Religion is good for children (PROOF INSIDE)

[Vadriel]

Lol.

First off, the terrorists responsible for 9/11 weren't acting upon religious doctrines...they were just claiming that to give themselves justification.

Yes, I'm aware of all the wars going on in Southeast Asia, involving Buddhists and the other neighboring religions.

Don't even try to defend Christianity. It's a cult, a tool of populace control, and a delusionary tactic of self-gratification.

And tell me you're joking when you ask me to explain why the Middle East is of interest in the XXI century. Hello, war? I realize you're French Canadian, and that pretty much makes you war-inept, but seriously...you're a smart guy and I don't see how you could be ignorant of how important it is to be aware of what's going on over there. I don't believe that Americans have any place over there, but we are anyways and all the shitstorms flying around over there pretty much demand that we not have our heads up our asses about the place.

And btw...my teacher actually happens to know what he's talking about. He spent a lot of time over there, I don't remember which country exactly, but he lived with Muslim sponsors for quite some time. They're people like you and I, whose religion is merely an newer expansion of Christianity (much like Christianity is of Judaism), and is commonly misunderstood by ignorant North Americans. My professor knows what he's talking about, and he's taught it quite well to us. Once you've spent some time over there living WITH the people you're slandering, THEN you have some right to talk...try reading the entire Qur'an instead of Googling passages to suit your needs...my professor has.

And what the hell does it prove that the Qur'an has passages relating to violence? What ever happened to "eye for an eye" and the fire-and-brimstone wrath of God Almighty? The Bible is full of the same sort of shit, don't even try to deny it.

And @x42, yes of course the Qur'an is innappropriate for contemporary practices. The only reason Christianity still does so well is because it's such a morphically hypocritical religion that immediately discounts unpopular viewpoints of the Bible as "oh, that's not what we meant" or "oh, that's just a misunderstanding and isn't all that important." Modern Christianity isn't the same as colonial Christianity, which isn't the same as Elizabethan Christianity, which isn't the same as Spanish Catholicism, which isn't the same as Roman Catholicism. That's why there are so many denominations of Christianity, so that people can do whatever they want to do and still call themselves Christians. "I want to be able to do ________, so I'm going to convert to _______ because they say it's okay."

Please. Religion = hypocrisy, at least when it comes to organized religion. Personal, introspective, and spiritual Christianity is healthy and beneficial to the practicioner...but then again so is personal, introspective, and spiritual Islam. It's when people start banding together under the banner of insecurity and wrath that blood starts flying and grudges become ideals.

And B~E, don't try to say that anything a man did reflects upon the true teachings of Islam. Humans are hypocritical idiots who will quote any out-of-context scripture that will serve to justify whatever they felt like doing. Misquoted or mistaken doctrine is the ultimate excuse for wrath, persecution, and lack of self-control.

Stop talking about things you Googled. My professor speaks from first-hand experience, actual hands-on learnings of Islamic tradition and scripture. He's read the Qur'an. He's attended Islamic prayer. He knows the ways of the world over there, and he's by no means an idiot.

 

[B~E]

Lol.

First off, the terrorists responsible for 9/11 weren't acting upon religious doctrines...they were just claiming that to give themselves justification.

But Mohamed do santify suicide in the name of allah, he also recommand to bring terror to your ennemies, and he also sanctify war against non-muslims who did injustice to muslims, or "who brought mischief into the land". So then, how can 9/11 be unislamic?

Don't even try to defend Christianity. It's a cult, a tool of populace control, and a delusionary tactic of self-gratification.

Christianity became all of that after the fall of the Roman Empire, when a new king (I dont remember his name, but he was a franc I think) decided to make christianity his state religion. Thereafter, christianity was used to generate legitimacy for the state to do all sort of things, most of them undefendable. It stayed that way until the Enlightement, where the process to separate religion from the state (like it used to be) finaly began. So yes, christianity was used to generate political legitimacy but it was only from the dark ages up until the renaissance. Before that and since then, Christianity was the personaly, individualistic faith that it is meant to be.

The only faith that was designed to be a tool of control is islam, which you seemt to esteam so much for some reason.

And tell me you're joking when you ask me to explain why the Middle East is of interest in the XXI century. Hello, war? I realize you're French Canadian, and that pretty much makes you war-inept, but seriously...you're a smart guy and I don't see how you could be ignorant of how important it is to be aware of what's going on over there. I don't believe that Americans have any place over there, but we are anyways and all the shitstorms flying around over there pretty much demand that we not have our heads up our asses about the place.

The Near-East is of interest because there are many wars going on, or are there many wars because it is of interest?

Because if the only reason you can come up with to justify this region's relevance is war, that isnt enough. Wars are not important by themselves, its the reason why they're fought. And in this region, wars are fought for retarded, idiotic reasons that do not concern us. To quote an article from Prospect Mag:

Strategically, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been almost irrelevant since the end of the cold war. And as for the impact of the conflict on oil prices, it was powerful in 1973 when the Saudis declared embargoes and cut production, but that was the first and last time that the "oil weapon" was wielded. For decades now, the largest Arab oil producers have publicly foresworn any linkage between politics and pricing, and an embargo would be a disaster for their oil-revenue dependent economies. In any case, the relationship between turmoil in the middle east and oil prices is far from straightforward. As Philip Auerswald recently noted in the American Interest, between 1981 and 1999—a period when a fundamentalist regime consolidated power in Iran, Iran and Iraq fought an eight-year war within view of oil and gas installations, the Gulf war came and went and the first Palestinian intifada raged—oil prices, adjusted for inflation, actually fell. And global dependence on middle eastern oil is declining: today the region produces under 30 per cent of the world's crude oil, compared to almost 40 per cent in 1974-75. In 2005 17 per cent of American oil imports came from the Gulf, compared to 28 per cent in 1975, and President Bush used his 2006 state of the union address to announce his intention of cutting US oil imports from the middle east by three quarters by 2025.

Yes, it would be nice if Israelis and Palestinians could settle their differences, but it would do little or nothing to calm the other conflicts in the middle east from Algeria to Iraq, or to stop Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Muscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence between traditionalists and Islamists, and between Sunnis and Shia, nor would it assuage the perfectly understandable hostility of convinced Islamists towards the transgressive west that relentlessly invades their minds, and sometimes their countries.

The middle east was once the world's most advanced region, but these days its biggest industries are extravagant consumption and the venting of resentment. According to the UN's 2004 Arab human development report, the region boasts the second lowest adult literacy rate in the world (after sub-Saharan Africa) at just 63 per cent. Its dependence on oil means that manufactured goods account for just 17 per cent of exports, compared to a global average of 78 per cent. Moreover, despite its oil wealth, the entire middle east generated under 4 per cent of global GDP in 2006—less than Germany.

Unless compelled by immediate danger, we should therefore focus on the old and new lands of creation in Europe and America, in India and east Asia

And btw...my teacher actually happens to know what he's talking about. He spent a lot of time over there, I don't remember which country exactly, but he lived with Muslim sponsors for quite some time. They're people like you and I, whose religion is merely an newer expansion of Christianity (much like Christianity is of Judaism), and is commonly misunderstood by ignorant North Americans. My professor knows what he's talking about, and he's taught it quite well to us. Once you've spent some time over there living WITH the people you're slandering, THEN you have some right to talk...try reading the entire Qur'an instead of Googling passages to suit your needs...my professor has.

I think you should look up what are logical fallacies, because you just made two in your paragraphe, appeal to authority and ad hominen. Firstly, your teacher isnt automatically right because he went there. What if I went there myself the last 2 years? Does that make my argument suddently true? what if I know another middle-east expert, who's a member of my fammily (my uncle), and he came up with the opposite argument that your professor? Does this somehow validate everything I have to say?

Listen, what you're supposed to do in a discussion is take the argument of your opponent regardless of who he is, and analyse it like objectively. So never mind who I am, chances are that my argument is still right anyway.

And what the hell does it prove that the Qur'an has passages relating to violence? What ever happened to "eye for an eye" and the fire-and-brimstone wrath of God Almighty? The Bible is full of the same sort of shit, don't even try to deny it.

Thats the Old Testament stuff. Christianity doesnt rely on that. If you wanrt to poke hole into my argument, look up the New Testament.

And @x42, yes of course the Qur'an is innappropriate for contemporary practices. The only reason Christianity still does so well is because it's such a morphically hypocritical religion that immediately discounts unpopular viewpoints of the Bible as "oh, that's not what we meant" or "oh, that's just a misunderstanding and isn't all that important." Modern Christianity isn't the same as colonial Christianity, which isn't the same as Elizabethan Christianity, which isn't the same as Spanish Catholicism, which isn't the same as Roman Catholicism. That's why there are so many denominations of Christianity, so that people can do whatever they want to do and still call themselves Christians. "I want to be able to do ________, so I'm going to convert to _______ because they say it's okay."

And what are those unpopular viewpoints in the bible? Where's the part that justify violance? Where's the part that somehow make christianity moraly equivalent to islam? Tell us already!

Please. Religion = hypocrisy, at least when it comes to organized religion. Personal, introspective, and spiritual Christianity is healthy and beneficial to the practicioner...but then again so is personal, introspective, and spiritual Islam. It's when people start banding together under the banner of insecurity and wrath that blood starts flying and grudges become ideals.

Didnt you read what I said above? there is no such thing as a personal, introspective islam (well, there is, but thats not half of the story). Islam is first and foremost an organizational religion, that seeks to regulate collective life. Islam is a polity. Christianity is not. It only became one when european leaders appropriated themselves this religion. But it isnt the case since 400 years.

And B~E, don't try to say that anything a man did reflects upon the true teachings of Islam. Humans are hypocritical idiots who will quote any out-of-context scripture that will serve to justify whatever they felt like doing. Misquoted or mistaken doctrine is the ultimate excuse for wrath, persecution, and lack of self-control.

How is the stuff I quoted misquoted? How is it out of context? More importantly, why are so many muslims, on every continent, in the majority of countries, succesfully using islam to legitimize their agressions and the subjugation of those living under them?

You know why fundamentalist muslims can't be reasoned by the so called majority of moderate muslims? Because the fundamentalists have the literal interpretation of the Qu'ran to justify themselves.

Stop talking about things you Googled. My professor speaks from first-hand experience, actual hands-on learnings of Islamic tradition and scripture. He's read the Qur'an. He's attended Islamic prayer. He knows the ways of the world over there, and he's by no means an idiot.

But what if I havent googled my arguments? What if it comes from books, university classes, the Koran itself, or from my uncle who lived there for years and "attended Islamic prayer" and who "knows the ways of the world over there" and who's an expert?

What then?

In your 600 words reply, you didnt adress most of my points. You merely attacked my credibility, leaving my argument mostly untouched. This means that my argument is either sound, or that it isnt but you still can't counter it because you dont know anything on the subject without your teacher pal to help you. In either case you can't continue argumenting, and you certainly shouldn't have begun your religious rant in the first place.

 

[Tipsy]

I will answer every criticism made against my religion not by stating my opinion, but rather directly quoting the official church teaching (via the catechism) and letting it speak for itself.

A) Christianity and Islam are the primary religions known for intolerance and persecution of others. They are the only religions to have had holy wars. They intrude upon others' cultures and insist upon conversion. In the past, Muslim takeovers and expansions (such as the Muslim sweep over almost all of the Middle East, all the way over to India and past to even settle farther East) have been generally tolerant of its conquered territories, but there are also plenty of times when there has been bloodshed simply over religion. India is currently divided between the originally native Hindi Dravidians and the Muslim invaders/immigrants that came over long ago.

As well, Christianity almost always forces their doctrines on occupied areas, such as the Inquisition, Crusades, and missionary ventures. Roman Catholic expansions and impressment of Christianity on conquered territories, founding of America's insistant teaching of Christianity to the Native Americans, the attempted missionary expansions to South America and Africa...anywhere people are considered "pagan" or "ignorant" of Christian ways, the good ol' soulsavers gotta go thrust their ideals upon the populace. Contrast this to say...Hinduism, Daoism, Confucianism, who do not actively seek converts and actually practice tolerance of other religions/cultures.

""Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits." This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."
Catechism 2106
For more information on the "social duty of religion and the right to religious freedom" see catechism 2104-2109

Please explain how your examples reflect this direct quote from church doctrine.

B) Christianity and Islam are almost the same thing, as is Judaism. They're all 3 the Abrahamic religions, and all believe in the exact same God. "Allah" is the exact same equivalent in Arabic to "God" in English, they are merely what the individual languages call their prime deity, who is in fact the same entity.

Roman Catholocism agrees to even a further extent; Christianity is not related only to Islam and Judaism, but to nearly all religions.

To Muslims:
"The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Catechism 841

To nearly all religions:
"The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."
Catechism 843

It isn't because christianity itself is capable of justifying a war; there's nothing in the New Testament that can come close to legitimizing violence. Its only because christianity was the only common bond between europeans capable of bringing them together. This is why the Church legitimized the wars, simply because it was the only institution capable of doing so, not because of its christian nature. In the end, the Crusades were geopolitical in origine, and only religious in form, not substance.

That is debatable; there is no actual Church teaching on the matter and there are both arguments for the extremes of pure pacifism and as well as multiple conceptions of a just-war. See here for further information on just-war ideology.

As for B~E's assessment of Islam, I don't really agree, but don't take this statement as anything more than an arbitrary opinion for now because I don't actually have the time to write up my reasoning.

As for my opinon on the actual article, it's perfectly reflected through CB's sarcastic post:

This is why Fox is the best source of news ever.

 

[B~E]

That is debatable; there is no actual Church teaching on the matter and there are both arguments for the extremes of pure pacifism and as well as multiple conceptions of a just-war. See here for further information on just-war ideology.

St-Augustin's thoughts on just-war apply to secular, sovereign states (or bodies) defending themselves. It never tries to justify the concept of holy christian wars. Am I right?

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

In other words, muslims and christians are alike because... they worship a the same diety. How does this statement stand in the face the many essential differences between the two religions?

 

[Vadriel]

Frankly, B~E, I never intended to get into a fight with you anyways, however it sort of became that when you reacted in such a hostile manner to my completely reasonable assessment. In honesty, I understand your views, appreciate how you see these things, and personally disagree on a few perceptions. However, I don't wish to attack you personally...I apologize for actually doing that. I merely have my information and understanding from a reliable source: one of the most intelligent people I've ever met, who's spent legitimate time studying the world over there and knows what he's talking about. Do I personally know hardly anything of Islam? No, all I know is what he taught me, and what he said made a lot of sense.

But anyway, what I originally said holds true...if anything you've driven my point home even further. Parents in an Abrahamic religion will not simply allow a child to come to his own educated conclusions about what to believe...it is not what they do, as a general practice.

So let's drop this. I still hold most of what I said these past few posts to be true, but I recognize some of what you're trying to say as well.

Oh, and as for the "unpopular viewpoints" that have morphed through history, I was refering to such things as the practice of burning anyone who was considered to have demonstrated something contrary to normalcy or the teachings of God...or how homosexuality is a sin (which is being adapted right NOW due to the rise in the public acceptance of homosexuality). Christianity morphs with the times, and things that it formerly rejected as sin or improper become easily acceptable, just so that Christianity can keep its fanbase. One other important thing my Geography teacher said is that in a situation of culture vs religion, culture will win. In other words, if what people culturally want to do is against their religion, they'll still do it. Example: Islamic Libya is big into wine-production, but drinking wine is considered against the rules in Islam...do the Libyans still drink their wine? You can bet on it. After all, they're people. People will do what they want whether they're supposed to or not..which is why Christianity keeps adapting what's "right and wrong" to keep with the times.

I do have basis for what I'm talking about, I'm not just blowing things out my ass. I do apologize if I start to rant, it's just that the ignorance relating to religion is a little bit of a hot-button issue for me. I loathe organized religion, and it irritates the **** out of me when people defend such a hypocritical, nonsensical practice. I mean, I'm all cool with people who want to practice their faith in a manner that suits their personal life, but keep it the hell out of mine, ya me?

Frankly, I'm tired of arguing with a friend over something as stupid as religions. Can we drop it, or at least agree to disagree?

 

[B~E]

"People will do what they want whether they're supposed to or not.."

And people will gladly do whats wrong if their religion says its right. And I've tried to point out the dirty stuff islam justify to show that it isnt anything like christianity, unlike what your original thesis said.

You say that you loath organized religions in general, but in this thread you've done nothing but bringing up the crap done in christianity's name, like genocides and the Crusades, while acting obfuscated and stupefied whenever I tried to contradict your teacher's claim that islam is "all peace and tolerance", despit the overwhelming evidences in today's world. I think you have a serious biais, which is the result of accepting your teacher's claims without question, coupled with the prevalent "all religions and cultures are moraly equivalent and thinking ortherwise makes you an islamophobe/racist/antisemitiste/nazi" ideology.

The reason I was agressive is because you presented your "completely reasonable assessment" is in arrogant manner, assuming that my questioning of your argument was ignorance (right!), while I could very well accuse you of being guilty of intellectual laziness for defending a position that you dont completly understand yourself and for resorting to logical fallacies.

Religions arent nonesensical practice, they havent survived so long by being nonesesical. They're complexe, effective, they give purpose and cohesion to people, and most importantly, they're more relevant today than they were 50 years ago. By all mean continue to study them if you're interested in the subject. But please, for your own sake, dont believe what others have to say, do your own research and forge your own opinion.

 

[AZN_FLEA]

let me say something:

vaddy is right, christianity has morphed with time. its getting looser and looser on the rules. some forms of christianity accept and go gay marriages. think it was anglican..?

the idea of going to hell for eternity as punishment is a bit stupid dont you think? its like getting eternal detention because you hit someone in school. we can all agree this is unreasonable so why and how does that make Gods punishment reasonable? im hoping and praying that the eternal punishment thing in the bible is just an empty threat to give us motivation to worship him. but tahts not a religion based on love is it?

ive no doubt that religion is good for children. however, religion creates ALOT of bias in children. i cant think right now cuz im sleep deprived but i experience this from personal experience. this is why is stopped going to church and is studying the bible on my own.

ive done my own research on the bible from scratch. after noahs ark it says God repented for doing such a thing and gave the rainbow as a present. a perfect entity does not and should not repent. the idea of perfection is unquestionably stupid. it only happens in certain tests and exams. it does not happen to entities. <- wow. whats the point in this paragraph?

 

[please help me :(]

Religions give a false hope.

 

[B~E]

let me say something:

vaddy is right, christianity has morphed with time.

The way we practicied changed, not the religious material.

 

[Andrew]

Man. I was never raised with religion (parents think they are religious) and I turned out fine. No behavior issues with me.