If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
no there not else no-one following these religions would go to war, fight etc.
Christian fundamentalist groups in the US attack abortion clinics, Hindu fundamentalists burn Muslims, Buddhis Lamaic sects in Tibet assassinate eachothers leaders, no religion is peaceful......
Then you don't understand that nature of relgion, and you assume that your version of history is correct.
Religion is based on faith, not fact (unless you believe and then it <STRONG>is</STRONG> fact - from your perspective) otherwise the very existence of Dinosaurs would disprove the Bible (as an example)...
The truly devout Christian doesn't believe in evolution, so why would he want you to teach his kids about it? As far as he's is concerned its all lies, in the same way that you believe relgion isn't true..
#####
Does that make sense?
A religion is defined by those that practise it wouldn't you say?
Anyway the Old Testament is full of violence......
No, otherwise ALL muslims are terrorists. Surely you recognise the foolishness of stereotyping <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
<STRONG>
Yes it is, but it doesn't preach that it is good.
This country has a history that includes slavery, does that mean that we are slave masters, or believe that slavery is good?
However, my examples were Sikhism, Christianity, and Hinduism. Can you find a prt of the teachings of these religions that promotes violence?
MoK is right - just because some people use religion as an excuse to go to war doesn't mean that the religion is inherently violent. Jesus, for example, discouraged violence, and encouraged tolerance and respect for others.
You seem to disagree?
Apparently you can define them by the fact that a minority us their colour as an excuse to hate other people...
Toady, your comments here totally contradict what you are saying in the "Euro" thread...you cannot judge a whole relgion based on the actions of a few individuals...
I am suggesting that it is irrelevant what the teachings say from your perspective, it is interpretations that matter. One persons interpretation of a religious text is just as valid as anothers, you can't argue against it because a true believer is convinced that it is the one truth.....
humans themselves are inherently violent so even if the scriptures only advocated peace it would be almost impossible for a human to follow that....
MoK I it is perfectly clear that not all raligious people are fundamentalists, I am simply saying that you cannot seperate them entirely from that religion, in the same way you cannot seperate hooligans entirely from football for example....
But are they <STRONG>Football</STRONG> hooligans or just hooligans?
Most of the people you refer to would be violent anyway, they just try to justify it...
Yes you are. </STRONG>
So to one person the phrase "do not murder" means do not kill someone unlawfully, whereas to another it means "kill whoever you like".
Of course the Bible is open to interpretation, but some things are fundamental to the religion. Christianity does not promote violence, and again I challenge you to find a verse in there that encourages violent conflict. </STRONG>
Well surely if humans are inherently violent, and the scripture advocate peace, then atheists would be the most violent of all?
Which is it? </STRONG>
It is true that some people will hide behind a religion as an excuse for violence, but if the religion does not support violence how acan the religion be blamed?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you are going to use quotes, make sure you get the context right. When you quoted me as saying "the religion is inherently violent", that is not what I said at all. <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Now I know what I mean, I hate stereotyping and try to avoid it but it is clear that you think through my writings thast I AM willing to stereotype....
Thus if you were to take me above writings as the ultimate source of truth <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> without any jusification or proof then your interpretation of my "holy teachings" would be different to what I intended thus it is warped....... <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
All examples of stereotyping, or ignorance of the true beliefs of these religions.
religions do not believe things, people do, and people interpret things differently......
<IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> is that a stereotype of the old testament? I think not....
people who call themselves Hindus have been involved on attacks on Muslims, thats not a stereotype its just true....
do you suggest that the WTC bombers weren't motivated by Islam (their interpretation)
Do you understand what a stereotype is, those examples are really bad..... <IMG SRC="frown.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Erm, well violence is not fundamental to any of the religions that I cited as examples, so interpretation is irrelevant. </STRONG>
Like I've said countless times, I know very little about Islam, and I doubt you do either. What you have done is group every religion together, dug out some incidents where people have used religion as an excuse for violence, and used all this to prove that religion = violence.
That is utter bollocks, and I object to you spreading lies... Don't patronise me you arrogant twat. I only used your quotes because the others aren't here to defend themselves, but the likes of Aladdin have used stereotypes far worse than those, and I am assuming that you agree because your line of argument is the same.
Returning to the original point about violence....
You suggested that Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism were ACTIVELY peaceful. I have suggested that what the religious texts say is irrelevant, it is the way people interpret them that counts.
If people are devout to that religion then they will live their lives according to these scriptures and as you suggest will conduct themselves in a peaceful manner.
The fact that there are people of these religions who are violent is proof that these people have not interpreted the scriptures in a way so that they live their lives peacefully.
that doesn't make sense, interpretation is everything, it is only fundamental from your point of view surely, if everyone interpreted the bible in the same way then there would not be the huge range of christian organisations. The fact that there are is proof that interpretation is of massive importance to any religious group that has a central book or set of scriptures.
I never said that religion caused violence, I am saying that people CAN interpret religion to a violent end (obvious from the Crusades and the inquisition to use non-Muslim examples) and that just because you adher to a supposedly peaceful religion does not mean that you yourself will be peaceful.
I assume you cannot because you have avoided the question before - if you can't then you have no right to accuse religion per se for inciting violence.
Can you find me a quote or not?
So you're admitting that you have no basis in your arguments? You're making it up? Power corrupts. Humans are fallible. Just because religious individuals provoke wars doesn't mean that they have been influenced by their religion to do so...
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Surely if Christian individuals do not follow the teachings of the scriptures then there is no point, words are no use, they way they are applied is all that matters....
Of course it was. You were generalising about all religions. You were making things up about violence. And you were blaming violent conflict on the religions and not the individuals responsible. You had no factual basis to your argument. No? If a "Christian" individual does not follow the teachings of the scriptures then they are not a Christian. Hence the religion itself is not at fault.
The problem with extremists is that they have focused on the first and forget the second.
Would you expand on that comment, please?
[ 21-05-2002: Message edited by: MacKenZie ]