|
yom kipur (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
Nebulous, *sighs*
you seem to have missed my point entirely.
my central thesis remains. rational and logical deduction should always come before religious belief in determining one's moral compass or deciding right from wrong. thats all.
but we'll go with rest of your post.
firstly, as an atheist, if i cure cancer, is that a contribution by atheism, or just pkc? considering the vast importance of religion in power structures throughout history, it stands to reason that many accomplishments would be achieved by 'religion' or persons of religious persuausion. dont confuse an achievement made by a person who happens to be religious with an achievement by religion. in terms of the guttenberg press, i still dont see that as an achievement by religion? anywayz, lets assume it is. then we go back in time several hundred years when the bible was only allowed to be written in latin, and pretty much only the clergy could read latin, and heretics using english were punished. thus you have an organised system of social control, allowing only the very few to relate and interpret the word & laws of god (see below), which everyone has gone to such pains to point out how important that has been. lets not turn this into a pissing contest where we show the great goods and evils its done, ok?
shaolin, im saying that yes, historically religion has shown to be important in shaping many areas of today. however, to me thats kinda similar to praising nazism for the autobahns ;) how about we grab those autobahns and see how we can use and improve them now, without using hitler as a reference? i dont see that we should be looking to religious doctrine as a guide for behaviour or law any longer (i mean do i seriously have to dredge up all the antiquated laws that still exist due to religion?). is there a reason at all? i cant see one. i dont think its a coincidence that religion has been losing its influence and power for centuries; the more self-aware, rational & interested in the world that ppl become, the less need there is to ascribe to magic to justify, maintain or change it.
yes, the argument you highlighted was indeed simplistic. however it doesnt stop it from being true. i completely agree with:
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
people, and not religion/political ideologies/economic doctrines, are the ones really responsible all the war and destruction the human race has gone through. Religion/political ideologies are a tools used by the elites to convince the masses to go along with their agenda/to rationalize it. |
but religion has been an overwhelmingly popular choice through the ages; and its remarkably difficult to argue with the doctrine of god, moreso than it is any other belief system (imo). i dont know what god wants. nor does anybody else. why the fvck are we basing our society on flimsy ideas like that? cant we work things out for ourselves in a rational way, rather than waiting on an interpretation from *insert relevant book of god here*?? id certainly like to think so.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Any ideology, religious or political, has always been used by those in power to get the masses to go along with their agenda, which usually involves war, destruction, chaos and many other horrible things. It's unfair and innacurate to say that religion is the cause of all/most wars. |
again, we kindve agree. but from my perspective one less tool of societal manipulation is a plus. especially one that so many ppl feel drawn to in one way or another.
and still nobody has pointed out why referencing religion is a useful tool for moving forward. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| Those of you who claim that moral laws come from religion - what do you mean, exactly? Do you think that moral laws was handed down by some deity (the Moses explanation) (1) or that they were first recorded in some text about religion (2)? If 1, then you have a problem in explaining how different societies around the globe could come up with fairly similar moral codes, when these adhere to totally different deities, which are all claimed to be the only one in existence. If (2), then you need to base your claim on some text written prior to the works of Plato, which means not the Bible. Which text is this? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Christ, I was just kidding in the first place. Whether we like it or not, specific tenets of various religions are invariably interwoven through our various cultures in one form or another. Whether or not a person chooses to acknowledge that is their own problem. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
I think we proved that there is no relation between the crime rate and religious rate in a country a few threads back? ;)
It's a very ignorant statment to say that ppl would go nuts if there wasn't religion. Simply stupid. Just look in secular parts of the world and you will see that it's not true (just take my own country as an example, extreamly few religious ppl, and we still have a low crime rate despite very few cops).
And good posts pkcRAISTLIN :) |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| Psy-T: Wow, that is increadibly, didn't know it was that strict in Israel still! Aren't most ppl atheist there nowadays? |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Psy-T: Wow, that is increadibly, didn't know it was that strict in Israel still! Aren't most ppl atheist there nowadays? |
i dont know what are the statistics.
let's just put it this way - there are enough religious people around for the army to observe the holidays and to have a synagogue in each base.
the default assumption of the army and probably other govermental orginisation is that a person born in israel is jewish (& practicing to an extent), unless you're an arab perheps. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
i dont know what are the statistics.
let's just put it this way - there are enough religious people around for the army to observe the holidays and to have a synagogue in each base.
the default assumption of the army and probably other govermental orginisation is that a person born in israel is jewish (& practicing to an extent), unless you're an arab perheps. |
According to this list you have a hell of a lot more atheists than the US for example.
Oh, and I'm really ing proud to live in the country topping that list :D |
|
|
| Goashem |
st andrew, observing yom kippur in public in israel is just proper mannerism. its like not spitting in a house. it has nothing to do with people being religious (except for the actual religious people). behind closed doors people are eating, watching tv and doing all those stuff youre not suppose to be doing. and as a kid this is the greatest funnest holiday in the entire year! you get to ride your bike on the roads and play with tons more kids :crazy:
edit: i remember seeing the occasional civilian car driving during yom kippur but i never seen anyway detained for that. ive actually seen a police car giving an escort to a civilian car once. maybe that cop was just a dick psy t? |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Those of you who claim that moral laws come from religion - what do you mean, exactly? Do you think that moral laws was handed down by some deity (the Moses explanation) (1) or that they were first recorded in some text about religion (2)? If 1, then you have a problem in explaining how different societies around the globe could come up with fairly similar moral codes, when these adhere to totally different deities, which are all claimed to be the only one in existence. If (2), then you need to base your claim on some text written prior to the works of Plato, which means not the Bible. Which text is this? |
Oh so Native American tribes had the same beliefs like the Westerners? They didn't believe in mass sacrifice of human beings or anything. Neither did the pagan Vikings who killed women and children and raped everything in their sight, only to eventually settle down after converting to Christianity. good point ;) |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
Oh so Native American tribes had the same beliefs like the Westerners? They didn't believe in mass sacrifice of human beings or anything. Neither did the pagan Vikings who killed women and children and raped everything in their sight, only to eventually settle down after converting to Christianity. good point ;) |
Yeah then they converted to Christianity, and continued their killing, rapeing and plundering, but this time in the name of god aka the crussades ;)
And native Americans did most of them have very "strong morals" I think, much like in christianty? |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Yeah then they converted to Christianity, and continued their killing, rapeing and plundering, but this time in the name of god aka the crussades ;)
And native Americans did most of them have very "strong morals" I think, much like in christianty? |
not really, most of the cases in the crusades are attributed to the Templars.
Aztecs and morals? right lol. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
not really, most of the cases in the crusades are attributed to the Templars.
Aztecs and morals? right lol. |
Oh really? Hmmmm that's rather surprising since it wasn't until the 6th Crusade that we have one that was not initiated by the papacy. And of course, entire Christian armies were involved, not just a few templars. This doesn't even delve into the whole sordid history of persecutions and inquisitions. Right, Christians were NOTHING like the vikings. Nope, no raping, pillaging, sacking, torturing, or murdering being done by Christian society! :rolleyes:
First Crusade
Full article: First Crusade
After Byzantine emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks, in 1095 Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, a war which would count as full penance. Crusader armies marched to Jerusalem, sacking several cities on their way. In 1099, they took Jerusalem and massacred the population. As a result of the First Crusade, several small Crusader states were created, notably the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Following this crusade there was a second, unsuccessful wave of crusaders; see Crusade of 1101.
Second Crusade
Full article: Second Crusade
After a period of relative peace, in which Christians and Muslims co-existed in the Holy Land, Bernard of Clairvaux called for a new crusade when the town of Edessa was conquered by the Turks. French and German armies marched to Asia Minor in 1147, but failed to accomplish any major successes, and indeed endangered the survival of the Crusader states with a foolish attack on Damascus. In 1149, both leaders had returned to their countries without any result.
Third Crusade
Full article: Third Crusade
In 1187, Saladin recaptured Jerusalem. Pope Gregory VIII preached a crusade, which was led by several of Europe's most important leaders: Philip II of France, Richard I of England and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor. Frederick drowned in Cilicia in 1190, leaving an unstable alliance between the English and the French. Philip left in 1191 after the Crusaders had recaptured Acre from the Muslims. The Crusader army headed down the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. They defeated the Muslims near Arsuf and were in sight of Jerusalem. However, an inability for Crusaders to thrive in the locale due to inadequate food and water resulted in an empty victory. Richard left the following year after establishing a truce with Saladin. On Richard's way home his ship was wrecked leading him to Austria. In Austria his enemy Duke Leopold captured him and Richard was held for a king's ransom.
Fourth Crusade
Full article: Fourth Crusade
The Fourth Crusade was initiated by Pope Innocent III in 1202, with the intention of invading the Holy Land through Egypt. The Venetians gained control of this crusade and diverted it to Constantinople where they attempted to place a Byzantine exile on the throne. After a series of misunderstandings and outbreaks of violence, the city was sacked in 1204. The popular spirit of the movement was now dead, and the succeeding crusades are to be explained rather as arising from the Papacy's struggle to divert the military energies of the European nations toward Syria.
Albigensian Crusade
Full article: Albigensian Crusade
The Albigensian Crusade was launched in 1209 to eliminate the "heretical" Cathars of southern France. It was a decades-long struggle that had as much to do with the concerns of northern France to extend its control southwards as it did with heresy. In the end, both the Cathars and the independence of southern France were exterminated.
Fifth Crusade
Full article: Fifth Crusade
By processions, prayers, and preaching, the Church attempted to set another crusade on foot, and the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) formulated a plan for the recovery of the Holy Land. A crusading force from Hungary, Austria, and Bavaria achieved a remarkable feat in the capture of Damietta in Egypt in 1219, but under the urgent insistence of the papal legate, Pelagius, they proceeded to a foolhardy attack on Cairo, and an inundation of the Nile compelled them to choose between surrender and destruction.
Sixth Crusade
Full article: Sixth Crusade
In 1228, Emperor Frederick II set sail from Brindisi for Syria, though laden with the papal excommunication. Through diplomacy he achieved unexpected success, Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem being delivered to the Crusaders for a period of ten years. This was the first major crusade not initiated by the Papacy, a trend that was to continue for the rest of the century.
Louis IX attacks Damietta
Seventh Crusade
Full article: Seventh Crusade
The papal interests represented by the Templars brought on a conflict with Egypt in 1243, and in the following year a Khwarezmian force summoned by the latter stormed Jerusalem. Although this provoked no widespread outrage in Europe as the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 had done, Louis IX of France organized a crusade against Egypt from 1248 to 1254, leaving from the newly constructed port of Aigues-Mortes in southern France. It was a failure and Louis spent much of the crusade living at the court of the Crusader kingdom in Acre. In the midst of this crusade was the first Shepherds' Crusade in 1251.
Eighth Crusade
Full article: Eighth Crusade
The eighth Crusade was organized by Louis IX in 1270, again sailing from Aigues-Mortes, initially to come to the aid of the remnants of the Crusader states in Syria. However, the crusade was diverted to Tunis, where Louis spent only two months before dying.
Ninth Crusade
Full article: Ninth Crusade
The future Edward I of England undertook another expedition in 1271, after having accompanied Louis on the Eighth Crusade. He accomplished very little in Syria and retired the following year after a truce. With the fall of Antioch (1268), Tripoli (1289), and Acre (1291) the last traces of the Christian occupation of Syria disappeared.
Furthermore, your post didn't address Trancaholic's argument at all. It's a rather simplistic strawman to suggest that simply because you've found one culture who had vastly different moral codes, that Trancaholic's argument does not hold weight. Instead, why don't you explain the similarities in the development of common law principles among ancient Chinese culture, the development of Mesopotamian laws such as Hammurabi's code, and Roman/Greek common law when they all predated Christianity, they all had different religions and beliefs in different deities? |
|
|
|
|
