Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why judge people by some arguable idea of what their religion supposedly tells them to do when you can judge them by their actions?
I think the problem quickly becomes, when you ask someone "Why did you do that?"... they respond with "God told me to" or some such similar phrase. Now, it's one thing to judge a woman like Andrea Yates to be crazy because she heard the "voice of god" and fits a number of metrics for a 'crazy person' according to the DSM, but when you're dealing with governments and tribes of people who think the same way, it's completely different.
So yes, judge a person by their actions, but pay attention for the reasoning behind their actions.
As much as I dislike religion and other superstition, if I'm really honest I don't think it is the cause of this kind of violence. I think these people are hateful to begin with, what religion does is it allows them to legitimize that hatred, and spurs them on, rather than correcting them. It's the same with the "god hates fags" people. They don't care about half of the scripture, they don't follow Leviticus. Yet they rave about the man laying with another man part because it corroborates what was already in their hearts, which is that homosexuality is strange and scary and must be wrong. It's confirmation bias.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/18 09:02:39
Kilkrazy wrote: Why judge people by some arguable idea of what their religion supposedly tells them to do when you can judge them by their actions?
I think the problem quickly becomes, when you ask someone "Why did you do that?"... they respond with "God told me to" or some such similar phrase. Now, it's one thing to judge a woman like Andrea Yates to be crazy because she heard the "voice of god" and fits a number of metrics for a 'crazy person' according to the DSM, but when you're dealing with governments and tribes of people who think the same way, it's completely different.
So yes, judge a person by their actions, but pay attention for the reasoning behind their actions.
Indeed, but the point at which crazy starts is not where you imply.
Hate fuelled atheist bigots, and there are a fair few here on Dakka, might like to imply that hearing God is crazy. Base on two assumptions, first their categoric denial that there might actually be a real God talking to someone, and the ideology that hearing any voice but ones own in ones thoughts is schizophrenia.
However in many religions hearing God is not only scriptural but expected. Christians and Jews in particular are taught to seek out the voice of God. With methodologies as to how. Prophesy is a commonly received gift in the charismata, and plenty of stable people in the churches are convinced they hear God through their conscience, or the 'still small voice'. There are even hymns about the phenomena "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind" used in the mainstream Protestant order of service, and similar works in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.
Now this will not stop an atheist extremist, many are convinced that all such admissions are mental health issues, and will vocalise such. Maybe the usual suspects on Dakka will join in following this comment. However writing off an entire culture as mad, without reason based on an unbased preconception that there is no God is not ethical or healthy, yet the propaganda message sticks, and more reasonable people echo it.
Atheist brainwashing makes ordinary people think that hearing the voice of God = admission of crazy.
For millenia however the difference has been well established. In the Christian tradition one is expected to test voices one hears, with several methodoloies to do so. There are trsts to distinguish between the voice of God and the voice of en unclean spirit, which is to ask the voice if Jesus is the resurrected Lord, which every demon will deny. That is a theological answer. The question is also posed an a mental health issue in the Bible, both in the New and Old Testament. One is asked to confirm if any voice coincides with scripture, and to reject it if told to do anything unBiblical. As the Bible can be hardcore there is a second refence telling people to also test an action against ones good conscience and a third in the New Testament saying that if a prophecy is heard in the church, or one is given an instruction by the 'voice of God', it is perfectly acceptable to do nothing about it until a confirmation from another spiritual source is found.
Corinthians 13:1
"This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
This is foreshadowed in the book of Deuteronomy 19:15
"One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
The Bible actually openly warns believers that 'vain imaginings' can be mistaken for the voice of God, and has numerous safeguards. Does the message feel right in your soul? Does it fit known scripture, if its serious wait and see if someone else with the Gift tells you the same message unprompted.
There are a lot of safeguards against 'I killed grandma in the bath because God told me to' even amongst Islam. So those that do commit vile acts have either been deceived by a bad preacher teaching extremist dogmas, the genuinely mentally ill, and also a fair number who are trying to make a mental health defence as a ploy in court. Which doesn't always work, I might add, a number of people have been declared sane enough to stand trial with full culpability after claiming voices told them to commit a crime.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
LethalShade wrote: ISIS's actions do not accurately represent what most Muslims believe in*
Yet only a handful of progressive muslims like the King of Jordan dare enough to excommunicate them, denounced them as heretics.
Does Islam (of any sects) have the 'World Church' , where 'supereme leader' directs the entire religion to either react... or cope with the worldly changes? if The Catholics were ruled over by The Pope. Mormons heeds the call of The Quorum in Salt Lake City....
LethalShade wrote: ISIS's actions do not accurately represent what most Muslims believe in*
Yet only a handful of progressive muslims like the King of Jordan dare enough to excommunicate them, denounced them as heretics.
Does Islam (of any sects) have the 'World Church' , where 'supereme leader' directs the entire religion to either react... or cope with the worldly changes? if The Catholics were ruled over by The Pope. Mormons heeds the call of The Quorum in Salt Lake City....
Islam is broadly divided into the Sunni and Sh'ia denominations, plus others, and then broadly subdivided further. A lot like Christianity on that part. There is no single secular leader but there are very senior religious leaders.
There is no central secular leader, however this is not unusual, No major world religion has a single central leader, only denominations do. The Pope is unsual as a single identifiable denominational leader of an exceptionally large denomination.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
LethalShade wrote: ISIS's actions do not accurately represent what most Muslims believe in*
Yet only a handful of progressive muslims like the King of Jordan dare enough to excommunicate them, denounced them as heretics.
Does Islam (of any sects) have the 'World Church' , where 'supereme leader' directs the entire religion to either react... or cope with the worldly changes? if The Catholics were ruled over by The Pope. Mormons heeds the call of The Quorum in Salt Lake City....
I don't think so. Maybe some people at the Mecca could make an official statement ? Don't know how ISIS sees the Mecca anyway, as Muslims are divided between Sh'ia and Sunni.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/18 14:19:08
LethalShade wrote: ISIS's actions do not accurately represent what most Muslims believe in*
Yet only a handful of progressive muslims like the King of Jordan dare enough to excommunicate them, denounced them as heretics. Does Islam (of any sects) have the 'World Church' , where 'supereme leader' directs the entire religion to either react... or cope with the worldly changes? if The Catholics were ruled over by The Pope. Mormons heeds the call of The Quorum in Salt Lake City....
I don't think so. Maybe some people at the Mecca could make an official statement ? Don't know how ISIS sees the Mecca anyway, as Muslims are divided between Sh'ia and Sunni.
Mecca is holy to all muslims, both shia and sunni, but it is just a city. There are no religious leaders at Mecca. The religious leader of all muslims (a bit similar to the pope for catholics) is the Caliph. But there has been no Caliph since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Even worse, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi claims to be the new Caliph, and altough this is not taken seriously by most muslims, there is also no one with the legitimacy to contest that claim. It is one of the reasons many muslims are afraid to condemn ISIS. If al-Baghdadi is indeed the Caliph, condemning him would equal condemning Mohammed and islam itself.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/18 15:12:28
Kilkrazy wrote: Why judge people by some arguable idea of what their religion supposedly tells them to do when you can judge them by their actions?
Because unfortunately the world isn't simple like that. Religion does have a play in it. Whether or not the actual core teachings of the religion are "peaceful" or not, in many many places in the world, the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful.
About a small school in an Afghan village where the teacher instructs the children about jihad, AK-47s, grenades and Tokarev pistols. There is an ISIS flag hanging on the wall, and the teacher makes it clear that the purpose of jihad is to rid the world of infidels (by shooting them in the head with aforementioned AK) and spread islam to all people.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why judge people by some arguable idea of what their religion supposedly tells them to do when you can judge them by their actions?
Because unfortunately the world isn't simple like that. Religion does have a play in it. Whether or not the actual core teachings of the religion are "peaceful" or not, in many many places in the world, the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why judge people by some arguable idea of what their religion supposedly tells them to do when you can judge them by their actions?
Because unfortunately the world isn't simple like that. Religion does have a play in it. Whether or not the actual core teachings of the religion are "peaceful" or not, in many many places in the world, the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful.
Can we apply this logic to christians as well? Obviously due to the every growing number of christians killing their kids, committing mass shootings, and blowing up buildings, it must be because the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful. Right?
All religions are both peaceful and violent at the same time. All it requires is a push by those with power. The Bible can be used to justify violence in the minds of the violent as much as the Koran, Torah, or whatever Hindus use. Islam was used as tool by those in power to create an enemy (everybody who isn't muslim), and even attack other Muslims. For power, control, wealth, ect. But once a few generations have passed, that extremism becomes what those families who were pushed to believe that all believe that with their hearts and minds, and things like ISIS happen.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: All religions are both peaceful and violent at the same time. All it requires is a push by those with power. The Bible can be used to justify violence in the minds of the violent as much as the Koran, Torah, or whatever Hindus use. Islam was used as tool by those in power to create an enemy (everybody who isn't muslim), and even attack other Muslims. For power, control, wealth, ect. But once a few generations have passed, that extremism becomes what those families who were pushed to believe that all believe that with their hearts and minds, and things like ISIS happen.
Hell, even in that one country with the extremist Buddhists... the main leader couches his beliefs in that "for humanity to be at peace, and there to be peace in this country, we must exterminate those who would break that peace. Namely, Muslims"
And I think that damn near everyone on these boards is familiar enough with Buddhism to know how far away from the core teachings of the Buddha those beliefs are.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why judge people by some arguable idea of what their religion supposedly tells them to do when you can judge them by their actions?
Because unfortunately the world isn't simple like that. Religion does have a play in it. Whether or not the actual core teachings of the religion are "peaceful" or not, in many many places in the world, the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful.
Can we apply this logic to christians as well? Obviously due to the every growing number of christians killing their kids, committing mass shootings, and blowing up buildings, it must be because the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful. Right?
I'm sure you can provide evidence of that sort that directly correlates to what djones posted. Right?
Kilkrazy wrote: Why judge people by some arguable idea of what their religion supposedly tells them to do when you can judge them by their actions?
Because unfortunately the world isn't simple like that. Religion does have a play in it. Whether or not the actual core teachings of the religion are "peaceful" or not, in many many places in the world, the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful.
Can we apply this logic to christians as well? Obviously due to the every growing number of christians killing their kids, committing mass shootings, and blowing up buildings, it must be because the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful. Right?
No christianity is very, very peaceful.
Spoiler:
As you can see, christians never use their religion to glorify and promote weapons and violence, and certainly not to children. Christianity is the religion of peace.
Spoiler:
Every religion and ideology can and has been used as a tool and excuse for war and violence. Islam is not any different from other religions in that regard.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/18 17:42:56
The "cause" is the same as it has always been: poverty, violence, disenfranchisement, stigmatization, being 18 and knowing everything, parent issues, dissatisfaction with the current regime, watching your family die from preventable situations and blaming others for them, those are the root causes. Nothing has changed about the cause of extremism in the last 100+ years, nothing will change in the next 100+ years.
Newly found religion is just one of the expressions of that extremism. People like that already are predisposed to extreme actions and want justification for their feelings and they find it in whatever new dogma they can twist into compatibility with their desires. Right now we see a twisted view of Islam as their catalist, but we have also seen the same type of expression in the forms of other religions, forms of nationalism, forms of communism, forms of anarchism, environmentalism, and any other ideology that provided a justification for their already present desires.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why judge people by some arguable idea of what their religion supposedly tells them to do when you can judge them by their actions?
Because unfortunately the world isn't simple like that. Religion does have a play in it. Whether or not the actual core teachings of the religion are "peaceful" or not, in many many places in the world, the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful.
Can we apply this logic to christians as well? Obviously due to the every growing number of christians killing their kids, committing mass shootings, and blowing up buildings, it must be because the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful. Right?
When was the last incident of infanticide, mass murder or bombing that was done by Christian fundamentalists yelling Deus Vult! and proclaiming that their Christian beliefs required them to commit murder? I can't recall hearing of one and that seems like it would be the kind of thing that made the news.
LethalShade wrote: ISIS's actions do not accurately represent what most Muslims believe in*
Yet only a handful of progressive muslims like the King of Jordan dare enough to excommunicate them, denounced them as heretics.
Does Islam (of any sects) have the 'World Church' , where 'supereme leader' directs the entire religion to either react... or cope with the worldly changes? if The Catholics were ruled over by The Pope. Mormons heeds the call of The Quorum in Salt Lake City....
No. There isn't a single religion in the world that has a world council that all the sects obey.
Maybe Baha'i does, but probably doesn't count as major, sadly.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why judge people by some arguable idea of what their religion supposedly tells them to do when you can judge them by their actions?
Because unfortunately the world isn't simple like that. Religion does have a play in it. Whether or not the actual core teachings of the religion are "peaceful" or not, in many many places in the world, the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful.
Can we apply this logic to christians as well? Obviously due to the every growing number of christians killing their kids, committing mass shootings, and blowing up buildings, it must be because the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful. Right?
When was the last incident of infanticide, mass murder or bombing that was done by Christian fundamentalists yelling Deus Vult! and proclaiming that their Christian beliefs required them to commit murder? I can't recall hearing of one and that seems like it would be the kind of thing that made the news.
It does make the news, which makes it surprising that you have never heard of the killing of Dr. Tiller by an adherent of the Army of God, a christian group with a long history of violence and a group that doesn't mind the terrorist label.
Or Eric Rudolph who was part of the Christian Identity group, who bombed the 1996 US Olympics, two abortion clinics, and a gay bar. The Army of God also claimed his actions as being done in their name.
A catholic priest driving into an abortion clinic and trying to murder people with an ax.
Or James Kopp, affiliated with the militant Catholic group "Lambs of Christ", who used a sniper rifle to kill one doctor and who is suspected to have committed multiple other murders.
Or the Aryan Nation and the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian, christian white supremacist movements.
The Christian Identity branch also includes the Phineas Priesthood, who have planned to blow up some federal buildings.
Now my reply, as a Christian, to any of these examples would be: those guys aren't Christians. And my response to myself would be, now you know how most Muslims feel when people post idiot radical terrorists as the example of Islam.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why judge people by some arguable idea of what their religion supposedly tells them to do when you can judge them by their actions?
Because unfortunately the world isn't simple like that. Religion does have a play in it. Whether or not the actual core teachings of the religion are "peaceful" or not, in many many places in the world, the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful.
Can we apply this logic to christians as well? Obviously due to the every growing number of christians killing their kids, committing mass shootings, and blowing up buildings, it must be because the religion that is being taught is NOT peaceful. Right?
When was the last incident of infanticide, mass murder or bombing that was done by Christian fundamentalists yelling Deus Vult! and proclaiming that their Christian beliefs required them to commit murder? I can't recall hearing of one and that seems like it would be the kind of thing that made the news.
It does make the news, which makes it surprising that you have never heard of the killing of Dr. Tiller by an adherent of the Army of God, a christian group with a long history of violence and a group that doesn't mind the terrorist label.
Or Eric Rudolph who was part of the Christian Identity group, who bombed the 1996 US Olympics, two abortion clinics, and a gay bar. The Army of God also claimed his actions as being done in their name.
A catholic priest driving into an abortion clinic and trying to murder people with an ax.
Or James Kopp, affiliated with the militant Catholic group "Lambs of Christ", who used a sniper rifle to kill one doctor and who is suspected to have committed multiple other murders.
Or the Aryan Nation and the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian, christian white supremacist movements.
The Christian Identity branch also includes the Phineas Priesthood, who have planned to blow up some federal buildings.
Now my reply, as a Christian, to any of these examples would be: those guys aren't Christians. And my response to myself would be, now you know how most Muslims feel when people post idiot radical terrorists as the example of Islam.
So the closest analogous Christian terrorist group is much smaller than ISIS, ISIL, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hexbollah, Abu Sayyaf, Boko Haram or the Taliban and they don't operate internationally and murder people singly and not by the hundreds or thousands and their most recent high profile murder happened 6 years ago? That would explain why I couldn't recall their existence. Perhaps if I still had cable tv I would be more familiar with them.
d-usa wrote: You can't remember stuff from 6 years ago? I can't believe you already forgot about 9/11 then. And we said we would never forget...
A single murder victim from 6 years ago? Nope, didn't recall it until you mentioned it. The olympic bombing I remembered but not Rudolph, just the chubby guy that they thought did before they realized he was innocent. 9/11 is easier to remember since I was Abu Dhabi at the time, although it was harder for me to find access to all the information that was available back stateside. Globally televised national tragedies with ripple effects that still affect daily life today are easier for me to recall than a doctor murdered in the midwest? a half dozen years ago.
whembly wrote: I don't think anyone is saying extremism in Christianity or other religions doesn't exist.
Of course they do and it will ALWAYS be a constant vigilance to thwart them.
However, we're talking about the scale of these extremisms.
And what is the point in that? Christian extremism has been huge in the past, and many massacres have been committed in its name (Charlemagne's conquests, the many different Crusades, the pogroms to name a few examples). In the same way, there have been plenty of periods in history where islamic extremism was as good as non-existant. Extremism is caused by political and economical circumstances, not by something inherent in a religion/ideology/culture.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
