Will we survive religion?

[Valke2]

Jesus knew that many people would not accept the truth. But we don’t abandon the truth for people’s hard hearts, we change their hard hearts with the truth. If they still don’t get it we leave them alone.“Shake the dust from our sandals”.

“Do not think that I have come to bring about peace upon the earth. I have come not to bring peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. and one’s enemies will be those of his household”(Mt10:34-36).

Setting son against father doesn’t sound muck like shaking the dust from our sandals.

 

[Franciscan]

Setting son against father doesn’t sound muck like shaking the dust from our sandals.

Valke this point is exaclty the mark of the true Faith…

1. A recognition that it will cause conflicts in our relation to our fellow man.
2. That we accept the conflict, do our best to make an appeal to reason and move on rather than force a conversion or demote the person to a “sub-human” status.
   (don’t drag out the crusades from history. Let’s leave that dead horse alone. We are talking about modern times and the teachings of Jesus, rather than the sins of individuals).

Mt10:14, “to shake the dust off your sandals” = to disassociate from unbelievers after they have rejected your message of salvation. Setting a son against father is Jesus way of stressing that the truth is more important than indifference for the sake of peace.

 

[BobCatholic]

35% of abortions in the US are had by Christian women. abortion is not a secular event.

Interesting.

If a Christian woman does this, blame their Christianity.
If a secular woman does this, don’t blame secularism

 

[st_lucy]

35% of abortions in the US are had by Christian women. abortion is not a secular event.

Yes. But like it has been stated before, saying that your christian doesn’t make one a Christian.

Abortion is a secular event.

 

[Valke2]

Interesting.

If a Christian woman does this, blame their Christianity.
If a secular woman does this, don’t blame secularism

I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I’m just saying if you are going to take the position that abortion is murder you can’t simply put all that in the secular camp. That is like saying crime is secular.

 

[BobCatholic]

I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I’m just saying if you are going to take the position that abortion is murder you can’t simply put all that in the secular camp. That is like saying crime is secular.

If one believes that abortion is murder, and that one is not allowed to murder, then one doesn’t abort.

Secularism says it is OK to abort.

So when a woman decides to abort, is she listening to her religion (which says not to abort) or is she listening to secularism (which says it is OK to abort)?

 

[BobCatholic]

sure. I’ll include any belief system that engages in violence against those who do not follow the belief system.

Now, how do we know it is the truth that one must not use violence against those who do not follow the belief system? After all, you just said that nobody has monopoly on truth in your original post.

I agree with the Pope’s statement in Regensburg, about violence and faith being incompatible, but that is because of my faith + my reason. But since my faith has no monopoly on truth (according to your standard) so how do I know what you say is the truth?

 

[Mirdath]

hooboy, I go to work and the place explodes

Kaninchen:

It tends to depend on just who is doing the ‘counting’. Just which particular death through famine, for example, is a Communist crime as opposed to being the result of bad weather?

I’m only counting direct action. The Roman sowing of Carthage with salt is in here; natural and unintentionally caused famines aren’t.
Peter DiMitri:

And yet you still get the staggering historical fact that you can combine all of those numbers and still fall massively short of the sheer number of homicides conducted by Atheistic states.

It’s been done to me – source, please? I’ve wracked my brains for all the atrocities I remember (and I’ve thought of more, on both sides) and guess what, the crimes committed under religion’s auspices far outnumber those of the godless.

Hitler is obviously an interesting issue. Clearly, no one wants him! Still, while it is clear that Himmler was avid occultist there is disputed evidence as to Hiter’s own emotional investment in that. However, again, his suicide looked somewhat ritualistic.

I provided quotes from the man himself about his profession of Christian faith. Whether it was lipservice or not is immaterial – he brought a religious reason in for his crimes against humanity, and enough people bought in to make them happen. I’m not impugning the dignity or veracity of any religion here, just saying he used it.

But even if you want to through Hitler in with the “religious”, the numbers are still drastically below what Atheist managed to accomplish in only one century.

Again, sources and names please?

In other words, the notion that religion is the sole cause of the world’s problems – a position cherished by the political Left – is completely, utterly historically false.

I never said that; kindly don’t put words you’d like to hear in my mouth. Religion is far from the ‘sole cause of the world’s problems’, just as ‘secularism’ is far from the sole cause of its goods.

Melchior:

Demonstrably false. Though if you are going to make such a statement you need to understand no one does anything in the name of “religion”. Everyone, however, acts according to their specific belief system. How a Zen Buddhist acts toward others and how a Jihadi Muslim acts cannot be related just because the both have a religion. Religion is not a belief system it is a general word to describe the concept of belief systems.

Then please demonstrate. It’s also demonstrably false that people do act in the name of religion, viz. the Crusades, the Inquisition, the motto of the Conquistadors (‘God, Gold, and Glory’), the wars between Catholics and Huguenots, the campaigns of the Maccabees (directly caused by Greek conquerors trying to force Jews to sacrifice to their gods), the Boxer Rebellion…

I have been using the term ‘religion’ generally anyway; that’s kinda the point here, isn’t it?

I was only pointing out the logical outworking of this when people acheive power. Utopianism that is above religion is fundamentally flawed because it has to be implemented by flawed men in power. And I was justs howing what happend the last time that was tried.

I didn’t say it’d work! Utopia by definition is unattainable. The word itself means ‘No-place’. And even were it a theocratic state, it’d still be implemented by flawed people in power unless God himself descended from the heavens to direct it all.

And what did happen the last time it was tried? Hippie communes? They’re more recent than the Nazis, but still… scary…

We would have never gotten here on their worldviews. They are the beneficiaries of a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Sure, so are we all. And the Jews and the Christians are beneficiaries of a Zoroastrian worldview. And everybody is also a beneficiary of Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist worldviews – art, science, math (nobody in Europe knew about zero as a number until it came across from the Middle East!). ‘Never’ is a pretty strong word though. I think people could’ve made it; but hey, we’re here now, let’s use what we’ve got!

 

[Mirdath]

Valke2:

sure. I’ll include any belief system that engages in violence against those who do not follow the belief system.

Both Stalin and Hitler, while they may have been atheists, essentially replaced God with the State. Neither left room for any belief system which questioned the State’s authority. Since this would apply to any religion that placed ulitimate authrotiy in God, instead of the State, such beliefs could not be tolerated.

Haha, I’d thought of that (and hinted at it a little) but it didn’t seem as though people would get it. Nice one

BobCatholic:

Secularism says it is OK to abort.

That’s about on par with saying ‘religion says it’s okay to kill nonbelievers’. It’s an impossibly broad statement; what, exactly, is secularism to you? There are plenty of irreligious people who wouldn’t abort for reasons of personal morality, just as there are plenty of religious people who don’t take the convert-or-die approach.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Midrath, you haven’t commented on the point that I made–the people of “the Crusades” are not “the people of today”.

You condemn them according to ‘today’s’ standards. And that is wrong. Because we view ‘fighting to safeguard religious beliefs’ as being ‘unnecessary’ (because we personally appear to be in no danger, or because we believe that we do not ‘need’ to use physical weapons, for example) does not mean that the people in the time of the Crusades were not in danger, or did not need to use weapons.

Yes, there were crusades that for reasons ‘outside’ of religion did not go well, or where individuals or even large groups were guilty of egregious evil. That is to be deprecated. . .

but do you really, truly understand the consequences to the world if the Crusaders had not gone up against the Muslims who had already overrun the **previously ** Christian nations to spread their religion, with the sword; these countries having converted earlier to Christianity most emphatically not through the sword.

Do you truly understand the worldview and the mindset even of somebody from the 19th century (which is far closer to the present day). . .what his or her life was in all facets? I don’t think you do. Far less would you understand the mindset of somebody from the 12th century. It’s easy to pick one or two of the more prominent figures (a king or a pope) and imput all sorts of ‘theoretical’ reasons as to his actions, and find them ‘wanting’ according to our oh-so-enlightened times.

Well, that king and that pope would be horrified beyond belief at the idea that a country would permit unborn children to be aborted at the rate of millions.

Let’s not be so hasty to find people living in a very dangerous age without all our ‘advantages’ to be the ‘horrible nasty Christian meanies’ while patting ourselves on the back for our tolerance etc.

So we’re not out there sacking a castle. We’re not even out there deciding that, hey, we might as well bring home some loot for the wife and kids, right?

Instead we have murdered millions of innocent children who never were a threat to us. Never tried to harm us. And you know what? We aren’t murdering them in the name of religion even. We’re murdering them in the name of our convenience. Our ‘choice’.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Midrath, you haven’t commented on the point that I made–the people of “the Crusades” are not “the people of today”.

You condemn them according to ‘today’s’ standards. And that is wrong. Because we view ‘fighting to safeguard religious beliefs’ as being ‘unnecessary’ (because we personally appear to be in no danger, or because we believe that we do not ‘need’ to use physical weapons, for example) does not mean that the people in the time of the Crusades were not in danger, or did not need to use weapons.

Yes, there were crusades that for reasons ‘outside’ of religion did not go well, or where individuals or even large groups were guilty of egregious evil. That is to be deprecated. . .

but do you really, truly understand the consequences to the world if the Crusaders had not gone up against the Muslims who had already overrun the **previously ** Christian nations to spread their religion, with the sword; these countries having converted earlier to Christianity most emphatically not through the sword.

Do you truly understand the worldview and the mindset even of somebody from the 19th century (which is far closer to the present day). . .what his or her life was in all facets? I don’t think you do. Far less would you understand the mindset of somebody from the 12th century. It’s easy to pick one or two of the more prominent figures (a king or a pope) and imput all sorts of ‘theoretical’ reasons as to his actions, and find them ‘wanting’ according to our oh-so-enlightened times.

Well, that king and that pope would be horrified beyond belief at the idea that a country would permit unborn children to be aborted at the rate of millions.

Let’s not be so hasty to find people living in a very dangerous age without all our ‘advantages’ to be the ‘horrible nasty Christian meanies’ while patting ourselves on the back for our tolerance etc.

So we’re not out there sacking a castle. We’re not even out there deciding that, hey, we might as well bring home some loot for the wife and kids, right?

Instead we have murdered millions of innocent children who never were a threat to us. Never tried to harm us. And you know what? We aren’t murdering them in the name of religion even. We’re murdering them in the name of our convenience. Our ‘choice’.

Nicely put!

 

[Mirdath]

Midrath, you haven’t commented on the point that I made–the people of “the Crusades” are not “the people of today”.

You condemn them according to ‘today’s’ standards. And that is wrong. Because we view ‘fighting to safeguard religious beliefs’ as being ‘unnecessary’ (because we personally appear to be in no danger, or because we believe that we do not ‘need’ to use physical weapons, for example) does not mean that the people in the time of the Crusades were not in danger, or did not need to use weapons.

First off, yes, very nicely put

Next… ah ah ah… ‘absolute truth’, remember? If such a thing exists, it doesn’t just hold through space but through time, otherwise it cannot be absolute. Are we going to ‘turn the other cheek’ or run roughshod over everyone we deem threatening whether or not they actually are? Say it once and for all time, only then can it be absolute. Your own moral standards say it would be unnecessary violence today – if your truth is absolute, that kind of war must needs always have been so and always in the future.

But do you really, truly understand the consequences to the world if the Crusaders had not gone up against the Muslims who had already overrun the **previously ** Christian nations to spread their religion, with the sword; these countries having converted earlier to Christianity most emphatically not through the sword.

We’d all be speaking Arabic; the Renaissance would have seen the birth of Western abstract art instead of leaving it for a few centuries later; and honestly, I think sharia would’ve eventually loosened up much like the Puritans did in the United States. I doubt there’d have been much difference except in language and cultural expression, really.

As to your other point in this paragraph… Constantine and the other Holy Roman Emperors wielded some pretty huge swords. They didn’t have to ‘convince’ everybody, sure, but neither did the Muslims spreading through North Africa.

Do you truly understand the worldview and the mindset even of somebody from the 19th century (which is far closer to the present day). . .what his or her life was in all facets? I don’t think you do. Far less would you understand the mindset of somebody from the 12th century. It’s easy to pick one or two of the more prominent figures (a king or a pope) and imput all sorts of ‘theoretical’ reasons as to his actions, and find them ‘wanting’ according to our oh-so-enlightened times.

Mindset-wise I’m actually probably closer to the 19th century fin-de-siecle Decadents than I am to modern-day people

Well, that king and that pope would be horrified beyond belief at the idea that a country would permit unborn children to be aborted at the rate of millions.

Would they? Let’s pick, oh, Leonidas of Sparta. Hero, king, legend. Sparta did not practice abortion either. Instead, any born child they thought wasn’t worth the trouble was left alone on a mountaintop to die. In Rome, the patriarch of a family had absolute control over the lives of his spouse and children, even to the point of ending them.

The popes I can’t speak for, though I doubt much at all could faze the Renaissance lot – but then, they’re called the Bad Popes for reasons.

Abortion is not a new thing, nor is its existence and continuance to be blamed on either the secular or the religious. I don’t like it either (really, I don’t think anyone does – if there’s a recording out there of a woman saying ‘Oh hey, it’s a three-day weekend, I think I’ll go have an abortion! Whee!’ I’d love to hear it). It simply happens that people have babies when they can’t provide for children, or the mother’s health will not withstand carrying to term, or for several other reasons. People are not going to stop having sex no matter who tells them to; as Valke said, there’re plenty of quite religious people having abortions every day.

Let’s not be so hasty to find people living in a very dangerous age without all our ‘advantages’ to be the ‘horrible nasty Christian meanies’ while patting ourselves on the back for our tolerance etc.

I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying there’ve been plenty of horrible people throughout history who happen to have been religious (not just Christian, either) and who have used their creed as an excuse or cover. I won’t deny the fact that there are guilty atheists too; but everything I know points to them being very, very outnumbered.

When you get right down to it, religion simply is not that much of a prop to morality for most people, nor does it encourage them to examine their consciences more closely than they would have anyway. For those to whom it is an inspiration – all the better! For those to whom it is an excuse – not so much.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

First off, yes, very nicely put

Next… ah ah ah… ‘absolute truth’, remember? If such a thing exists, it doesn’t just hold through space but through time, otherwise it cannot be absolute. Are we going to ‘turn the other cheek’ or run roughshod over everyone we deem threatening whether or not they actually are? Say it once and for all time, only then can it be absolute. Your own moral standards say it would be unnecessary violence today – if your truth is absolute, that kind of war must needs always have been so and always in the future.

But that’s not how an absolute thing works.

God is relatively absolute.

The devil is absolutely relative.

See the difference?

 

[Mirdath]

But that’s not how an absolute thing works.

God is relatively absolute.

The devil is absolutely relative.

See the difference?

I see the difference, but I have no idea how it connects to what I was talking about.

If the Absolute Truth today is that violence a la the Crusades was at best unnecessary and at worst immoral, that must be the Absolute Truth for all time. Tantum Ergo’s opinion is that standards were different in those days and that we should not judge them by our standards now – moral relativism, thank you very much. If you subscribe to the morally absolutist school of thought (ie, are a devout Catholic) you must judge the Crusaders on the standards you hold to be true now and forever.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I see the difference, but I have no idea how it connects to what I was talking about.

If the Absolute Truth today is that violence a la the Crusades was at best unnecessary and at worst immoral, that must be the Absolute Truth for all time. Tantum Ergo’s opinion is that standards were different in those days and that we should not judge them by our standards now – moral relativism, thank you very much. If you subscribe to the morally absolutist school of thought (ie, are a devout Catholic) you must judge the Crusaders on the standards you hold to be true now and forever.

No. Actually I don’t have to do that.

If a person breaks into my house and tries to hurt my children, then I am entitled to use equivalent force to defend my family if necessary. And that includes terminating their life if necessary, provided they are willingly and deliberately attempting to kill me or my family.

Now if the situation were modified and only I were in danger, if I considered it to be to glory of God to stand for the faith in light of religious persecution without fighting back at all, I can do this too-- and it would still be good.

And, yes, this does apply to the question of the Crusades.

In other words, there are different levels of goodness as the Holy Spirit enables us to do so. So even if I were not to give my life in this sense, and instead fought back, I would not be doing a bad thing. It’s just that laying down your life is a ‘greater good’ than fighting back with ‘equivalent force’ in order to defend yourself.

That’s not moral relativism. That’s moving by God’s Spirit in order to glorify God, with one glorification being greater than the other.

 

[AlegreFe]

I am becoming more and more convinced that civilization cannot survive religion unless we are all willing to acknowledge that no religion has a monoply on absolute truth; that our scriptures are flawed, human documents; and that it is the height of folly to assume that the road to faith was perfected 3,500, 2,000 or 1400 years ago.

Woe!! I’m stopping here at this point in your post. I know that I am coming late into this thread but I can say one thing… I totally disagree with you.

Jesus Christ is Absolute Truth and He gave us His Church which is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church that has the FULLNESS of Truth.

 

[Valke2]

Woe!! I’m stopping here at this point in your post. I know that I am coming late into this thread but I can say one thing… I totally disagree with you.

Jesus Christ is Absolute Truth and He gave us His Church which is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church that has the FULLNESS of Truth.

I appreciate your comments and view them as validating mine.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Midrath, please don’t put words in my mouth.

I never said or implied that people had different values or standards. . .they had differing circumstances and differing knowledge. That is something entirely different from the way you took my post.

I am judging the Crusaders by the absolute moral standards of all time. You, Midrath, are attempting to judge them by the relative moral opinion of today. It is today that we have both the capacity and the culturalization that we personally cannot see the need for ‘weapons of destruction’ or the need to ‘fight for religion’.

Apparently you don’t believe that there are or ever have been, for Christians, just wars? Why? The Bible says that there will be wars and rumors of wars. . .

Also, you ‘cherry picked’ verses and concepts from scripture. “Turning the other cheek” is there, yes. . .so is “I am not to bring peace but a sword”. Looks contradictory doesn’t it–until, of course, you realize that the Bible, the teachings of Christianity are meant to be read and understood as a whole and in context and not to be chopped up with one person pointing to a verse here and saying “turn the other cheek means always submitting” and another person pointing to another verse “to arm yourself with a sword” or “with a two edged sword bring justice, this honor is all for his faithful”.

Bringing up a pagan Spartan king is a nice little distraction but I said a pope or king of the Middle Ages, not classical Greece. So no dice.

You really think that because a Pope like Alexander VI had personal sin in his private life (he never taught falsehood as a Pope) that he would dismiss the slaughter of millions of the unborn? Well, you do have a low opinion of humanity (or maybe just Christian humanity don’t you?)

And tolerance never was or has been a virtue for a Christian. Especially not today when it has virtually come to mean “acceptance”. Tolerance would have been considered a necessary evil of sorts (in its original sense that one ‘puts up’ with something until one can bring that evil into good). We do not ‘tolerate’ evil, and never have. We do ‘tolerate’ situations where evil exists, and work with prayer and all good actions to turn that evil into good.

 

[Mirdath]

No. Actually I don’t have to do that.

If a person breaks into my house and tries to hurt my children, then I am entitled to use equivalent force to defend my family if necessary. And that includes terminating their life if necessary, provided they are willingly and deliberately attempting to kill me or my family.

Granted, but the Crusades were not a personal thing like that. Your analogy is flawed – and many of them weren’t even fought for as ‘just’ a reason as conquering Jerusalem and driving out the heathen.

Now if the situation were modified and only I were in danger, if I considered it to be to glory of God to stand for the faith in light of religious persecution without fighting back at all, I can do this too-- and it would still be good.

And, yes, this does apply to the question of the Crusades.

In other words, there are different levels of goodness as the Holy Spirit enables us to do so. So even if I were not to give my life in this sense, and instead fought back, I would not be doing a bad thing. It’s just that laying down your life is a ‘greater good’ than fighting back with ‘equivalent force’ in order to defend yourself.

That’s not moral relativism. That’s moving by God’s Spirit in order to glorify God, with one glorification being greater than the other.

Once again, I didn’t say choosing martyrdom vs fighting is a question of relativism (it’s the first example I’ve seen in the entire thread of someone recognizing shades of grey though). Personally I’d say fighting back is morally neutral. But since we’re going with the Crusades, quite a few weren’t exactly defensive wars unless you count ‘defending’ some place they weren’t present at in the first place. So, are offensive wars morally justifiable or not? Whatever your answer, as an absolutist you must consider it permanently, unchangeably true. Good luck with that.

TantumErgo:

Midrath, please don’t put words in my mouth.

I never said or implied that people had different values or standards. . .they had differing circumstances and differing knowledge. That is something entirely different from the way you took my post.

the people of “the Crusades” are not “the people of today” could be taken several different ways. Sorry I misinterpreted.

However. So they’re ignorant, so they’re in the ‘different circumstance’ of… well, still pretty much being the sole dominant Western religion, just eleven hundred years ago. Do you praise or condemn their actions? Which would you do if they occurred today? Because, really, they are; it’s just extremist Muslims doing it instead of Christians.

 

[Mirdath]

(continued)

TantumErgo:

I am judging the Crusaders by the absolute moral standards of all time. You, Midrath, are attempting to judge them by the relative moral opinion of today. It is today that we have both the capacity and the culturalization that we personally cannot see the need for ‘weapons of destruction’ or the need to ‘fight for religion’.

Then what is this magical standard that allows you to be at peace with the idea of the Crusades while considering other murders and other wars sinful and somehow remaining a moral absolutist?

How am I judging the Crusaders by the ‘relative moral opinion of today’? Am I not capable of having my own thoughts on the matter, relative or absolute, and applying them? I have my own views on war and killing and crime, and while they certainly don’t match yours they’re hardly representative of the prevailing consensus either.

Also, I don’t think you’re giving the medieval Europeans enough credit really. They weren’t stupid – they knew quite well what they were doing.

Apparently you don’t believe that there are or ever have been, for Christians, just wars? Why? The Bible says that there will be wars and rumors of wars. . .

I don’t think there’s been a ‘just’ war ever. If it gets that bad, somebody is being needlessly, reprehensibly aggressive.

Also, you ‘cherry picked’ verses and concepts from scripture. “Turning the other cheek” is there, yes. . .so is “I am not to bring peace but a sword”. Looks contradictory doesn’t it–until, of course, you realize that the Bible, the teachings of Christianity are meant to be read and understood as a whole and in context and not to be chopped up with one person pointing to a verse here and saying “turn the other cheek means always submitting” and another person pointing to another verse “to arm yourself with a sword” or “with a two edged sword bring justice, this honor is all for his faithful”.

I see the sword verses as metaphors; the Christ knew his teachings would not be readily accepted by all and warned his followers of the strife and conflict it would cause. I’m not talking about war here either: persecution, disownment, etc etc etc.

Bringing up a pagan Spartan king is a nice little distraction but I said a pope or king of the Middle Ages, not classical Greece. So no dice.

You really think that because a Pope like Alexander VI had personal sin in his private life (he never taught falsehood as a Pope) that he would dismiss the slaughter of millions of the unborn? Well, you do have a low opinion of humanity (or maybe just Christian humanity don’t you?)

Alexander – pretty much, yeah. The Borgia popes are famously wicked.

I don’t have a low opinion of humanity – quite the opposite, people are wonderful! I just don’t have much faith in their willingness to live up to what they say! The human capacity for virtue is great, but so is the human capacity for sloth, arrogance, and ignorance.

And tolerance never was or has been a virtue for a Christian. Especially not today when it has virtually come to mean “acceptance”. Tolerance would have been considered a necessary evil of sorts (in its original sense that one ‘puts up’ with something until one can bring that evil into good). We do not ‘tolerate’ evil, and never have. We do ‘tolerate’ situations where evil exists, and work with prayer and all good actions to turn that evil into good.

But if this ‘evil’ is simply ‘someone not agreeing with your point of view’… Not going berserk over that is all I mean by ‘tolerance’. You don’t have to like the fact that other people don’t see things the same way, but unless they’re causing direct harm from a neutral point of view (no, ‘their existence threatens my belief system!’ does not count; nor does ‘they’re bringing down the property values in my neighborhood!’) there is no way to morally justify attempts to change it.