Yes, both. if it is so easy to use religion to motivate people to kill others, then it is partly the fault of the religion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religions are Falsely accused.
- Thread starter Madmogwai
- Start date
It should where the blame is required.
That it is so easy to use religion in this way is the fault of the religion.
Actually, yes, it often is. The religious disagreements are the primary reason for many wars.
This is an important point. For most of antiquity until the Enlightenment most civilizations (Romans/Greeks were arguably an exception but still had their gods) were ruled by some sort of religious hierarchy, so whenever conflicts happened it was inevitably religious leaders who got involed. Heck, even pope Julius II fought in battle himself.
Hardly. While small pieces of land were 'grabbed', the primary motivation was freeing the 'holy sites' from the 'infidels'. The goal was to set up a Christian base of operations.
They were taking land *because* of religious beliefs. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
Why should we start post ww2?
If we start in 1900 the trend is probably downwards.
Cherry picking start dates isn’t scientific.
The long term trend is very debatable, Pinker’s Better angels is abysmal in its war stats.
Not to mention we narrowly avoided nuclear war on at least 2 occasions due to the actions of individuals. Pure chance saved us from being by far the worst killers in history.
The enlightenment was responsible for the violence of the French Revolution and the Soviets so it’s not all good.
I agree that societal conditions can mitigate our nature, and the ability to provide security and well being makes violence less likely, but I don’t think these are anything more than transitory provisions and sooner or later us humans will mess it up.
We cannot be saved from ourselves.
Do you think religions are perfect (as a set of ideas), and a necessity for humanity at this point?
Madmogwai
Madmogwai
Yes it was the Pope, increasing their wealth.
Religion with good intentions would not be spread by the sword, but if your motives were to take land, then you send in Armies.
You do Realise Religion is not a living thing right.
Madmogwai
Madmogwai
I think Religions are a set back to man’s personal development
As populations grow, and resources are more in demand, there could be another set of wars looming.
I would also add that some of the ideas of "rationalism" and "civilizing" other peoples also contributed to eugenics, Manifest Destiny, and the notion of the "white man's burden." The notion that the Enlightenment was some linear upward trajectory for humanity seems to me at odds with history and an oversimplification of the highly complex historical events that followed it.
Madmogwai
Madmogwai
What holy sites were they freeing in Germany
Go on. Are religions necessary today? Would you agree there are better ways than religions for humans to seek maturity and balance?
Unfortunately, this is often false. Religion is often 'spread' by killing off those that disagree.
Yes. But it is religious ideas that are often the primary motivation for killing others: most religions condemn heretics to death.
Madmogwai
Madmogwai
So they were doing what, taking land.
Isn’t that a land grab, what rights did they have to the land, which was massive not small at all.
I think that you are greatly underestimating your duty here in this thread.
Yours is a bold claim. It is easy, almost way too easy, to refute it.
It is not very proper for you to pick and choose examples. Unconfortable as it is, you set up a situation where we have all the advantages.
In Germany? Where did that come from? The religious sites in the 'holy lands' were taken over by 'infidels' (meaning Moslems) and had to be recovered for the Christians (a religious motivation for the wars).
In the Albigensian campaigns, the 'motivation' was the Cathar's 'heretical' beliefs and the desire to eliminate such 'heresy'. Those are *religious* motivations.
One person reading about a religion will have their own moral sense to make judgments. A community of people will look to each others to decide what is moral, and most will conform to whatever the masses go with, typically under the leadership of a small group. Tell the masses they will benefit by following the leadership that is authorized by God, and they tend to follow as a herd. The human brain can be less moral as the population grows, and the majority are whipped up into a justified fervor. I think many leaders have learned tom use religion to accomplish these aims of control. Not just control of misbehavior, but control to do evil acts.
One thing that you seem to ignore is that religion is a base for power. The motivation in the early crusades was *religious* power.
Madmogwai
Madmogwai
the question of whether religions are necessary is subjective and dependent on individual perspectives and beliefs. Religions can offer meaning, purpose, moral guidance, comfort, and community to many individuals. However, it is important to recognize that there are alternative sources of meaning and ethics outside of religious frameworks, and religions have also been associated with negative consequences. Ultimately, the necessity of religions is a personal and complex matter that requires careful consideration and respect for diverse perspectives.
Personally I think Abrahamic Religions don’t allow people to find their true spiritual potential as they rely on the Prophets to do the work.