Today I'm happy about......

[thebish]

Eh? I'm not drawing that comparison.

My point is that religion is a tool by which you can persuade someone to kill someone. Take that tool away and it's harder. I'm not comparing specific conflicts, rather a single situation where you wanted to persuade someone to kill someone else for your own means, and the ease with which you could do that with religion as a possible tool, and without. If you have, for example's sake, 9 ways to do something, and then someone takes one away meaning you only have 8 ways to do it, I think it can be described as being 'harder'.

Worthy then mentioned WWs 1 and 2 as examples where religion wasn't used.

Fine, but as I said, I didn't even say it would be hard without religion, just relatively more difficult. I'm not comparing WWs 1+2 with the crusdades, but comparing WWs 1+2 with a scenario where you can persuade the men fighting in WWs 1+2 that a god in which they believe wants them to kill the other side. I think it'd be easier to get them to fight in the second example.

i still don't see how you are making that judgement... it has seemed easy enough in so many conflict/genocide situations across history to make the addition or deletion of religion as a factor to be pretty much irrelevant to it's "ease".

your "tool" rationale is like saying here are LOADS of phillips screwdrivers - any number of which could tackle that screw... now - I'll take one away - so it is now MUCH harder for you to tackle that screw.. except - it's not.

It's not though, because the other tools to make people kill other people (politics, money, revenge) don't work in the same way as religion.

they may not work the same way (though i'd argue politics and ideology certainly can!) - but that's not the point - the point was ease of use - they are JUST as easy to use - or at the very least - not so much harder to use as would make any difference in the quest to make people do bad things...

sad truth is - it REALLY is not very hard to make people do bad stuff to each other...

[Prufrock]

Eh? I'm not drawing that comparison.

My point is that religion is a tool by which you can persuade someone to kill someone. Take that tool away and it's harder. I'm not comparing specific conflicts, rather a single situation where you wanted to persuade someone to kill someone else for your own means, and the ease with which you could do that with religion as a possible tool, and without. If you have, for example's sake, 9 ways to do something, and then someone takes one away meaning you only have 8 ways to do it, I think it can be described as being 'harder'.

Worthy then mentioned WWs 1 and 2 as examples where religion wasn't used.

Fine, but as I said, I didn't even say it would be hard without religion, just relatively more difficult. I'm not comparing WWs 1+2 with the crusdades, but comparing WWs 1+2 with a scenario where you can persuade the men fighting in WWs 1+2 that a god in which they believe wants them to kill the other side. I think it'd be easier to get them to fight in the second example.

i still don't see how you are making that judgement... it has seemed easy enough in so many conflict/genocide situations across history to make the addition or deletion of religion as a factor to be pretty much irrelevant to it's "ease".

your "tool" rationale is like saying here are LOADS of phillips screwdrivers - any number of which could tackle that screw... now - I'll take one away - so it is now MUCH harder for you to tackle that screw.. except - it's not.

It's not though, because the other tools to make people kill other people (politics, money, revenge) don't work in the same way as religion.

they may not work the same way (though i'd argue politics and ideology certainly can!) - but that's not the point - the point was ease of use - they are JUST as easy to use - or at the very least - not so much harder to use as would make any difference in the quest to make people do bad things...

sad truth is - it REALLY is not very hard to make people do bad stuff to each other...

I don't think it was, though as I said to Worthy that may be my fault.

The point was not that it is easier to persuade someone to kill for their religion than for their politics, that is something you just cannot compare and would be case-specific. The point I was making was simply: it is easier, all other circumstances being the same, to persuade someone to kill if you can make them believe that their god wants them to do it, than if you can't.

I dunno about your last sentence. It's certainly true that people do bad things to each other a lot. I think it's complex though. It would be very difficult to persuade a normal person to walk across the street to hit a little old lady. A lot of other circumstances have to happen before it becomes 'easy'.

[TANGODANCER]

Are you sure you don't mean Philip the Fair of France?

I did of course, silly slip on my part, since most of the Templars were French and Jaque de Molier, he of Friday the thirteenth fame and all the rest were put to death in France. Not that I didn't know it, since it's a subject I've studied extensively, so an ass-kick is in order.

[TANGODANCER]

Pru is, of course, right. nobody needs religion to teach them morality or help them to be moral. many of the most moral people i have known have nowt to do with religion and manage perfectly well to be moral.
if people are "moral" because they fear some mythical place called "hell" - then it's a very weak kind of morality - that's just a form of self-preservation...

The question: How do/did they learn it then, without recourse to the Ten Commandments, and why were said Commandments instituted in the first place? I don't remember any great books of morality that have come forward from times of mass sacrifice of virgins in ancient Egypt, or even since Jesus's time, crucifixions, throwing people to wild animals and all that stuff. If we're to be true to our religion, Jesus was crucified to atone for the world's evils, not its morals. His teachings are all about morals, so how are morals and religion apart? Any moral lessons people don't need religion to learn stemmed from religion in the first place.

Fearing hell, or not, as the case may be, like religion, is optional in belief and pointless arguing about. Morality had to have a history and my view is it started in religion. Then again, our views on religion are miles apart anyway as will most of our views on the topic be.

[thebish]

the ten commandments were merely one particular codification of "laws" that were in common use all over the region at the time. Morality was not invented with the ten commandments.

we know about several codifications of "laws" that predate Moses' extensive lists - and much of what is in his lists (if you attribute them to him) bear a striking resemblance...

I don't think you need religion to have been the architect of morality - the laws that make it possible for any kind of meaningful community life are pretty straightforward and fairly obvious to anyone who tries to live some kind of common community life. That's where the ten commandments came from as with all the other codes of their time.

the ten commandments are not even a great statement of morality anyway... you only have to go as far as number two to read this:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

how is it a great moral statement to advocate punishing the grandchildren and great-grandchildren for the sins of the grandfather/great-grandfather? that sounds - at the very least - unfair and immoral to me...

[thebish]

I dunno about your last sentence. It's certainly true that people do bad things to each other a lot. I think it's complex though. It would be very difficult to persuade a normal person to walk across the street to hit a little old lady. A lot of other circumstances have to happen before it becomes 'easy'.

this may surprise you - but I think it would also be quite difficult to persuade a "religious" person - let's take Tango as our real-world example - to walk across the street to hit a little old lady. (I am assuming that you are equating the word "normal" with "not religious" for some reason.)

if you think it is easy - you could demonstrate by persuading Tango to walk across the street to hit a little old lady. then I'll believe you.

[Il Pirate]

The point I was making was simply: it is easier, all other circumstances being the same, to persuade someone to kill if you can make them believe that their god wants them to do it




My bedside lamp wants me to do it. Should I be worried?.............................

[thebish]

who asked you!

[Il Pirate]

who asked you!

The occasional table of course!

[thebish]

who asked you!

The occasional table of course!

[William the White]

the ten commandments were merely one particular codification of "laws" that were in common use all over the region at the time. Morality was not invented with the ten commandments.

we know about several codifications of "laws" that predate Moses' extensive lists - and much of what is in his lists (if you attribute them to him) bear a striking resemblance...

I don't think you need religion to have been the architect of morality - the laws that make it possible for any kind of meaningful community life are pretty straightforward and fairly obvious to anyone who tries to live some kind of common community life. That's where the ten commandments came from as with all the other codes of their time.

the ten commandments are not even a great statement of morality anyway... you only have to go as far as number two to read this:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

how is it a great moral statement to advocate punishing the grandchildren and great-grandchildren for the sins of the grandfather/great-grandfather? that sounds - at the very least - unfair and immoral to me...

I'm genuinely interested in your take on Holy Scripture which is obviously knowledgeable and sceptical and, here, dismissive. Does the bible have any profound meaning or revelations for you?

[TANGODANCER]

this may surprise you - but I think it would also be quite difficult to persuade a "religious" person - let's take Tango as our real-world example - to walk across the street to hit a little old lady. (I am assuming that you are equating the word "normal" with "not religious" for some reason.) if you think it is easy - you could demonstrate by persuading Tango to walk across the street to hit a little old lady. then I'll believe you.

I am obliged to point out that in terms of a religious person, I am not the best example. Let's take yourself instead...

The older I get, the more I come to realise how many times in my life I have done things wrongly. The bonus is facing up to and admitting that and spending time on self-reflection. Your doubt is safe, I can't feasibly imagine myself ever hitting any woman, young or old. Yes, there have been a few that I might have took some deep breaths and counted a rake of seconds, but I never gave in to the temptation. I'm hoping being an altar boy scored a few brownie points to offset a thing or two.

[thebish]

I'm genuinely interested in your take on Holy Scripture which is obviously knowledgeable and sceptical and, here, dismissive. Does the bible have any profound meaning or revelations for you?

ok...

first off, I don't think i'd call it Holy Scripture as you do here... that title already includes assumptions about what it is...

there is a spectrum of belief about the bible and what it is - at one end are the biblical literalists - the Bible is is some way dictated by God - it's God's book - his words - his work - his ideas - and the writers are passive communicators of that - like secretaries typing up the boss's letters from a dictaphone. Obviosuly there are nuances and levels within biblical literalism - but in the end it amounts to the same thing.

I come from the other end of the spectrum. To me, the Bible is a faithful record (poetry, prose, midrash, parable, allegory, song, narrative) of people throughout the centuries wrestling with the idea of God and how that might affect the way they live - and recording their experiences. it's a human storuy - nwritten by humans about humans and their journeys of discovery about "who" God is. Sometimes they get it spectacularly wrong - sometimes they stumble across a dazzling insight.

the bible is valuable to me for several reasons...

1. because it is a warts and all - long-running rollercoaster of ordinary human beings faced with all the kinds of stuff that life can throw at them - and desperately trying to put that alongside their belief that there is a conscious life-giving presence at the heart of life that they cannot fully grasp but want to engage with.

2. because i find the accounts of jesus to be endlessly fascinating and stubbornly difficult to exhaust... the more i search and the more i dig - the more elusive he becomes and yet at the same time, the more radically challenging and attractive he becomes in terms of the way life can really be lived richly and deeply - by (counter-intuitively) being self-sacrificing and self-giving... giving away life to find life...

if I were to call it "Holy" it wouldn't be because it is invested with any special power that God might have given it - but, rather, because so many countless generations have turned to it and wrestled with it and given their lives to it... if you like - it is the lives of so many people finding truth and beauty and life in there that makes it "sacred" or "holy" - not God.

I don't think it is something to be worshipped - it is something to be wrestled with and argued with - something to be disgusted with and challenged by - something to be overwhelmed by and inspired by...

it is not "the Word of God" - it may contain the "word" of god - but only in as much as we discover something of God in it and then live it day-to-day in the real world - only then does it become the "word of God"...


if i might offer an example...

the famous story of Abraham setting off to sacrifice Isaac - because he hears God's voice telling him to.

taught all over the world as a story of a man of great faitgh who did as God told him - without question.

but - in truth - surely - an horrific story! Not a story you'd want people to emulate (perhaps even more obvious in today's world when we are no strangers to news stories of people doing exactly what Abraham is praised for - thinking they have heard God's voice telling them to blow some people up - and setting off to do it without question.) people say that Abraham passed a great test of faith and is thus a hero...

what would someone liek me do witn that story?

well - i'd question it - wrestle with it - argue with it - and force it to make sense alongside my own experience of what God is like... i'd notice that Abraham is used to chatting with God he does it all the time - yet Abraham lives a further 30-odd years after the incident and we don't hear of God ever speaking to him again... that would make me wonder... it would make me wonder if - in fact - Abraham did not pass any test - rather, he failed big time God no longer trusts him with anything that might sound like his voice!

Abraham - in his youth - was quite capabnle of disagreeing with God and arguing with God - he argues with God long and hard when God says he is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorah - what if there are 50 good people - will you still do it? what if there are 49? 48? all the way down - Abraham argues with God...

yet here - not a peep - not a sound - he just acts without question.

i would probably conclude that wherever this story first came from - it wasn't a story about Abraham's great faith - even though it may have been subsequently used to tell that story...

it might have been a simple aetiological story to answer the question - why don't we do child sacrifice when all our neighbours do? it might have been that - and only that - and never intended as anything else... or - more interestingly - it might have been a story to show how Abraham's faith went wrong and became dangerous - the moment he stopped questionning and wrestling and arguing with God - that's the moment it went wrong for him... in which case the point of the story is about the danger of a solo unquestionning religious fantaticism that leaves behind reason and debate and a testing out of ideas within the company of others (he didn't even talk to sarah about it FFS!)


so - my attitude leaves me pretty relaxed about the content of the bible and not at all stressed at having to reconcile all the contradictions or the mistakes or the bad stuff - which is a good place to be!

Judaism has a fantastic tradition of arguing and debating and wrestling with scripture... there is a branch of Christianity (a big, noisy one) that has totally lost sight of that - which is a shame...


that probably barely scratches the surface - but it is quarter to one now - so i'd better go to bed.

[Lord Kangana]

Yeah, anyway, The German Army had Gott mit uns inscribed on their belts. Whilst committing genocide.

[Prufrock]

I dunno about your last sentence. It's certainly true that people do bad things to each other a lot. I think it's complex though. It would be very difficult to persuade a normal person to walk across the street to hit a little old lady. A lot of other circumstances have to happen before it becomes 'easy'.

this may surprise you - but I think it would also be quite difficult to persuade a "religious" person - let's take Tango as our real-world example - to walk across the street to hit a little old lady. (I am assuming that you are equating the word "normal" with "not religious" for some reason.)

if you think it is easy - you could demonstrate by persuading Tango to walk across the street to hit a little old lady. then I'll believe you.

Whoooooa. I was equating the word 'normal' with 'not psychotic enough to enjoy walking across the street to hit old ladies'. I'm simply railing against your pessimism that it's easy to make people do bad things, religious people included.

[Prufrock]

Pru is, of course, right. nobody needs religion to teach them morality or help them to be moral. many of the most moral people i have known have nowt to do with religion and manage perfectly well to be moral.
if people are "moral" because they fear some mythical place called "hell" - then it's a very weak kind of morality - that's just a form of self-preservation...

The question: How do/did they learn it then, without recourse to the Ten Commandments, and why were said Commandments instituted in the first place? I don't remember any great books of morality that have come forward from times of mass sacrifice of virgins in ancient Egypt, or even since Jesus's time, crucifixions, throwing people to wild animals and all that stuff. If we're to be true to our religion, Jesus was crucified to atone for the world's evils, not its morals. His teachings are all about morals, so how are morals and religion apart? Any moral lessons people don't need religion to learn stemmed from religion in the first place.

Fearing hell, or not, as the case may be, like religion, is optional in belief and pointless arguing about. Morality had to have a history and my view is it started in religion. Then again, our views on religion are miles apart anyway as will most of our views on the topic be.

Do you honestly think that until Christianity came along thousands of years worth of people lived their lives without a sense of right and wrong?

In the final book of the Iliad Achilles is moved by Priam to give back his son for burial. Achilles, vengeful in his grief for Patrocolus, has been desecrating his killer Hector's body. Priam reminds Achilles of his own father, and Achilles is moved to do the right thing and give back the body.

The end of the Odyssey deals with Odysseus' revenge against the suitors. The reason we are on his side is because the suitors have behaved wholly immorally, taking advantage of Odysseus' absence to live a life of luxury at his expense, and then capping it by failing to treat Odysseus, disguised as a beggar, with the respect for guests which formed part of the Greek moral code.

Both books deal with recognition of immorality. You can't set up this great show of immorality if you don't have morality to begin with.

The idea that people like Aristotle and Plato had no sense of morality (which by the way, they certainly didn't get from their own gods) does someone with your historical interest a disservice.

Christianity certainly addresses itself to morality, but that doesn't mean it invented it. This is to my mind a good thing, whilst Jesus was a top bloke, the Old Testament God is a prick. If your morality is one that decrees that homosexuals should be stoned, that has Abraham get to the point where he will murder his own son, which sends down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, and whose god drowns every single person on the planet bar one family because he doesn't like how they've turned out, well you can keep it!

[Lord Kangana]

So, just to be clear here, we need a big man in the sky who no sane person has ever seen to tell us that its probably for the best that we're less shit to each other?

F*ck me, if god did create all things on earth, were we his first effort?

[Worthy4England]

So, just to be clear here, we need a big man in the sky who no sane person has ever seen to tell us that its probably for the best that we're less shit to each other?

F*ck me, if god did create all things on earth, were we his first effort?

Silly boy.

In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

We weren't until at least day 6 after fowl, great whales and beasts of the earth.

You'd have known that if you'd listened.

I will laugh if you get smited.

[Bruce Rioja]

So, just to be clear here, we need a big man in the sky who no sane person has ever seen to tell us that its probably for the best that we're less shit to each other?

F*ck me, if god did create all things on earth, were we his first effort?

Silly boy.

In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

We weren't until at least day 6 after fowl, great whales and beasts of the earth.

You'd have known that if you'd listened.

I will laugh if you get smited.

That's the second time this week that you've had me told off for laughing. Desist.

[Worthy4England]

I have a little time on my hands this week