Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |  [ show all ]
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Rahz]
    #10275870 -

Quote:
By "fat and lazy", I mean, "got it made", livin' the good life, high on the hog. They don't have all the survival concerns, and don't "need" God to validate their social life.


Which brings me back to the original point, fat and lazy. It happens to all empires eventually, religious or not.



In other words people became selfish and focused on themselves, and dismissed any power, cause or principle above themselves. It makes sense that this would make a society less willing to sacrifice for the common good, defend their country against attackers, work hard or follow societal rules.  It may also have reduced peoples interest in religions which opposed those tendencies. Religion promotes the concept of a higher power and a cause greater than the individual can combat these other aspects of social decline, if it Isn't declining itself.  Since religious teachings oppose the selfish tendencies that lead to a societies decline, and a each societies collapse throughout history has been accompanied by a decline in faith, it makes sense that Religion plays a vital role in the survival of any Nation.

Quote:
Your claim that religious people experience less forceful obedience, falls flat in practice.

Witch burning was a common practice for many years in Christian society


Different societies choose what laws to enforce, odd and frequently poor choices with severe punishments have existed throughout history. The point was the number of individuals needed to maintain law and order, relative to the population. 

Though punishment was frequently severe it was usually easier to escape punishment back then. There was no DNA or records that would follow you wherever you went.  You could rape and murder in one town and then start your life over in another.  People in a religious society tend to be more willing to follow law and societal rules through self regulation, and tend to be more cooperative in efforts to prevent crime.  The fact that things like rare suspected witches incidents were the biggest criminal threat facing these societies is interesting. Though there are plenty of accounts of rampant rape, murder and theft, instances of village member against a fellow village member crime, or against a family member, is much less than now.  Crimes were usually committed by "strangers" or between competing societies, where survival was at issue.

Quote:
Again, you're referring to a specific period of time by a specific culture, and are omitting the practices observed by other religious societies which used the same set of texts.


The examples I gave were the only examples in the Bible, and only the first example receives any kind of blessing by the Bible.  Which as I said, isn't what we think of when we think of slavery.  Societies which tolerated other forms of slavery cant use the Bible as justification for it, because it doesn't.  While some people may have tried anyway, Those who opposed slavery were religious and used the Bible to oppose it.  The concept that all men are created equal is a Christian principle.  Without it, then people have no moral objection to exerting their power over others, to their own profit.  And it was profitable, but in each "Christian" society which at one time tolerated slavery, it was torn down because it did not match their faith, and torn down long before any of those societies saw a decline in Religious belief.  The 1800s were the time of the Great Awakenings and was in fact a period of religious resurgence.


People do regulate themselves more if they are following a code of morality which is not subject to negotiation depending on their need, wants or situation.  Religion provides this, atheism doesn't.  In the end an atheist is really only accountable to themselves, so if a code or moral becomes inconvenient, it is easy to discard or pick back up again if it benefits them.  Some religious people will make these compromises too, if tempted sufficiently, but it would take more to get them to give in.  Of course this isn't a benefit if their religion does promote rape, theft, murder and lying, but the Bible doesn't promote this.  A society in which individuals hold themselves accountable to God, will require less police enforcement than a society that tries to get away with anything they can because the only way of holding them accountable is to catch and arrest them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10290218 -

Quote:
In other words people became selfish and focused on themselves, and dismissed any power, cause or principle above themselves. It makes sense that this would make a society less willing to sacrifice for the common good, defend their country against attackers, work hard or follow societal rules.


Yes, exactly, though outside an "atheist power structure", atheism is only allowed to culture through an absence of force in religious societies. So you either have a situation where the need for a common code is forced upon society through necessity (being scarcity, war, etc.) or is forced upon society through moral concerns, which is generally less effective takes more direct force, and ultimately can only be seen as more stones in the landslide. Whatever the case, the absence of religion is a rare thing, generally only seen in the modern world, though it can be observed in history at the peak of an empires power.

This propensity for Deity worship seems quite human, yet the extent to which it is considered essential varies from one region to another. Buddhism could be considered atheistic, and yet it has done quite well.

From a western POV, looking at the benefits of a religious structure, it seems there are some tools which can only be utilized easily through the use of deity worship. If you have trouble keeping people in line, an additional tool might be the promise of eternal life, and the threat of eternal torment. Of course, as Moses has demonstrated, you need some blood spilled to get the train moving. Love and fear by themselves, as concepts, are not that persuasive.

Quote:
Different societies choose what laws to enforce, odd and frequently poor choices with severe punishments have existed throughout history. The point was the number of individuals needed to maintain law and order, relative to the population.

 

What information do you have regarding the amount of force required to maintain order, to contrast various societies? The statement is to broad to comment on without creating additional lines of thought, though I think this line of reasoning could be a good direction to look in.

Quote:
People do regulate themselves more if they are following a code of morality which is not subject to negotiation depending on their need, wants or situation.  Religion provides this, atheism doesn't.


There are far more religious examples than atheist examples, though I agree, a common code is highly advantageous for the aspiring society. But if you have a notable society which fails (either religious or non), they must have been doing something right, and there are far more religious societies which have failed, than non-religious societies. I think people have a desire to thrive, which if organized, can be quite effective. However, I see Deity worship as optional (though highly successful) in forcing the masses to do what a small group of people want them to do. By playing on the individuals fears and hopes, and giving them a common form in which to express their desires without fear of condemnation, you can easily glue a society together. But it is dependent on a continuation of hardship, and that's not exactly something I would wish upon the world. Despite the axiom that "the more things change, the more they stay the same", the world is very different today.

For instance, without birth control, I would guess the Western world would still be quite religious. If we are able to change the base conditions upon which hardship is created, and perhaps not play upon the human weaknesses of fear and hope, atheism could become something it wasn't able to before, and a new page in the revealing of human potential may be shown. Of course, there may be more dark ages in store, in which case, religion is in no danger.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Rahz]
    #10293784 -

Quote:
the need for a common code is forced upon society through necessity (being scarcity, war, etc.) or is forced upon society through moral concerns, which is generally less effective takes more direct force, and ultimately can only be seen as more stones in the landslide.

I see Deity worship as optional (though highly successful) in forcing the masses to do what a small group of people want them to do.

If we are able to change the base conditions upon which hardship is created, and perhaps not play upon the human weaknesses of fear and hope, atheism could become something it wasn't able to before

playing on the individuals fears and hopes, and giving them a common form in which to express their desires without fear of condemnation, you can easily glue a society together. But it is dependent on a continuation of hardship,



The opposite is true, when codes of behavior are enforced without a moral basis, under the guise of a scarcity or war, it takes more force. Because far more than religious codes, these codes are examples of small groups forcing their will on the rest, what benefits them. In order for them to stay in power, others have to eat less and go out to fight for them, and no moral code restrains these leader's selfishness. 

Because their power and their enforcement of their codes and rules end up resting on "need,"  and "scarcity" it frequently benefits them to maintain these hardships, because "need" is the justification for their claim on power.  Even a cynical "religious" leader will usually try to bring prosperity to his people because it is evidence of Gods favor, and reinforces the justification for their claim on power.  It was the church that preserved all of the classical and scientific learning throughout the dark ages, things that would have been lost otherwise, and had they really opposed these things it would have been easy for them to destroy them.   

Without a moral code, each man will do anything they can to justify whatever actions they want to take. They will have no problem doing what benefits themselves at the expense of others.  All their moral code requires is that they can identify someone else who is worse than them.  The thief feels morally superior because at least they aren't a murderer, the murderer feels morally superior because at least they aren't a child molester, this is the society we live in today. It is harder to get a populace that follows no standard of conduct to fall in line.  The result is far more direct force, coercion and violence to enforce those rules.

Quote:
atheism... it can be observed in history at the peak of an empires power.


 

The modes of behavior that brought empires to their peak should be our models, not the modes of behavior which brought about their collapse.

Quote:
If you have trouble keeping people in line, an additional tool might be the promise of eternal life, and the threat of eternal torment. 



This is true Throughout history even the most cynical leaders embraced religion as a tool, even though they clearly didn't govern their own behavior by those religions moral codes or demonstrate anything indicating genuine faith. They approached it in a very Machiavellian way. Conformity was the goal not a populace with genuine faith.

They should not be considered examples of religious leadership however.  A genuine believer will try to convince a non believer through logic, and by the example of their own lives, and they are concerned for the soul of the non believer. If they force religious uniformity without regard for conscience, making no effort at persuasion, then they clearly lack confidence in their own faith or are unwilling to devote the effort to understanding what they really claim to believe, they are also clearly not interested in the soul's of non believers.  In effect their actions are based on the same motives as that offered by atheism, power and self preservation, and their hypocrisy eventually becomes apparent. People forced to believe does not truly believe, and so you shouldn't expect them to regulate themselves based on that religious code.  They may present a religious facade from force, social pressure to blend in, or countless other reasons, but when it comes to their behavior the are still regulated by man kinds base instinct to gain power and protection.

Quote:
Love and fear by themselves, as concepts, are not that persuasive.



The parting of the red sea would be pretty persuasive I think. The vast majority of Americans have some degree of faith without having it forced upon them by the threat of violence, and throughout history people have dedicated their lives to the faith, and been willing to die rather than deny it.  Force alone cannot take a persons faith, and it cannot force genuine faith either.

Quote:
Despite the axiom that "the more things change, the more they stay the same", the world is very different today.




The world may change but human nature doesn't. People behave now in the same way now as they did in ancient times. Every society has thought they were the pinnacle, smarter than all who came before, and that their civilizations would last forever. The current contempt our society has for the lessons of the past and the people of the past is both predictable, its happened before, and foolish. They were not gullible fools.

We are quite happy to base our beliefs on the opinions of "experts" who discuss things we don't fully understand, and whose opinions and revaluations change every year. Is this less gullible that someone who takes the word of a priest speaking Latin? or more? at least those people could observe the priest and determine whether he lived what he preached.

People may think that we in the west are too sophisticated for another holocaust, but we aren't.  All it takes is for a populace which values fitting in more that the values they were brought up with or of their religious faith.  We are already there, most peoples codes of behavior now are motivated entirely by what will make them popular or at least not unpopular, what is politically correct, what allows them to feel safe and comfortable and avoid the inconvenient conflict of having to justify an alternate point of view.  What is popular continually changes and can be easily shaped. 

People base their opinions more on what they hear people say on TV or radio, rather than actual personal experience or advice from people whose lives and conduct they can actually examine themselves.  There are strong social pressures to keep Religion in the home or at church, and never discuss it in public. Only secular attitudes which wont offend anyone are allowed.  This is ironically not far from the exact situation that existed in communist nations which forbid religion, or religious societies that forbid religious diversity, and in which the home is the only safe place to worship.  While genuinely religious people are portrayed as irrational and dangerous.  If religion is a code of behavior based on faith then Atheism is the new state religion, the only difference is that the faith is of a negative sort. 

False religion wont lead a person to regulate their own behavior, because it plays no role in their thought process.  Genuine faith however produces a society that regulates itself, and prevents a society from going along with whatever is popular, profitable or the safest at that moment.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10294907 -

Quote:
Genuine faith however produces a society that regulates itself,


Example please.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10294943 -

Quote:
The opposite is true, when codes of behavior are enforced without a moral basis, under the guise of a scarcity or war, it takes more force.


The golden rule is it's own moral basis IMO. It may seem that some humans lack a moral compass, but I would suggest that it's there, just that it's trumped by selfish desire in nature. In real or perceived survival situations, a human as animal may ignore the golden rule. I'm with you there. It seems very natural, but so is cooperation. When a community is successful enough to the degree than some of it's members have some free time to communicate, they start talking about this moral compass, and find commonalities. In some form or another, a system is devised, subject to revision over time. Polytheism led to monotheism through this process, a better description of the anthropomorphic nature of reality we experience.

But any time reality is reduced to a human characterization, needing a Name for instance, there is a very slippery slope ahead. To me, any deity worship is idol worship, and "God" is an idol. But there is advantage in using such a system which is why religious cultures, both mono and poly, have flourished throughout history. The use of an idol both creates cohesion by giving people form to grasp, and creates diversion by separating the person from that which is worshiped as God. Buddha made it clear that he was not to be worshiped.

So, the prominence of deity being the basis for moral codes, is due to the leverage it provides, but Buddhism and other Eastern systems is the big elephant sitting in the room. Deity is not required in order to have a moral compass, nor is it required in order to pass a moral compass on to other free thinking family members. How do you explain away the lack of deity in Eastern societies?

Quote:
The modes of behavior that brought empires to their peak should be our models, not the modes of behavior which brought about their collapse.


All societies rise and fall. Do you have examples of societies which have never declined? The modes of behaviour during the ascent, and at the peak are different because the conditions are different.

Quote:
A genuine believer will try to convince a non believer through logic, and by the example of their own lives, and they are concerned for the soul of the non believer. If they force religious uniformity without regard for conscience, making no effort at persuasion, then they clearly lack confidence in their own faith or are unwilling to devote the effort to understanding what they really claim to believe, they are also clearly not interested in the soul's of non believers.


Well, I think there's a reason non-genuine believers are the ones making it to the top. If you try to convince a non-believer through logic, that's a hard sell. Play on their hopes and fears, and you've got something. Besides that, the word belief indicates a lack of knowledge, which is required for a logical argument. Do they believe, or know? To me, a genuine believer is consciously sincere, yet I find it difficult to place any faith in the words of someone who professes needing faith to substantiate a belief, and then claims to Know at the same time. In addition, any time an argument is brought up for the existence of a deity, fear and love must be used, otherwise the deity has no power. It's just as manipulative as the non-genuine believer, but sincere. I would guess though, that under the surface, it is selfish reasoning which causes a person to spread a belief in deity.

Quote:
The parting of the red sea would be pretty persuasive I think.


Yea, that's a pretty good story. It invokes fear, among other things. It could easily be said that force can be both physical and non-physical. I won't suggest that force itself is bad, but making up stories which can't be substantiated and both telling it like it's real, and expecting people to believe it's real, is not so nice IMO. 

Quote:
The world may change but human nature doesn't. People behave now in the same way now as they did in ancient times. Every society has thought they were the pinnacle, smarter than all who came before, and that their civilizations would last forever.


You make my point for me. And though human nature doesn't change, the conditions in which we live do change. I wonder where it's gonna go. People seem to need hardship in order to look deeply into themselves and find some understanding. And it's a life without hardship that people work for, and hope to provide to their children, yet when society becomes too successful, the lack of hardship is the solvent on the glue which keeps society together. It does not matter what religious creed or code the society started with. I do not think we're smarter, or that modern technology is the pinnacle of human potential, but at least something is changing. I don't look at history and see any real pinnacles there either, except the ones created by the downside of a line.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Rahz]
    #10295209 -

:handth:


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: zouden]
    #10299739 -

Quote:
But any time reality is reduced to a human characterization, needing a Name for instance, there is a very slippery slope ahead.


A religious person should be trying to model himself after God, not model his God after himself.  This is dangerous as you say, as that person will create a god who approves of everything he does, while condemning everyone that person doesn't like.  Instead of improving a persons character and behavior, it at best reaffirms his current behavior and can make it worse.  So I agree there is a danger there.  With no god and external model of behavior however a person makes them self their own god anyway, and find ways to justify whatever they do.  So the same danger is present with an atheist as with someone whose vision of God is just a reflection of them self.

The idea that God is to mystical to have a name, or make any decisions, or affect the world in any real way, and is in effect useless is not based in any logic however. It is usually the vision of God created by those who don't want to feel like they will be held accountable for their actions.  Just as those who model God after themselves, or those who deny God so they can be their own god, those who have a vision of a non interested and abstract God also do so, so they can justify themselves by what ever standard they decide, justify any action they take, and criticize anyone they choose.

It makes sense that if there is a God however, that his creations would be a reflection of him in some way.  So God having a name or demonstrating some human characteristics is logical.  That is also a God whom we can look to for guidance because he can appreciate our concerns, trials, and feelings,  and not an ambivalent vague cloud.

Quote:
To me, any deity worship is idol worship, and "God" is an idol.



Whatever we place at the forefront of our life is our God or Idol.  That could be a golden statue, alcohol, money, popularity or anything.  But while most of these idols do not inspire any desire to improve ourselves, or hold ourselves to a standard of behavior a belief in a benevolent God and a practical application of religion in our lives does.

Quote:
All societies rise and fall. Do you have examples of societies which have never declined? The modes of behavior during the ascent, and at the peak are different because the conditions are different.



Are you saying that the way people behave has no effect on whether a society prospers or not?  You don't believe a society with a strong work ethic will defeat the lazy society? A loyal society with a belief in duty wont defeat the self interested society, torn by internal divisions as each person stabs his neighbor in the back for personal gain?  The reason there is no example of a society that has never declined is because there has never been a society that did not eventually begin to worship its achievements and power over its God and values.  The longer civilizations held on to their positive cultural aspects (whatever brought them to prominence) the longer they lasted.

Quote:
Well, I think there's a reason non-genuine believers are the ones making it to the top.


This isn't accurate.  The the possible exception of Hollywood, believers often prosper above their peers.  Just as with Civilizations they often abandon their principles after they reach the top, as bit by bit they make compromises and begin to worship their success over their God.  Others devote their entire life to the pursuit of money or fame, and they get it, but they sacrifice other things in their life, and are rarely happy.

Look at religious or church based schools in America. Though less money is spent per student than any public school, they almost always have higher grades and a lower level of discipline problems.  Corporal punishment isn't used and the children come from all class levels.  Its because religion can promote good behavior and hard work, and both of these are prerequisites for success.

Quote:
If you try to convince a non-believer through logic, that's a hard sell. Play on their hopes and fears, and you've got something. Besides that, the word belief indicates a lack of knowledge, which is required for a logical argument. Do they believe, or know?

I find it difficult to place any faith in the words of someone who professes needing faith to substantiate a belief, and then claims to Know at the same time.



Atheism is completely based on faith.  The idea that everything randomly came from nothing contradicts science and is completely illogical. While a God, not affected by the physical laws of our universe, creating something from nothing at least plausible.  Atheists often deny God's existence because they don't see any miracles or evidence of him in everyday life. But that is consistent with what you should expect.  In every religious text, God usually showed his miracles to believers who would thank him for it rather than people who would just be contemptuous, take the blessing and run.  Religious people throughout history have seen miracles or evidence of God's hand in their lives.  So atheism depends on the conspiracy theory that everyone else is lying.  Someone believing in a miracle is only implausible if you don't believe in God. If God exists than why would miracles be illogical.

Belief in the existence of God does not require faith, its the logical conclusion.  Believing God is benevolent, that he cares for us and has our best interests at heart is what takes faith.  Believing you are doing God's will, that your on the right path in your life, that's what takes faith.  Making decisions based on religious principles, even when it seems to be against your own personal best interests, takes faith.

Quote:
it is selfish reasoning which causes a person to spread a belief in deity.



When a leader tries to enforce religious conformity, in order to secure power, that is selfish.  It also does not produce genuine faith, just people who are cowed into going along with the crowd.

Individuals trying to spread their faith however do so without any hope of profit, and in fact expect to encounter ridicule and persecution at the very least. In some countries it can still cost them their lives. They do so because they truly believe, they care for others, and want to demonstrate this to others. Its not selfish.

Quote:
making up stories which can't be substantiated and both telling it like it's real, and expecting people to believe it's real, is not so nice IMO



The conspiracy theory again. Each of the Old Testament authors,  faced execution if they prophesied falsely. The penalty for being genuine was also severe. They frequently had to go against the common herd, and were frequently ostracized by their communities. Moreover they lived what they preached. The events described were often witnessed by the entire nation yet no one contradicted it? And if God exists then its logical. 

Quote:
I don't look at history and see any real pinnacles there either, except the ones created by the downside of a line.



There is plenty in history to be ashamed of, and we would do well not to repeat them.  As well get rid of the bad we should be sure we aren't just replacing it with a different version of the same evil or a new evil.  We also shouldn't throw out the things that were good.  Western civilization now seems less inclined to commit the group persecution and repression of minorities in the past for instance.  This is a positive step.  We are more accepting or other cultures and creeds, also good.  The way we behave as individuals towards our neighbors, family, the sense of community, manners, seemed to have reached a peak over the past hundred years however, and now we are discarding them.  As individuals and a society, our goal should be to find the good and remove the bad, not replace the good and the bad with a new bad.  Genuine Christianity has been a positive force in our culture and we shouldn't try to destroy it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10300776 -

Quote:
Whatever we place at the forefront of our life is our God or Idol.  That could be a golden statue, alcohol, money, popularity or anything.  But while most of these idols do not inspire any desire to improve ourselves, or hold ourselves to a standard of behavior a belief in a benevolent God and a practical application of religion in our lives does.


In theory it might, but in practice, there's no evidence that people who believe in God have an improved life compared to atheists. There's just too many people who think that their God is benevolent "as long as you're not a fag, because God hates that" - and then suddenly they've started using their religion to justify intolerance. How does that benefit anyone?

You may think that being religious improves your life, but I don't think it's so clear.
It's not like the rest of us are saying "gee my life is terrible because I don't have Jesus". Why do you think Christians spend so much effort trying to convert others? It's because your way of life isn't obviously better, despite how it might look to you.

Quote:
Religious people throughout history have seen miracles or evidence of God's hand in their lives.  So atheism depends on the conspiracy theory that everyone else is lying.


Not lying. Just misled. There's an enormous difference.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: zouden]
    #10301275 -

Quote:
There's just too many people who think that their God is benevolent "as long as you're not a fag, because God hates that" - and then suddenly they've started using their religion to justify intolerance. How does that benefit anyone?



A religious person not to focus on how bad anther's sin is while excusing your own to make yourself feel better or morally superior.  Jesus whole comment about removing the moat from your own eye before taking the splinter from someone Else's is the prime example. I was saying something along these same lines when I said.

Quote:
that person will create a god who approves of everything he does, while condemning everyone that person doesn't like.  Instead of improving a persons character and behavior, it at best reaffirms his current behavior and can make it worse. 



If someone is preaching against one sin, they better be preaching against the others too, whether lying, fornication and the rest.  The Bible preaches that all of it can keep you from God. They had better be consistent and set an example in their handling of the issues that tempt them.  Its not wrong to be intolerant of evil and bad behavior, and have a righteous indignation when you see it, but if your chanting against one person who struggles with a temptation you don't face, while giving into the temptations you do face, then your a hypocrite and certainly aren't concerned for that persons soul.  That is what a lot of people do, but not just religious people.  People will find a cause, to save the whales or the rain forests or something which may be noble causes.  If they are using them as a means to feel morally superior over others and excuse all their other bad behavior, it wont improve their character.

Quote:
You may think that being religious improves your life, but I don't think it's so clear.



There are benefits to good behavior and the values that religions teach.  It also benefits society. But there are Christians who live in poverty and struggle every day, and in the case of martyrs for the faith, religion ends their life. So I wouldn't say that an improved life is the primary goal of religion. It's to improve a persons behavior and how they deal with difficult situations and tragedy, and to help them to grow positively as people.

Quote:
Not lying. Just misled. There's an enormous difference.



Mislead by whom? the preachers? you think they don't believe what they preach?  Or the biblical authors who profited nothing by preaching the gospel, gave up everything and would not deny the faith even when they were executed for it?  That's not the way a con artist behaves. It wasn't one crazy lunatic with awesome magician skills preaching the gospels and doing fake miracles.  The disciples of the early church were people from every class and walk of life.  People who had no motive whatsoever to go along with this if it was fake, and who are unlikely to have had awesome magician skills.  Some with no formal education who presented the case for their faith before the leaders of the time, and those leaders couldn't fault them despite this being their goal.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10302557 -

Quote:
A religious person should be trying to model himself after God, not model his God after himself.


In my view, religion and the deities are simply self reflection, highlighting the various aspects of humanity. The model is always human. A person can claim to have the power to communicate with a deity, but there is no means to substantiate such a claim. It's all self reflection, as far as I can determine.

Quote:
It makes sense that if there is a God however, that his creations would be a reflection of him in some way.  So God having a name or demonstrating some human characteristics is logical.


IF there is a God. Without proof, giving a made up personality a proper name isn't really logical.

Quote:
Whatever we place at the forefront of our life is our God or Idol


Idol. Originally meaning, synonymous with "phantom".
An image used as an object of worship.
A false god.
One that is adored, often blindly or excessively.
Something visible but without substance.

Quote:
Are you saying that the way people behave has no effect on whether a society prospers or not?


No, of course not. What I'm saying is that the conditions that mold behaviour are not constant, and behaviour will change with conditions. Otherwise, no society would ever fall due to moral corruption. You have yet to give examples of societies which have never experienced decline.

Quote:
This isn't accurate.  The the possible exception of Hollywood, believers often prosper above their peers.


I was referring to society in general. If I'm wrong, and true believers are in control of society, then what's the problem?

Quote:
Atheism is completely based on faith.


It takes no faith to disbelieve something there is no empirical proof of. It takes faith to believe something, not to dis-believe something. Basic logic.

Quote:
The idea that everything randomly came from nothing contradicts science and is completely illogical


How about the idea that we don't know? Logically, you can't get something from nothing. This is not proof of God. It's proof we don't know, and making something up doesn't change that.

Quote:
Atheists often deny God's existence because they don't see any miracles or evidence of him in everyday life. But that is consistent with what you should expect.


No evidence is what we should expect?

Quote:
God usually showed his miracles to believers who would thank him for it rather than people who would just be contemptuous, take the blessing and run.  Religious people throughout history have seen miracles or evidence of God's hand in their lives.


So in order to have proof, we much first accept God exists without proof? That's a God that demands a lack of logic. 

Quote:
So atheism depends on the conspiracy theory that everyone else is lying.


No, it doesn't. It seems likely that some people are lying, but even that is not necessary. If I truly believed in Unicorns, and told someone Unicorns existed, would I be lying?

Quote:
Someone believing in a miracle is only implausible if you don't believe in God. If God exists than why would miracles be illogical


IF God exists. You should provide examples of miracles which can be substantiated. Stories like parting the Red Sea, do not constitute proof.

Quote:
The way we behave as individuals towards our neighbors, family, the sense of community, manners, seemed to have reached a peak over the past hundred years


If our society has reached a peak, as you say, how can this be? Weren't we the example you speak of, which doesn't decline? If America, and Europe are not examples of rock solid morality, I ask again, which societies do you speak of?

Also, you have avoided one of my questions. If we are trying to determine whether deity worship is required to create a successful society, you cannot ignore the question of the East.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Rahz]
    #10303124 -

Quote:
then your a hypocrite and certainly aren't concerned for that persons soul.  That is what a lot of people do, but not just religious people.  People will find a cause, to save the whales or the rain forests or something which may be noble causes.  If they are using them as a means to feel morally superior over others and excuse all their other bad behavior, it wont improve their character.


I completely agree. What I'm saying is that in practise there's so many of those hypocritical religious people that I really doubt if being religious teaches you any sort of tolerance at all. In fact, I wonder if it's the opposite.

Sure, maybe it's just the bad ones that ruin the reputation for all the good Christians out there. But those 'bad' Christians are particularly vocal, and they speak with the most conviction in their voice. Their hypocrisy is astounding. I can't accept the notion that religion is a force for good when there are groups like that around.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: zouden]
    #10501764 -

Everyone is capable of being intolerant.  It's often easier to dismiss a point of view, by dismissing the people who challenge your own, than have to constantly consider the arguments and debate its rational.  What I see from most Christian's however is that when they do something that is inconsistent with their faith while trying to defend it, and they are called on it, they will usually apologise and change their conduct, because it is inconsistent with their faith.

My experience with many atheists is that they are generally far more intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their point of view, vilifying them, and doing all they can to avoid honest debate. They will never apologise for it because their goals are more important to them than the way they conduct themselves trying to reach them.  Being intolerant of other viewpoints, even while promoting "tolerance," isn't inconsistent with their values.

"Tolerance" can be just another word for not caring about someone else.  People must have the freedom to make their own choices and mistakes.  Is telling someone that a choice is a mistake, or immoral, or has negative consequences ,or will obstruct your ability to become all God wants you to believe truly intolerant? or is it caring about someone?  Does a truly loving parent tell their child about to embark upon a life or crime that that its OK, and they accept them and whatever they do? or do they tell them that the direction they are headed in is wrong, and that while they will always be there to accept them, they cant accept the choices they are making?  Does love mean trying to guide people in the right direction? or standing by while they run off a cliff, because its easier, avoids confrontation and will allow you to remain popular?

Atheists view of tolerance is that you must accept someone and all their actions, no matter how heinous, or you are intolerant and not understanding of their situation, or circumstances.  They don't want anyone to challenge the merits of their life choices, they don't want to have to justify them, and they want to remove any possible social consequences that may result from their choices.  They reject completely the idea of love the sinner hate the sin. Atheists are often extremely intolerant of anyone who even suggests an absolute moral standard and hate God.  They are offended even by displays of the ten commandments or manger scenes. While they are offended by anyone who even suggests they may be wrong, they attack with a passion those who live peacefully with their neighbors, get along at work and make positive contributions to their communities because they believe in God and that certain act ivies are wrong.  The mere existence of someone who believes differently is a threat.

Christianity is supposed to be truly tolerant because you are not saved through your actions but through Grace. It recognizes that everyone of us faces different challenges and struggle with different temptations without accepting scumming to these temptations as acceptable. It is founded on the principle that living according to Godly principles is best for the individual and society, and that no one regardless of their behavior is a throw away or unsalable person. Through God everyone can be saved, regardless of the sin. As a result the christian should not be judge mental towards people who face different challenges, or even that fail in the same challenges they succeeded in, but they should also not accept the moral failures either. Because Love and Tolerance means accepting the person,  wanting the best for them and trying to help them reach their full potential.  Not accepting the worst, or less than best for someone, because its easier than upholding a moral standard, or challenge people, and will help you stay popular. Accepting immoral or antisocial behavior, accepting wasted lives,  and trying to change the meaning of right and wrong so people avoid feelings of guilt, isn't tolerant, its just not caring.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10501864 -

That's quite a straw-man argument you made there. Can you provide examples of atheists being intolerant? Because I can find plenty of examples of intolerant Christians who won't apologise after being told that their actions are inconsistent with their faith.

Quote:
They are offended even by displays of the ten commandments


On public property, yes, because it's unconstitutional.

A counter example for you: remember the fuss that this caused?


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: zouden]
    #10501924 -

Instead of arguing about who is right and who is wrong, it is my honest opinion that people should just accept the main points that their respective religious attempts to make and live by them. (The 10 commandments in Judaism and Christianity, and the 5 pillars in Islam)

It's quite surprising how many individuals who claim to follow one religion or another actually could not be further away from the teachings, since they concentrate on one interpretation or the other too much they fail to understand and follow the main concepts.

The main problem with religion as I see it, is that religious folks have a tendency to try and convert others to their faith, and if that doesn't work out they ridicule and mock them.

If everyone would just keep to themselves in this regard, the world would be a much better place to live in.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Denisius]
    #10502285 -

Quote:
The main problem with religion as I see it, is that religious folks have a tendency to try and convert others to their faith, and if that doesn't work out they ridicule and mock them.


Well, the same can be said for atheists. The main difference is no one kills in the name of atheism.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: zouden]
    #10502316 -

zouden said:
Quote:
The main problem with religion as I see it, is that religious folks have a tendency to try and convert others to their faith, and if that doesn't work out they ridicule and mock them.


Well, the same can be said for atheists. The main difference is no one kills in the name of atheism.


Atheism is not a religion. To be more specific, atheism is the lack of theism.

And even though some atheists might try to reason with religious folk, I have yet to see any atheists go door to door and preach about how good life is without religion. :tongue:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10502317 -

Arghhhh said:
Everyone is capable of being intolerant.  It's often easier to dismiss a point of view, by dismissing the people who challenge your own, than have to constantly consider the arguments and debate its rational.  What I see from most Christian's however is that when they do something that is inconsistent with their faith while trying to defend it, and they are called on it, they will usually apologise and change their conduct, because it is inconsistent with their faith.

My experience with many atheists is that they are generally far more intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their point of view, vilifying them, and doing all they can to avoid honest debate. They will never apologise for it because their goals are more important to them than the way they conduct themselves trying to reach them.  Being intolerant of other viewpoints, even while promoting "tolerance," isn't inconsistent with their values.

"Tolerance" can be just another word for not caring about someone else.  People must have the freedom to make their own choices and mistakes.  Is telling someone that a choice is a mistake, or immoral, or has negative consequences ,or will obstruct your ability to become all God wants you to believe truly intolerant? or is it caring about someone?  Does a truly loving parent tell their child about to embark upon a life or crime that that its OK, and they accept them and whatever they do? or do they tell them that the direction they are headed in is wrong, and that while they will always be there to accept them, they cant accept the choices they are making?  Does love mean trying to guide people in the right direction? or standing by while they run off a cliff, because its easier, avoids confrontation and will allow you to remain popular?

Atheists view of tolerance is that you must accept someone and all their actions, no matter how heinous, or you are intolerant and not understanding of their situation, or circumstances.  They don't want anyone to challenge the merits of their life choices, they don't want to have to justify them, and they want to remove any possible social consequences that may result from their choices.  They reject completely the idea of love the sinner hate the sin. Atheists are often extremely intolerant of anyone who even suggests an absolute moral standard and hate God.  They are offended even by displays of the ten commandments or manger scenes. While they are offended by anyone who even suggests they may be wrong, they attack with a passion those who live peacefully with their neighbors, get along at work and make positive contributions to their communities because they believe in God and that certain act ivies are wrong.  The mere existence of someone who believes differently is a threat.

Christianity is supposed to be truly tolerant because you are not saved through your actions but through Grace. It recognizes that everyone of us faces different challenges and struggle with different temptations without accepting scumming to these temptations as acceptable. It is founded on the principle that living according to Godly principles is best for the individual and society, and that no one regardless of their behavior is a throw away or unsalable person. Through God everyone can be saved, regardless of the sin. As a result the christian should not be judge mental towards people who face different challenges, or even that fail in the same challenges they succeeded in, but they should also not accept the moral failures either. Because Love and Tolerance means accepting the person,  wanting the best for them and trying to help them reach their full potential.  Not accepting the worst, or less than best for someone, because its easier than upholding a moral standard, or challenge people, and will help you stay popular. Accepting immoral or antisocial behavior, accepting wasted lives,  and trying to change the meaning of right and wrong so people avoid feelings of guilt, isn't tolerant, its just not caring.


I think you are confusing atheists with "persons of low self worth". If not, you are being overly general. Of course, people who don't believe in God are more likely to be the ones who attack the idea of God, but this is not a defacto statement on atheism. And religious people can be just as intolerant, towards other religions, and even different sects of their own, and towards the "Godless". There are plenty of examples of this in the history books. You may argue that they are not "true" Christians, but I would argue that the qualities you ascribe to a true Christian can also be found to be present in some atheists, and in members of other religions which either acknowledge no God, or have different Gods. Since the qualities you describe are not defacto true Christian qualities, we must assume that being a true Christian is not the source of morality.

I think that a system of morality is highly beneficial in creating a society who's individuals exhibit it. But what has this to do with a specific God? I ask again, worded slightly differently, do Buddhists exemplify the negative qualities you describe? If not, why is that?

Taking the question further, do all atheists exemplify the negative qualities you describe? Is it all black and white to you? If not, why?

You should also consider the possibility that atheism in the West has not yet had the opportunity to formulate discreet codes of wisdom. I mean, historically, that kind of thing simply hasn't been... tolerated. When atheists start burning Christians in the name of atheism, I may reconsider my stance. Then again, just like religion, it's quite possible the false atheists will be in charge.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Rahz]
    #10503204 -

Hey im just going to jump in here and mention, there is a difference between saying that violence is wrong or right and saying that violence towards a specific group of people is wrong or right.

It could be that christians think it is ok to be violent to non christians. Could you call christians violent people?
well yer you can, if they cause violence to other people.
but you can also call them peaceful people, if they do not hurt eachother.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10503216 -

By that logic, a mass-murderer can be called a peaceful person because he doesn't hurt his mother.

Violence is violence.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: zouden]
    #10503393 -

Logic? where is the logic in saying that violence is bad?

Its not logical it is just a way of looking at the world.

Im not justifying anything, I am showing how good and bad is relative - and we have slowly included all people into our 'family' so that now we have human rights and all sorts of ideals about world peace etc.

But unless the human race evolves en mass, there will always be people who have not been tought to accept every person (because such an idea stems from modern education) and thus those people will naturally revert to classifying people as friends or foes.

its not NATURAL to include all men in your family, it is something that has occured with human enlightenment, as people expose themselves to people from all places and find that they can laugh with a person regardless of the colour of their skin.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 1 in 4 women U.S. women suffer domestic violence
( 1 2 all )		 MushmanTheManic 4,097 38 02/08/08 07:23 PM
by Boots
* The Holy Bible...
( 1 2 all )		 psilo25 4,008 27 09/04/02 10:21 AM
by psilo25
* The Truth About Christmas
( 1 2 all )		 chodamunky 5,768 24 12/26/19 07:19 AM
by Metaphysician
* nonviolence and its violent consequences NiamhNyx 1,925 9 08/08/04 11:59 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Changes in the bible
( 1 2 all )		 LearyfanS 3,728 29 10/28/03 12:02 PM
by Funguy
* One Glaring Problem With The Bible
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 DiploidM 13,924 132 04/30/05 09:25 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* The Bible ... a trip? HB 1,539 6 09/14/01 12:27 AM
by Alowishaus
* The Bible : Bullshit
( 1 2 3 all )		 i_eat_planets 4,410 40 12/15/05 09:41 PM
by nakors_junk_bag

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
13,019 topic views. 2 members, 418 guests and 42 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.