Can we ignore the link between religion and religious violence?

[catch22]

It took Christianity 1800 years to refine itself. But since Islamic preachings and rituals are implemented much more systematically and frequently - it is much more effective at suppressing free thought. So how many years will it take to refine ISLAM? - or will it ever?

I'm not sure it can. The typical result seems to be to move beyond it or partially implement it (keep the good, toss the bad). To which there's usually an extremist reaction (ie: look at ISIS situation now). This will pretty much just keep happening every 10-20 years.

Just look at the countries over history that are Islamic. Where are they now? Pretty much in the same spot, socially, economically, politically, technologically... etc.

It's call to war and violence is too open ended. The violence of the OT was specified to individuals or groups, once they were dealt with in their violent manner the call ceased. Islam, on the other hand, would be in a forever perpetual state of warfare.

 

[Cephus]

How many does Cephus say He is supposed to heal? What would appease Cephus?

It doesn't matter what would appease me, there are a lot of Christians out there on their knees praying to stop world hunger, yet God never seems to actually do anything about it. The Bible says that if any two pray together, their prayer will be done, yet I'm not seeing people being miraculously cured of cancer, as surely more than two Christians have prayed for. Sounds pretty pointless to pray.

 

[catch22]

It doesn't matter what would appease me, there are a lot of Christians out there on their knees praying to stop world hunger, yet God never seems to actually do anything about it. The Bible says that if any two pray together, their prayer will be done, yet I'm not seeing people being miraculously cured of cancer, as surely more than two Christians have prayed for. Sounds pretty pointless to pray.

If people pray for hunger, and then some missionaries feed a village, is that doing something about it? How come elimination of an entire problem is the only acceptable response for you? Why must global hunger be solved for you to believe?

Your expectations are wrong. Yes, wrong. Not even unrealistic, just plainly wrong.

If you expect me to pray and have spontaneous regeneration of an amputee's limb, then you live in a fairy tale land. What if people are supposed to be amputated for a reason? I'll try to use an example.

Jesus let Lazarus die. He was called out on this, not in an offensive manner, but by a simple statement of truth by Lazarus' sister. "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not be dead." She knew that Jesus could heal the sick. She also knew Jesus was informed ahead of time of her brother's sickness, so why could He so carelessly let such a tragic thing happen? This was one of the few times Jesus wept, when He heard her say this.

Jesus waited until Lazarus died before showing up. The reason for this is simple, but it's hard for people to relate to and to understand. It was for the glory of God. Just as Jesus told people, the reason for the blind and the sick, so Christ could heal them... they were born for the explicit purpose of glorifying God. Which is more cruel, to allow people to live with handicaps their entire life, or to condemn to death?

Lazarus died for this reason; so that the power of God could be known.

Jesus can resurrect people from the dead. I cannot. If you think moving the mountains through prayer was literal, then you fail to understand the simple fact that Jesus taught in parables. Your entire understanding of faith, and prayer, is rationalized from an incorrect vantage point. God doesn't change. You can choose to, or not. Your choice. I can promise you this though, God will wait longer than you can.

James 4 can help you attain some insight in this regard. Best of luck.

 

[lovemuffin]

The Bible says that if any two pray together, their prayer will be done, yet I'm not seeing people being miraculously cured of cancer, as surely more than two Christians have prayed for.

From the context of the passage in question (Matthew 18), it seems rather more likely that it should be understood to be talking about church discipline with regard to sin (and the idea that the church has the authority to forgive sins), rather than literally anything you ask from God. It would be something of a non-sequitur otherwise.

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.
​

In any case, there is no Christian tradition that expects that agreement between any two Christians will allow them to do literally anything, so even if you think the interpretation is obvious and it's just a case of rationalization after the fact, it's a rationalization that goes back as far as we can trace Christian thought.

 

[LuisDantas]

We obviously can ignore it, in that so often we do.

Whether we can afford to, or should, is something else entirely.

However, I think the danger is not so much on religion proper as on over-reliance on "trusting God".

 

[Cephus]

From the context of the passage in question (Matthew 18), it seems rather more likely that it should be understood to be talking about church discipline with regard to sin (and the idea that the church has the authority to forgive sins), rather than literally anything you ask from God. It would be something of a non-sequitur otherwise.

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.
​

In any case, there is no Christian tradition that expects that agreement between any two Christians will allow them to do literally anything, so even if you think the interpretation is obvious and it's just a case of rationalization after the fact, it's a rationalization that goes back as far as we can trace Christian thought.

You can also look at the passage that says if you have the faith of a mustard seed, you can move mountains. I don't see any mountains moving, do you? Now certainly, these are allegories, but the fact remains, the Bible says some really absurd things, yet Christians feel the need to explain around those absurd things instead of just acknowledging that they're absurd. They have to reinterpret things, explaining that this is what they really meant. If God didn't mean what he said, why didn't he just say what he meant?

 

[lovemuffin]

It seems like you just said the following: "Now, certainly these are allegories, but that's not going to stop me from interpreting them literally in order to conclude that they are absurd"

Unless you were only referring to other absurd things. I wouldn't argue that there are absurdities in the Bible, but it makes no sense to acknowledge that the faith of a mustard seed is allegorical or metaphorical or in some way non-literal but then also consider it an example of an absurdity, when the absurdity would only follow from a literal reading.

 

[lovemuffin]

If God didn't mean what he said, why didn't he just say what he meant?

This is actually a very good and important question imo! Or at least it leads to an important subject. I don't think anyone can answer the question as stated ("why this and not that"), but on the other hand, it's quite obvious that, if God exists (important if), our experience of the world, ourselves, religion, and etc all preclude certain theological conclusions. Jesus said he spoke in parables intentionally. It's obvious that a God that wants everyone to know with perfect objective certainty that She exists and has certain demands is impossible to reconcile with human experience. So it's natural that human religions have instead developed theological conceptions that deal with that reality. In the Christian tradition, it's called mystery. Or the hidden God. Other religious traditions have what are in my opinion functionally equivalent if distinct ways of dealing with that problem. I think it has any number of important consequences with regard to epistemic humility about belief, theology and the nature of the Divine, the human failing of religious institutions and individuals, and everything else.

Part of what I see as the insufficiency of your criticisms of religion (although it's also a criticism of the way many believers treat religion) is that you ignore the fact that religions do take these sorts of things into account. They end up with these more nuanced and mystical traditions in part because of these considerations. It's absurd to suggest that Christians believe that they can request literally anything in prayer. That hypothesis has been falsified even for them. But you seem to prefer the fundamentalist version that ignores the nuance because it's easier to ridicule and dismiss, even though that's not actually a rational position to take.

 

[Alexander85]

All religions had been created for some concrete reasons. Speaking about Islam, Muhammad made it in order to consolidate tribes from the Arabian peninsula around himself, and conquer the vast territories of his neighbours. So initially Islam was the religion, which had been created to unite people and guide them in this direction. Thus it's hard to say, that Islam is the religion of peace.

 

[Cephus]

This is actually a very good and important question imo! Or at least it leads to an important subject. I don't think anyone can answer the question as stated ("why this and not that"), but on the other hand, it's quite obvious that, if God exists (important if), our experience of the world, ourselves, religion, and etc all preclude certain theological conclusions. Jesus said he spoke in parables intentionally. It's obvious that a God that wants everyone to know with perfect objective certainty that She exists and has certain demands is impossible to reconcile with human experience. So it's natural that human religions have instead developed theological conceptions that deal with that reality. In the Christian tradition, it's called mystery. Or the hidden God. Other religious traditions have what are in my opinion functionally equivalent if distinct ways of dealing with that problem. I think it has any number of important consequences with regard to epistemic humility about belief, theology and the nature of the Divine, the human failing of religious institutions and individuals, and everything else.

Part of what I see as the insufficiency of your criticisms of religion (although it's also a criticism of the way many believers treat religion) is that you ignore the fact that religions do take these sorts of things into account. They end up with these more nuanced and mystical traditions in part because of these considerations. It's absurd to suggest that Christians believe that they can request literally anything in prayer. That hypothesis has been falsified even for them. But you seem to prefer the fundamentalist version that ignores the nuance because it's easier to ridicule and dismiss, even though that's not actually a rational position to take.

No, they don't. No Christian religion takes into account the possibility that God isn't real. No Muslim religion takes into account the possibility that Allah isn't real. Those are taken as unquestioned givens. However, they are also the central core of the belief system, if those turn out to be wrong, then nothing else matters at all. To think that any of this is rational is simply wrong, there are untestable and unsubstantiated axioms that nobody is willing to examine critically.

And to suggest that Christians do not ask for anything in prayer is absurd, people are praying for their favorite sports team to win all the time. Sports players are getting down on their knees and thanking God for victory. To assert that this doesn't happen with ridiculous regularity is absurd. People pray to God to find their car keys, to get a better job, to do well on tests, etc. Apparently, there are tons of Christians who believe exactly that. To demand that anyone who does this must be a fundamentalist, you're just trying to dodge reality.

 

[lovemuffin]

You don't seem to be responding to my actual post. I did not say that Christians take into account the possibility of God not existing, I said they take into account the apparent hiddenness of God. Nor did I say that Christians don't ask for anything in prayer, I said that they understand that just because they ask for something doesn't mean that they will get it, i.e in response to you quoting, out of context, a passage that implies that they should expect that they will. I also didn't claim that that belief was rational, although in the other thread I made a claim about the relative rationality of different beliefs.

We agree that praying for victory in sports is silly. And no you don't have to be a fundamentalist to do that. You just have to be a little silly. The claim is not that "only fundamentalists" believe in specific ways, it's that your criticisms mostly deal with caricatures, or at least with the lowest hanging fruit.

Also, I realized after the last post that I kind of confused this thread with the other one about rationality of religious belief, so we may want to move over there. I apologize for that.

 

[Cephus]

You don't seem to be responding to my actual post. I did not say that Christians take into account the possibility of God not existing, I said they take into account the apparent hiddenness of God. Nor did I say that Christians don't ask for anything in prayer, I said that they understand that just because they ask for something doesn't mean that they will get it, i.e in response to you quoting, out of context, a passage that implies that they should expect that they will. I also didn't claim that that belief was rational, although in the other thread I made a claim about the relative rationality of different beliefs.

We agree that praying for victory in sports is silly. And no you don't have to be a fundamentalist to do that. You just have to be a little silly. The claim is not that "only fundamentalists" believe in specific ways, it's that your criticisms mostly deal with caricatures, or at least with the lowest hanging fruit.

Also, I realized after the last post that I kind of confused this thread with the other one about rationality of religious belief, so we may want to move over there. I apologize for that.

Then they aren't taking into account all of their faith and thus, their faith isn't rational. The "apparent hiddenness of God" is a relatively recent thing that came about when it became painfully obvious that there isn't any reason to think that God is real. That's where things went from "God directly interacts with people and performs miracles" to "God is mysterious and hidden and you just have to believe". It isn't a characteristic of God that has existed since the beginning, it's something that religion came up with to dissuade believers from asking too many difficult questions. The hiddenness of God is just a feint to avoid the real problem that there's no reason to think God is actually real.

That's really the problem, you have a reading of the Bible that you like and you think is true. So does every other group of Christians on the planet. How do you show that any of them are actually better than any others, or that any reading at all is worthwhile? It's just a bunch of people saying "I'm right and you're wrong." Why is that supposed to convince anyone? I'm not the one pointing at caricatures, I posted a specific example and you dismissed it because it was "fundamentalist". Your only argument is that you don't like fundamentalists. You can't show they're wrong, and more than you can show that you're right. All you can say is that you like "progressive" Christianity. Okay. So what? Your personal preference has nothing to do with anything.

 

[lovemuffin]

Then they aren't taking into account all of their faith and thus, their faith isn't rational. The "apparent hiddenness of God" is a relatively recent thing that came about when it became painfully obvious that there isn't any reason to think that God is real.

With regard to your first sentence, I don't believe you can provide any rational justification for your authority to dictate what the faith is. With regard to the second, it is historically false. As an example, consider this question from Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, writing in probably the 6th century, and whose apophatic theology was foundational and influential in almost all later Christian theology, both east and west:

"How is it that we know God when he is neither an object of the intellect (νοητον) or the senses (αισθητον), nor any particular being?"
- The Divine Names (VII, 3)
​

Or see the beginning of Nicolas of Cusa's (15th century) On the Hidden God. Of course the Biblical authors themselves refer repeatedly to the invisibility of God. And yes, the tradition is ambivalent. You can find both passages and authors both ancient and modern who adopt a different point of view. There's never been universal agreement about anything theological in Christianity. But the assertion that this idea is modern is false, as is your assertion for why it came to be held.

 

[Astrologer]

Christians will often say that bible quotes are "taken out of context" when they try to defend dastardly deeds committed by so called "faithful" members. They believe that God will forgive the sinner no matter how violent, or diabolical the actions, yet, an Atheist will burn in the pits of hell for simply not believing.I always hoped that God was a loving energy, but he advocated human on human revenge when a simple smite from his big god fist would have done.

 

[Darius Madjzoub]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in response to the murder of French satirists, says no:

How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.

This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.

Do you agree or disagree with Ali?

I assume that those who identify as Muslims are Muslims. Whether they are peaceful or violent, soft or sadistic, they are part of the ummah.




No. But I don't think that is really the issue. Clearly there are Muslims who are not violent, treat women equally and do not engage in acts of barbaric terrorism. Likewise, there are people who identify as Christians who don't bomb abortion clinics and gay bars. I just don't think it is honest to ignore the fact that violence is being carried out in the name of religion.




I don't really see the dharmic religions as coming anywhere near the Abrahamic ones when it comes to religious violence. There appears to be plenty of compulsion in Islam, but I'm not aware of any Buddhists leading wars of conquest against Muslims in the name of Buddhist doctrine. The immediate possible exception that comes to mind is the Sinhalese nationalists, but it stands out precisely because it is exceptional and clearly inconsistent with very basic tenets of Buddhist practice.

"Every dog has its day". When it comes to atrocious acts committed in the name of religion, none remain blameless. Yet, spiritual tenets of all religions are based on unity, love, justice and tolerance. To place blame on religion or science for the atrocities committed by man is, in itself, a grave mistake. Most disagreements purporting to consternations have come about as a result of ignorance and lack of wisdom.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, they don't. No Christian religion takes into account the possibility that God isn't real. No Muslim religion takes into account the possibility that Allah isn't real. Those are taken as unquestioned givens. However, they are also the central core of the belief system, if those turn out to be wrong, then nothing else matters at all. To think that any of this is rational is simply wrong, there are untestable and unsubstantiated axioms that nobody is willing to examine critically.

There is a bit (unfortunately just a bit) of an exageration in there, Cephus. You are neglecting to acknowledge minority yet real groups such as certain UU segments and (so I have heard) Amish that do not rely on those "givens" nearly as much as you imply.

It is certainly true that both Christianity and Islam would be better off fully embracing the actual peripheral and optional nature of god-beliefs and adapting their doctrines accordingly and that they suffer and cause a lot of suffering for resisting that. But the questioning and the dissidence do exist, incipient as they still are.

 

[Johnlove]

A Spiritual Christian is one who obeys God. God told us that we are to love one’s enemies.


Jesus personally told me we are not to hurt anyone for any reason.



(Matthew 5:38-48) “You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other.”



(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said, you must love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

 

[Robert Landbeck]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in response to the murder of French satirists, says no:

How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.

This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.

Do you agree or disagree with Ali?

 

[Robert Landbeck]

All monotheism have demonstrated within their respective histories, a perverse and contradictory corruption of the ideals they claim to represent, be it love, justice or peace. Such a self evident reflection of tradition tell us one important fact. God has not revealed to any of the 'three' the means to realize those ideals and that our species remains incapable of doing so by any measure of its own understanding, secular or religious. This contradiction sets up an unsatisfactory conflict within those who understand their religion as aspirational to something greater yet see 'their' ideas of God ignored by so many and their ability to influence culture under waning and/or under threat. Thus are they able to rationalize amoral conduct in what they wrongly believe is the service of God or anything good. And there is will be no end to this situation until Gods, if there is a God, decides to clean up the mess others have created in his name. That's probably what a 'judgement' will be for. And the sooner the better! The Final Freedoms

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in response to the murder of French satirists, says no:

How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.

This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.

Do you agree or disagree with Ali?

b

 

[Chakra]

There seems to be a negative impression of monotheism in general thanks to the violence caused by Christians and Muslims. But whether or not they were following "true Christianity or Islam", the good and the bad must be attributed to their religion. I agree with anyone who has this standpoint.

As for me, I don't believe that God has any relation in what we do. Whether a mystic or a sage does something wrong, it is because of their free will, and not because of God. Either way, Vaishnavism in general is a very peaceful faith and has only brought happiness and peace to its adherents and others.