby Lobby supporters themselves. Yet in so doing she unintentionally demonstrated that Hobby Lobby supporters are even bigger jokes. Sort of like the Inception of jokes.

Of course, this thread isn't really about the pic specifically, only inspired by it.

I remember having this debate with LL on debate.org.
Denial of christian radicalism is silly.

How is it that religions - all of which supposedly preach tolerance and peace - become so terribly violent?

Not all Religion that preached tolerance and peace become so terribly violent. There are also set of people or group that have no religion in themselves are a manufacturer of violence. And also in fairness of those who believe in Religion, there are also non believing group is the force behind the mass murder of the history.When you say "ALL" there is no exempted.

But according to the Bible False Religions and Non Believing groups falls in One Group, and that is in the group of Darkness.

olive 2: How is it that religions - all of which supposedly preach tolerance and peace - become so terribly violent? They don't, people do it all on their own; and honestly they do it less when they are religious.

ADreamOfLiberty: You must be specifc to the word "They "

olive 2: My problem with all this is that sometimes conflict comes about for reasons that are only religious. One can ultimately speculate about whether the people involved in such conflicts all had some secret non-religious purpose, but I find it very hard to believe that all of the millions who have taken part in a crusade, or a jihad, did not believe they were doing the work of their god. Whether they were correct or not in their understanding of their religion is not the issue - it's the fact that ultimately every single major religion is implicated directly in war, and yet war is also contrary to the basic virtues that religion teaches.

I can't honestly think of any belief system that is generally exempted. I suppose there are some smaller non-violent sects (Quakers come to mind) but they are very small minority groups within the framework of more general belief systems. So I think ALL is generally fair, even if there may be small exceptions.

I won't deny that sometimes there are also non-religious reasons for conflict, but the existence of religious conflict on top of that does make me wonder sometimes about whether the idea of an all-powerful God itself can become stronger than the idea of treating other people well (as opposed to, say, the two being different faces of the same coin). There's a kind of arrogance that I get sometimes from some of the worse sort of religious people, that I think translates to "my God is better than yours, so he'll vindicate my actions if you don't follow my God's will/religion". I'm not sure but I think there's a danger there with religion. It's also that religion is a powerful way of building a movement. With great power comes great responsibility, but sometimes religious leaders (being fallible) are not very responsible.

ADreamOfLiberty: What makes you think that?

admin: "Whether they were correct or not in their understanding of their religion is not the issue"

I beg to disagree with this statement of yours, understanding about religion is a major issue to be considered, its because misunderstanding the true essence of religion comes a great danger. That is why major relligions in this time, when you search the deep history of them you will found out terrible act of violence meaning they dont know the true essence of RELIGION.Therefore if they ( believing about religion ) became a violent set of people how much more of those that are not believing religion, the possibilty is they will more violent than they are.

olive 2: You must be specifc to the word "They "
The first they refers to religions, no religion has become terribly violent based on the majority followers or orthodox dogma.

The second they refers to people in general.

admin: One can ultimately speculate about whether the people involved in such conflicts all had some secret non-religious purpose, but I find it very hard to believe that all of the millions who have taken part in a crusade, or a jihad, did not believe they were doing the work of their god.

I think they most certainly did. However, the mistake lies in considering this a novel or special kind of motivation for war.

The vast majority of wars are fought with both sides having irrational moral standards, and the rest have at least one side having irrational moral standards.

Religion when compared to the delusions of feudal loyalty and national pride have motivated far less violence. It simply stands out more because people insisted on integrating so much of their moral beliefs into their religion.

Thus when they disagreed about taxes, or which people was the 'best', or who to call their leigelord, or the proper policy on marriage; they said it was a religious issue. That is not to say they were lying and did not believe it was a religious issue of course! They believed it, but the question is, would they have remained at peace if they didn't think of it religiously? Based on human behavior else wise, I would say no. They would still fight, perhaps a bit less fanatically but probably more often.


I can't honestly think of any belief system that is generally exempted. I suppose there are some smaller non-violent sects (Quakers come to mind)
The Quakers and the like are distinct because of forbidding violence completely. Most religions discourage it but have a 'theory of just war.' They would have died without that allowance because when people want to fight little can stop them.

I'm not sure but I think there's a danger there with religion.
Hell yea there's danger, but if you ask me it is not in the few times people are asked to become violent by the faith itself, but in the way people are taught to think that makes them prone to irrationality and thus prone to violent disagreements on morals.

To clarify, if someone came up with a religion of reason; in which God rewarded you only for figuring it out yourself with logic, and would not give you your eternal reward unless you "did your homework and showed your work" that religion would have a very minimal negative effect on people.

admin: Do you know what a wolf in sheeps clothing is?
Someone who calls himself a christian, yet ignores christian doctrine, isn't a christian.

There is some law that goes "If there is a sin, then you better believe a justification will be found".

Clarifying the above post, religion is just the easiest justification for, like dreamofliberty pointed out, people's will to fight.

ADreamOfLiberty: It simply stands out more because people insisted on integrating so much of their moral beliefs into their religion.
I suspect this is the cause of our disagreement: I suspect that religion itself has a moral danger, while you believe religious violence is imposed by people on religion (as seems to be true of most in this thread).

Religion when compared to the delusions of feudal loyalty and national pride have motivated far less violence.
But feudal counties and nations do not preach love. It's the difference between the morality of the religion and the morality of its actions that interests me.

They would have died without that allowance because when people want to fight little can stop them.
Supposing they would have fought otherwise. Which I don't agree with necessarily: religion itself can and has spurred people to war. Taxes and such you can call a non-religious issue, but when people are going to another country and killing them just because they are of another religion is another matter.

Blackflag:

]
"They claim to know God, but they deny God by the things that they do. They are detestable, disobedient, and disqualified to do good.

This might be a good understanding of "a wolf in sheeps clothing is"

olive 2: I would describe the Bible thus.