Will we survive religion?

[Valke2]

Hey, you know us tolerant liberal revisionsts. Always willing to change to get along

 

[BobCatholic]

By this you mean ‘they don’t agree with what I hold to be the One True Way’, correct? They’re just as much a church as any other; they have beliefs, rites, sacraments, and a moral structure. That’s a religion, like it or not, agree with them or not.

So is secularism a religion then?

And how is this worse than having all Muslims dead?

Who says anyone wants all muslims dead?

If you can’t tell the difference between Islamonazis and the other muslims, you also cannot tell the difference between KKK and the rest of Christendom. The vast majority of Muslims don’t go around trying to kill people who don’t convert to them. However, there are those who do, and yeah, they’re dangerous. It is not the religion that is the problem, it is the fact that Islam is relativism is the problem. If a mullah goes off the deep end and misinterprets the Koran, Islam has no quality assurance program in place to make sure that doctrine is quality, so Islam is all over the place.

 

[Valke2]

The difference between “radical muslims” and other muslims is that radical muslims follow the Koran. It is not incorrect to lable them true believers. This is one of the fundamental points I was trying to get across originally. Those that choose to follow the true tenants, dogmas, and commandments of thier scripture, can leave no room for anyone else being right.

It is often faith, not evil, that moves people to acts of violence based on religious beliefs.

“I take it to be self-evident that ordinary people cannot be moved to burn genial old scholars alive for blaspheming the Koran, or celebrate the violent deaths of their children, unless they believe some improbably things about the nature of the universe. Because most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors. If we would speak of the baseness of our natures, our willingness to live, kill and die on account of propositions for which we have no evidence should be among the first topics of discussion.” (End of Faith, p. 32)

 

[BobCatholic]

The difference between “radical muslims” and other muslims is that radical
muslims follow the Koran.

They don’t follow the Koran. The Koran says that there shall be no compulsion in religion
(Sura 2:256) but they want to force people to convert or kill them.

The problem is that Islam has no method of enforcing the faith so that people don’t
misinterpret the Koran like this. So what happens? They create new sects. And more
sects and more sects. And each sect disagrees with each other. Some of these sects
say that killing unbelievers who are not attacking you is OK and thus we get sectarian violence.

Now, had this been the original Islam, we would have a Caliph who would rein in the out of control
mullahs and there would be no misinterpretation of the Koran. But they don’t have this Caliph so
everyone makes up their own interpretation of the Koran.

But which is the real Islam now? It doesn’t exist, for all they have is one opinion after
another after another with no way of determining which is the true Islam. So what is the result? RELATIVISM.

In this relativism, the violence occurs. After all, if there is no standard for truth, anything is permitted.

Those that choose to follow the true tenants, dogmas, and commandments of thier scripture,
can leave no room for anyone else being right.

But which one is holding the “true” dogmas? Who makes this authoritative decision? In Islam,
there is nobody who can make this authoritative decision (like the Caliph), so what is the result? RELATIVISM.

It is often faith, not evil, that moves people to acts of violence based on religious beliefs.

It seems you cannot tell the difference between faith and evil.
Also, you cannot tell the difference between Catholicism, Buddhism,
Islam (various sects), protestantism (various sects) and the like.
You lump it all in one large group and label it as “evil”

The problem is that thanks to the relativism you seem to be spouting,
evil is permitted, and it is this evil you rail against.

When relativism is the rule, everything is allowed, including evil. But how can you rail against evil
while at the same time supporting relativism?

Now, let’s take a look at the problem:
The problem is that there are people who believe that they must kill those who disagree with them.
What’s the solution to the problem?

1. Kill them. Then we become just like them.
2. Try to negotiate with them. We’ll wind up being killed as they slice our throats.
3. It is not a problem, as there is no moral standards.
4. Outlaw all kids of freedom of speech and freedom of religion and enforce only one way of thinking.

None of these are palatable. So, what is the solution?

 

[Writer]

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.

Let me backup a bit here… As far as Judaism is concerned, I hold a special respect for Jews and their faith. As Father Roy Schoeman put it, Christianity is the next step of Judaism, a fulfillment or enrichment. Since our faith’s roots extend to Judaism, I believe that your faith is in a different category than other religions. While I still believe that belief in Christ is required for salvation, I also hold that, given God’s nature and the covenantial relationship with Israel, there may be additional or mysterious graces available to bring the Jews to heaven… Bottom line, the eternal destiny of the Jewish people is entirely in God’s hands, and speculation is really fruitless. I hope this made some sense…

 

[Valke2]

They don’t follow the Koran. The Koran says that there shall be no compulsion in religion
(Sura 2:256) but they want to force people to convert or kill them.

That’s because the Koran also makes it crystal clear that we are all infidels and thier enemy. It provides HUGE loopholes within its own text for the killing of non-muslims. THe problem is not that Islam has no method fof enforcing the faith. The problem is that they are NOT misinterpting what it says.

“Prophet, make war on teh unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home, and evil fate (9:73)”

“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous (9:123)”.

The believers who stay at home – apart from those that suffer from a grave impediment – are not the equal of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons… God has promised all a good reward; but far richer is the recompense of those who fight for Him… He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and His apostle and is then overtaken by death, shall be rewarded by God… The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies." (4:95-101).

I often hear the argument that suicide is prohibited (Do not destroy yourselves 4:29), and there’s no scriptual support for “terrorists”. But as shown above, the Koran leav es loopholes large enough to fly a 767 through.

"Let those who whould exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whoever fights for the cause of God, whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him… The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels (that’s me) fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan… Say “Trifling are the pleasures of this life. The hereafter is better for those who would keep from evil…” (4:74-78).

 

[Valke2]

btw, what is it that I have posted that leads to relativism? I am not advocating the acceptance of all faiths. I am advocating that all faiths have to accept the fact that they are not the absolute truth and that killing for what one believes happens to us when we die is absurd.

 

[Mirdath]

So, at last we have it. You apparently understand Catholcism better than the Catholics do, right?

Having been forced to memorize the Baltimore Catechism as a child (among many, many other things), I think I probably have a better understanding of it than most who profess it.

Are you going to accuse me of being heterodox too?

If so, then I’m going to report your posts. You can take your **** elsewhere Mirdath. It’s not going to fly too well here at a Catholic forum, even if we are in the section for non-catholic religions.

I suggest you think about that.

ooh, the gloves finally come off! Scary!

I’m not even going to bother responding to that beyond what I’ve said – we’re here to discuss whether or not humanity will eventually destroy itself through either religious fanaticism or the use of religion by evil people, or a combination of both. My answer’s been sliding steadily farther towards ‘no’.

Sin is sin regardless of whether people realize they are sinning or not. This is an absolute standard.

Last I checked, accidents aren’t sinful, nor are actions committed by people with good intent (according to yourself, no less).

What is jubject to debate is the extent to which people will be held accountable for the sins they commit. There are conditions outside Catholicism considered to be valid conditions of invincible ignorance for example

Which goes against what you just said…?

‘Sin is sin, regardless of whether people realize they are sinning or not’. ‘Valid conditions of invincible ignorance’ exist – ie, people who don’t realize their actions are wrong can be considered excused from the state of sin. Which is it?

If Jesus were permitted to at this time, he could have wiped his attackers off the face of the earth. But because the Scriptures had to be fulfilled, he was willingly allowing himself to be sacrificed for our sakes.

The operative word there is could. He was permitted, as Satan well knew during the temptation in the desert; he even wished that ‘this cup would pass’ from him. But he accepted it, as it was his father’s will.

At his second coming, however, the Rider on the White Horse isn’t going to be so docile. He will fulfill the Scriptures which you are conveniently forgetting.

So much for your pacifist depiction of Christ.

As I believe the Church now expresses it, Hell is the absence of God from which people have voluntarily withdrawn themselves through sin. This doesn’t require any vengeful action on God’s part – they’ve done it themselves.

I hope you realize that Christianity, like God, is being patient with those who do not know God.

I hope you realize that moderate irreligious people, like you say God is, are being patient with those who claim to know God (and often enough try to force him on us).

Do you want me to proceed to kill with the sword all who blaspheme the name of God?

Or would you rather us just be patient with the blasphemers as we allow them to lead our children astray and away from the True God of Catholicism?

Raise your kids better. Seriously, as a parent you have all-but-absolute control over what they’re exposed to. If you don’t want them to be exposed to the dangers of thinking for themselves, isolate them completely, homeschool them, and never let them out of the house except to go to church. You can do it – sadly, you can.

How are the Crusades any different from the Book of the Apocalypse’s depictions of Christ redeeming the world by his sword?

Where to start?!

Christ is divine, Crusaders were human.
Christ comes to purify and redeem, the Crusaders said they did but ended up looting, pillaging, and murdering.
Christ’s mercy and fairness will be apparent to all in the general judgement; the Crusaders in general showed precious little of either quality.

There’s a few off the top of my head.

You can make as many claims as you want. You’re not really impressing me with your knowledge. I don’t think you’ve even been able to dissociate the previous passages you conflated together either-- despite my attempts to help you understand this better.

But you don’t really know what you’re talking about in regards to Catholicism, do you?

Oh, I do. I just don’t agree with it. Does the fact that I happen not to think such-and-such is true completely invalidate everything else I know about it?

Yep. I’ll be back tonight after my wife and child feel better. They’ve both got a bad case of the flu now. It’s been persistent, coming and going. I myself had it on and off for about 2 weeks before it went away.

I’m feeling quite a bit better now though.

Sorry to hear you’ve all got it Good luck to your family.

 

[Karianne]

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.

My friend’s father hated religion for the very reasons you mention.
It’s usually not the religions that are at fault, but rather the
way some folks fail to live up to their own religion.
I struggle with my feelings towards Muslims. All my life, it seems, they have hurt me.
They killed my Bobby Kennedy,
They tried to kill my Pope,
They foisted 911 on us
So, it’s hard to reconcile charitable beliefs with this faith.
And yet, I know a Muslim lady who stuck to the fast during Ramadan faithfully, and when I went into the lunchroom where she was eating (after sundown), she actually offered me some of her food.
I asked her if she felt closer to God when she fasted and she said that she did and that she also loved Ramadan for that reason.
So, the more we learn about others and the more we try to live up to what we believe I think we’ll be okay.

 

[Mirdath]

Being a zealot is not the problem, if one is zealous and doing good. Mother Theresa was a zealot, but I seriously doubt you’re railing against her, are you?

However, you blast zealots en-masse instead of judging based on actions - evil. Instead of blasting evil en masse, you blast the good things that evil people use.

A zealot and a dedicated holy person are entirely different things.

So is secularism a religion then?

Once again, what is this ‘secularism’? I cannot think of any organized cultural structure with the same characteristics I mentioned other than, perhaps, Stalinism or Nazism.

If you can’t tell the difference between Islamonazis and the other muslims, you also cannot tell the difference between KKK and the rest of Christendom. The vast majority of Muslims don’t go around trying to kill people who don’t convert to them. However, there are those who do, and yeah, they’re dangerous. It is not the religion that is the problem, it is the fact that Islam is relativism is the problem. If a mullah goes off the deep end and misinterprets the Koran, Islam has no quality assurance program in place to make sure that doctrine is quality, so Islam is all over the place.

‘It is not the religion’ ‘it is the fact that Islam is…’ Care to explain how those don’t contradict each other?

Continuing, I’m pretty sure I can tell the difference. Out of all the points I’ve been trying to get across, ‘fanatics are evil and dangerous, but they do not represent the whole of a religion, and most ordinary people with religious beliefs are really pretty okay’ is the one I consider most important.

 

[BobCatholic]

btw, what is it that I have posted that leads to relativism? I am not advocating the acceptance of all faiths. I am advocating that all faiths have to accept the fact that they are not the absolute truth and that killing for what one believes happens to us when we die is absurd.

If all these faiths are not “the absolute truth” then what is the absolute truth?

If there is none, then you’re preaching relativism.

 

[BobCatholic]

THe problem is not that Islam has no method fof enforcing the faith. The problem is that they are NOT misinterpting what it says.

“Prophet, make war on teh unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home, and evil fate (9:73)”

 

[Valke2]

If all these faiths are not “the absolute truth” then what is the absolute truth?

If there is none, then you’re preaching relativism.

Relativisim covers a lot of different things. As I said in another post, why can’t two stories teach the same truth? Or why can’t it be possible that no religion has hit on an absolute truth? I’m not even sure what that term means in the context of relgion. Shouldn’t an absolute truth be verifiable?

 

[Valke2]

Valke2;1736384:

THe problem is not that Islam has no method fof enforcing the faith. The problem is that they are NOT misinterpting what it says.

And if you look at the context, you’ll see these all refer to those who attack Muslims.

In other words: SELF DEFENSE.

Right. We are to give up our lives, not by suicide, but by not being selfish. Christianity says the same thing.

Remember, suicide is self-murder, prohibited by the same 10 commandments (“Thou shalt not murder” remember?) that Muslims, Christians and Jews have in common.

But in Islam, there’s no authority to enforce this rule. So relativism is the rule.

That is your interpertation. How Self defense is defined seems to be pretty broad. I fail to see how theh absence of a central authority = relativism. Maybe we need to define our terms.

 

[BobCatholic]

A zealot and a dedicated holy person are entirely different things.

From what I am seeing, you don’t see the difference.

Once again, what is this ‘secularism’? I cannot think of any organized cultural structure with the same characteristics I mentioned other than, perhaps, Stalinism or Nazism.

As far as I can see, there’s no such thing. Secularism and Atheism have been in bed together and have made some interesting children: communism, Stalinism, Nazism…

Since atheism is a religion, secularism is one too, because of this combining secularism with atheism.

I define true secularism as handling temporal affairs in a way that is “neutral toward all religions” - but since my definition is not how people are doing secularism, YMMV.

‘It is not the religion’ ‘it is the fact that Islam is…’ Care to explain how those don’t contradict each other?

It is not a contradiction.

The religious beliefs are not the problem (people in this thread are railing against the Koran preaching violence against innocent people, when it does not). The problem is that there is no quality assurance in determining correct doctrine.
What Muslims believe is not the problem, but how do they know that what they believe is the true Islam? They have no means of determining so.

Think of it this way.

The Koran says X. Shiite Muslims interpret it to mean A. Sunnis interpret it to mean B. Wahabbis interpret it to mean C. The other Islamic sects have their own interpretation. Which one is the correct interpretation of the Koran? None of these interpretations are in the Koran. The answer is: WHO KNOWS. Islam has no quality assurance that allows people to know which is the true interpretation.

It is not a problem with the religious beliefs. It is a problem of RELATIVISM which results from not having a central authority.

Continuing, I’m pretty sure I can tell the difference. Out of all the points I’ve been trying to get across, ‘fanatics are evil and dangerous, but they do not represent the whole of a religion, and most ordinary people with religious beliefs are really pretty okay’ is the one I consider most important.

Then you’re not dealing with fanatics, but evil people. People can get fanatical without being evil. Look at your favorite sports team. There are fanatics who riot after a win, and there are those who don’t. They’re both fanatics, but in your eyes, they’re both equal. I don’t see it this way.

Evil is evil. It has nothing to do with fanaticism.

 

[BobCatholic]

That is your interpertation.

it is the interpretation held by 90% of Muslims. It is the 10% who interpret it your way.

I fail to see how theh absence of a central authority = relativism. Maybe we need to define our terms.

Let me demonstrate.

you have one interpretation of the Koran. I have another. Which is true Islam?

Remember, an interpretation of the Koran is not the same as the Koran. If it were, then an interpretation of the Koran would be IN THE KORAN.

Under the original Islam, the Caliph would render such a decision, and it would be binding on all Muslims. This ruling would become what Islam’s official doctrine.

Since there is no Caliph, everyone is basically free to make up their own interpretation of the Koran, and thus people can make up their own beliefs, which is what relativism is about - there is no absolute truth, it is all made up.

 

[Mirdath]

As far as I can see, there’s no such thing. Secularism and Atheism have been in bed together and have made some interesting children: communism, Stalinism, Nazism…

Since atheism is a religion, secularism is one too, because of this combining secularism with atheism.

I define true secularism as handling temporal affairs in a way that is “neutral toward all religions” - but since my definition is not how people are doing secularism, YMMV.

So, your ‘true secularism’ is a way of doing things – how is that a movement along the same lines as a religion? I agree that there are quasireligious movements based around it, but they still have variant beliefs and ritual structures. Secularism then cannot be spoken of as a single united thing, as if it is similar to one specific religious denomination.

Then you’re not dealing with fanatics, but evil people. People can get fanatical without being evil. Look at your favorite sports team. There are fanatics who riot after a win, and there are those who don’t. They’re both fanatics, but in your eyes, they’re both equal. I don’t see it this way.

Evil is evil. It has nothing to do with fanaticism.

There are fanatics who riot after a win, there are people who really, really like sports who don’t. They aren’t fanatics or zealots in the sense in which I use the terms.

 

[BobCatholic]

really, really

like sports who don’t. They aren’t fanatics or zealots in the sense in which I use the terms.

A fanatic is a fanatic.
A zealot is a zealot.
An evil person is an evil person.

There may be some crossovers, but they’re not the same.

Fanaticism is not evil per se. Zealotry is not evil per se. Both of these you’ve proven by showing that there are fanatics who don’t riot after a win. Or zealots who don’t do evil.

Yes, there are evil zealots, and there are evil fanatics, but remember: They’re EVIL, and that’s what they have in common.

I told you before: Evil people will hide behind ANYTHING to allow them to do evil. In this case, it is zealotry or fanaticism. This is why you can’t seem to tell the difference between evil and zealots, and evil and fanatic. These guys are causing scandal by doing evil while being zealous or fanatics.

Rail against the evil. Not against the zealotry or fanaticism.

 

[Mirdath]

A fanatic is a fanatic.
A zealot is a zealot.
An evil person is an evil person.

There may be some crossovers, but they’re not the same.

Fanaticism is not evil per se. Zealotry is not evil per se. Both of these you’ve proven by showing that there are fanatics who don’t riot after a win. Or zealots who don’t do evil.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said there are fanatics who riot, and people who are really really into it who don’t. By my definition fanaticism is evil – however, dedication and devotion are not.

Yes, there are evil zealots, and there are evil fanatics, but remember: They’re EVIL, and that’s what they have in common.

I told you before: Evil people will hide behind ANYTHING to allow them to do evil. In this case, it is zealotry or fanaticism. This is why you can’t seem to tell the difference between evil and zealots, and evil and fanatic. These guys are causing scandal by doing evil while being zealous or fanatics.

Rail against the evil. Not against the zealotry or fanaticism.

But when zealotry and fanaticism are, as far as I can see, evil? You seem to be working from a definition which includes harmless devotion in the domain of the fanatic. I’m not. So, I rail against evil.

 

[BobCatholic]

Did you even read what I wrote? I said there are fanatics who riot, and people who are really really into it who don’t. By my definition fanaticism is evil – however, dedication and devotion are not.

Right, by your definition fanaticism is evil even though there is fanaticism which is not evil. You can’t hold to both positions

But when zealotry and fanaticism are, as far as I can see, evil?
You seem to be working from a definition which includes harmless devotion in the domain of the fanatic. I’m not. So, I rail against evil.

No, I’m working from a realistic definition.

I used, for example, very dedicated sports fans as fanatics, and don’t tell me there are none. Some riot when their team win, others don’t.

Again, stop confusing fanaticism with evil, when not all fanaticism is evil, and stop confusing zealotry with evil, when not all zealotry is evil.

Rail against evil, which is always bad. Not against zealotry or fanaticism which are not always bad, as you yourself have admitted. By railing against fanaticism and zealotry, you paint harmless zealots and fanatics with the same paint brush of evil you paint the evil ones.