Religions are Falsely accused.

[We Never Know]

But Guns can be useful to, and necessary.

Which is why I said "Its what a gun in the wrong hands can be/is used for that makes them a problem IMO"

 

[Heyo]

But Guns can be useful to, and necessary.

I have found that a simple sling is just as good as a BB gun to shoo away those pesky flying rats (a.k.a. pigeons).
And I can't think of any other case I'd need a gun.

 

[ppp]

I have found that a simple sling is just as good as a BB gun to shoo away those pesky flying rats (a.k.a. pigeons).
And I can't think of any other case I'd need a gun.

Slings have mad range. I have thrown stones about 200 yards just playing around. I hear that people easily get twice that distance,.

 

[Heyo]

Slings have mad range. I have thrown stones about 200 yards just playing around. I hear that people easily get twice that distance,.

I learned from a guy who has been to Mallorca for the sling shot "Olympics". He throws a fist-sized stone 300 meter. When such a thing comes down, it can crush a skull.

 

[ppp]

I learned from a guy who has been to Mallorca for the sling shot "Olympics". He throws a fist-sized stone 300 meter. When such a thing comes down, it can crush a skull.

MMmmmm...Mallorca. I would risk a crushed skull to go.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The argument that religions are not the root cause of wars is flawed. It ignores the fact that religions are not fixed or neutral, but rather complex and real-time social constructs that reflect the values and power dynamics of their followers.

Religions can have multiple and contradictory aspects that can be used for both constructive and destructive purposes.

Religions can also shape the worldviews and actions of their followers, inspiring or compelling them to engage in wars and for various reasons.

So, to me, it is murky and misleading to remove from religion any responsibility for the atrocities committed in its name, while shifting the blame to the leaders who manipulate religious beliefs for their own motives. Religions are not passive or innocent bystanders in history, but active and accountable agents that can initiate or contribute to wars for various motives and outcomes.

Religions are founded on a Holy Book or Revelation brought by a Prophet or Messenger of God. They teach the virtues, upright conduct, peace and love for all people.

It is through disobedience to these laws or abandonment of them that we see violence and wars for neither the Prophets nor the Holy Books teach but fellowship, forgiveness and love. And history shows it has been religious leaders who have stirred up hatred, bloodshed and wars not the Prophets or Holy Books. The Prophets teach “Thou shalt not kill” and “love one another” but the Popes and leaders have commanded killing and massacres. People should never follow other people but the Holy Books which are very clear to treat one another as we wish to be treated.

 

[Madmogwai]

I have found that a simple sling is just as good as a BB gun to shoo away those pesky flying rats (a.k.a. pigeons).
And I can't think of any other case I'd need a gun.

In a Warzone a Gun may come in handy

 

[danieldemol]

It is through disobedience to these laws or abandonment of them that we see violence and wars for neither the Prophets nor the Holy Books teach but fellowship, forgiveness and love. And history shows it has been religious leaders who have stirred up hatred, bloodshed and wars not the Prophets or Holy Books. The Prophets teach “Thou shalt not kill” and “love one another” but the Popes and leaders have commanded killing and massacres. People should never follow other people but the Holy Books which are very clear to treat one another as we wish to be treated.

What a whitewashing of religious law in my opinion.

 

[Ella S.]

Can you tell me a War that at its core was a result of the Religion.
A Fight to end slavery is a fight to end slavery, I’m referring to wars that were blamed on religion, not all Wars have been but many are.
As for Israel and Palestine that is clearly a land grab.

What is your criteria for a war that at its core was a result of the Religion?

Does a war count if the person who starts it claims that they feel like their religious teachings demanded that they start the war?

Does a war count if the people who participate in it genuinely believe that it is their religious duty to fight in the war?

Or does it only count if they interpret their own religion in the way that you think they should?

 

[PureX]

What is your criteria for a war that at its core was a result of the Religion?

Does a war count if the person who starts it claims that they feel like their religious teachings demanded that they start the war?

Does a war count if the people who participate in it genuinely believe that it is their religious duty to fight in the war?

Or does it only count if they interpret their own religion in the way that you think they should?

People lie; to us, to each other and to themselves. There is no way to know the answers to any of those questions. Which is why it's impossible to blame wars on religion.

Wars have many motives among the people involved in them. Often more than one even for any one individual. Blaming wars on religion is childish as it's the reasoning of a simpleton. Warfare can't honestly be made that simplistic. Neither can religion or religious motivation for that matter.

 

[Ella S.]

People lie; to us, to each other and to themselves. There is no way to know the answers to any of those questions. Which is why it's impossible to blame wars on religion.

With that approach, it would be "impossible" to explain wars as having any reason. They just happen. Who knows why? Even if people state their motivations and act consistently with them, who can really say?

I have no problem accepting that people's stated motivations are their actual motivations when they act in line with them. Maybe there's a vast conspiracy and they're actually a reptile from Pluto and war is just a distraction from their real goal to harvest the dreams of children. I don't think it's unreasonable to go with the former until strong evidence of the latter turns up.

Wars have many motives among the people involved in them. Often more than one even for any one individual. Blaming wars on religion is childish as it's the reasoning of a simpleton. Warfare can't honestly be made that simplistic. Neither can religion or religious motivation for that matter.

I disagree with the sweeping generalizations you are making here.

Some wars are certainly complex and might involve a wide diversity of factors and motivations. Sometimes the parties the most responsible for waging the war are themselves riddled with a number of desires, maybe even ones which are actively competing with one another.

Sometimes someone in a position of power has a very straightforward motive for starting a war and is completely open about what that motivation is, though. And sometimes that motivation is explicitly religious.

I think war tends to be more along these latter lines. I can understand wishing that wars were waged for nuanced and deep, idealistic reasons. It makes the concept a bit more palatable. I think you forget that humans in general are usually not that complex, though, particularly the spoiled, out-of-touch, and power-hungry elites that are usually the ones making the call to arms.

 

[paarsurrey]

With that approach, it would be "impossible" to explain wars as having any reason. They just happen. Who knows why? Even if people state their motivations and act consistently with them, who can really say?

I have no problem accepting that people's stated motivations are their actual motivations when they act in line with them. Maybe there's a vast conspiracy and they're actually a reptile from Pluto and war is just a distraction from their real goal to harvest the dreams of children. I don't think it's unreasonable to go with the former until strong evidence of the latter turns up.

I disagree with the sweeping generalizations you are making here.

Some wars are certainly complex and might involve a wide diversity of factors and motivations. Sometimes the parties the most responsible for waging the war are themselves riddled with a number of desires, maybe even ones which are actively competing with one another.

Sometimes someone in a position of power has a very straightforward motive for starting a war and is completely open about what that motivation is, though. And sometimes that motivation is explicitly religious.

I think war tends to be more along these latter lines. I can understand wishing that wars were waged for nuanced and deep, idealistic reasons. It makes the concept a bit more palatable. I think you forget that humans in general are usually not that complex, though, particularly the spoiled, out-of-touch, and power-hungry elites that are usually the ones making the call to arms.

Right

Regards

 

[PureX]

With that approach, it would be "impossible" to explain wars as having any reason. They just happen. Who knows why? Even if people state their motivations and act consistently with them, who can really say?

I have no problem accepting that people's stated motivations are their actual motivations when they act in line with them. Maybe there's a vast conspiracy and they're actually a reptile from Pluto and war is just a distraction from their real goal to harvest the dreams of children. I don't think it's unreasonable to go with the former until strong evidence of the latter turns up.

I disagree with the sweeping generalizations you are making here.

Some wars are certainly complex and might involve a wide diversity of factors and motivations. Sometimes the parties the most responsible for waging the war are themselves riddled with a number of desires, maybe even ones which are actively competing with one another.

Sometimes someone in a position of power has a very straightforward motive for starting a war and is completely open about what that motivation is, though. And sometimes that motivation is explicitly religious.

I think war tends to be more along these latter lines. I can understand wishing that wars were waged for nuanced and deep, idealistic reasons. It makes the concept a bit more palatable. I think you forget that humans in general are usually not that complex, though, particularly the spoiled, out-of-touch, and power-hungry elites that are usually the ones making the call to arms.

The desire for conquest is why wars happen. But what motivates that desire can be a lot of things, mostly all expressions of control of one form or another.

But the 'alphas' among us want the conquest and control, and yet they are not the only ones fighting. So there are lots of other motivations besides conquest motivating many of the combatants, too. And most of those are related to survival, or personal advantage of some sort.

And if all that isn't complicated enough, nearly everyone is going to be lying to themselves, others, and to 'history' about why they fought their wars. Especially on the aggressor's or winner's side.

Generally speaking, however, religion is not the real motive for war. It's far more often one of the lies we tell each other to hide our real motives for engaging in warfare.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Blaming wars on religion is childish as it's the reasoning of a simpleton. Warfare can't honestly be made that simplistic. Neither can religion or religious motivation for that matter.

Exonerating wars - or divisive beliefs - from any religious influence is equally childish - but expected from many simpletons.

 

[PureX]

Exonerating wars - or divisive beliefs - from any religious influence is equally childish - but expected from many simpletons.

Lies don't exonerate anything. Nor do they cause the offense they are meant to excuse. Except to those that want to believe the excuses.

 

[Madmogwai]

What is your criteria for a war that at its core was a result of the Religion?

Does a war count if the person who starts it claims that they feel like their religious teachings demanded that they start the war?

Does a war count if the people who participate in it genuinely believe that it is their religious duty to fight in the war?

Or does it only count if they interpret their own religion in the way that you think they should?

If I go to War because I believe my Religion calls for that, is the Religion to blame.
In the teachings of Buddha, one fundamental principle stands out: the importance of not blindly believing. Buddha emphasized the significance of questioning, discerning, and seeking truth through personal experience rather than relying solely on faith or external sources.

This principle is rooted in the understanding that blind belief can lead to ignorance and hinder one's spiritual growth. Buddha encouraged his followers to investigate, analyze, and critically examine any teachings or ideologies presented to them. This approach promotes intellectual curiosity, encourages independent thinking, and cultivates a deeper understanding of the world and oneself.

By advocating for the rejection of blind belief, Buddha aimed to free individuals from the confines of dogma and superstition. He emphasized the importance of direct experience and personal realization as the true path to enlightenment. Through self-reflection, meditation, and mindful observation, one can gain insight into the nature of reality, the impermanence of existence, and the interconnectedness of all beings.

Buddha's teachings serve as a reminder that true wisdom comes from within, and that unquestioning acceptance of beliefs can be detrimental to one's spiritual development. By encouraging critical thinking and personal exploration, Buddha's philosophy empowers individuals to find their own truth and live a life of authenticity and compassion.

In conclusion, Buddha's teachings provide valuable guidance on the importance of not blindly believing. By advocating for critical thinking, personal experience, and independent inquiry, Buddha's philosophy promotes intellectual growth, self-discovery, and a deeper understanding of the world. By embracing this principle, individuals can embark on a path of self-realization and cultivate a profound sense of wisdom and compassion

 

[paarsurrey]

If I go to War because I believe my Religion calls for that, is the Religion to blame.
In the teachings of Buddha, one fundamental principle stands out: the importance of not blindly believing. Buddha emphasized the significance of questioning, discerning, and seeking truth through personal experience rather than relying solely on faith or external sources.

This principle is rooted in the understanding that blind belief can lead to ignorance and hinder one's spiritual growth. Buddha encouraged his followers to investigate, analyze, and critically examine any teachings or ideologies presented to them. This approach promotes intellectual curiosity, encourages independent thinking, and cultivates a deeper understanding of the world and oneself.

By advocating for the rejection of blind belief, Buddha aimed to free individuals from the confines of dogma and superstition. He emphasized the importance of direct experience and personal realization as the true path to enlightenment. Through self-reflection, meditation, and mindful observation, one can gain insight into the nature of reality, the impermanence of existence, and the interconnectedness of all beings.

Buddha's teachings serve as a reminder that true wisdom comes from within, and that unquestioning acceptance of beliefs can be detrimental to one's spiritual development. By encouraging critical thinking and personal exploration, Buddha's philosophy empowers individuals to find their own truth and live a life of authenticity and compassion.

In conclusion, Buddha's teachings provide valuable guidance on the importance of not blindly believing. By advocating for critical thinking, personal experience, and independent inquiry, Buddha's philosophy promotes intellectual growth, self-discovery, and a deeper understanding of the world. By embracing this principle, individuals can embark on a path of self-realization and cultivate a profound sense of wisdom and compassion

Yes, blind-faith is no-faith Buddha is right.

Regards

 

[Madmogwai]

Yes, blind-faith is no-faith Buddha is right.

Regards

Blind faith can be likened to a stagnant pool, whereas true faith is akin to a flowing river. The former remains stagnant, lacking the vitality and vibrancy that comes from seeking deeper truths and engaging in continuous self-reflection. The latter, however, is dynamic, constantly evolving and adapting to new insights and experiences.

 

[Nakosis]

Religions have often been wrongly accused of being the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history. However, it is crucial to recognize that religions themselves do not initiate wars. Rather, it is the manipulation of religious beliefs by leaders and individuals that serves as a smokescreen to further their own ulterior motives, such as the acquisition of land and control over valuable resources.

It is important to approach this topic with a balanced and critical mindset, understanding that religion, at its core, is intended to foster peace, unity, and spiritual growth. Religions provide individuals with personal guidance, moral frameworks, and a sense of purpose. They offer a path towards enlightenment, compassion, and a harmonious existence with fellow human beings.

Nevertheless, throughout history, we have witnessed instances where leaders have exploited religious sentiments to achieve their political or economic goals. By manipulating religious doctrines and spreading divisive ideologies, these leaders have effectively masked their true intentions, diverting attention away from their aggressive territorial ambitions. In doing so, they have successfully rallied masses under the guise of religious fervor, thus justifying their actions in the eyes of their followers.

A prime example of this manipulation can be observed in various historical conflicts, where leaders have misused religion as a tool for territorial expansion. They have utilized religious rhetoric to mobilize armies, instilling a sense of righteousness and divine sanction in their followers. By harnessing the power of religious devotion, these leaders have not only justified their conquests but also ensured unwavering support from their followers.

However, it is essential to distinguish between the actions of these leaders and the teachings of the religions they claim to represent. Religions, when practiced genuinely, emphasize love, tolerance, and peace. They advocate for the well-being of all individuals, regardless of their faith or background. The notion that religion inherently promotes violence is an oversimplification and a misinterpretation of the true essence of these belief systems.

To avoid falling into the trap of blaming religions for conflicts, it is imperative that we critically examine the underlying motives behind wars. By doing so, we can separate the genuine teachings of religions from the manipulative tactics employed by leaders. This understanding will enable us to address the root causes of conflicts more effectively and strive towards a more peaceful and inclusive world.

By recognizing this distinction, we can focus on fostering understanding, empathy, and dialogue among different religious communities, rather than perpetuating stereotypes and misconceptions. Only through such efforts can we overcome the divisive forces that hinder global peace and harmony.

Two things,
Without leadership, there is no religion. So you can't separate religion from it's leadership. If you follow a religion then you are following some leader or another.

Second, religion doesn't seem to have done much to prevent conflict either. So you can blame religion by its lack of effect if nothing else.

 

[Madmogwai]

Buddha, revered as the founder of Buddhism, is often regarded as a spiritual guide rather than a conventional leader. His teachings emphasize personal responsibility and individual enlightenment, rather than command or control over others. Buddha's role is to facilitate one's journey towards self-discovery and liberation from suffering.

The essence of Buddha's teachings lies in the notion that each individual must take ownership of their own spiritual path. While he provides guidance and wisdom through his teachings, it is ultimately up to the individual to traverse their unique journey. In this sense, Buddha acts as a catalyst, inspiring seekers to embark on their own personal quest for truth and enlightenment.

One remarkable aspect of Buddha's teachings is the recognition that there are multiple paths to reach the same ultimate destination. Buddhism acknowledges that each individual possesses distinct experiences, perspectives, and inclinations. Therefore, it encourages followers to explore various paths, adapting their practice to suit their own needs and inclinations. This inclusivity fosters a sense of individuality and freedom, allowing individuals to find their own unique approach to self-realization.

The absence of a conventional leadership role in Buddhism is deliberate. Buddha's teachings emphasize the importance of self-reliance and self-discipline. Rather than relying on an external authority figure, practitioners are encouraged to cultivate qualities such as mindfulness, compassion, and wisdom within themselves. This self-directed approach enables individuals to develop a deep understanding of their own nature and the world around them.

Buddha's role as a spiritual guide is distinct from that of a conventional leader. His teachings inspire individuals to embark on their own personal journey towards enlightenment, emphasizing personal responsibility and self-discovery. By recognizing the multitude of paths that can lead to the same destination, Buddhism encourages individuals to find their own unique approach to spiritual growth. Through self-reliance and self-discipline, followers of Buddhism strive to attain liberation from suffering and experience profound personal transformation