Should Religion ever motivate a person to be cruel?

[JustWondering]

Not always, consider what cruelty has to be done in a just war.

What is just, who determines that? Is harming others because they non-violently oppose your religion just? Is beheading people who leave your religion just? Is depriving people of equal rights based on religion just? I believe that when passing laws and discussing worldly concerns religion should butt out. Religion should concern itself with spiritual concerns and stay there.

 

[George-ananda]

What is just, who determines that? Is harming others because they non-violently oppose your religion just? Is beheading people who leave your religion just? Is depriving people of equal rights based on religion just? I believe that when passing laws and discussing worldly concerns religion should butt out. Religion should concern itself with spiritual concerns and stay there.

OK, maybe I was getting into things outside religion. There is a fine line when one fights a just war (lets say against Nazi rule) for religious reasons and must do cruel things that are justified by an 'end'.

 

[viole]

I guess this is an issue I have with more fundamentalist forms of belief, is that I often see opposition to other worldviews and groups that could be called cruel or hateful.

I guess a good example of this is some Christians supporting ex-gay conversion therapy for teens and kids, when such 'therapies' are known to use excessive methods like induced vomiting or hitting.

My question is- is this a form of religion worth having? Is this valid? Is this a true and proper expression of religious faith?

Your thoughts...

I think cruely is relative.

From the point of view of the inquisitor, torturing a person so that it repents and gets to God is the most human thing he could do.

From the point of view of the Baptist, telling gays that they are OK, geopardizing thereby their eternal destiny, is the most cruel and negligent thing to do.

So, telling them that they are cruel leads nowhere.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, maybe I was getting into things outside religion. There is a fine line when one fights a just war (lets say against Nazi rule) for religious reasons and must do cruel things that are justified by an 'end'.

When religion gets involved, there is no line. A person who thinks that God endorses their behaviour has no moral limits: anything - no matter how horrendous - is considered acceptable if it's believed to be endorsed by God.

 

[George-ananda]

When religion gets involved, there is no line. A person who thinks that God endorses their behaviour has no moral limits: anything - no matter how horrendous - is considered acceptable if it's believed to be endorsed by God.

It might be God or some other personal or political ideology. Point is 'reason' must rule.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It might be God or some other personal or political ideology. Point is 'reason' must rule.

How can "reason" ever tell someone to do the right thing if they think their source of morality is a deity who "works in mysterious ways" and who will sometimes use seemingly horrible means to achieve good ends in ways that are beyond the knowledge of humanity?

If a person has adopted the sort of faith that rejects the use of reason, then reason isn't available to them to stop them from committing atrocities.

 

[George-ananda]

How can "reason" ever tell someone to do the right thing if they think their source of morality is a deity who "works in mysterious ways" and who will sometimes use seemingly horrible means to achieve good ends in ways that are beyond the knowledge of humanity?

Reason would check that belief that a deity encourages then to use seemingly horrible means without reason. They need to 'reason out' specific actions. There may be times when horrendous acts (a just war) are needed.

If a person has adopted the sort of faith that rejects the use of reason, then reason isn't available to them to stop them from committing atrocities.

Well, then I believe they went wrong in rejecting the use of reason in all situations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Reason would check that belief that a deity encourages then to use seemingly horrible means without reason. They need to 'reason out' specific actions. There may be times when horrendous acts (a just war) are needed.

I think you're describing some sort of religion that doesn't exist... or at least is something very different from the mainstream. The sort of religion that gives comfort in times of pain and grief is the exact same sort of religion that can justify atrocities. A person who can reconcile a good and loving God with, say, human death from cancer can reconcile a good and loving God with human death from massacres.

 

[George-ananda]

I think you're describing some sort of religion that doesn't exist... or at least is something very different from the mainstream. The sort of religion that gives comfort in times of pain and grief is the exact same sort of religion that can justify atrocities. A person who can reconcile a good and loving God with, say, human death from cancer can reconcile a good and loving God with human death from massacres.

I may be biased, but I believe reason leads us to a more eastern (pantheistic) view of what God is. I think the western view of God is in certain decline in the modern western world as some traditional aspects do clash with reason. Even so, I think almost all Christian people today have a view of God that will not allow them to commit atrocities that do not accord with common reason.

 

[NewChapter]

I guess this is an issue I have with more fundamentalist forms of belief, is that I often see opposition to other worldviews and groups that could be called cruel or hateful.

I guess a good example of this is some Christians supporting ex-gay conversion therapy for teens and kids, when such 'therapies' are known to use excessive methods like induced vomiting or hitting.

My question is- is this a form of religion worth having? Is this valid? Is this a true and proper expression of religious faith?

Your thoughts...

I believe in being myself and this is the way that the Bible describes some people:

Genesis 49:5-7
King James Version (KJV)
(5)Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. (6)O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall. (7)Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.

 

[Jon916]

Religion has been cruel in all of history. Don' take anything into your own hands though. You risk being labeled and prosecuted as radical, maybe enemy of the state.

 

[NewChapter]

Religion has been cruel in all of history. Don' take anything into your own hands though. You risk being labeled and prosecuted as radical, maybe enemy of the state.

Well the Apostles were enemies of the state, being jailed, beaten, and killed just because of their preaching. People these days might make up a reason why someone is an enemy of the state while the real reason is the person's religious preaching.

If I am an enemy of the state, I'm in good company with the Apostles.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I may be biased, but I believe reason leads us to a more eastern (pantheistic) view of what God is.

Given a set of premises, reason can tell us the implication of those premises.

For instance, when a child dies of cancer, it's very common to hear theists reconcile this with their beliefs ("It's all part of God's plan" and whatnot). These people have already accepted that their God will sometimes want innocent children dead for his own mysterious purposes.

Once that hurdle is cleared, what's stopping the logical leap from "God wanted that child to die of cancer" and "God wants this child to die by machete"? The only difference I can see is God's choice of murder weapon. We certainly couldn't say that God abhors the suffering of a machete attack if we've taken as given that he's okay with the suffering of terminal cancer.

I think the western view of God is in certain decline in the modern western world as some traditional aspects do clash with reason.

I'm talking about the spectrum of belief in the here-and-now, not the spectrum of belief that you want to see or think will happen some day.

Even so, I think almost all Christian people today have a view of God that will not allow them to commit atrocities that do not accord with common reason.

I disagree. As long as there's been theism, there's been theodicy. We have a long history of people making excuses for gods that imply that overlooking murder and suffering - or even committing murder and inflicting suffering - can be reconciled with goodness and love.

Hopefully the theists who proclaim belief in a vengeful God are just paying lip-service, but I wouldn't bet that they're all insincere.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It doesn't really matter if God chooses to make living things suffer or not. What matters to me, at least per the "Way" as I see it, is if the follower of the Way is so committed to it that they will call God out on bad behavior when needed. Otherwise, that isn't worshipping a deity ... it's butt-kissing.