Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

[BreezeWood]

That means that you shouldn't go around and hurt/kill others based on gaining wealth or power. Defying that is the hallmark of religions.

No, that's pretty much the hallmark of all religions. I don't know of an example of religion that promotes war for power and wealth. Most of the one's I'm familiar with don't care about power and wealth at all.

You seem to have a real beef with religion but you're being vague. You're making these wild incendiary statements but not really fleshing anything out in specific. I find that problematic because I feel I am debating with Gilbert Godfrey. If you just want to make senseless rants and say nothing, be my guest.

.

No, that's pretty much the hallmark of all religions. I don't know of an example of religion that promotes war for power and wealth. Most of the one's I'm familiar with don't care about power and wealth at all.

... that promotes war for power and wealth.

that's almost beyond belief ... what war from the 4th century to modern times WWII etc. was fought without religious involvement ...

 

[Boss]

that's almost beyond belief ... what war from the 4th century to modern times WWII etc. was fought without religious involvement ...

Men often use their religions as justification for the righteousness of their wars. That is NOT because the religion promotes wealth and power acquisition. You're trying to make a correlation/causation argument that just doesn't exist.

 

[BreezeWood]

that's almost beyond belief ... what war from the 4th century to modern times WWII etc. was fought without religious involvement ...

Men often use their religions as justification for the righteousness of their wars. That is NOT because the religion promotes wealth and power acquisition. You're trying to make a correlation/causation argument that just doesn't exist.

.

That is NOT because the religion promotes wealth and power acquisition.

I agree there is a fine line: spoken 1st century religion was the antithesis of war and power that is nothing in comparison to the product of the 4th century bible which purpose is a political agenda disguised as a religion so technically the bible is not either as it is not a "religion" but under the guise of religion was a relentless purveyor of oppression, persecution and an artisan of war making for duplicitous purposes.

 

[Boss]

I agree there is a fine line: spoken 1st century religion was the antithesis of war and power that is nothing in comparison to the product of the 4th century bible which purpose is a political agenda disguised as a religion so technically the bible is not either as it is not a "religion" but under the guise of religion was a relentless purveyor of oppression, persecution and an artisan of war making for duplicitous purposes.

Again, you are trying to draw a correlation between a religion and actions of men claiming religion as their righteous justifications. That's not a fine line, it's a very distinct line.

 

[BreezeWood]

I agree there is a fine line: spoken 1st century religion was the antithesis of war and power that is nothing in comparison to the product of the 4th century bible which purpose is a political agenda disguised as a religion so technically the bible is not either as it is not a "religion" but under the guise of religion was a relentless purveyor of oppression, persecution and an artisan of war making for duplicitous purposes.

Again, you are trying to draw a correlation between a religion and actions of men claiming religion as their righteous justifications. That's not a fine line, it's a very distinct line.

.

Again, you are trying to draw a correlation between a religion and actions of men claiming religion as their righteous justifications. That's not a fine line, it's a very distinct line.

making the distinct obscure is the goal - writing righteousness as a religion rather than a righteous religion. fineness in the historical interpretation.

 

[RWS]

Rulers don't go out and kill their enemies themselves, except in some rare cases. What they do is create a religion, and fool people to do the killing for them with the promise of eternal salvation in exchange for their lives. The people that then do the killing are completely aware of their justification for risking their lives and killing others. They do it because they think they are following the word of God(s) and will be rewarded even upon death. Religions that do this include Christianity.

Just because Christianity today is in a kind of stable state compared to Islam and Judaism, does not change what it took to get them there, or erase history. Nothing has changed in Christian religion today, from what Christians thought during the Crusades and Inquisition. It just takes a trigger to destabilize them and revert to those ways. God has not come down since then and said, "Hey followers, never do that again, I didn't order it!"

To Christians, of course he ordered it! And then the Christian believers went ahead and did it, and were happy to do it, and felt saved by it.

And today, nothing has changed in the religion to stop that from happening again.

It's just a lull. Just needs a trigger.

And my argument is that if people can let go of their religions and do things based on morals and ethics instead, this would be a much better and safer world.

 

[RWS]

So here's a great example of altruism that does not require "god" or "religion". Just requires evolution...

This termite-hunting ant rescues its injured friends to benefit the whole colony

They don't do this because of some religious teaching making them better than other ants. They do it because evolution has given them instincts that helping each other helps the colony, even if it means risking yourself for an injured comrade. That did not require religious teachings to the ants, to acquire those morals and ethics. Those morals and ethics happened naturally, through evolution, not religion.

 

[RWS]

And it's the same in humans. We're generally good, because evolution would eliminate a species that is generally bad.

We help each other, not because a religion tells us that it's what we should do, but because we feel that it is right.

Religions, on the other hand, try to tell you that those natural impulses are due to "god", and try to sell you that they hold the only true secrets to further enlightenment. And you must follow, contribute, sacrifice, kill, etc....

But what they are really selling is poison. Religion is not necessary to teach morals and ethics.

I love Jesus Christ, or at least the ideal he represents in stories (whether real or imagined).

I hate Christianity, based on what it represents throughout history (which is undeniably real).

That's the difference between faith and religion. Follow the former, not the latter...

 

[RWS]

So here's the biggest difference between faith and religion....

If I was your religious ruler, and told you to go kill somebody based on their difference of opinion... (which I would never do)

A person of faith will tell me to go fuck myself.

A religious person will do what I said.

The religious person is the one who lacks ethics and morals.

 

[Boss]

Rulers don't go out and kill their enemies themselves, except in some rare cases. What they do is create a religion, and fool people to do the killing for them with the promise of eternal salvation in exchange for their lives.

Cite an example of such a ruler?

I've never heard of this. I don't even know of a religion founded by a ruler. And what earthly ruler has ever promised eternal salvation in exchange for lives? You make these wild charges and then don't back them up. You just ramble on and on with this false perspective you've created as if it were truth. Do you convince yourself of this shit like a sociopath?

Again... Rulers HAVE used religions that already existed, exploiting them in order to inflict wars on their enemies and get people to do their fighting. They didn't create the religion. The RELIGION doesn't have anything to do with some ruler's misappropriation.

 

[Boss]

Just because Christianity today is in a kind of stable state compared to Islam and Judaism, does not change what it took to get them there, or erase history. Nothing has changed in Christian religion today, from what Christians thought during the Crusades and Inquisition.

Other than The Reformation?

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity was moderated by the message and teachings of Jesus Christ and has undergone several other reforms including the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. So you are just flat out WRONG that nothing has changed.

 

[ding]

Rulers don't go out and kill their enemies themselves, except in some rare cases. What they do is create a religion, and fool people to do the killing for them with the promise of eternal salvation in exchange for their lives. The people that then do the killing are completely aware of their justification for risking their lives and killing others. They do it because they think they are following the word of God(s) and will be rewarded even upon death. Religions that do this include Christianity.

Just because Christianity today is in a kind of stable state compared to Islam and Judaism, does not change what it took to get them there, or erase history. Nothing has changed in Christian religion today, from what Christians thought during the Crusades and Inquisition. It just takes a trigger to destabilize them and revert to those ways. God has not come down since then and said, "Hey followers, never do that again, I didn't order it!"

To Christians, of course he ordered it! And then the Christian believers went ahead and did it, and were happy to do it, and felt saved by it.

And today, nothing has changed in the religion to stop that from happening again.

It's just a lull. Just needs a trigger.

And my argument is that if people can let go of their religions and do things based on morals and ethics instead, this would be a much better and safer world.

So here's a great example of altruism that does not require "god" or "religion". Just requires evolution...

This termite-hunting ant rescues its injured friends to benefit the whole colony

They don't do this because of some religious teaching making them better than other ants. They do it because evolution has given them instincts that helping each other helps the colony, even if it means risking yourself for an injured comrade. That did not require religious teachings to the ants, to acquire those morals and ethics. Those morals and ethics happened naturally, through evolution, not religion.

And it's the same in humans. We're generally good, because evolution would eliminate a species that is generally bad.

We help each other, not because a religion tells us that it's what we should do, but because we feel that it is right.

Religions, on the other hand, try to tell you that those natural impulses are due to "god", and try to sell you that they hold the only true secrets to further enlightenment. And you must follow, contribute, sacrifice, kill, etc....

But what they are really selling is poison. Religion is not necessary to teach morals and ethics.

I love Jesus Christ, or at least the ideal he represents in stories (whether real or imagined).

I hate Christianity, based on what it represents throughout history (which is undeniably real).

That's the difference between faith and religion. Follow the former, not the latter...

So here's the biggest difference between faith and religion....

If I was your religious ruler, and told you to go kill somebody based on their difference of opinion... (which I would never do)

A person of faith will tell me to go fuck myself.

A religious person will do what I said.

The religious person is the one who lacks ethics and morals.

I can't tell who you directed this to so I'll answer. Socialism has always sought to subordinate religion.

 

[RWS]

Rulers don't go out and kill their enemies themselves, except in some rare cases. What they do is create a religion, and fool people to do the killing for them with the promise of eternal salvation in exchange for their lives.

Cite an example of such a ruler?

I've never heard of this. I don't even know of a religion founded by a ruler. And what earthly ruler has ever promised eternal salvation in exchange for lives? You make these wild charges and then don't back them up. You just ramble on and on with this false perspective you've created as if it were truth. Do you convince yourself of this shit like a sociopath?

Again... Rulers HAVE used religions that already existed, exploiting them in order to inflict wars on their enemies and get people to do their fighting. They didn't create the religion. The RELIGION doesn't have anything to do with some ruler's misappropriation.

What rock did you crawl from under?

 

[Boss]

Rulers don't go out and kill their enemies themselves, except in some rare cases. What they do is create a religion, and fool people to do the killing for them with the promise of eternal salvation in exchange for their lives.

Cite an example of such a ruler?

I've never heard of this. I don't even know of a religion founded by a ruler. And what earthly ruler has ever promised eternal salvation in exchange for lives? You make these wild charges and then don't back them up. You just ramble on and on with this false perspective you've created as if it were truth. Do you convince yourself of this shit like a sociopath?

Again... Rulers HAVE used religions that already existed, exploiting them in order to inflict wars on their enemies and get people to do their fighting. They didn't create the religion. The RELIGION doesn't have anything to do with some ruler's misappropriation.

What rock did you crawl from under?

Why won't you answer my questions?

 

[RWS]

Just because Christianity today is in a kind of stable state compared to Islam and Judaism, does not change what it took to get them there, or erase history. Nothing has changed in Christian religion today, from what Christians thought during the Crusades and Inquisition.

Other than The Reformation?

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity was moderated by the message and teachings of Jesus Christ and has undergone several other reforms including the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. So you are just flat out WRONG that nothing has changed.

OK... you keep on dealing with that... I'm sorry you had to become self-aware. I'm always willing to help you!

 

[RWS]

Rulers don't go out and kill their enemies themselves, except in some rare cases. What they do is create a religion, and fool people to do the killing for them with the promise of eternal salvation in exchange for their lives.

Cite an example of such a ruler?

I've never heard of this. I don't even know of a religion founded by a ruler. And what earthly ruler has ever promised eternal salvation in exchange for lives? You make these wild charges and then don't back them up. You just ramble on and on with this false perspective you've created as if it were truth. Do you convince yourself of this shit like a sociopath?

Again... Rulers HAVE used religions that already existed, exploiting them in order to inflict wars on their enemies and get people to do their fighting. They didn't create the religion. The RELIGION doesn't have anything to do with some ruler's misappropriation.

What rock did you crawl from under?

Why won't you answer my questions?

I always answer your questions. You just don't listen.

 

[RWS]

Just because Christianity today is in a kind of stable state compared to Islam and Judaism, does not change what it took to get them there, or erase history. Nothing has changed in Christian religion today, from what Christians thought during the Crusades and Inquisition.

Other than The Reformation?

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity was moderated by the message and teachings of Jesus Christ and has undergone several other reforms including the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. So you are just flat out WRONG that nothing has changed.

So all the Christian people that killed Muslims and Jews during the Crusades are saved and living in Heaven, or not?

 

[ding]

Rulers don't go out and kill their enemies themselves, except in some rare cases. What they do is create a religion, and fool people to do the killing for them with the promise of eternal salvation in exchange for their lives.

Cite an example of such a ruler?

I've never heard of this. I don't even know of a religion founded by a ruler. And what earthly ruler has ever promised eternal salvation in exchange for lives? You make these wild charges and then don't back them up. You just ramble on and on with this false perspective you've created as if it were truth. Do you convince yourself of this shit like a sociopath?

Again... Rulers HAVE used religions that already existed, exploiting them in order to inflict wars on their enemies and get people to do their fighting. They didn't create the religion. The RELIGION doesn't have anything to do with some ruler's misappropriation.

What rock did you crawl from under?

Science and the Bible tell us that we came from dust and will return to dust. Is that the rock you are seeking?

 

[Boss]

I always answer your questions. You just don't listen.

Well, no you don't. You haven't in this thread. You don't seem to be interested in answering my questions. You want to take pot shots and act smug.

 

[RWS]

Dude, you believe in "reformation", which is basically a religion that forgives itself for its past transgressions. You like to "protest", but when it comes right down to it, you are Christian, and will follow what your leader tells you to do.

You just want a safe haven, a shortcut to Heaven. You don't want to deal with the real stuff that took place to get your Christian religion recognized in the first place.

Protestants do not have morals or ethics. So they are equally a religion as the one that they are trying to separate from. Ask our Presidents.