AllNaijaBlogger:



Your discussion with Alolatee is what I am talking about. Not all Christians are the same. Some can actually reason outside the bible

joseph1013:


I see...what do you have to say to the questions raised?

PastorAIO:


That's sad.




On what grounds?



It makes sense that it would baffle you.



How so?



That's just pathetic.



Can demons be happy?






How do you know that?

alolatee:




Paul in Romans11 said he will that i become accursed for my people Isreal.I must admit my faith has not grown to this point.Indeed the scriptures through Jesus also says this; John15vs13-Greater love has no man than this; that a man should lay down his life for his friend.I believe Paul's words when he said this tallied with the above thoughts of Jesus which is to mean do all within your power to make your generation believe in Jesus.Including fasting and prayers regularly for them.Sparing your time in speaking about the message of the cross in your convenient and inconvenient times.One thing i can assure you of, is to constantly pray for you that the eyes of your understanding may be open and the life of Jesus be reproduced in you as at before.I do wish to always continue to converse with you on anything religion which is my most active area on Nairaland.You can check my profile to attest to this.Thanks Mr Joseph1013.

PastorAIO:


I appreciate that. However, can demons be happy?

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

PastorAIO:
Intelligence is a direct cause of not taking Sam Harris seriously at all.

joseph1013:

Explain...why is he not to be taken serious?

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

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.

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.

PastorAIO:
More from Sam Harris:



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.

joseph1013:

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

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

PastorAIO:


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?

Cheers

joseph1013:


[b]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.[/b]

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


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

PastorAIO:


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"?

PastorAIO:


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.

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?

PastorAIO:

Superficially, yes. But on deeper investigation I find that religion is not the source of moral depravity (whatever that might be).

joseph1013:


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

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 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.

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

joseph1013:


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

PastorAIO:


Invaluable? No!! value depends a lot on scarcity. If religion were the only way then it would be invaluable.

PastorAIO:

No, I do not agree. Who do they combat in this scenario (sticking with you definition as combative).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

PastorAIO:


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.


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

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.

AllNaijaBlogger:

Please, repeat the question. I will answer

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.

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?

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.

joseph1013:

[b]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?[/b]

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.

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.

PastorAIO:


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.