Originally Posted by Delta40
Think about the purpose. What ever actions that may seem similar, if there are different purposes provoked the actions, they are completely different.
And please, you STILL dont get the extract fully, now it seems you are using the extract to your benefits which is wrong. Just because Jesus used an eye for an eye statement doesnt mean that he supports it. He is CORRECTING it for the last time. I hope this will correct your mistakes.
Nope. Since of purpose is what really counts. Religion's sense of violence and torture is backed up with reasonable purposes, which links with God, therefore the purpose is to serve good. Revenge however is linked with violence by self satisfaction, for the benefit of one self's pleasure, therefore the purpose is to serve evil.
However followers have been comitting violence and conflict out of religion's name, for their own corrupt reasons. This is the people of religion that is to be blamed, not religion itself.
On the hand you claim that religion is against violence, and you try and act as if you are against violence.
On the other hand you claim that doing violence in the name of relgion is good.
But doing violence for self-justification is bad.
Either religion does not premote violence, or violence is justifible when done in the name of God. You have to pick one or the other.
You cannot claim that revenge is bad becasue it is linked to violence, and that religion does not support violence, and then say, that when violent acts are done in the name of religion it is good.
.
Last edited by Dark Muse; 01-08-2009 at 06:42 PM.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
I don't mean to branch into a theological discussion, but I'm wondering: which act of violence in the name of religion would you say are 'reasonable'? And you mention followers of a religion who have been committing violent acts do not represent the religion itself, which I can buy. However, I don't see how you can distinguish the two.
I believe that violence committed by followers that are against the will of God, is not reasonable therefore wrong. For example the violence between Catholics and Protestants, where they faught for who were more holy between the two. However the violence mentioned in the bible that are committed by the hand of God, I believe is reasonable.
When religion promotes minimum use of violence, I believe it means WE as people should avoid violence during ourlives, in our society between mankind.
As religion has history using violence, God was in control, not us human. When He wanted to punish the wrong doers in the world, God used violence as his absolute last resort. Because God is purity, all truth and good, His act of violence is unlike ours, therefore I believe that this violence cant be related or compared to us.
But how do we know whom God wants us to fight against? How is the will of God revealed to us? Through the clergy?
Bible! I believe that the Word of God reveals all. As God is light, truth, righteousness, it is even common sense to know to fight against what is the opposite of Him. The darkness, fakery, wrongness, wickness.. evil. God doesnt need to fight evil, its just unmatchable. Its US that have to fight against evil as we are born neutral, capable of swinging towards either side. WE have to fight temptations that are evil such as lying and stealing. These things have reasons in real life too, like how a small insignificant lie may grow into a major lie that will inevitable lead into continuous and destructable conflicts.
But the bible was written by man. God didn't stick his hand through the clouds and write the book for us. How do you know that the people who wrote it were not committing 'fakery' as you call it? Maybe the bible is just one big sin, and god is laughing at us.
Can you give an example? Seems to me that most of the time, the 'wrong-doers' are the ones who won the battles.
It is also known that the Bibile has been altered, edidted, and changed throughout its many translations, and there are debates on the accuracy of how certain words, and ideas were translated, so unless you know the acutal Original Hebrew version of the Bible you just have someone elses interpiation of what they think/want the Bible to say.
There is a collection of stories that were orignally meant to be part of the Bible that had been removed becasue the Chruch felt they were contradictory to the message they wanted to convey.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
Which is what I tried to say when I first posted in this thread, aside from which, the ancient Hebrews were as much political as they were spiritual--and they did not invent the law of lex talonis (eye for an eye). That came from a Babylon king trying to regulate proportionality of action. It was a revolutionary concept in jurisprudence--but the world is no longer centered around the ancient social guilt of the Middle East, and yet the West cannot let go of its fixation, apparently.
Jesus, if he actually existed, was a Jewish rabbi very concerned with social equity. He can be applauded, but has no relevance for the 21st century. Christianty, whether Catholic or Protestant, is out moded, and has few answers for the modern social dynamic of the human animal, really, but I just find it easier to put those who insist on preaching on ignore.
I prefer my own independence of mind.
As far as the whole eye for an eye things goes, at least where I am concerned. The whole turning the other cheek thing has never been a part of Pagansim. Within my own beleif system, there is no moral law against revenge. Pagans have always lived according to the rule of an eye for an eye with the exception of Neo-Pags. and Wicca.
So within my own beleif system revenge is supported and accepted.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
Don't know much about it Dark. I am a secular humanist, and I find the Christian ranting in this community to be discomfiting. Scholars, even religious evangelicals, don't wear sermons on their sleeves. I do listen to them on public radio; the difference is they don't preach, like so many members here do--they explain, and they may even advocate a thesis, but they do not shove it down my throat.
It is what wearies me about this community despite some of the decent literary debates.
We do not actually discuss philosophers, but simplified metaphysical points, and religious texts aren't discussed in Religious Texts, it just turns into a shouting match about your beliefs, mine, and some really enthusiastic propagada on occasion.
When I am back on my feet, I will blow a nice kiss and wave from whatever progressive community where I find a better comfort level. This isn't about any one member so much as the relentless self-justification that goes on. This is not a church, mosque, synagogue, or Buddhist temple, but a English language literature forum, and no one minds not seeing the woods through the trees.
Examples, check out the bible anything around I Kings, II kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles they have alot of battles and ethnic cleansing and it clearly states God is with them.
The people who wrote them were guided by God with visions etc. There is an extract in the bible that says who ever changes bible that alters the interpretation completey or for ones benefit, God will punish them severely.
Heres something that doesnt include a religious aspect but rather in a philosopher's perspectives. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes have analysed "Desire, by doing hurt to another, to make him condemn some fact of his own,revengefulnesse" and "Revenge. retribution of Evil for evil, Whereby we are forbidden to inflict punishment with any other designe, than for correction of the offender or direction of others."
Revenge = evil , what more can he say.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
