Christianity in Britain declining
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Did he act that way solely because he was afraid of the wrath of his god? Did he act that way because it is stated in his religion that he should rescue the infidel (in which case he'd better go back to the books) or did he act that way because he was a really decent and moral chap?I dealt with a bloke who helped out casualties at a road traffic accident and probably saved a life, and possibly two. The senior officer at the scene wrote him up for an award, which he got. He rode a BMW twin. At that time I owned one, or perhaps just sold it, and we ended up chatting when he got the shakes after the emergency services arrived. I doubt his goodness can be attributed to his taste in motorcycles.
So when religious people do bad it is because of their religion, but when religious people do good it has nothing to do with their religious beliefs?
The man even states that his God would decide when he dies, not the terrorists, so that shows that his beliefs do have a bearing on his thought processes and his actions.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You seem to miss the point - was that specific supermarket attack, where jews were targeted by islamic fanatics - related in any way to religion?Yes or no?
One possible answer is moderation in education. Put religion in its place. Its a hobby. One of many possibly valid ideas to believe in. Other beliefs and non-belief are available to chose from and equally valid.
///ajd said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You seem to miss the point - was that specific supermarket attack, where jews were targeted by islamic fanatics - related in any way to religion?Yes or no?
One possible answer is moderation in education. Put religion in its place. Its a hobby. One of many possibly valid ideas to believe in. Other beliefs and non-belief are available to chose from and equally valid.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It is not possible to know, nor is it legimate for religion to "claim" its right to improving morals in a community, much as you'd like it to be the case. "do unto others etc." is a fine sentiment, but not one solely derived from any belief or religion - infact it is offensive to suggest such a worldview is the preserve of the religious. Those that do are using a form of blackmail to coerce religious support from the weak minded. Nice!So, there is my answer.
Your turn - was there a religious aspect when the islamic extremists singled out and shot those jews in the supermarket?
Is there a case for tackling extremism? How do you think that should be tackled? Is education part of the solution?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
"What do you think would have turned them into murdering b
ds in religion's absence?"It does seem plausible that without the religious indoctrination they wouldn't have done 7/7, doesn't it?
What outside of religion (and perhaps suicidal depression) causes you to take your own life (and those of others?)
Derek Smith said:
Quoting Wiki is no way to win an argument.
Why not, the points are valid. Are you trying to say that the history in the wikis is incorrect? If not then what is the problem?Derek Smith said:
Taking your last point first, you seem to be making the assumption that religions have not dynastic, territorial or, rather remarkably, financial desires. Any brief review of the history of the western catholic church will indicate that this is likely to be incorrect. Further reading will confirm this.
The heads of religions have occasionally behaved more like emperors in charge of empires, I can't disagree. However if you view it like that then surely their wars become a case of imperial conquest and not actually about religion...Derek Smith said:
That there were reasons other than religious for the French religious wars is a given. However, at the time the church was a massive player, perhaps the most influential, and was involved.
I'm not sure how you can dismiss the religious wars in the Indian sub-continent by mentioning the Raj. It is still going on and is based solely on which religion you profess.
There was a lot of background to those that went way past any religion. Especially the Indian one. India was invaded and virtually conquered, then they fought back and got a lot back. Then the British arrived and kept the lid on things for a while. Until they left. Being Hindu or Muslim was, and still is, seen as synonymous with which side you are on, the war has always been about invaders versus invaded.I'm not sure how you can dismiss the religious wars in the Indian sub-continent by mentioning the Raj. It is still going on and is based solely on which religion you profess.
Derek Smith said:
The crusades were started by the then pope. His motives were his own, but they were religion based.
That is demonstrably false. Any look at the expanding power of the Middle East in that time frame and their campaigns, varying from full on conquest to widespread slave raids, will show that it was a military response to a military threat. Remember that before the wars European territory and influence extended right to the edge of the Byzantine Empire. The Arab armies ultimately got as far as northern France (Battle of Tours) and the gates of Vienna. In the process Europe lost Spain, Constantinople, Greece, the Balkans and lots else for centuries.cymtriks said:
Derek Smith said:
The crusades were started by the then pope. His motives were his own, but they were religion based.
That is demonstrably false. Any look at the expanding power of the Middle East in that time frame and their campaigns, varying from full on conquest to widespread slave raids, will show that it was a military response to a military threat. Remember that before the wars European territory and influence extended right to the edge of the Byzantine Empire. The Arab armies ultimately got as far as northern France (Battle of Tours) and the gates of Vienna. In the process Europe lost Spain, Constantinople, Greece, the Balkans and lots else for centuries.Let me explain. Quite simple really.
As a member of Her Majesty's Church of England we're right, unless you cross the sea or some sort of border.
Quite happy to tolerate other mistaken beliefs, or lack of them, as long as you behave yourself. Within reason.
All cars MP out.
As a member of Her Majesty's Church of England we're right, unless you cross the sea or some sort of border.
Quite happy to tolerate other mistaken beliefs, or lack of them, as long as you behave yourself. Within reason.
All cars MP out.
Edited by standards on Sunday 7th February 08:00
Edited by standards on Sunday 7th February 08:03
Edited by standards on Sunday 7th February 08:04
Edited by standards on Sunday 7th February 08:07
anonymous said:
[redacted]
OK, so without religion, Coulibaly would not have conducted his attack?I think we're in agreement on that. In that case there would be no further discussion as we would not be discussing any attack - that is what you are skirting around.
You can't however claim religious beliefs were behind his good actions - no evidence it was in any way a motivation, any more than if he had a BMW motorcycle (see Dereks post). Indeed it is a bit offensive to try and do so; it implies you think your religious group is better than those outside it.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It is not difficult to work out.If someone does something nasty to further the aims of religion, it must be for religion. If there was no religion, there would not have been and need/desire/cause to perform that function for it.
On the other hand, a person stops to let a woman with a pram cross the road, conceding their right to continue. Such an action does not require a god. It does not require a list of rules to follow. It does not require a threat of eternal damnation. It is an act totally devoid of religious input. It could be completed by an atheist, a baptist, a Japanese person who believes their emperor is god or a scientologist.
I'm not saying that all nasty wars are started by the religious, but just that all religious wars were started by the religious.
Religious people have started non religious wars. We are told that Blair prayed before unleashing the dogs of war on a middle eastern country with lots of oil. I would not classify it as a religious war despite my suspicion that it had something to do with his 'conversion' to catholicism and a desire to meet the head honcho.
However, the deaths that resulted from the reformation were due to religion. Without religion there would have been no deaths due to the reformation. There is a memorial to protestant martyrs in a town near me, killed by bloody queen Mary's stupid bloody belief in a cracker turning into a god. Without religion they would not have been killed then.
However, as I pointed out, a good deed done by a religious person does not have to be because they are religious. I've stopped to let pedestrians cross the road, and I have three cracked vertebrae. Is there a connection? Did I stop the car because of my back problem?
I'll give you a clue. The answer begins with an N.
///ajd said:
OK, so without religion, Coulibaly would not have conducted his attack?
I think we're in agreement on that. In that case there would be no further discussion as we would not be discussing any attack - that is what you are skirting around.
You can't however claim religious beliefs were behind his good actions - no evidence it was in any way a motivation, any more than if he had a BMW motorcycle (see Dereks post). Indeed it is a bit offensive to try and do so; it implies you think your religious group is better than those outside it.
So in essence you decide what Bathily's motivations were for what he did, and you decide what his religion means to him? That's what you are saying.I think we're in agreement on that. In that case there would be no further discussion as we would not be discussing any attack - that is what you are skirting around.
You can't however claim religious beliefs were behind his good actions - no evidence it was in any way a motivation, any more than if he had a BMW motorcycle (see Dereks post). Indeed it is a bit offensive to try and do so; it implies you think your religious group is better than those outside it.
You continue to think in terms of only black and white. You are naive to think that a group like I.S or any of their terrorists do what they do simply to please a God. They do what they do for many reasons, each man for a different combination of reasons. Revenge, a perverted sense of brotherhood and belonging, xenophobia, money, power, because of a personality disorder, because they like killing......
Derek Smith said:
..........
Religious people have started non religious wars. We are told that Blair prayed before unleashing the dogs of war on a middle eastern country with lots of oil. I would not classify it as a religious war despite my suspicion that it had something to do with his 'conversion' to catholicism and a desire to meet the head honcho.
..........
I'd suggest your suspicions betray a stubborn desire to see the world in a certain way and a resulting lack of objectivity.Religious people have started non religious wars. We are told that Blair prayed before unleashing the dogs of war on a middle eastern country with lots of oil. I would not classify it as a religious war despite my suspicion that it had something to do with his 'conversion' to catholicism and a desire to meet the head honcho.
..........
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/03/12/vatican-st...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No, read more carefully. I'm saying you can't decide what Bathily's motivations were - YOU were trying to do that. Derek's explanation was very clear.
Now you are saying that supermarket attack - on a particular religious group where the attacker knew he was pretty much certain to die himself, might have been for money.
You are grasping at such thin straws you've almost said suicide bombers might be doing it for the money.
Read that back.
///ajd said:
No, read more carefully. I'm saying you can't decide what Bathily's motivations were - YOU were trying to do that.
Derek's explanation was very clear.
Now you are saying that supermarket attack - on a particular religious group where the attacker knew he was pretty much certain to die himself, might have been for money.
You are grasping at such thin straws you've almost said suicide bombers might be doing it for the money.
Read that back.
There's a difference between almost saying something and actually saying something isn't there. Derek's explanation was very clear.
Now you are saying that supermarket attack - on a particular religious group where the attacker knew he was pretty much certain to die himself, might have been for money.
You are grasping at such thin straws you've almost said suicide bombers might be doing it for the money.
Read that back.
'I like to walk my dog' is almost 'i like to w
k my dog', except it isn't at all.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff