Will we survive religion?

[Tantum_ergo]

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?

Nothing magical about it. A careful historical study of the Crusades indicates that they were necessary to save lives. The unfortunate effect that they also involved taking of life is covered by the “double effect” principle which is also seen in our times as the right to defend oneself from danger of death. Also, when did I say other wars were necessarily sinful? Some wars were, are, just wars. I remain a moral absolutist because I trust not only in my own reasoned judgment but in the reasoned judgment of Holy Mother Church.

The Crusaders lacked our luxuries of security, mutual ‘tolerance’, etc… When was the last time that we in the United States were in danger on our own soil from sudden death and destruction (houses and fields burnt etc. leading to starvation and/or disease)–you have to go back to the Civil War on a broad scale, which is nearly 150 years ago, outside any ‘personal’ history even if your great great grandpappy experienced it. “Mutual tolerance” of slavery worked for what, 200 something years, before breaking down. “Mutual tolerance” of Muslims/ Christians lasted about the same time. If you can argue that it was necessary for people in 1861 to ‘fight’ for either states’ rights or for black freedom, or a combination of both, then you can see that a fight for the right to live and worship as a Christian would have been necessary at the time of the Crusades.

Now of course, you might say that the North and South “should have worked it out” without recourse to violence. That would have been ideal, but once one group refused to listen, what would you have the other do? It was the South which ‘fired first’ and then things were inevitable.

It was the Muslims who continued on with their swords and jihads. Do you really think that if we had not won in the 15th century against the Muslim Turks, if we had ‘beaten our swords into plowshares’ that life would have been all roses and lollipops and we’re all one big happy family?

Do you consider World War I or World War II just? How about the Revolutionary War?

 

[Valke2]

Whenever there is a discussion on the role religion has played in increasing man’s inhumanity to man, it is always argued that while terrible things are sometimes done in the name of religion, such acts are not the product of faith, but of the evil nature of humans (i.e, hatred and fear). And that Religous belief itself is the best remedy, not the cause.

As pointed out in “the End of Faith” by Sam Harris, this myth, taken together with the myth that faith provides good things (i.e. community) that can’t be found elsewhere, “seem to have granted us perfect immunity to outbreaks of reasonableness in our public discourse.”

There’s no doubt that faith can address real needs in the individual and such needs are not trivial. But is the price that it has and continues to take on the world worth it?
Coming to terms with our sacredness or the sacredness of existence may be the ultimate goal for humans. But to do so, are we required to retain faith in untestable propositions such as Jesus was born from a virgin, or that the Koran is the word of God? Or that Torah was dictated to Moses by God at Sinai?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You bring up an excellent “bone of contention” with your words here,

Not going berserk over that is all I mean by ‘tolerance’.

That is what you mean. However, that is not what others may or do mean by the word “tolerance”. Even your use of the word ‘berserk’ is a subtle, maybe even unconscious, use of a word which is meant to portray the ‘other person’ as irrational, crazy, etc. if he/she is not ‘tolerant’. You see, you have a bias, a personal bias, toward your own way of thinking. We all do.

What then do you consider “going berserk?” Well, you go on to say this.

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.

Again it is subtle, and perhaps unconscious on your part, but what do you present as ‘arguments’? Two things which again are put-downs of religious people (claiming that they go berserk over those who ‘threaten their belief system’ by their mere existence? Wow, you do not apparently think that religious people have reason or self control. I must go on to state that nobody here has claimed anything of that kind to boot). Also, the gratuitous “bringing down the property values” is an offensive slur implying that religious people are bigoted and moneygrubbing and that they think those with different religious views are inferior. Really, that is remarkably offensive so I do trust it was an unconscious act on your part.

 

[Mirdath]

Nothing magical about it. A careful historical study of the Crusades indicates that they were necessary to save lives. The unfortunate effect that they also involved taking of life is covered by the “double effect” principle which is also seen in our times as the right to defend oneself from danger of death. Also, when did I say other wars were necessarily sinful? Some wars were, are, just wars. I remain a moral absolutist because I trust not only in my own reasoned judgment but in the reasoned judgment of Holy Mother Church.

Actually they were pretty much all territorial wars. It wasn’t about ‘saving lives’ but ‘keeping Jerusalem out of Seljuq hands’.

The Crusaders lacked our luxuries of security, mutual ‘tolerance’, etc… When was the last time that we in the United States were in danger on our own soil from sudden death and destruction (houses and fields burnt etc. leading to starvation and/or disease)–you have to go back to the Civil War on a broad scale, which is nearly 150 years ago, outside any ‘personal’ history even if your great great grandpappy experienced it. “Mutual tolerance” of slavery worked for what, 200 something years, before breaking down. “Mutual tolerance” of Muslims/ Christians lasted about the same time. If you can argue that it was necessary for people in 1861 to ‘fight’ for either states’ rights or for black freedom, or a combination of both, then you can see that a fight for the right to live and worship as a Christian would have been necessary at the time of the Crusades.

Apple, meet orange. The Crusades involved going somewhere else to fight it out, and yes, it was in response to a similar action on the part of the Seljuq empire. Nobody’s blameless there.

Now of course, you might say that the North and South “should have worked it out” without recourse to violence. That would have been ideal, but once one group refused to listen, what would you have the other do? It was the South which ‘fired first’ and then things were inevitable.

Violence is the last refuge (of the incompetent, as Salvor Hardin says) but that does not make it a good thing.

It was the Muslims who continued on with their swords and jihads. Do you really think that if we had not won in the 15th century against the Muslim Turks, if we had ‘beaten our swords into plowshares’ that life would have been all roses and lollipops and we’re all one big happy family?

One big, happy family that all memorized the Quran, up until Islamic law relaxed (and I’m pretty confident in saying that it would have, and that it will).

Do you consider World War I or World War II just? How about the Revolutionary War?

No, no, and no. That we benefited from a war does not make it good.

That is what you mean. However, that is not what others may or do mean by the word “tolerance”. Even your use of the word ‘berserk’ is a subtle, maybe even unconscious, use of a word which is meant to portray the ‘other person’ as irrational, crazy, etc. if he/she is not ‘tolerant’. You see, you have a bias, a personal bias, toward your own way of thinking. We all do.

I’m afraid I choose all my words quite carefully. I said berserk and I meant it. Fanatics of all stripes are by definition intolerant of other schools of thought – from Paul Hill to Richard Dawkins. Do you claim either of them rational or sane? It’s possible to be devout and at the same time considerate of other people.

 

[Mirdath]

(continued… wow, I’m really breaking these)

Again it is subtle, and perhaps unconscious on your part, but what do you present as ‘arguments’? Two things which again are put-downs of religious people (claiming that they go berserk over those who ‘threaten their belief system’ by their mere existence? Wow, you do not apparently think that religious people have reason or self control. I must go on to state that nobody here has claimed anything of that kind to boot). Also, the gratuitous “bringing down the property values” is an offensive slur implying that religious people are bigoted and moneygrubbing and that they think those with different religious views are inferior. Really, that is remarkably offensive so I do trust it was an unconscious act on your part.

I do not think fanatics have reason or self-control. Ordinary religious people who do not seek to impose their own beliefs on others I have no issue with at all!

As to fanatics going off about people they believe threatening by their mere existence – well, they do. The extermination of Israelite children by Ramses II. Herod’s slaughter of the infants. And today, in spite of being in the majority by a huge margin (79.8% of the population in 2001), some extremist Christians live in an attitude of paranoid fear that the remaining 20.2% is secretly in control of the government and media, and that they are hell-bent on giving the country over to a devil they don’t even believe in. Jack Chick’s still in business because of that idea alone.

And again, I chose my words quite deliberately. Can you show me how one reason is more or less valid as casus belli than the other to anyone except a fanatic?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

BTW, my apologies for misnaming you, Mirdath (since I’m now using my computer with much better lighting, LOL).

Again, I feel that you are quite unknowingly attempting a misdirection here. You aren’t responding to me; you’re attempting to set up your own subsets and then asking me (in again a biased way) whether or not I agree with them.

You see, you say you choose your words carefully, but every time I or others address your posts, you go on to ‘change the words’. Let’s go back to this original:

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.

In this, you are addressing not ‘fanatics’ as you later claim, but (since the post just above was in answer to my post regarding what a Christian view of what tolerance meant) you are addressing, by definition, Christians (whom you then went on to categorize as being incapable of not going ‘berserk’, of seeking to immorally change or interfere with others of differing points of view, with as I said some rather subtle but pointed opinions about how we Christians were superior snobs who could not handle the idea of anybody not holding a Christian belief and that unless there was ‘direct harm’ --on which you do not elaborate–there was no excuse even to express our own beliefs because it would thus ‘force’ those beliefs onto others. In fact, the only Christians you’ll ‘permit’ are those who ‘shut their mouths, eyes, and ears’ to whatever goes on that they don’t ‘like’ lest they ‘force’ their doctrine onto others.

Well, I happen to believe that the slaughter of millions of unborn children–in the name of convenience and personal choice–is a direct evil and harm. That holds true (before you might accuse me of hypocrisy) of whether the person responsible is a Christian or a non-Christian. The practice itself, whether done by a Christian or not, is not a Christian practice in that it directly violates the 5th commandment and is specifically forbidden by the Church. Other non-Christians may also feel the practice reprehensible (good for them).

The practice of abortion is a secular process, a legal process, which was set in place by judicial tyrrany and mismanagement (IMO) in the U.S. and which directly violates Catholic teaching and catholic (universal) teaching. It is wrong not simply on religious grounds (which would have been enough) but on universal, natural, humanistic grounds because it takes away the right to life from the innocent unborn human being.

You see, religion is not just where we have our church, or what we believe. It is our hearts, souls, minds, and strength. It is our life and our interaction with God Himself.

 

[BobCatholic]

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.

What are “irreligious” people? Everyone has a religion. Some worship God, others worship the mirror, still others worship wealth, power, status, etc.

When secular society tells people that aborting children is a “personal choice” instead of killing of an unborn child, how is that not secularism talking?

 

[BobCatholic]

I think sharia would’ve eventually loosened up much like the Puritans did in the United States.

Well, your opinion would be wrong. If Muslims took over Europe, there’d be no Puritans, and no USA to speak of.
Also, look at all these Islamic republics and all the “freedom” they have. Where is the freedom? Where’s the “loosening”?

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.

There are lots of people who fake it and call themselves religious. It is part of the human condition.

 

[Mirdath]

BTW, my apologies for misnaming you, Mirdath (since I’m now using my computer with much better lighting, LOL).

Haha, it’s okay

You see, you say you choose your words carefully, but every time I or others address your posts, you go on to ‘change the words’. Let’s go back to this original:

In this, you are addressing not ‘fanatics’ as you later claim, but (since the post just above was in answer to my post regarding what a Christian view of what tolerance meant) you are addressing, by definition, Christians (whom you then went on to categorize as being incapable of not going ‘berserk’, of seeking to immorally change or interfere with others of differing points of view, with as I said some rather subtle but pointed opinions about how we Christians were superior snobs who could not handle the idea of anybody not holding a Christian belief and that unless there was ‘direct harm’ --on which you do not elaborate–there was no excuse even to express our own beliefs because it would thus ‘force’ those beliefs onto others. In fact, the only Christians you’ll ‘permit’ are those who ‘shut their mouths, eyes, and ears’ to whatever goes on that they don’t ‘like’ lest they ‘force’ their doctrine onto others.

I was addressing Christians, yes, but on the dangers of fanaticism and of being misled by false prophets (see the Hitler discussion earlier) – not accusing all of them of being so.

It’s really hard for some people to see where the line is, isn’t it? Religious expression is fine by me, I even (gasp) go to church when family members invite me and sit, stand, and kneel at all the right times. But telling me I’m going to hell? Over the line. Trying to convert me when I’ve explicitly disclaimed interest in becoming religious? Shake the dust from your feet and let’s just be friends, okay? Attempt to legislate specific moral beliefs? Crossing it again. I’m firmly of the belief that religious people should be allowed to live as they please, just as everyone else is – without infringing on others’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as they see it.

Well, I happen to believe that the slaughter of millions of unborn children–in the name of convenience and personal choice–is a direct evil and harm. That holds true (before you might accuse me of hypocrisy) of whether the person responsible is a Christian or a non-Christian. The practice itself, whether done by a Christian or not, is not a Christian practice in that it directly violates the 5th commandment and is specifically forbidden by the Church. Other non-Christians may also feel the practice reprehensible (good for them).

The practice of abortion is a secular process, a legal process, which was set in place by judicial tyrrany and mismanagement (IMO) in the U.S. and which directly violates Catholic teaching and catholic (universal) teaching. It is wrong not simply on religious grounds (which would have been enough) but on universal, natural, humanistic grounds because it takes away the right to life from the innocent unborn human being.

The practice of abortion is a medical process. Debating its morality is for a whole other thread. But at least in America there is no secret human extinction police forcing women to abort against their will.

I’d disagree that ‘religious grounds’ would be enough reason for anything to be made illegal. I’m sure people all over would have a fit were pork illegalized. Legislating one (or even many) particular religion’s morality is completely contrary to the Establishment Clause, and would turn this country into a theocracy.

You see, religion is not just where we have our church, or what we believe. It is our hearts, souls, minds, and strength. It is our life and our interaction with God Himself.

I’m not a practicioner, but good for you

 

[Mirdath]

bobcatholic:

What are “irreligious” people? Everyone has a religion. Some worship God, others worship the mirror, still others worship wealth, power, status, etc.

Ah, you’ve got me. I’m just so incredibly vain. I surround myself with mirrors so I’m never without a glimpse of my perfect self – wait, huh? Let me put it right here, from the perspective of an ‘irreligous’ person: I do not worship anything. Finis.

When secular society tells people that aborting children is a “personal choice” instead of killing of an unborn child, how is that not secularism talking?

You mean ‘secular society’ like the Church of England?

Well, your opinion would be wrong. If Muslims took over Europe, there’d be no Puritans, and no USA to speak of.
Also, look at all these Islamic republics and all the “freedom” they have. Where is the freedom? Where’s the “loosening”?

There probably wouldn’t be any Puritans; there would probably be similar splinter groups. That doesn’t matter, and it wasn’t what I was talking about. Puritan moral standards are considered hopelessly prudish and archaic by most of modern society; the same thing will happen with Islam. Possibly even within our lifetimes; in fact, in America it’s already been happening for a while.

There are lots of people who fake it and call themselves religious. It is part of the human condition.

And, up there with fanatics, they are the people we should be most worried about with regard to the question of religion’s detriment to society. They aren’t religious, but they use religion.

 

[Writer]

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.

Any religous system that imposes ethical behavior, promotes civilization and discourages violence, must be respected, acknowledged and given equal value to one’s own religious system. Anything in one’s own religous system that does not fit this criteria needs to be changed. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

People are willing to die for beliefs that have as much evidence to support them as we have to support the belief that Zeus exists. In fact, people would rather kill or die their own set of stories than to acknowledge that their neighbors stories are just as “true.”

This has led to disasterous results in the past. In a nuclear age, it can only lead to the annihilation of civilization, unless things change.
If that doesn’t change, we’re doomed.

I understand but disagree… Other faiths can have elements of the truth–like a pale reflection. If they don’t have Christ, however, they don’t have the Truth, or fullness of faith. What you appear to be saying is that Christ was simply a great prophet, and that’s just a silly argument. (As Lewis and Chesterton remind us, he was either exactly who he said he was, or he was a madman…or worse.) It reminds me what C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien called the “True Myth”–ie. that elements of Christianity are reflected in other faiths, but there is only one place where real truth is found.

 

[Valke2]

I understand but disagree… Other faiths can have elements of the truth–like a pale reflection. If they don’t have Christ, however, they don’t have the Truth, or fullness of faith. What you appear to be saying is that Christ was simply a great prophet, and that’s just a silly argument. (As Lewis and Chesterton remind us, he was either exactly who he said he was, or he was a madman…or worse.) It reminds me what C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien called the “True Myth”–ie. that elements of Christianity are reflected in other faiths, but there is only one place where real truth is found.

I am not saying Jesus was a great prophet. As a Jew, I choose to believe that jesus was neither a prophet, messiah or God. I choose to embrace Judaism as the method to pursue my relationship with God. However, I also recognize that a christian chooses to pursue his or her relationship with God through a completely different way. And that the journey my christian neighbor takes to get there is at least as valid for him or her as the journey I took to get there.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

At least as valid?
Many pathways.

This all sounds so good. . .and yet, it really is wrong.

Either there is no such thing as a one true religion, in which case we can claim that one is at least as valid, or that there can be many paths, because everything is either indifferent or relative. . .

or there is one true religion, and the others are, while holding some truths, to a greater or a lesser extent, wrong. Not so valid. And perhaps not a pathway at all.

Now to Midrath and Valke, I am not saying here that you two are lost on the path to damnation. (No Christian can ever judge the heart and soul of any person. That judgment is for God alone).

I am not attempting to force Christianity down your throats. Faith is a gift, not a compulsion.

But there appears to be in today’s post modern secular society a real difficulty in ‘permitting’ someone to exercise his or her religious beliefs freely and yet not ‘infringing on the rights of someone with a different belief set.’

Time was when people could speak about things (even religion or politics) and express their own opinions and convictions without being accused of indoctrination, trying to force themselves on others, being uncharitable, being divisive, etc.

It appears that time has gone (though hopefully it will return).

Unless you so preface your remarks with so much fluff making it obvious that you are not in any way attempting to ‘impose’ your beliefs on another (to the point that you can’t even say what you believe because it ‘offends’ people), you are ‘coercing’ people by simply expressing your beliefs; while they of course are free to criticize, condemn etc. your beliefs. Because you aren’t ‘imposing’. You are simply a voice of ‘reason’; a free agent. Somebody ‘outside’ those blinded ignorant bigoted fools who would, given the chance, initiate another Inquistion, burn the heretics, etc. etc.

It’s an excellent tactic for those who do want to muzzle someone’s voice. It’s an offensive tactic meant to put people on the defensive from the start.

From the start, it is assumed that a religious person is ‘out to impose his/her beliefs’ on others. That is why we are told that the only ‘place’ for us to speak is “in church”, yet non religious people can speak everywhere, for of course they are not attempting to impose ‘religious’ beliefs. Anyone else see the disconnect here?

This type of discussion is meant to put artificial limits on one person (the religious) while giving total freedom to the non religious person. All ‘judgment’ regarding the discussions is given to the non religious person as a matter of courtesy, or to acknowledge that he or she can be relied on to be free of bias, etc.

 

[Damascus]

religion will survive us.

Its been that way in the past anyway.

 

[Mirdath]

Either there is no such thing as a one true religion, in which case we can claim that one is at least as valid, or that there can be many paths, because everything is either indifferent or relative. . .

or there is one true religion, and the others are, while holding some truths, to a greater or a lesser extent, wrong. Not so valid. And perhaps not a pathway at all.

Or they’re none of them true and we all take dirtnaps forever and ever after all – and we cannot know rationally which of these options it is. Faith is not a rational process; it is accepting something without proof or reason. That doesn’t make it bad, just hard to build a logical argument to present to others. Aquinas did a pretty exhaustive job of it, but one still has to make a Kierkegaard-style leap of faith.

Now to Midrath and Valke, I am not saying here that you two are lost on the path to damnation. (No Christian can ever judge the heart and soul of any person. That judgment is for God alone).

I am not attempting to force Christianity down your throats. Faith is a gift, not a compulsion.

And why can’t all believing – whether religious or atheist – people think of it like that? I’m equally disinclined to hear atheists evangelize to me as I am to religious propagandizing. Like I’ve been saying all along, religious people I have no problem with unless they attempt to force me to conform to their beliefs through preaching, legislation, or threats.

But there appears to be in today’s post modern secular society a real difficulty in ‘permitting’ someone to exercise his or her religious beliefs freely and yet not ‘infringing on the rights of someone with a different belief set.’

Time was when people could speak about things (even religion or politics) and express their own opinions and convictions without being accused of indoctrination, trying to force themselves on others, being uncharitable, being divisive, etc.

It’s simple: don’t missionary to people who don’t want to be missionaried at. This should not be confused with an equal and respectful discussion of religion, its beliefs and traditions, its moral stances, its benefits and drawbacks. But the key words there are ‘equal’ and ‘respect’ – if you go in refusing to even hear what the other side is saying and try to steamroll them, it’s not a debate; it’s not even a conversation.

Unless you so preface your remarks with so much fluff making it obvious that you are not in any way attempting to ‘impose’ your beliefs on another (to the point that you can’t even say what you believe because it ‘offends’ people), you are ‘coercing’ people by simply expressing your beliefs; while they of course are free to criticize, condemn etc. your beliefs. Because you aren’t ‘imposing’. You are simply a voice of ‘reason’; a free agent. Somebody ‘outside’ those blinded ignorant bigoted fools who would, given the chance, initiate another Inquistion, burn the heretics, etc. etc.

I’m not pulling any punches, and hey, I have offended you a couple times already, haven’t I? But that’s why we’re having this discussion: I think you’re wrong, and you think I’m wrong. If not for that helpful little fact, what do we have to argue about? Nevertheless, it is still possible to come to terms over it – and not only is that the ideal outcome of debate, it helps answer the original question of the thread!

It’s an excellent tactic for those who do want to muzzle someone’s voice. It’s an offensive tactic meant to put people on the defensive from the start.

From the start, it is assumed that a religious person is ‘out to impose his/her beliefs’ on others. That is why we are told that the only ‘place’ for us to speak is “in church”, yet non religious people can speak everywhere, for of course they are not attempting to impose ‘religious’ beliefs. Anyone else see the disconnect here?

Nothing of the sort. If I were of that opinion I’d ask for special Atheist Reading Centers which would be the only place Richard Dawkins could legally open his mouth. Because really, he is imposing on others’ beliefs just as much as another crank with a religion does. I’m not anti-religion, I’m anti-zealot.

This type of discussion is meant to put artificial limits on one person (the religious) while giving total freedom to the non religious person. All ‘judgment’ regarding the discussions is given to the non religious person as a matter of courtesy, or to acknowledge that he or she can be relied on to be free of bias, etc.

This type of discussion is meant to put artificial limits on all participants; mostly stuff like keeping it civil, defining terms, citing sources, drawing proper analogies. Judgement is open as far as I’m concerned. I may be wrong about all this! (well, except for historical fact I have backed up with sources) Knock yourself out

 

[ricmat]

Too many posts to read…so maybe this has been mentioned.

On the Scorecard of Atheists vs. Religious Killings:

Given the extremely small number of atheists throughout history compared with the number of people who were truly religious - the per capita numbers rolled up by the atheists are truly impressive.

BTW - St. Athanaeous said “If we deny God we are capable of anything.” That statement seems to be to be a sort of ink-blot test, how you interpret it says a lot about you.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Nothing magical about it. A careful historical study of the Crusades indicates that they were necessary to save lives. The unfortunate effect that they also involved taking of life is covered by the “double effect” principle which is also seen in our times as the right to defend oneself from danger of death. Also, when did I say other wars were necessarily sinful? Some wars were, are, just wars. I remain a moral absolutist because I trust not only in my own reasoned judgment but in the reasoned judgment of Holy Mother Church.

Agreed Tantum ergo. And well said too.
Tantum ergo:

The Crusaders lacked our luxuries of security, mutual ‘tolerance’, etc… When was the last time that we in the United States were in danger on our own soil from sudden death and destruction (houses and fields burnt etc. leading to starvation and/or disease)–you have to go back to the Civil War on a broad scale, which is nearly 150 years ago, outside any ‘personal’ history even if your great great grandpappy experienced it. “Mutual tolerance” of slavery worked for what, 200 something years, before breaking down. “Mutual tolerance” of Muslims/ Christians lasted about the same time. If you can argue that it was necessary for people in 1861 to ‘fight’ for either states’ rights or for black freedom, or a combination of both, then you can see that a fight for the right to live and worship as a Christian would have been necessary at the time of the Crusades.

And yet another excellent point.

I think it can be fairly said that the world is not so simply as the black and white absolutes that some would portay our choices. More to the point, there is an entire spectrum of colors to choose from, and adding black and white to these colors often produces absolute frequencies of color which can be measured quite accurately wothout blending into shades of grey at all.
Tantum ergo:

Now of course, you might say that the North and South “should have worked it out” without recourse to violence. That would have been ideal, but once one group refused to listen, what would you have the other do? It was the South which ‘fired first’ and then things were inevitable.

Exactly, and even if martyrdom pushes the colors involved well into the frequencies of the invisible spectrum, there’s still nothing wrong with defending oneself within the visible spectrum of morality using equivalent force either.
Tantum ergo:

It was the Muslims who continued on with their swords and jihads. Do you really think that if we had not won in the 15th century against the Muslim Turks, if we had ‘beaten our swords into plowshares’ that life would have been all roses and lollipops and we’re all one big happy family?

I tend to think that God could have still converted many even if we allowed ourselves to be martyred in these extreme wars. But I do agree that there was absolutely nothing wrong with defending ourselves either.
Tantum ergo:

Do you consider World War I or World War II just? How about the Revolutionary War?

I’m going to be interested in knowing how Mirdath approaches these questions. I don’t think these questions can be answered as easilly as Mirdath might think they can.

 

[Valke2]

At least as valid?
Many pathways.

This all sounds so good. . .and yet, it really is wrong.

Either there is no such thing as a one true religion, in which case we can claim that one is at least as valid, or that there can be many paths, because everything is either indifferent or relative. . .

You can take all teh documents, proof and testimony that says your religion is the one true religion and it all amounts to absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever. How is blind faith that your religion contains the “one truth” a supportable position?

I am not attempting to force Christianity down your throats. Faith is a gift, not a compulsion.

It is also not something under the exclusive domain of christanity.

[QUTOE]From the start, it is assumed that a religious person is ‘out to impose his/her beliefs’ on others. That is why we are told that the only ‘place’ for us to speak is “in church”, yet non religious people can speak everywhere, for of course they are not attempting to impose ‘religious’ beliefs. Anyone else see the disconnect here?
I do. But I doubt we are talking about the same thing.

This type of discussion is meant to put artificial limits on one person (the religious) while giving total freedom to the non religious person. All ‘judgment’ regarding the discussions is given to the non religious person as a matter of courtesy, or to acknowledge that he or she can be relied on to be free of bias, etc.

No. I don’t see that at all. If for no other reason because I am religious. I think you are reading things into my post that aren’t there.

 

[Mirdath]

I’m going to be interested in knowing how Mirdath approaches these questions. I don’t think these questions can be answered as easilly as Mirdath might think they can.

Watch me, I’m way ahead of you

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Watch me, I’m way ahead of you

I’ve been watching (and reading too) and I think you’re kind of behind to be honest.

Let’s come back your former post…

Mirdath:

Granted, but the Crusades were not a personal thing like that.

I disagree. Saying that the Crusades were not a personal thing like that is kind of like saying the US were wrong for taking it personal when Iran invaded their embasy, took hostages, and threatened maintain this captivity if their demands were not met…

In the United States public opinion was all but unanimous in its outrage against the hostage-taking and its Islamist perpetrators. The action was seen “as not just a diplomatic affront,” but a “declaration of war on diplomacy itself,” by its violation of centuries old international law. President Jimmy Carter, applied economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran: oil imports from Iran were ended on November 12, 1979, a number of Iranians in the U.S. were expelled (some of whom were unrelated to the crisis or the new Iranian government), and around USD 8 billion of Iranian assets in the U.S. were frozen on November 14, 1979.

Mirdath:

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.

Are you even aware of how the Muslims conquered by the sword prior to the Christian Crusades even beginning?

The Muslims conquered Mecca in 630.By 635 they were in Damascus. The following year, at Yarmuk, the Muslims routed a Byzantine army and most of Syria was opened to them. In 637 they defeated a Persian army and had conquered the entire Persian Empire by 650. Expansion continued eastward in the following decades, until the Muslims had spread through Afghanistan and India, up to the borders of China.

Jerusalem fell in 638, Egypt in 641 (Alexandria held out until 642). The Muslims swept across North Africa, conquering Tripoli in 647, Carthage in 698, and entering Spain in 711. They were at the gates of Constantinople in 673 and again in 717, but the Byzantines managed to drive the Muslims out of Asia Minor again, and that area remained Greek until the 11th century.

And again…

The Turks were another of those fierce, nomadic peoples produced every few centuries in the steppes of Asia. They began to filter into Muslim Persia in the 9th century, mainly as mercenaries and adventurers. Success in these roles brought land and titles to some, and so the Turks began to settle within Islam, converting to the faith. During the 10th century, most of the Turkish tribes converted to Islam, so when they began migrating in the 11th century, it was as Muslims, specifically as Sunnite Muslims.

By 1040, the Turks were moving into Persia in large numbers, sweeping away every opponent. Their conquests are known today as the Seljuk Empire, named after the leader who first united the tribes. In 1060 they drove the Shi’ite ruler from Baghdad, propping up the failing Abassid caliph there. Now, though, the Caliph was under the thumb of a new power: the Turk who ruled in the name of the Caliph took the title of Sultan. From that point on, the Caliph in Baghdad was a religious leader only, and it was the Sultan who ruled.

The Turks aimed in two directions: Byzantium and Egypt. The former was Christian and so ripe for conquest and conversion, while the latter was heretical (Shi’ite) and so open to attack. Under Alp Arslan, the Turks invaded Armenia and Georgia. In their train came thousands upon thousands of Turkish nomads, following after their victorious warriors. These settled in such numbers in Anatolia that gradually Asia Minor became known as Turkey.

The key event in this process was the battle at Manzikert in 1071, when Alp Arslan defeated and killed the Byzantine Emperor Romanus Diogenes. The Turks were still busily settling in to this area when the First Crusaders arrived, twenty-five years later.

To the south, at first it appeared the Turks would be equally successful. After a terrible six-year famine (1067-1071) caused the Fatimids to lose much of their empire, including Sicily and Palestine, Egypt recovered her strength. She was led by Badr al-Jamali, an Armenian who took the title of Amir (Commander of the Troops). He recovered Palestine, including Jerusalem, so it the city was under the control of Arabs and Egyptians when it fell to the Latins in 1099.

So, in the face of this fierce persecution by the sword, how exactly is my analogy flawed?

Are we allowed to defend our Christian brethren or not?

continued…