Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Thomas, Apr 10, 2018.
Evil comes in with creation. Well-known fact.
Mao tse Tung was responsible for 70 million deaths; compared to him Stalin was a lightweight only 20 million deaths. They were both staunch atheists
Pol Pot 7 million. Rwanda 800 thousand. I don't think Hitler was very religious. Can you name a 20th century religion responsible for anything close?
Why is religion different from other human activities? Why put it on a pedestal? Why should it be better, more pure, holier, unsullied than, say, warfare or agriculture or socialism?
Why the dualism?
And what does it tell us about human nature that this dualism between holy and profane is so important to us, that violence becomes an issue?
Because people are saying religions are responsible for all/most the evil in the world
I really just don't know how anyone can make these statements. Religion is about the holy and the good (away from the profane and nasty), at least the aspiration.
EDIT: That the aspiration toward the holy, as away from the profane, may be abused as a call to violence for nationalistic purposes etc, and that normally reasonable people rally mindlessly under propaganda lies, that is human nature, imo
"He hath shown you, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"
Micha 6:8 Written around 700BC.
The more things change ...
Anyway, let's have a list of modern religious killings on a scale even close to those by the monsters mentioned above?
I suppose that depends on how you interpret the flood story. What percentage of man was killed by it vs the stuff you quote. It is all a horrific game we play "but mom, he did it worse'
I suppose we need to define fact and as to where they come from.
I did ask for modern atrocities. You know I am not a Bible literalist, so why do you quote Noah's flood? The lost continent of Mu. I believe we are trying to avoid the question? We can go back a few centuries, if you like. Proper recorded history, please ...
When we have violent examples of how G!d handles issues and citizenry and opponents He has issues with...
How do you think leaders who perceive themselves as gods would not follow the examples in the most widely pushed book in the world?
Modern properly recorded examples of religious slaughter? Let's say by Christians, since we seem to be assuming the Christian religion here ...
Sorry to keep beating the point:
If a person states that religion is responsible for all/most violence/evil in the world -- and enthusiastically promotes that view on the internet -- can the person please come up with a couple of proven religious atrocities even close to those by atheistic monsters like Mao tse Tung?
I'm not that person...nor am I the person trying to minimize past atrocities by pointing to others misdeeds.
I am a cis white american male who realizes my kind is a scourge in humanity as much or more than pick your favorite ethnic despot.
Good, because it's a big lie:
The only one around here who regularly brings up the subject around here, is you, in the past few months.
Burning straw men at the stake?
I guess it's time for me to sing of the sun for a while. 'Pollo Phoibee, old tin pan...
Make up your mind, lol ...
We are fools if we believe that something can be done about violence. Honestly I agree with the Taoist philosopher Yang Chu, we shouldn't do a goddamn thing, not sacrifice a single hair because it is futile and every effort we make "to tackle violence" has only made things worse and more complicated. Violence is inherent in the very cosmos itself; stars devour stars, stars devour matter and gases, the organic devours the inorganic. We live in a cosmos where in order for you to live; you have to metabolize the death of another living creature. It is the way of our world, there is no fighting against it only acceptance of it. The Kingdom of Heaven is under siege and only the violent may bear it away.
How very Nietzschean! Making the kingdom of heaven great again?
Again, I think you've put your finger on the issue there.
I wonder what you mean by 'my kind'? Humanity?
If so that's just the point we've been arguing, that the flaw is not with religious texts or scientific texts, nor is it with religious, scientific, political, cultural or any other of our institutions, it's with us. All those things are extraneous, and channels by which we seek to validate what we do.
As a 'cis white American' you're in a position of supreme privilege, and you're part and product of the most powerful culture on the planet.
Actually I was quoting the Nazarene
Separate names with a comma.