₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1,389,034 members, 2,168,033 topics. Date: Monday, 06 July 2015 at 11:13 PM

PastorAIO's Posts

Nairaland Forum / PastorAIO's Profile / PastorAIO's Posts

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (of 173 pages)

Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 7:22pm On Jun 03
joseph1013:
What sayeth thou about genes and our individual genetic makeups?

Hmmm... Okay. Let us take that as the adamant core. If a man is therefore genetically predisposed to be aggressive towards his neighbours, but due to socialization and indoctrination he actually exhibits quite mild attributes, would he be left with a deep seated feeling of unfulfilment? Even though he me be respected for his mildness by society, even lauded, would it all leave him dissatified within? Furthermore would it be morally right for him to shake off such indoctrination and revert to his original aggressive nature?
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 5:14pm On Jun 03
joseph1013:


Example?

Presuming that a man is not just a blank slate that is then 'programmed' with all the characteristics that become his personality, but rather that the man has an essential nature, a true being, an adamant core .... Then such behaviour that accords with this, and such thinking that serves this would be based on a criteria that is all his own, not one imposed from without.

But that would presume that there was such an essential nature, and that we are not just accidents of our environment.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:49pm On Jun 03
joseph1013:


I think upbringing is quite synonymous with indoctrination. The truth is that one way or the other, we are all indoctrinated. The question is to what degree.

A parent could do all he can to help raise a critical thinking, independent child, but if the society the child lives does not support that, the success rate won't be that much. And I don't think there is a society that does not indoctrinate.

But hey, could we say a society that teaches people to be critical thinkers has indoctrinated them with critical thinking?

Even critical thinking has criteria that are arbitrarily determined. It seems to boil down to values. And a persons values are often conferred to him from his environment.

In a society that values survival above everything, a man well indoctrinated by that society will happily kill another man to get by and consider his actions a good thing.
In a society that values other ideals, a man well indoctrinated by that society will/may give us his life to defend that ideal and will consider his actions a good thing.

But those values that form the criteria for critical thinking are provided arbitrarily by his society/environment.

There is another way though. And that is one whereby the criteria that provides the foundation of a man's thoughts are found, not externally in the environment, but rather deep inside of him in the heart of his very being.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 1:54pm On Jun 03
I wonder if we can make a distinction between indoctrination and plain old upbringing.
In other words, can we make a difference between how someone is brought up and indoctrination? Is everyone that is brought up in a society not indoctrinated in one way or the other? Without indoctrination would we just be feral?

joseph1013:


I wouldn't say positive, but it would certainly be beneficial to indoctrinate a group of individuals may be to increase the productivity of a firm. A group of people who are indoctrinated so as to work in perfect cohesion would definitely be an asset to a firm, an army (as was illustrated by Adolf Hitler) and any other forum of teamwork.

However, considering the matter subjectively, the associated disadvantage is the partial (and in some cases, absolute) destruction of the people's existence. As the book "1984" by "George Orwell" clearly demonstrates, the after effects of a man living in repression are horrific.

Furthermore, I would add that on the whole, indoctrination would probably never be an all round positive thing because as long as the persons involved do not question their teacher and think for themselves, it is a basic violation of the principles along which a person lives.

A person who lives his life at the directions of another person is effectively dead, and is equivalent to a chair or a table. On the other hand, it gives a person complete power over another. A large number of people will blame this conditioning of the mind to account for "Terrorism", who are known for their dedication and single minded approach towards their beliefs.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 10:33am On May 30
joseph1013:


Any kind of indoctrination that brings about negative implications and physical harm can be 'removed', be it religious, political, cultural. Is that a guarantee that it WILL improve the person such that no other vice will be committed by the person involved? NO. But is it worth a try? You bet!

Great! But it would be going too far to try to abolish any ideological activity, be it 'religious, political, cultural.' Perhaps a more sophisticated investigation of how the violence is educed is called for. a scalpel rather than an hacksaw such as we have been using so far.

ps. Could there be possibly useful positive means to which indoctrinating violence could be applied too? For instance in the training for soldiers or a National guard in order to defend a population. Using Nationalism as an ideology to make soldiers hate other nations, and desire to kill them.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 9:50pm On May 29
joseph1013:


I simply need you to answer the question.

lol. okay.

joseph1013:

That's a reference from your last answer. So i repeat:
Could it be true that not everybody whose indoctrination has been removed or soft-pedalled would still be violent?

It is in fact true that when some people have their indoctrination 'removed' that they may become non violent. A great example of this is Patty Hearst. She was kidnapped at 19, indoctrinated and became a violent armed robber. After she was rescued she never committed violent crime again and was in fact pardoned by Bill Clinton.


Patricia Campbell Hearst (born February 20, 1954), now known as Patricia Hearst-Shaw, is the granddaughter of American publishing magnate Randolph Hearst, who became nationally known for events following her kidnapping. In 1974 while she was a 19 year old student living in Berkeley, California, Hearst was abducted by a left-wing terrorist group known as the Symbionese Liberation Army. Isolated and threatened with death, she was brainwashed into supporting their cause, making propaganda announcements for them and taking part in illegal activities. Hearst was found 19 months after her kidnapping, by which time she was a fugitive wanted for serious crimes. She was held in custody, despite speculation that her family's resources would prevent her spending time in jail. At trial the prosecution made Hearst's character and sexual morality an issue, suggesting that she had not been raped while being held prisoner by the SLA. She was found guilty of bank robbery. Her conviction and long prison sentence were widely seen as unjust, but the procedural correctness of her trial was upheld by the courts. Hearst's sentence was commuted by President Jimmy Carter, and she was pardoned by President Bill Clinton. Hearst may have suffered from Stockholm syndrome,[1] named for a hostage situation in Sweden that occurred the previous year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty_Hearst

This is a great example of of what I think you mean.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 12:07pm On May 29
AllNaijaBlogger:
PastorAIO VS Joseph1013


Your discussion is like that of a boxing match between two defensive (counter-attacking) boxers. Defensive boxers like to go around in circles testing the strength of their opponents and waiting for an opening to pound sense into the opponent.


The argument has been funny all along- two guys in round 8 (over how many pages?) going round in circles looking to trap the other in verbal victory. grin grin grin grin

I'm not being defensive though. I stepped out and stated my case that Sam Harris was wrong in saying that religious moderation is a result of not taking scriptures seriously.

Wrong on many levels. Not taking scriptures literarily, for 1 example, does not equate to not taking it seriously.

What he is trying to pin on religion can by found in every ideology, religious or not, including his own of State Worship, and Americanism. That's another example.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 12:00pm On May 29
joseph1013:


That's a reference from your last answer. So i repeat:

Could it be true that not everybody whose indoctrination has been removed or soft-pedalled would still be violent?

I think you are trying to say that if indoctrination is removed and the person stops being violent then that proves that religion causes violence. Perhaps this is not what you're trying to say but if it is then it's an obvious fail.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 10:28am On May 29
joseph1013:
But not everybody whose indoctrination has been removed or soft-pedalled will still be violent?

And how does this help your case?
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 7:32pm On May 28
joseph1013:
And when the indoctrination is removed, the person will still become violent?

Someone can still be violent without any intentional indoctrination, yes. Are you denying this, or you think all violence is due to indoctrination?
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 5:01pm On May 28
joseph1013:


Then you believe religious indoctrination plays no role in making people behave violently to others of a different belief?

I didn't say that it plays no role. You're putting words in my mouth. I said that it wasn't the cause. Indoctrination of all sorts, religious and otherwise, can play a role in how violent someone will behave towards others.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:30pm On May 25
joseph1013:


I didnt think I was going to say this but you're as dogmatic as a religious zealot. Have I been talking (or writing) to a brick wall all this while?

You and I, both. You're as dogmatic as a religious zealot too. We suppose to dey recognise each other when we see.


Did you read this:

Everyone knows about religious violence and how people give literal meanings to writings done in the stone age to inflict pains. And people like me say, look, let people not take these books seriously. The more you take these books less seriously, the more accepting and accommodating you become to other beliefs that are not in tandem to yours. That without broadening your horizon in secular knowledge, you have no way of looking beyond your immediate environment.



Now that I have pointed it out again, what do you understand by it?
[/color]

This conversation started for me from when you quoted Sam Harris and that is the issues which I've been addressing since. If you'd shifted the goalposts, I wasn't aware of that.

I believe you are confusing the meanings of seriousness, and literariness. I can take a book seriously without taking it literarily. I can also take it literarily without taking it seriously.
I agree that there are problems with believing the bible and Koran literarily. That doesn't mean that those that do so are serious students of the bible.
They are no more likely to be 'more accepting and accomodating' to those of different beliefs than you are to others of different beliefs, for example theists.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 11:51am On May 25
joseph1013:


Again, you've started going around in circles. I would think the answer to your question had been addressed in my last comment.

I will repeat it: Yes, technology was used in the first world war and it resulted into a lot of casualties. Even in the Second World War.And then what happened? People spoke against it and are still speaking against technology being used to wipe people off instead of bettering the lives of humans. That has led to better lives for the majority of the citizens of the world.

I don't believe I'm going round in circles. I'm am focussed on one point which I've stated explicitly and buttressed in every subsequent post.

I quote: 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.


Religion is not a cause of violence the same way that technology is NOT a cause of violence. It might facilitate violence, but it is not the Cause. If you seriously want to investigate the causes of violence then we can do so.
Nobody tries to abolish technology because of how it has been used for violence. Societies still pursue technological progress. Why then do you try to abolish religion because of how it has facilitated violence? Why call it the cause when it is obviously not the cause? Violence will stop when you remove the cause.
Then I also make the point that religion is integrally linked to human nature and that the only way to remove it is to lobotomise every baby when they are born. I have no idea how you plan to eradicate religion without understanding the root source of it in our psyche.
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.


joseph1013:


Technology and religion? Are you comparing myths and legends with technology? You don't think that's a ridiculous analogy? For starters, why not look at the pros and the cons and let's compare notes.

But if that's the path you want to tow, by all means let me indulge you.

YES! People are always speaking out against the ills of technology and their voices are heard. That's why there is constant improvements all round in how technology is used. Nuclear energy, a product of technology, is being regulated. Transportation systems are being tested and observed from time to time. Tell me about an outlet of violence that you think technology is put to and I'll tell you how people have spoken against it and how that has led to a better world.

I still think you're so focused on your dislike for Harris that you are reading what you think I wrote and not what I actually wrote. I will ring it to your hearing again that I do not think violence in our world will stop when religious violence is brought to the barest minimum by people taking scriptures less and less seriously. I can quote several places in this discussion that I have said that already. I wonder why you choose to ignore them.

What I know is that we will have a better and a safer world when and if that giant outlet of violence is closed and its influence reduced. The same way we'll have a safer world when political violence is halted or when ethnic violence is stopped.

Your position of not speaking out against one source of violence, a big source at that, is tantamount to saying what is the need in equipping our secondary schools as a means of turning around our decaying educational system when inadequate educational materials is not the only cause of the poor performance of Nigerian students in public examinations.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 11:44am On May 23
joseph1013:
PastorAIO, Reading through this discussion again, I see that we have been going around in circles sort of. I would love to further engage you, therefore I'd like to know in plain terms what your position is.

Let me try and summarize what I think you're saying:

You agree with me that religion is a channel and a big outlet for people to perpetuate violence, but that without religion there would still be violence. Therefore it is unnecessary to speak out against the big outlet of violence called religion.

Is my summary correct?

Interesting you'd call calling out the harm in religion bashing though.

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
OLAADEGBU:


Let's quote from the Epistle of James:

"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16).

James admonition here is that Christians should confess their offences to those they have offended so that they can be healed. It does not refer to repentance and faith needed for salvation.


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
Ubenedictus:
one does preceed the other and there is a difference between the two.

My question is just about what come first.

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
joseph1013:


Right now, I can not decide whether you are reading my statements as I write them or you're reading what I think I wrote. I already told you that while religion is not the only cause of violence in our world, it is a channel and a big outlet. If we remove religion from the equation, we will definitely have a better world. Again, refer to my examples of places that are less religious. Fair enough?


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....




Agreed. A country like the US does what it does for political reasons and often to protect its sovereignty. Again, you are reading what you want to read. So I ask you again: do you think those young girls in the North East would still want to kill themselves and thousands of others if they have not been brainwashed or threatens with violence. How does the activities of the US nullify my position?



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.



Then you're not ready for a discussion for I do not know how you can discuss violence and not talk about peace as a corollary.

Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:41pm On May 22
joseph1013:


I can see that you have tacitly decided not to change your position despite telling you that places that are non-religious do not generally have as much violence as places that are deeply religious.

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.



I have explained this to you through personal experience. I have given you examples of countries. I will refer you again to a place like Saudi Arabia. Muslim regard it as the Holy Land. Why do we have several human rights abuses and outright violent acts against people who do not want to associate with their barbaric ways? You think religion is not the reason the country is the way it is? I can see that you dont like Harris, I dont care about him one way or the other, but based on the realities on ground, it is difficult to fault religion for alot of needless violence, underdevelopment and several human right abuses.



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.



Really? Zionism does not have religious leaders? What about Yehuda Amital, Shlomo Aviner, She'ar Yashuv Cohen, Mordechai Eliyahu, Meir Kahane, Zvi Yehuda Kook. So many names. Please do yourself a favor and read up on religious Zionism.

When I say it is opened to interpretation, I mean that just like Christianity, Judaism also has alot of sects with various interpretations of the Torah. You get my drift? They use their interpretations to forward their objectives. Well, some will argue that the scriptures urge them to do that which they do.

And please, who told you that your 'orthodox' Jews do not have a history of violence? Ever heard of the “chastity squad”?

Look, you can let your dislike for Harris colour your world all you like, but there is no gainsaying that alot of people who would have lived better lives are currently brainwashed into thinking that fighting and adhering to the dictates of scriptures would have an eternity of bliss.

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
joseph1013:

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.

But now, it's all changed. Most humans frown at war and consider it as not the best means of survival EXCEPT if it can be justified by religion.

I said that some of the best places to live in are religious places. I did not say all of the best places. You mentioned North Korea. I can as well mention for every North Korea ten religious countries. You obviously dont wanna go down that route. In fact, you will not see North Korea say that the reason they do what they do is because they have a non-religious code of conduct that tell them to do that. Can you say same a place like Saudi Arabia that bans women from driving and ask them not to go out except accompanied by a man because doing otherwise will be haram?

Like I said earlier, some of the safest and most violent-free places to live on earth are places that are inclined towards non-religiousity. You simply need to look at any list of the best, safest, most peaceful, most accommodating, most friendly (and any other good adjective) places in the world to get a picture of what I'm talking about.

As at today, places like New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Canada and Sweden top the list while places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Israel, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo remain at the bottom.

You see no correlation?

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 ( tongue ) 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.

But now, it's all changed.

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.


Like I said earlier, some of the safest and most violent-free places to live on earth are places that are inclined towards non-religiousity. You simply need to look at any list of the best, safest, most peaceful, most accommodating, most friendly (and any other good adjective) places in the world to get a picture of what I'm talking about.
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
joseph1013:


Then you underestimate what religious brainwashing can do. You sincerely believe that those boys used by the Taliban would still wanna kill without religion? You think the girls used for suicide bombings by the Boko Haram monsters would not have wanted to grow up responsible citizens with a husband and kids if they have the same opportunity you have. You really do underestimate what indoctrination can do.

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.

joseph1013:

Except the salesmen and the telesalemen do not tell me I will burn in hell or that my life will be divinely better if I fail to hearken to them. That's the aggression right there. You wake me up from sleep and tell me I will burn in hell if I dont accept an imaginary god died for me?

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?


joseph1013:


This is open to interpretations. Radical jews believe they are following divine injunctions. Zionist Jews see the formation of the secular state as accelerating the process of redemption, with themselves playing a major role in doing G­d's will by serving the state, whose creation is often seen as miraculous. How exactly is the stance of violence against Palestine liberal or not radical? It doesnt matter whether you call them orthodox or not. They support their actions from the scriptures and it's difficult to fault them strictly from the point of the Torah if you have a debate with them.

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.

1 Like

Culture / Re: The Fundamentals Of Odinani by PastorAIO: 4:02pm On May 21
johnydon22:


Are they?

You are a conscious entity, am sure you know exactly the definition of consciousness is from the human perspective unless you would want consciousness redefined... Am certain you know exactly what i mean by being a conscious entity..

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
joseph1013:


Well, I thought you'd understand but the word VALUABLE in my statement should be in comma. Religion is invaluable to the people who use it as a weapon for their moral depravity. Of course, without it, they'd use any other means but then they will NOT use religion.

My point is that those for whom religion is a convenient vehicle for depravity will use it.

joseph1013:

It's interesting you will say this is not aggressive. I bet you've not been woken up from sleep by knocks from a Jehovah's Witnesses seeking audience to explain that which he/she (often both) have no idea what they are talking about. How many times have I been accosted by the roadside by pentecostals seeking to shove Jesus down my throat. These are aggressive to me.

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.




That's the point. Those that oppose (or dont join) such hard stances have a liberal and more humane interpretations of their scriptures with respect to forcefully taking lands and engaging in violence as the case may be.

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.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IapWP8hq9Mc




Interesting. Then I beseech you to explain why the most religious places in the world have about the most horrific human rights abuses. Why some of the most underdeveloped places in the World are in Africa with about the most religious people on earth.
Agreed, religion is not the only cause of violence and underdevelopment but could there be something about the channel itself that makes it so disastrous? I mean, you could say that Nigerian roads are not the only causes of accidents. And I will agree. But could there be something terrible about the ugly state of our roads that makes the stats of deaths that come from it every year totally unacceptable?
How do you reconcile that some of the best places to live on earth are non-religious places?


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
joseph1013:


True. But would you agree that it is such an invaluable outlet for those who use it?

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:


Therefore, will you agree that a sect who goes from house to house evangelising is aggressive?

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.


I will also refer you to another of my statements



This is self explanatory. Given a choice to stand with a religious uprising and a laid back approach, an intolerant muslim will be for the uprising.
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.



I dont understand your last statement? What scriptures?
[/b][/color]

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
joseph1013:


It's not about whether the point are originals. Few thoughts are original in this world. It's whether his points are worth taking note of or agreeing with?

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
johnydon22:


All these deities are just personification of nature... E. g Ani(land) is the personification of land (goddess) in igbo culture... All these are just human way of interacting with nature... It doesn't mean that any of these things personified are really conscious entities.

The greek personification of earth is the goddess Gaia.. this doesnt make it true that the goddess gaia is truly a conscious entity, its just the ancient personifying their surrounding and nature the way they understood it..

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
joseph1013:
Hey, do you agree with him in this video?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAj-fzPMAr8

He doesn't make any original points of his own in this video. As it happens I think even less of the guy he's debating with than I think of him.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 12:48pm On May 21
joseph1013:


Okay, let me start this way:

I do have alot of religious friends, muslims and christians. It is interesting to me that the christians friends that I know to not be militant in evangelism are catholics. For the muslims, the ones that I find to be most tolerant are those who are not extremely concerned about praying five times a day.

That is instructive to me because it shows that the more 'christian' or 'muslim' you are, the more intolerant you become. And the more intolerant you are, the more violent you are prone to be.

Take a look at Buhari, whom I happened to have voted for and for whom I have great expectations. He shook Oshiomole's new bride, and hell came down from the Islamic community. They castigated and howled insults at him for not following Islamic injunctions about muslims men not shaking hands with women.

With the many horrific things in the Quran about lying for Islam, subjugating women, holy war and the likes, it takes someone who takes the Quran less and less seriously to be a moderate muslim. For christians, it takes someone who takes christianity less seriously not to judge people. And I should know this, as I was a 'very good christian'. To be a very good christian, you must be committed to evangelism and convincing yourself that unless a man accepts christ, regardless of the many good deeds he has done, he is headed to hell. And according to the Bible, you must always see everyone on earth through that prism.

The more secular knowledge you have, in this case how human rights are to be upheld and the facts that alot of religious stories are myths or at the least, they can always be subject to modern interpretations, the more at peace with people around you you ULTIMATELY become.

The more you take scriptures less and less seriously as a religious person, the more moderate you become.

That's my position and it is in this light that I agree with Sam Harris.

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
joseph1013:

Interesting. Though I have my thoughts, I definitely cannot defend him. On alot of issues about religion, I do agree with him.

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:

joseph1013:
“Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.”

“Religious moderation is the direct result of taking scripture less and less seriously"

― Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

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?

Cheers

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (of 173 pages)

(Go Up)

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

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2015 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 406
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.