Religion?

[frugalnacho]

No religion teaches to kill anyone and to get involved in criminal activities. All religions teach to live peacefully.

lol.

[Gin1984]

No religion teaches to kill anyone and to get involved in criminal activities. All religions teach to live peacefully.

You don't know much about history, do you?

[arebelspy]

Also religions often don't follow their own teachings.

[Gin1984]

Also religions often don't follow their own teachings.

But many religions do teach that killing (or dying) in the name of the God is good. 

[sol]

Many?

Pretty much all of them that have a singular supreme being, yes.   They typically use some variation of "God commanded me to do evil as a test" or "God commanded that I smite the heathens" but, ironically, never "God commanded me to smite the heathens as a test" because that confuses the message that killing is bad, I mean good, I mean sometimes good and sometimes bad.

[Gin1984]

Many?

Pretty much all of them that have a singular supreme being, yes.   They typically use some variation of "God commanded me to do evil as a test" or "God commanded that I smite the heathens" but, ironically, never "God commanded me to smite the heathens as a test" because that confuses the message that killing is bad, I mean good, I mean sometimes good and sometimes bad.

So, with "pretty much all" you mean the Abrahmic religions: Judaism,  Christianity and Islam?  What you're claiming they teach doesn't square at all with "Thou shalt not kill." Which itself is a commandment in all three of those religions. 
I'm not surprised to read a 180 degree interpretation.  The world is full of people who think they save money by shopping and other such nonsense.  I just expected the MMM crew to be smarter. 
Humans of every stripe are prone to justify their own failings, ie.. claim they had to destroy the village in order to save it.  That doesn't negate the teaching or the fundamentals.  It means humans are capable of some nasty shite and religion doesn't provide a complete assurance of moral behavior.   Nothing does, but religious teaching is more effective than anything else mankind has invented.

No, it does not, however we have long seen where there is two or more ideas within a religion.  But yes, the abrahamic religions are big one.  Let's take an easy one, the crusades.  Knights were told they would be saved if they fought in them as an example.  This required killing. 
But they are not the first, nor the last.  You see it in some pagan religions such as celts where the druids did encourage their people to fight and kill the romans.  But this is not just a Western idea.  After WW2 the USA forced a change on Shinto, the once state religion of Japan, why?  Because Shinto supported the idea of Japanese conquest. 
Religions model their people, and people kill.  Religions have taught it is ok or valued in different time periods, even if they don't agree with murder.

[MandalayVA]

No religion teaches to kill anyone and to get involved in criminal activities. All religions teach to live peacefully.

"God is the leading cause of death."  Christopher Hitchens

[GuitarStv]

Many?

Pretty much all of them that have a singular supreme being, yes.   They typically use some variation of "God commanded me to do evil as a test" or "God commanded that I smite the heathens" but, ironically, never "God commanded me to smite the heathens as a test" because that confuses the message that killing is bad, I mean good, I mean sometimes good and sometimes bad.

So, with "pretty much all" you mean the Abrahmic religions: Judaism,  Christianity and Islam?  What you're claiming they teach doesn't square at all with "Thou shalt not kill." Which itself is a commandment in all three of those religions. 
I'm not surprised to read a 180 degree interpretation.  The world is full of people who think they save money by shopping and other such nonsense.  I just expected the MMM crew to be smarter. 
Humans of every stripe are prone to justify their own failings, ie.. claim they had to destroy the village in order to save it.  That doesn't negate the teaching or the fundamentals.  It means humans are capable of some nasty shite and religion doesn't provide a complete assurance of moral behavior.   Nothing does, but religious teaching is more effective than anything else mankind has invented.

I'm most familiar with the bible, as it was the religion my parents exposed me to first . . . the old testament does have 'thou shalt not kill' as a commandment . . . but it's also got some pretty regular justification for killing in the name of God:

Killing people who don't follow your faith:
Exodus 22:17-19
Deuteronomy 13:13-19
Romans 1:24-32
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
1 Kings 18:36-40
Numbers 25:1-9

Killing people for following faith the wrong way (false prophets, working on sabbath, blasphemy, etc):
Numbers 1:48-51
Exodus 31:12-15
Deuteronomy 17:12
Deuteronomy 13:1-5
Deuteronomy 18:20-22
Leviticus 24:10-16

Killing Children:
Isaiah 14:21
Isaiah 13:15-18
Hosea 9:11-16
Exodus 12:29-30
Exodus 32:26-29
Leviticus 26:21-22

Now, I'm not saying that the overall message of Christianity is one of death . . . and obviously this all needs to be taken in context.  If you're looking for justification to commit murder though, reading the bible a particular way produces ample reason for it.

[sol]

I'm particularly fond of the parts that says that thou shalt kill by stoning to death a woman who refuses to marry her rapist.

Just as one example of many for cases in which the bible condones killing.  Kite, if you think the bible is the best way to enforce moral behavior, then you and I have very different ideas of what morality is.

[GuitarStv]

I'm particularly fond of the parts that says that thou shalt kill by stoning to death a woman who refuses to marry her rapist.

Just as one example of many for cases in which the bible condones killing.  Kite, if you think the bible is the best way to enforce moral behavior, then you and I have very different ideas of what morality is.

I think you're talking about Deuteronomy 22:29:

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

You only murder the rape victim if she's betrothed and in a city.  You only force the rape victim to marry the attacker if she's not pledged to be married and a virgin.  I'm not sure your comment about stoning to death for refusing to marry the attacker comes from though.

[DoubleDown]

I'm most familiar with the bible, as it was the religion my parents exposed me to first . . . the old testament does have 'thou shalt not kill' as a commandment . . . but it's also got some pretty regular justification for killing in the name of God:

Killing people who don't follow your faith:
Exodus 22:17-19
Deuteronomy 13:13-19
Romans 1:24-32
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
1 Kings 18:36-40
Numbers 25:1-9

Killing people for following faith the wrong way (false prophets, working on sabbath, blasphemy, etc):
Numbers 1:48-51
Exodus 31:12-15
Deuteronomy 17:12
Deuteronomy 13:1-5
Deuteronomy 18:20-22
Leviticus 24:10-16

Killing Children:
Isaiah 14:21
Isaiah 13:15-18
Hosea 9:11-16
Exodus 12:29-30
Exodus 32:26-29
Leviticus 26:21-22

Now, I'm not saying that the overall message of Christianity is one of death . . . and obviously this all needs to be taken in context.  If you're looking for justification to commit murder though, reading the bible a particular way produces ample reason for it.

What?!! You must be kidding.

I did not go through your entire list, because it is all Old Testament references except one: Romans 1:24-32, which says absolutely nothing about justification for killing anyone. Where do you even come up with this stuff? We all get that people are free to choose what they believe but, for crying out loud, making stuff up is just silly. You might as well claim that MMM advocates buying a Hummer and following today's hot stock tip.

For those who have not read Romans 1, it is titled "God's Wrath Against Sinful Humanity," and it discusses the immoral acts practiced since the dawn of humanity by those who have turned against God, and how God gave them over to their own wickedness -- that is, let them have their free will to do what they want and worship other idols, and that those wicked people are reaping the fruits of their own evilness. Nowhere does it say anything like, "You are justified in killing those kind of people."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=NIV

Here's the part that GuitarStv probably thinks advocates murder:

They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

[GuitarStv]

Romans 1:24:32

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Granted, it doesn't say you have to kill gays and people who don't follow your religion, just that they deserve death.  Sure  . . . you can interpret it differently if you want.  All that I was saying is that there's ample material in the bible (particularly the Old Testament) that cam be read in such a way to support murder.

[frugalnacho]

Granted, it doesn't say you have to kill gays and people who don't follow your religion, just that they deserve death.  Sure  . . . you can interpret it differently if you want.  All that I was saying is that there's ample material in the bible (particularly the Old Testament) that cam be read in such a way to support murder.

Nope, there's only one way to interpret the bible.

[DoubleDown]

Romans 1:24:32

Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Granted, it doesn't say you have to kill gays and people who don't follow your religion, just that they deserve death.  Sure  . . . you can interpret it differently if you want.  All that I was saying is that there's ample material in the bible (particularly the Old Testament) that cam be read in such a way to support murder.

And I will grant you that, sure, extremists can draw all kinds of outrageous interpretations from text. To draw the conclusion that this passage condones murdering people who disagree with your faith is an extreme interpretation, to say the least. I would call it a fundamental reading comprehension fail.

I'm definitely no Biblical scholar, but even I can see the far more likely (non-extremist) interpretations:

- God declares that depraved and evil people that turn away from him will reap death. That is, eternal death from Him, the entire central message of the Bible (i.e., eternal life comes from God, death comes to evil people who do not follow God).

- Note that almost all the evil acts listed (gossip, slander, envy, malice, sexual depravity (as defined in the Bible), disobeying parents, acting with arrogance, etc.) are NOT criminal acts. Again, Paul is more likely talking about death of one's soul, not that they deserve to be killed by someone else. As harsh as even some Old Testament penalties might have been, I've never seen it advocating murdering a gossip, insolent child, or an arrogant person. There were no penalties "on the books" for those things.

- Saying someone deserves some penalty is not the same as condoning individuals to carry out the penalty. Saying Ted Bundy deserves to die for his crimes is not a mandate for individuals to hunt him down and kill him. Jesus specifically said he was bringing a new Law, one of "turning the other cheek" (New Testament) instead of "an eye for an eye (Old Testament)"

- Paul specifically says in this passage that even though these evil things are an abomination to God, He allows them to occur. What kind of faithful follower would then conclude that even though God isn't taking action to kill these people, we should?

The interpretation you suggested flies in the face of reason.

[GuitarStv]

And I will grant you that, sure, extremists can draw all kinds of outrageous interpretations from text. To draw the conclusion that this passage condones murdering people who disagree with your faith is an extreme interpretation, to say the least. I would call it a fundamental reading comprehension fail.

I'm definitely no Biblical scholar, but even I can see the far more likely (non-extremist) interpretations:

- God declares that depraved and evil people that turn away from him will reap death. That is, eternal death from Him, the entire central message of the Bible (i.e., eternal life comes from God, death comes to evil people who do not follow God).

Sounds plausible, but is entirely your interpretation.

Note that almost all the evil acts listed (gossip, slander, envy, malice, sexual depravity (as defined in the Bible), disobeying parents, acting with arrogance, etc.) are NOT criminal acts. Again, Paul is more likely talking about death of one's soul, not that they deserve to be killed by someone else. As harsh as even some Old Testament penalties might have been, I've never seen it advocating murdering a gossip, insolent child, or an arrogant person. There were no penalties "on the books" for those things.

As I posted earlier, there are many instructions to murder people for relatively minor things in the old testament . . . (disrespecting parents, being gay, swearing at mom/dad, talking crap about God, or hitting your parents):

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Exodus 21:15 -Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.

Leviticus 20:9 - All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense.

Leviticus 24:10 - anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

- Saying someone deserves some penalty is not the same as condoning individuals to carry out the penalty. Saying Ted Bundy deserves to die for his crimes is not a mandate for individuals to hunt him down and kill him. Jesus specifically said he was bringing a new Law, one of "turning the other cheek" (New Testament) instead of "an eye for an eye (Old Testament)"

If everyone who followed Christianity agreed that this command overrode the rest of the law outlined in the old testament, there would be shockingly little opposition to the religion world wide.  And maybe more people slapping Christians for the fun of it.

Unfortunately, it's one of the many contradictions of the bible.  Jesus says that he isn't replacing the old law and that you need to follow it to be a good person.  (Mathew 5 17:20, John7:19, Luke 16:17, Romans 3:31, and 2 Peter 20-21, etc.)

- Paul specifically says in this passage that even though these evil things are an abomination to God, He allows them to occur. What kind of faithful follower would then conclude that even though God isn't taking action to kill these people, we should?

The kind who views getting rid of evil as doing good.

The interpretation you suggested flies in the face of reason.

In the context of what Paul's saying . . . maybe, kind of, depending on your interpretation.  Not everyone is as quick as you are to write off the the first half of the bible.  At any rate, I think we've clearly shown that there is ample text to be used to support murder in the bible.

[Gin1984]

I'm particularly fond of the parts that says that thou shalt kill by stoning to death a woman who refuses to marry her rapist.

Just as one example of many for cases in which the bible condones killing.  Kite, if you think the bible is the best way to enforce moral behavior, then you and I have very different ideas of what morality is.

I didn't say the bible was the best. I said religion.  Surely you recognize the difference.
I took specific exception to the claim that many religions teach that killing in the name of God is good.  They don't.   To backup such a claim, you must cherry pick and literally interpret select Bible passages, while ignoring the most important parts making the same logic error that Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church make.  Then, to extrapolate and presume that narrow and twisted interpretation applies across the board to many religions or even all the Abrahmic religions is just ignorant.

You ignored my example, though, which was not even from the bible.  There are multiple examples, you just don't like them.

[FIPurpose]

So this is what most religion discussions I have had devolve into:

1. Someone who does not really understand the Crusades brings it up.

2. Someone who does not understand the Galileo trial brings it up.

3. Someone who does not understand Evolution brings it up.

4. Someone who does not understand Old Testament law brings it up.

I think there are multiple reasons people do a poor job representing these pieces of history. One is that the wrong people usually teach these topics.


The Crusades are also another topic that people don't really know. Hey I'll admit I haven't read up on the topic in a long time. I claim no knowledge of the subject, I couldn't tell you how many there were, nor the reasons for each one. But for people that find it convenient it is a convenient story for "Christianity teaches bad stuff" narrative. The Crusades is not a simple topic.

For example the Galileo trial is an interesting read from a historical perspective, but is usually taught in science class, and to be honest most scientists don't have a clue how the Galileo trial went; why it happened; nor its outcome. But people quote it because it is known as the 'go to' story for the 'Religion is totally against Science'.

Evolution is usually part of the discussion. Most of the time it's 2 people who don't know what Evolution is. I'll confess: I don't understand Evolution. As with any subject, it is growing far too rapidly to be comprehended by a single person. To understand Evolution's process would be to understand the history of the world, physics, Environmental Sciences, Chemistry, Biology. But really most people just argue talking points, or if their college educated, they'll just post links to scientific papers they like the conclusions of.

The last one is that most do not understand: Old Law. Usually you can avoid most arguments, because people find a website entitled "Contradictions in the Bible" and copy paste the list into the forum, and 'boom' due diligence done. Likewise, as has already been done, people have posted sections of Old Law that they interpret as stupid because they have superior modern Ethics.
Which is funny that it kind of relates to the discussion on Capital Punishment. The only reason we as a nation consider getting rid of capital punishment is because we have the ability to imprison everyone that is dangerous, however that has not always been the case, actually for most of history that is not the case. So when we when we look back at history such as the Old Testament, you have to understand how the people lived; what were their limitations; why would they decide this.

Anyway I've gone long enough, surely I've written enough fodder for people to rant another 2 pages.

[GuitarStv]

Going with the field of dreams debating tactic, I see.  If you build a big enough straw man maybe someone will come and argue it?

[frugalnacho]

Going with the field of dreams debating tactic, I see.  If you build a big enough straw man maybe someone will come and argue it?

[FIPurpose]

Going with the field of dreams debating tactic, I see.  If you build a big enough straw man maybe someone will come and argue it?

I thought this whole thread was for building straw men? I thought it a proper response to your red herring. The thread isn't really going anywhere until terms such as religion, bible, and Christianity are defined. Them being left undefined left your response as a misrepresentation of kite's usage of the word religion.

[GuitarStv]

OK.  Let's get some term definitions out of the way.

Religion: a system of faith and worship
Bible: A book collecting Jewish or Christian scriptures
Christianity: the religion, beliefs, and practices based on the teachings of Jesus

Am I missing something, or is that not pretty straight forward?

[frugalnacho]

I didn't realize there was any confusion about those terms.

[DoubleDown]

I don't see throwing around Old Testament citations as particularly useful. Holding a culture accountable for practices they observed 2,000 - 6,000 years ago??? My government advocated slavery 200 years ago, but it wouldn't be allowed to stand today. It takes a lot of hubris on our part to think we're so sophisticated and to pass judgment on the practices of our ancestors hundreds or thousands of years ago.

I've never encountered a group today that advocates following all Old Testament practices in the USA, Canada, Israel, or Europe today. For example, even Orthodox Jews -- I haven't heard of them stoning anyone to death in my lifetime, or killing someone who speaks harshly to their parents. Some fundamental Islamists still think it's cool to stone Christians and rape victims, and those extremists are an abomination.

I completely agree with GuitarStv that extremists could try to use Bible verses as justification for their misdeeds. But they're extremists, and they should be put down as such.

[DoubleDown]

I didn't realize there was any confusion about those terms.

There's plenty of room for ambiguity and disagreement. Just taking one:

"Christianity: the religion, beliefs, and practices based on the teachings of Jesus"

There are hundreds (or thousands?) of different groups calling themselves Christians, and some have wildly opposing beliefs and practices. Or look at the debate about "Is Islam inherently violent/evil?"

[GuitarStv]

It's the ambiguity of the bible and reliance on interpretation that leads to the wildly opposing beliefs and practices.  How does that effect usage of the term 'Christian' though?

[FIPurpose]

OK.  Let's get some term definitions out of the way.

Religion: a system of faith and worship
Bible: A book collecting Jewish or Christian scriptures
Christianity: the religion, beliefs, and practices based on the teachings of Jesus

Am I missing something, or is that not pretty straight forward?

Now explain to me the correlation of:

The Crusades -> Christianity

[GuitarStv]

It's not something that I was arguing, and not something that I'm well versed in.  My impression was that it was a long running war between Christians and Muslims over land in the middle east.

[The Architect]

Romans 1:24:32

...

Granted, it doesn't say you have to kill gays and people who don't follow your religion, just that they deserve death.  Sure  . . . you can interpret it differently if you want.  All that I was saying is that there's ample material in the bible (particularly the Old Testament) that cam be read in such a way to support murder.

Context man, context!

Romans 1:20

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

That chapter is talking about non-Christians knowing that they, themselves deserve death. It's saying that, despite God making himself blatantly obvious to all mankind, there are people who do not worship him. So he's given them (non-Christians) the freedom to choose to keep rejecting him, and keep doing the wicked things they want to do, despite that they know that punishment for rebellion and wickedness is death. As is laid out in Genesis 2:17

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Rebellion = death. For those who don't know, Adam and Eve ate from the tree and didn't drop dead - but  they did loose their immortality! Then they were also punished harshly (weeds and thorns grow instead of good plants and painful childbearing), and died some 800-1,000 years later.

Now, the good part is that acceptance = life! Despite that everyone is deserving of death - everyone has rebelled against God - he has extended grace to us and given us a way out of our punishment.

[Gin1984]

OK.  Let's get some term definitions out of the way.

Religion: a system of faith and worship
Bible: A book collecting Jewish or Christian scriptures
Christianity: the religion, beliefs, and practices based on the teachings of Jesus

Am I missing something, or is that not pretty straight forward?

Now explain to me the correlation of:

The Crusades -> Christianity

In November 1095 Pope Urban II called upon the knights of France to journey to the Holy Land and liberate the city of Jerusalem and the Christians of the east from Muslim power. In return they would be granted an unprecedented spiritual reward – the remission of all their sins – and thereby escape the torments of Hell, their likely destination after lives of violence and greed. The response to Urban’s appeal was astounding; over 60,000 people set out to recover the Holy Land and secure this reward and, in some cases, take the chance to set up new territories.
So when someone says "No religion teaches to kill anyone and to get involved in criminal activities. All religions teach to live peacefully."
The call to arms but the Pope is kind of a easy example of no, the religion did teach that killing in certain situations is good.  But the reason I did not just use the crusades is this is not a Christian only thing, or even an Abrahamic religion only thing (though it is more common there).  Many religions have taught that killing is acceptable in certain situations.

[The Architect]

In November 1095 Pope Urban II called upon the knights of France to journey to the Holy Land and liberate the city of Jerusalem and the Christians of the east from Muslim power. In return they would be granted an unprecedented spiritual reward – the remission of all their sins – and thereby escape the torments of Hell, their likely destination after lives of violence and greed. The response to Urban’s appeal was astounding; over 60,000 people set out to recover the Holy Land and secure this reward and, in some cases, take the chance to set up new territories.
So when someone says "No religion teaches to kill anyone and to get involved in criminal activities. All religions teach to live peacefully."
The call to arms but the Pope is kind of a easy example of no, the religion did teach that killing in certain situations is good.  But the reason I did not just use the crusades is this is not a Christian only thing, or even an Abrahamic religion only thing (though it is more common there).  Many religions have taught that killing is acceptable in certain situations.

The Pope =/= Christianity. For Catholics, maybe, but for those of us who split off during the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's (after Martain Luther posted his 95 theses outlining the problems with the Catholic model), we now get our instruction direct from the Bible. The believers at the time largely couldn't read it, another of Luther's problems, and didn't have widespread access to it even if they could read as the printing press wasn't invented until 1450. Not to excuse them, but their leadership was, at best, misguided and at worst corrupt. In either case the Crusaders were lied to about the Christian benefits they would receive.

Obviously, since the reformation didn't happen until later, the Crusades are a part of all (non-Orthodox - they split from Rome ~ 1054) Christian history. But that doesn't make the Crusades correct Christian teaching. Remember the "separation of church and state" line in the Bill of Rights of the US? That's there because, back in Europe, Church leadership and Political leadership were often the same thing. So when it made political sense to invade the Middle East, the religious leadership issued the order and the faithful citizens moved, lest they face retribution from both political and religious entities. Or vise-versa; the religious leadership issued orders for political reasons. In either case, the citizenry didn't know the difference as they largely couldn't read the Bible themselves. Then you get the complexities of Catholicism, which encouraged weird money-making exploits such as pilgrimages and relics, encouraging such political orders from church leadership in order to line their pockets further.

All of those issues have been safely denounced since the reformation.

[GuitarStv]

Bad things happening in the name of religions (that happen with some regularity) aren't the fault of the religion per se . . . religions are often esoteric and quite open to interpretation so the argument can be made that they're blameless for anything their adherents do.

[Beric01]

It's not something that I was arguing, and not something that I'm well versed in.  My impression was that it was a long running war between Christians and Muslims over land in the middle east.

I've seen the argument that the Crusades were actually a defensively-motivated war to stop the Muslim expansion into Europe, and weren't inherently religious (even if that was the basis of the call to arms). As flyingcircle mentioned it's NOT a simple topic.

[Gin1984]

In November 1095 Pope Urban II called upon the knights of France to journey to the Holy Land and liberate the city of Jerusalem and the Christians of the east from Muslim power. In return they would be granted an unprecedented spiritual reward – the remission of all their sins – and thereby escape the torments of Hell, their likely destination after lives of violence and greed. The response to Urban’s appeal was astounding; over 60,000 people set out to recover the Holy Land and secure this reward and, in some cases, take the chance to set up new territories.
So when someone says "No religion teaches to kill anyone and to get involved in criminal activities. All religions teach to live peacefully."
The call to arms but the Pope is kind of a easy example of no, the religion did teach that killing in certain situations is good.  But the reason I did not just use the crusades is this is not a Christian only thing, or even an Abrahamic religion only thing (though it is more common there).  Many religions have taught that killing is acceptable in certain situations.

The Pope =/= Christianity. For Catholics, maybe, but for those of us who split off during the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's (after Martain Luther posted his 95 theses outlining the problems with the Catholic model), we now get our instruction direct from the Bible. The believers at the time largely couldn't read it, another of Luther's problems, and didn't have widespread access to it even if they could read as the printing press wasn't invented until 1450. Not to excuse them, but their leadership was, at best, misguided and at worst corrupt. In either case the Crusaders were lied to about the Christian benefits they would receive.

Obviously, since the reformation didn't happen until later, the Crusades are a part of all (non-Orthodox - they split from Rome ~ 1054) Christian history. But that doesn't make the Crusades correct Christian teaching. Remember the "separation of church and state" line in the Bill of Rights of the US? That's there because, back in Europe, Church leadership and Political leadership were often the same thing. So when it made political sense to invade the Middle East, the religious leadership issued the order and the faithful citizens moved, lest they face retribution from both political and religious entities. Or vise-versa; the religious leadership issued orders for political reasons. In either case, the citizenry didn't know the difference as they largely couldn't read the Bible themselves. Then you get the complexities of Catholicism, which encouraged weird money-making exploits such as pilgrimages and relics, encouraging such political orders from church leadership in order to line their pockets further.

All of those issues have been safely denounced since the reformation.

According to the Catholics (which is the religion I was mostly raised in, 12 years of Catholic school), it was/is a Catholic teaching that those who fought in the crusades were given special dispensation and therefore were forgiven all their sins and allowed into heaven.  So, again it is an example of teaching of a religion that allowed for/requested violence. But yes, religious leadership, many of them issue orders and teachings that benefit the leadership of the time.  And yes, the priesthood in many religions have links with political leadership.  A non-bad example of a religious teaching that benefited the temples was I was at a Japanese Buddhist Wedding where they had to get multiple different types of fruit for the alter.  When I asked my friend she said it was a gift to the ancestors but did not know more.  Told me to go ask the officiant who told me it originally was for the monks.  The food was what the monks lived off.  So, religious teaching are often not some mystical thing, but immensely practical at one time.  Or the no meat on friday for Lent as another Catholic one, lol.   

[FoundPeace]

Bad things happening in the name of religions (that happen with some regularity) aren't the fault of the religion per se . . . religions are often esoteric and quite open to interpretation so the argument can be made that they're blameless for anything their adherents do.

People can use any belief system to justify doing what they want to. This is like saying science is bad because it teaches us to use the scientific method and you get to choose the experiments. Many people have used that method to do horrible things as well *cough* Josef Mengele *cough*.

Also, I agree that it is silly to condemn religion because of things that happened in the old testament and the new testament. The world was a crazy mess and the things that happened in the bible were pretty tame.

[Gin1984]

Bad things happening in the name of religions (that happen with some regularity) aren't the fault of the religion per se . . . religions are often esoteric and quite open to interpretation so the argument can be made that they're blameless for anything their adherents do.

People can use any belief system to justify doing what they want to. This is like saying science is bad because it teaches us to use the scientific method and you get to choose the experiments. Many people have used that method to do horrible things as well *cough* Josef Mengele *cough*.

Also, I agree that it is silly to condemn religion because of things that happened in the old testament and the new testament. The world was a crazy mess and the things that happened in the bible were pretty tame.

But we are not condemning it, we are laughing at the idea that ALL religions only teach and have only taught love, and peace.   History disagrees.

[The Architect]

According to the Catholics (which is the religion I was mostly raised in, 12 years of Catholic school), it was/is a Catholic teaching that those who fought in the crusades were given special dispensation and therefore were forgiven all their sins and allowed into heaven.  So, again it is an example of teaching of a religion that allowed for/requested violence. But yes, religious leadership, many of them issue orders and teachings that benefit the leadership of the time.  And yes, the priesthood in many religions have links with political leadership.

Ah, see, you're equating Catholicism with Christianity. While they are the largest 'denomination,' their teachings are not followed by approximately half of Christians. Protestants are ~800 million and basically believe only the Bible, with little-to-none of the Catholic additions and history counting as Christian teaching. The Orthodox (Eastern Catholicism), which split off Roman Catholicism in 1054 as mentioned earlier, is another 200-300 million. Anglicanism  (which may or may not hold the same views as the Catholic proper, as they are basically "English Catholic") is another 85 or so million.

[PeteD01]

The poll so far shows 84.7% admitted heretics and 15.3% heretics still in the fight.

[Gin1984]

According to the Catholics (which is the religion I was mostly raised in, 12 years of Catholic school), it was/is a Catholic teaching that those who fought in the crusades were given special dispensation and therefore were forgiven all their sins and allowed into heaven.  So, again it is an example of teaching of a religion that allowed for/requested violence. But yes, religious leadership, many of them issue orders and teachings that benefit the leadership of the time.  And yes, the priesthood in many religions have links with political leadership.

Ah, see, you're equating Catholicism with Christianity. While they are the largest 'denomination,' their teachings are not followed by approximately half of Christians. Protestants are ~800 million and basically believe only the Bible, with little-to-none of the Catholic additions and history counting as Christian teaching. The Orthodox (Eastern Catholicism), which split off Roman Catholicism in 1054 as mentioned earlier, is another 200-300 million. Anglicanism  (which may or may not hold the same views as the Catholic proper, as they are basically "English Catholic") is another 85 or so million.

No, I am including Catholics in the larger group other Christians.  In addition, I keep adding other religions who do the same, yet no one seems to address that.

[sol]

The interpretation you suggested flies in the face of reason.

This statement has been bugging me for several days now for the following reason:  religion flies in the face of reason.

I cannot fathom how someone can attempt to use reason or logic to defend a concept that is wholly based on the denial of reason and logic.  It's just so backwards that I don't think you even realize why it's funny.

You're seriously asking me to apply rigorous analytic thinking to a book full of fairy tales and nonsense?  Do you expect this tactic to win you an argument with a scientist about whether or not magic is real? 

I've come to realize that you can never win an argument with a religious person about the bible because to them the bible is always right.  The only point of the scripture quoting done in this thread is to highlight the internal inconsistencies in the document.  It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.

[The Architect]

Now explain to me the correlation of:

The Crusades -> Christianity

So when someone says "No religion teaches to kill anyone and to get involved in criminal activities. All religions teach to live peacefully."...

You know what? I misparsed this as you saying "The Crusades -> Christianity" instead of "'No religion teaches killing' is disproved by Pope Urban's ordering of the Crusades."

If you are using the example of Pope Urban's Catholicism as a 'religion,' carry on then.

[Gin1984]

Now explain to me the correlation of:

The Crusades -> Christianity

So when someone says "No religion teaches to kill anyone and to get involved in criminal activities. All religions teach to live peacefully."...

You know what? I misparsed this as you saying "The Crusades -> Christianity" instead of "'No religion teaches killing' is disproved by Pope Urban's ordering of the Crusades."

If you are using the example of Pope Urban's Catholicism as a 'religion,' carry on then.

Lol, sorry I was not clear.  I shall carry on then. ;)

[FIPurpose]

Now explain to me the correlation of:

The Crusades -> Christianity

So when someone says "No religion teaches to kill anyone and to get involved in criminal activities. All religions teach to live peacefully."...

You know what? I misparsed this as you saying "The Crusades -> Christianity" instead of "'No religion teaches killing' is disproved by Pope Urban's ordering of the Crusades."

If you are using the example of Pope Urban's Catholicism as a 'religion,' carry on then.

Hence my requirement to define the word 'religion'

[UnleashHell]

It's not something that I was arguing, and not something that I'm well versed in.  My impression was that it was a long running war between Christians and Muslims over land in the middle east.

I've seen the argument that the Crusades were actually a defensively-motivated war to stop the Muslim expansion into Europe, and weren't inherently religious (even if that was the basis of the call to arms). As flyingcircle mentioned it's NOT a simple topic.

'
the moors added Spain in 711. the crusades were late 1000 onwards.  how the hell were the crusades a response to stop an invasion that had happened nearly 400 years before?

[Beric01]

It's not something that I was arguing, and not something that I'm well versed in.  My impression was that it was a long running war between Christians and Muslims over land in the middle east.

I've seen the argument that the Crusades were actually a defensively-motivated war to stop the Muslim expansion into Europe, and weren't inherently religious (even if that was the basis of the call to arms). As flyingcircle mentioned it's NOT a simple topic.

'
the moors added Spain in 711. the crusades were late 1000 onwards.  how the hell were the crusades a response to stop an invasion that had happened nearly 400 years before?

First of all, Turkey was conquered in the 1000's, and the first Crusade was a direct response to this. I think the argument being that without additional pressure on the Muslims, their expansion into Europe would have continued. But again, it's not all black and white. And it's hard to reason alternate history.

[DoubleDown]

The interpretation you suggested flies in the face of reason.

This statement has been bugging me for several days now for the following reason:  religion flies in the face of reason.

I cannot fathom how someone can attempt to use reason or logic to defend a concept that is wholly based on the denial of reason and logic.  It's just so backwards that I don't think you even realize why it's funny.

You're seriously asking me to apply rigorous analytic thinking to a book full of fairy tales and nonsense?  Do you expect this tactic to win you an argument with a scientist about whether or not magic is real? 

I've come to realize that you can never win an argument with a religious person about the bible because to them the bible is always right.  The only point of the scripture quoting done in this thread is to highlight the internal inconsistencies in the document.  It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.

Of course we can apply rigorous analytic thinking to the Bible. I suspect more analysis has been done of the Bible then perhaps any other single text, including by serious academics. I don't understand what you're saying -- why is analyzing what the Bible says or whether the stories in it are true an outrageous concept?

[frugalnacho]

Because it's like applying rigorous analytical thinking to mother goose.  You can, but ultimately it's still mother goose.

[DoubleDown]

Because it's like applying rigorous analytical thinking to mother goose.  You can, but ultimately it's still mother goose.

Given just about any measure we might use, can you really equate the kind of discourse and time spent analyzing the Bible to Mother Goose?

This is not really a serious discussion if people are equating the Bible to children's fairy tales. Whether or not you, Sol, or anyone else believes the information in the Bible to be true, clearly there are a lot of intelligent and informed people that do. Google tells me there are 2+ billion Christians in the world; must they all have the intellectual capacity of 4-year olds, and would be just as reasonable believing in Humpty Dumpty? Has any set of stories been subjected to more scrutiny than the Bible, in all of history? Was anyone crucified because he/she refused to deny the existence of Tinker Bell? Have global wars been fought over any actual children's fairy tales?

The very fact that we're debating whether the stories are true takes them out of the league of fairy tales. I get that some people think it's fiction, but that is a matter of opinion, not fact.

[frugalnacho]

Because it's like applying rigorous analytical thinking to mother goose.  You can, but ultimately it's still mother goose.

Given just about any measure we might use, can you really equate the kind of discourse and time spent analyzing the Bible to Mother Goose?

This is not really a serious discussion if people are equating the Bible to children's fairy tales. Whether or not you, Sol, or anyone else believes the information in the Bible to be true, clearly there are a lot of intelligent and informed people that do. Google tells me there are 2+ billion Christians in the world; must they all have the intellectual capacity of 4-year olds, and would be just as reasonable believing in Humpty Dumpty? Has any set of stories been subjected to more scrutiny than the Bible, in all of history? Was anyone crucified because he/she refused to deny the existence of Tinker Bell? Have global wars been fought over any actual children's fairy tales?

The very fact that we're debating whether the stories are true takes them out of the league of fairy tales. I get that some people think it's fiction, but that is a matter of opinion, not fact.

I did not equate them because of the amount of discourse or time spent analyzing, I compared them because I think they are both fairy tales.  The number of followers, amount of scrutiny, amount of people crucified for, and the amount of debate that centers around it is completely irrelevant to the point.  If someone made a religion out of humpty dumpty, got crucified, and others people spent thousands of years recruiting others into the church of humpty dumpty and waging wars over the sacred humpty text...well, it's still ultimately just a fairy tale.  I think that was Sol's point.  Mass delusion is still delusion.

[GuitarStv]

The argument that many people are doing it, therefor it is true doesn't carry much intellectual weight.

There's also a reasonable case to be made of similarity of, say the parables in the bible and traditional fables . . . they're both stories with the intent to convey a message of some sort to the audience, often about morality.  Parables just have human characters.

[sol]

The argument that many people are doing it, therefor it is true doesn't carry much intellectual weight.

Raise your hand if you think just because ideas are tenacious it means that they're worthy.  Anyone? 

I get that some people think it's fiction, but that is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Are you seriously going to stand up in front of all of these people and say that you think magic is real?  The bible is full of magic, mostly used allegorically to convey a moral message.  It cannot be literally true, because it details hundreds of supernatural events that cannot happen. 

No mentally competent adult really believes in Santa Clause.  We believe in the idea of Santa Clause, and holiday spirit and giving gifts and good will towards men, but we don't believe in flying reindeer or that a fat man in a red suit comes down your chimney at night.  The bible is the exact same way, we believe in the message, but no grown-up really believes in the magical parts because those are children's stories. 

If you really do believe, in the literal sense, that an invisible man in the sky once caused the earth to stop spinning so that some dudes could finish killing each other at Gibeon, then I think our discussions here are moot.  Which is exactly why I said you can't win an argument with someone who believes that kind of nonsense, because logic and mathematics cannot convince them that this 3000 year old myth is anything other than literal truth.  And Rudolph has a red nose.