maxmaximus Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Not sure what you're getting at here. It's just the opposite to what you said, This explaines what I was getting at. You seem to think that the original ideology is something pure and pleasant and nice, which is false anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 You seem to think that the original ideology is something pure and pleasant and nice, which is false anyway. Which religion are you talking about here? Why are you trying to cleanse religion? To neutralise what I say with "free choice". "It's not religion - it's choice". If religion is a factor in how people make their choices then it is religion. Of course it is. To deny it is an insult to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. I'm not blaming every single religious person either. That would be silly. I'm saying that religious belief led this woman to abuse her child because he wasn't learning a book quick enough to please her. Not every religious person does this. Some do, and her religious belief is at fault. Some people do wonderful things which they justify in their belief. Martin Luther King Jr did wonderful things in the name of his religion. It just happened to be a religion he shared with those who put him in that position in the first place. I'm sure. It's just the opposite to what you said, This explaines what I was getting at. Ok, you two seem to be seeing, and objecting to, things in what I am saying that I don't intend to be there. I'm certainly not trying to cleanse religion and I have not been talking necessarily about any one in particular. I have been addressing the philosophical relationship between man and religion and where the responsibility for atrocious acts lies. First of all the original ideology of many religions do indeed contain things which are pure and pleasant and nice. Some also contain things which can be exploited for more negative agendas. The misunderstanding we seem to be having may revolve around how we use the term religion. I am referring to the abstract philosophies created to be grand meta-narratives for explaining human life. You seem to refer to religion more as the daily enactment of a person's beliefs including how religious movements have developed and, in some cases, warped over the centuries. Both are equally valid definitions of religion and neither one can exist without the other. My contention, from the beginning, has been All religious texts are open to interpretation. The form that interpretation takes in the real world is the responsibility of the individual. The only thing I have tried to say is that if atrocious acts are committed due to religious beliefs (which they undoubtedly are, and certainly in this case) then it is the fault of what people have done with religions, where we have chosen to take them, how we have chosen to interpret them, not the fault, necessarily, of the original philosophy. I hope that makes it clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 if atrocious acts are committed due to religious beliefs then it is the fault of what people have done with religions, where we have chosen to take them, how we have chosen to interpret them, not the fault, necessarily, of the original philosophy. A religion isn't a philosophy. It may contain elements of philosophy, and elements of science, and morals, and myth, and nonsense. I sense we're reaching an agreement in parts. All religious texts are open to interpretation. The form that interpretation takes in the real world is the responsibility of the individual. I also don't contend this. I wouldn't argue that because one Muslim murders her child that all Muslims murder children. Of course people are responsible for their own acts. Equally, if a Muslim woman murders her child because he isn't learning his holy books, I find it insulting to dismiss her religion from her actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Yes well you just keep yelling,your quite good at it, but it doesn't give you the monopoly on compassion over anyone else, as you appear to think. So what would you like me to do? Should I say "Oh, this is a multi-culti thing, 'black on black' or whatever excuse you want to go with," Would that suit you? I don' t live in YOUR country and I don't think your attitude, Janie, is acceptable. I don't think you give a damn. And it appears that you (who live in your country) have nothing to say. Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caparo Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 The problem arises when a community looks upon beating a child until it memorises the Koran, or forcing 15 year olds to marry their cousins as a positive then this sort of thing will increase in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 A religion isn't a philosophy. It may contain elements of philosophy, and elements of science, and morals, and myth, and nonsense. I sense we're reaching an agreement in parts. I also don't contend this. I wouldn't argue that because one Muslim murders her child that all Muslims murder children. Of course people are responsible for their own acts. Equally, if a Muslim woman murders her child because he isn't learning his holy books, I find it insulting to dismiss her religion from her actions. Ahh, yes, definitely getting there. I was using the term philosophy as a synonym for system of belief or point of view. I never had any intention of dismissing her religion from her actions. It was clearly a fundamental part. A fundamental part that was not there in the earliest incarnations of the faith and certainly should not be now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Ok, you two seem to be seeing, and objecting to, things in what I am saying that I don't intend to be there. I'm certainly not trying to cleanse religion and I have not been talking necessarily about any one in particular. I have been addressing the philosophical relationship between man and religion and where the responsibility for atrocious acts lies. First of all the original ideology of many religions do indeed contain things which are pure and pleasant and nice. Some also contain things which can be exploited for more negative agendas. The misunderstanding we seem to be having may revolve around how we use the term religion. I am referring to the abstract philosophies created to be grand meta-narratives for explaining human life. You seem to refer to religion more as the daily enactment of a person's beliefs including how religious movements have developed and, in some cases, warped over the centuries. Both are equally valid definitions of religion and neither one can exist without the other. My contention, from the beginning, has been The only thing I have tried to say is that if atrocious acts are committed due to religious beliefs (which they undoubtedly are, and certainly in this case) then it is the fault of what people have done with religions, where we have chosen to take them, how we have chosen to interpret them, not the fault, necessarily, of the original philosophy. I hope that makes it clearer. In what way was early religion pure and pleasant and nice, fear, threats, death and human sacrifice have always played a big part in religion as well as cannibalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 In what way was early religion pure and pleasant and nice, fear, threats, death and human sacrifice have always played a big part in religion as well as cannibalism. Sorry, you'll have to be more specific regarding 'early religion' - just so I know which page your on. I fully accept that the history of religion has been littered with the things you describe. However, you can't deny there's a fair bit in there about peace, harmony, love etc. plenty of positive stuff. I feel as though I have to say at this point, again, I'm an atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Sorry, you'll have to be more specific regarding 'early religion' - just so I know which page your on. I fully accept that the history of religion has been littered with the things you describe. However, you can't deny there's a fair bit in there about peace, harmony, love etc. plenty of positive stuff. I feel as though I have to say at this point, again, I'm an atheist. Sorry your post just gave the impression that you thought acts such as in the OP are new to religion and didn’t happen when religions started when in fact this kind of senseless killing has always been part of religion. Sorry if I misunderstood your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Sorry your post just gave the impression that you thought acts such as in the OP are new to religion and didn’t happen when religions started when in fact this kind of senseless killing has always been part of religion. Sorry if I misunderstood your post. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.