|Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 1,364,489 members, 2,071,204 topics. Date: Monday, 25 May 2015 at 08:32 AM
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 11:44am On May 24|
My brother, all I required of you is to say yes or no. Is that statement above valid? Yes or no?
I'll repeat the statement:
You agree with me that technology is a channel and a big outlet for people to perpetuate violence, but that without technology there would still be violence. Therefore it is unnecessary to speak out against the big outlet of violence called technology.
Compare the number of fatalities in the First World War to the number of fatalities in the Napoleonic wars. Millions compared to tens and hundreds of thousands. That is all due to technology. If you removed technology from warfare people would still go to war but the number of fatalities and the violence of the Wars will be very much reduced. Technology did not cause the war, but it served as a channel for facilitating violence on a scale we previously couldn't even imagine.
Since the First World War there has been an arms race to create ever more destructive technological power. Obviously technology has it's positive uses to and these are developed too.
I've not heard you say that Violence will not end when religion is abolished. I have not seen you address those places or times when religion has been abolished and violence increased. Even internal violence, not war. Your excuse was that War was the norm in those days and everybody fought wars. Well what about The Terror in France. That was violence perpetuated on it's own citizens by an atheist state.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 11:44am On May 23|
Substitute Technology for religion in the summary you wrote above and this is what you get:
You agree with me that technology is a channel and a big outlet for people to perpetuate violence, but that without technology there would still be violence. Therefore it is unnecessary to speak out against the big outlet of violence called technology.
What I am wary of is this ideology that promises an utopia of Non violence that will be achieved after religion has been abolished. It is a lie, and the historical facts tell us precisely that it is a lie. Of course this ideology seeks to support it's claims by cherry picking cases where non religious societies are not aggressive, and ignoring cases where they are. People like your Sam Harris are prime exponents of this crap and they are so transparent to me, though not to many others who follow them.
|Religion / Re: Was Hitler A Christian? by PastorAIO: 6:52pm On May 22|
[quote author=OLAADEGBU post=34000971][/quote]
Did he have to explain the kingdom to htem or did they already have an idea of what the kingdom was? What was the current idea of the Kingdom at that time for them?
|Religion / Re: Was Hitler A Christian? by PastorAIO: 4:21pm On May 22|
and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.
THEREFORE... Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another,
Hmm... the only sins referred to here that the Lord will raise the sick from are those sins we've committed against one another. Other sins must use another method.
|Religion / Re: Was Hitler A Christian? by PastorAIO: 3:33pm On May 22|
Presuming out behaviour starts in our mind then then belief comes first.
|Religion / Re: Was Hitler A Christian? by PastorAIO: 3:03pm On May 22|
Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
- From An Epistle of Straws.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 3:00pm On May 22|
I have a lot of special powers but reading your statements as you write them is not one of those powers. I can only read them after you've written them and posted them. I also cannot read what you think you wrote. Again I'm only limited to what you actually wrote. I sorry if this disappoints you, I'm only human.
I agree with you that religion is a 'channel and a big outlet' for violence, but I disagree that it is a cause, whether an only cause or not.
Furthermore the only way you're gonna remove religion and create this your better world might be to lobotomise every human being when they are born. Then we'll walk around peacefully, if like zombies.
I've made reference to your list of places that are less religious. Will you also make reference to my list of places that are less religious. Oh, I forgot, you've dismissed them from the argument because they happened when "it could be argued that wars in general was the norm. Almost every country in the World saw war as a means of survival. if you were not at war, you're preparing for war."
Interesting enough this is the argument used by many christian apologists when they excuse the violence in the old testament. But let leave that....
I don't know about protecting sovereignty, but definitely there are political reasons in there. Do you think that those young US army soldiers would want to risk their lives and kill thousands of others if they have not been brainwashed? That is how the activities of the US nullifies your position. Not only the soldiers in the US army but the entire population that is stirred into jingoistic fervour have had their minds manipulated.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:41pm On May 22|
I have not been tacit at all, I've shouted it out from the rooftops and I continue to do so. This matter is a lot deeper than just saying it is religion. It is something fundamental to human psychology. You have given a list of some non religious countries and have blatantly avoided a whole heap of other non religious countries that have been extremely violent. Even if you will not admit anything after Stalinist USSR (an extremely disingenious move) we still have the example today of North Korea, communist China, etc.
Again, that's interesting. If you say that people are inherently evil and that there will still be as much evil without religion then how do you explain that this is not the case in practice. Why do we not have as many religious countries in the top peaceful countries as we do have non-religious countries?
I didn't say people were inherently evil as if that is all they are. The potential for evil has it's source deep in the foundations of human psyche. Oh, and we still haven't determined a definition of what evil is, but I'll still leave that alone, cos it's a big can of worms.
No, I don't think religion is ultimately the reason Saudi Arabia is the way it is. I believe that you are not getting the fundamentals of such behaviour.
I asked how many of zionisms leaders were religious. I didn't say that there weren't any religious leaders. for it to be a religious movement it has to be lead by religious leaders, in my humble opinion.
The Iranian revolution was a religious movement, for example.
If scripture is open to interpretation, as you say, then how can it be the Source of violence when someone reads violence into it.
If you look carefully at what I've been saying you might notice that I'm not taking a stance that is diametrically opposed to yours, I'm just saying that your approach is slapdash and lacks depth.
Religion can be used for violence and often is. Why? That is a big subject. Without it would there be no violence, or even less violence? Not necessarily. Religion bashing is not going to help you none if you want to create a more peaceful planet.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 6:51pm On May 21|
But this is the best bit of your post for me personally because you've been standing on a precipice all this while but this is the point where you decide to jump off and plunge into an abyss of God ( ) knows what.
Hey, civilization evolves. At the time of the Stalinist USSR and the Revolutionary France, it could be argued that wars in general was the norm. Almost every country in the World saw war as a means of survival. if you were not at war, you're preparing for war.
So .. like... are you saying that we are to dismiss all of human history up until Stalinist USSR, ie up until the middle of the 20th century? You'll not admit anything before then into our discussion? War was the norm then. I wonder, Would you be willing to absolve all the religious wars before this period too?
Most humans frown at war and consider it as not the best means of survival EXCEPT if it can be justified by religion.
you forgot a few more exceptions ... Except if it is to bring democracy to the Iraq. Except if it is to bring democracy to Libya. Except if it is to topple the government of Syria. Except except except. ... except it is to topple the democratically elected government of Ukraine. Or Except it is to protect the Saudi ruling family who are friends of the US. EXCEPT..EXCEPT..EXCEPT.
In fact if my memory serves me correctly, most of the aggression from the middle east (except maybe ISIL) are not done on religious grounds, in order to spread religion, but rather as a reaction to US Israeli aggression and foreign policy in the region.
You're flailing about here. I'm interested in discussing violence that is caused by religion or religious scripture. Leave friendliness safest and best etc out of it.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 6:28pm On May 21|
I'm fully aware of what brainwashing can do. That does not address my point that without religion the violence is already there. Religion can just be used to excuse it.
If that's how you want to define aggression then fair enough. however my point of interest is the inanity of Sam Harris claiming that religious scripture is the source of violence. Thus when you take scripture less seriously, or when you are ignorant of it, then you become moderate, in other words non-violent. I wonder, would you call Sam Harris filling your head with such rubbish an act of aggression?
How many of the leaders of Zionism were religious leaders? What you have done here is proved my point by saying it 'is open to interpretations'. Some people use the scripture to refrain from violence while others use it to excuse violence. Yet it is the more religious that reject violence while the more secular (moderate?) are violent.
|Culture / Re: The Fundamentals Of Odinani by PastorAIO: 4:02pm On May 21|
I asked you a question. If you don't want to answer then just say so, it's no wahala, I'll go on my way.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 3:56pm On May 21|
My point is that those for whom religion is a convenient vehicle for depravity will use it.
What about salesmen? Or Telesales? In England your phone can ring and anytime and when you pick it up it's someone trying to sell you something or the other. Isn't that Intrusive? Intrusive is the word I'd use rather than aggressive which had connotations of violence.
NO! In fact it is the most radically orthodox jews that take an anti israeli stance. It is the secular jews that are violently zionist.
I see that you're bringing Underdevelopment into the issue too. If you don't mind I'll stick with Violence and religion. Can you provide statistics supporting your claim that human rights abuses are linked to religious places? Consider that most places on this earth are religious places. Consider also places such as were people like the Hamish live. Consider Stalinist USSR which was totally secular. Or Revolutionary France which also abolished religion. Take a broad unbiased survey and please provide the statistics.
When you say that some of the best places to live on earth are nonreligious places are you thinking of places like North Korea?
Your nigeria roads example doesn't work because religion is found almost everywhere in the world while nigerian roads are only found in Nigeria. There is religion almost everywhere and in some of these places there is violence and in others (most others) there isn't violence. On the other hand there few non religious places and also here there is violence and non-violence and I would hazard a guess that the proportion of violence to nonviolence in non religious societies exceeds that in religious societies.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:30pm On May 21|
Invaluable? No!! value depends a lot on scarcity. If religion were the only way then it would be invaluable.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:26pm On May 21|
joseph1013:No, I do not agree. Who do they combat in this scenario (sticking with you definition as combative).
Will you agree that protestants who have huge speakers and shout and rants without minding noise pollution and how disturbing they are to locals are aggressive?I most certain do agree in this instance. Such folks are aggressive and a total nuisance to society.
Not necessarily. For instance I know of Jews who totally disagree with Israel's aggression in the middle east on the grounds that their religion forbids them to return to the promised land until the messiah comes. There are already many muslim uprisings all over the world and I see many devout muslims who have not moved a single finger for the cause.
Any scriptures you may think of. Try Bible, or quran, or Upanishads, or Book of Mormon..... Anyone that takes you fancy there are scores of them the world over. I repeat my question. What is the sources of these scriptures?
You know what? Just to avoid a round about dancing affair I'll answer the question myself and hit straight to the point.
All these scriptures have their sources in humans themselves. These are expressions of our humanity. If the bible is the cause of violence and the bible is sourced from men, then ultimately men are the cause of violence.
stripping them of the bible or of religion is not going to end violence. Nothing short of lobotomizing new born babies is going to raise a race of men that aren't violent. Without religion we can still kill each other over politics, ideologies, resources, etc etc etc. So if violence is your concern then we have to go to the source and ask properly, 'why is man violent'? When you can answer that then you have a better chance of grasping the problem. Then you won't be like Sam harris, who is obviously a very violently minded man who is projecting the cause of violence onto religion while failing to address his own very violent tendencies. In fact you'll fall into the very same pit that those religious people you denounce have fallen into. Namely bigotry and hypocrisy.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:08pm On May 21|
Superficially, yes. But on deeper investigation I find that religion is not the source of moral depravity (whatever that might be).
|Culture / Re: The Fundamentals Of Odinani by PastorAIO: 2:03pm On May 21|
How can you tell when you are faced with a conscious entity? How can you know that the earth, trees, and even storms are not conscious entities?
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 12:49pm On May 21|
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 12:48pm On May 21|
We were talking about Religious moderation in the context of Violence. I do not think that proselytising or evangelising are acts of violence. To say that Religious moderation makes you less of a preacher is to shift the goalpost to another matter entire.
Catholics are not militant evangelists in your experience. By 'militant' I presume that you're suggesting evangelism by violence and bloodshed. Please which of your acquaintances are violent. Protesting that Buhari shakes a woman's hand is not an act of violence last time I checked.
How about other ideologies? Take republicanism for instance. Would you say that the more republican you are the more intolerant you're likely to be of other political ideologies? And the more intolerant you are the more likely you are to be prone to violence? Et tu, Brutus?
To get to my whole point, I would like to ask, " What is the source of these scriptures that make us intolerant and violent"?
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 4:16pm On May 20|
It is with much relief that I read that you will not defend him. However, which of his religious issues do you agree with. Surely not this one which prompted our discussion:
Are you happy to join me in dismissing the above as inane balderdash?
Or perhaps you'd like to explain to me what he means by religious moderation. Does it involve eschewing violence? (presumably, from the title of the book it is culled from). And how does it relate to taking scripture less and less seriously?
If not the above statements, then which of his issues about religion do you agree with?
|Religion / Re: Was Hitler A Christian? by PastorAIO: 9:46pm On May 19|
What was the gospel that Jesus was preaching? Was he preaching about his death and resurrection? Is that what Jesus was asking his audience?
And as for praying in public, what you are saying there is utter rubbish. If it is not seen by men then it is not public. Check out the meaning of public.
|Religion / Re: Was Hitler A Christian? by PastorAIO: 9:38pm On May 19|
I don't understand your need to distinguish doing from believing. They are like hand and glove. What you do accords totally with what you believe, and if you believe you will do accordingly.
Your question is like asking what comes first, the desire for food or hunger.
|Religion / Re: Was Hitler A Christian? by PastorAIO: 9:35pm On May 19|
Just go to almost every thread you've opened about Catholics, or about Obama. etc. etc. etc
I'm not in the mood to go digging.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 9:49pm On May 18|
and More from the same link:
Any systematic approach to ethics, or to understanding the necessary underpinnings of a civil society, will find many Muslims standing eye deep in the red barbarity of the fourteenth century. There are undoubtedly historical and cultural reasons for this, and enough blame to go around, but we should not ignore the fact that we must now confront whole societies whose moral and political development—in their treatment of women and children, in their prosecution of war, in their approach to criminal justice, and in their very intuitions about what constitutes cruelty—lags behind our own.
he's such an expert on ethics.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 9:31pm On May 18|
More from Sam Harris:
He has also managed to demonstrate a principal failing of the liberal critique of power. He appears to be an exquisitely moral man whose political views prevent him from making the most basic moral distinctions—between types of violence, and the variety of human purposes that give rise to them.
Or maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand his basic moral distinctions. There are different types of violence. When religious people are violent that is Evil, but when Atheists are violent that is Good? Or perhaps it's: When 3rd world countries are violent it is evil. but when america is violent they are a force for Good?
Or something, something something. Whatever it is we will never know cos when he is asked some deep questions by Chomsky he just dances atilogwu and avoids the question. Which is worse, intentional violence? or Careless thoughtless violence? Who is more evil the man who intentionally kills another man for whatever reason. Or the man who knows he's going to kill innocent people he has no gripe with but just shrugs and calls it collateral damage.
Of course there are other deeper questions and issues in the philosophical subject of morality which he does even seem to know exist, but he deems himself expert enough to write and book on morality and to discuss religious morality.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 9:14pm On May 18|
What does he actually mean by religious moderation? Does he mean that those who refuse to resort to violence to spread their beliefs are moderates?
Well if that is the case what does he say about himself that goes around preaching the bombing of Iraqi babies and killing muslims, and saying that it is morally alright? Is he a moderate?
did he get him moderate stance from secular knowledge? Or perhaps he got it from not taking scripture seriously?
This is just skimming the surface of the inanities the man spouts. Him and his uncle Dawkins.
1 Like 1 Share
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 9:09pm On May 18|
I can't answer that in one post. There is too much at fault with the guys reasoning.
Okay, if you don't mind, this is not a direct answer but more like an example of his unseriousness shown up in a discussion with someone else challenges him.
His refusal to think deeply about morality and yet make pronouncement on the subject of morality, even to the point of writing a book on morality is part of why I find him unserious.
|Religion / Re: How To Invent A Religion by PastorAIO: 11:40am On May 17|
Since Saul did not try to kill Samuel we can only talk hypothetically about it. However I don't think judging from what I read in that bible that Saul can order the killing of Samuel. To his face Samuel told Saul That the royal dynasty was taken from him.
27 As Samuel turned to leave, Saul caught hold of the hem of his robe, and it tore. 28 Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors—to one better than you. 29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”
1 Sam 15
To gain control over someone is the same as to weaken them politically. Political strength is Control The more you can control the stronger you are, the less you can control the weaker you are.
|Religion / Re: Ifa Temple Service - Ibadan by PastorAIO: 3:32pm On May 16|
I've heard about these guys. They even stand up and sit down to sing hymns like in church.
|Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 6:28pm On May 15|
Intelligence is a direct cause of not taking Sam Harris seriously at all.
|Religion / Re: How To Invent A Religion by PastorAIO: 6:23pm On May 15|
You asked a very excellent question when you asked what I meant by 'real power'. Real Power is a very subtle thing. Real Power does not lie in an office. You don't necessarily gain power when you assume an office such as kingship or priesthood. You can have a strong King and you can have a weak King. In some regimes the real power lies behind the throne, not on it. It can be a minister even. or sometimes the king's mother. Even his wife!!!
The same goes with every office. Some prophets were weak politically, such as Jeremiah. These are the ones that might end up losing their lifes. On the other hand you have prophets like Samuel where it was the other way around. Any King that tried Samuel was playing with his life.
but back to christianity in Western Europe. The tussle for power between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Popes. For me this is the story of European history. Popes and bishops have always been weaker than the Emperors, even going back to the Roman Empire dayz. I believe that an attempt to weaken the power of the Emperor was what made the Church support the Guelfs and that this support fed into the merchant classes and the rise of the bourgeoisie in Italy. This subsequently weakened the feudal system of the middle ages but the Church had created a monster that it could not control because this new bourgeois class promoted the renaissance and Humanism which eventually led to the reformation and demise of the Church in western Europe.
These are just my own wild hypotheses but I've got historical backing to support them.
|Religion / Re: How To Invent A Religion by PastorAIO: 5:13pm On May 15|
But the prophets can at least castigate and criticise both the priests and the Kings.
I think real power lay in the hands of the prophets. at least the popular prophets.
|Religion / Re: How To Invent A Religion by PastorAIO: 1:54pm On May 15|
@Dolphinheart, thinking further on your musings. What about if the religious authorities are 2fold. For instance, in early Judaism you had the priesthood on the one hand and then you had the prophets on the other hand. There were no royals until later. Or perhaps you could see the prophets as a prototype for the royals. The priesthood was instituted by the prophets. ie Moses (a prophet) created the priesthood and established his brother as the chief priest. It is usually the prophets who lead the nation and call the shots politically. The Priests seem to have been lower in the hierarchy. In the book of Judges most of the judges were prophets. And then lo and behold when a royal dynasty eventually emerges the kings are themselves prophets. Saul was a prophet and so was David.
So maybe the prophets/Kings were like the Ghibellines and the Priests were like the Guelfs.
|Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health |
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket
Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2015 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 287