View Single Post
Old May 2nd, 2012 (08:47 AM). Edited May 3rd, 2012 by Barrels.
Barrels's Avatar
Barrels Barrels is offline
The Fresh Prince of Kanto
Silver Tier
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Three thousand miles from home
Gender: Male
Nature: Lonely
Posts: 82
Quote originally posted by Scarf:
I think we would probably still have a lot of the same violence/wars/etc. owing simply to the fact that people are emboldened when they think they have all the answers. Religion just kinda gives people an "I'm-right-you're-wrong" mindset and then good ol' violence is often the result.
This. Because an '"I'm-right-you're-wrong" mindset' is conflict waiting to happen.

Quote originally posted by SwiftSign:
Sure it may seem insensitive, but is it really? Destroying a book does no destroy someone's faith, even if the symbolism implies it, it is just a book. If I were to rip up a Harry Potter book in front of an avid fan they would probably be mad, but the majority of people would think they were being silly, no?

And realistically, if the Pope can dictate people to be sinners, say people of certain lifestyles are wrong - which is worse?
Well... you can't really contrast the two, to be honest. I love Harry Potter and don't believe in God, but while I reckon JK Rowling is a bonafide genius, I don't live my life stringently according to the rules and testament laid down in Chapters 10:12 of Deathly Hallows. If someone rips up a HP book, sure, I'll think it's a terrible waste, but in the end it's just a difference of opinion and the ripper is absolutely entitled to theirs.

tl;dr: while I fully support anyone's right to rip up whatever they want whenever they want (including holy books), I wouldn't do it in the case of a book someone lives their life by unless there was a damn good reason. And since I'm sure Savage thought long and hard about the ripping beforehand - and since he appears to be a moral man from his establishment of the It Gets Better foundation - I think he must have been pretty sure he had one. (I haven't watched the speech, though, so I can't comment on whether I think it was a good reason or not.)

Quote originally posted by FrostPheonix:
Hmmmmm.... I'll have to think about this... I may ask other christians about this as well, but at the moment I won't answer this. I'll try later on though, when I think I know I can give you a satisfactory answer.
Thanks for your explanation and consideration of my opinions! I really hope you can tell me your answer later.

Quote originally posted by Shining Raichu:
The gun analogy CWP and QK were talking about further up the page got me thinking about an exchange from 7th Heaven, which I used to watch many years ago before I was quite so jaded against religion

If religion had never existed, it would not mean that the deaths that would have been caused by religion would be evenly distributed among the other potential reasons for murder. It would mean that one of the reasons would be removed and less people would be dead.
Jaded, dude? You? Never. xD

I'm with you as far as removing any reason for murder obviously removes the murders caused by it. But, as I implied earlier, a hell of a lot depends on the person when it comes to reasoning. That funny-shaped cloud in the sky can constitute a reason for murder in the mind of a killer. Doesn't mean we should automatically set to work designing a Great Big Fan with Super Suction Power! to get rid of all the clouds, just in case someone happens to interpret one as a sign.

...Question for the Christians out there - is there any instance in the Bible where it's implied that murder is ever OK? Because if not, the Bible's just as little to blame as that cloud. (I genuinely don't know the answer to this question, incidentally. Not trying to be snarky.)

Quote originally posted by FrostPheonix:
I think the Crusades were... unfortunate. The Pope was corrupt, people didn't understand the Bible, and went on a killing rampage. Although I agree, they did kill millions supposedly by the order of the Bible, I think that was different, because they did that on order of the Pope, and not by their own thoughts. This could have happened even without religion, where the Pope may have been a corrupt politician of a sort.
Another problem here is really 'what-do-you-do-with-the-ones-who-honestly-thought-they-were-in-the-right', I think. Most knights and squires and peasants probably reckoned they were on a mission from God - and if they were peasants, there's no way on earth they could have afforded the time to learn to read the Bible for themselves. So what about them? Sure, they disobeyed the Biblical law, but they didn't mean to... in fact, they actively tried not to.

...The reason I characterise this as a problem is that what do you do when the knight and the people he murdered meet in Heaven? Surely seems a little unfair to them.

Quote originally posted by Shining Raichu:
If the Bible is being misunderstood it's the fault of its own openness to interpretation and is therefore liable regardless.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. To an extent. The original writers probably never dreamed people would try to translate it from the Hebrew - might have viewed it as sacriliege, in fact. But apparently it's wildly contradictory even in its purest form.

Quote originally posted by Went:
It's true that the hierarchs behind all that were highly corrupt, but that doesn't speak really well about their system of belief :\
don't ban me please supermod

But did they actually believe? If they'd read the Bible they'd have had a job convincing themselves it was telling them to go have a Civil War. So perhaps they just decided to use it as an added opiate for the people... lol, probably just about every war since the beginning of time has started with the leaders telling their infantry, 'God is on our side! Not theirs!'

Quote originally posted by FrostPheonix:
Not all Christians follow the Pope. Protestants, Lutherans, Orthodox Christians all don't recognize the Pope. And I don't think any Roman Catholics would either if he suddenly dictated something against the Bible.
xD yeah, but what about the ones that do? This has reminded me of something else I've always wanted to ask - do the anti-gay passages in the Bible still apply? Is it generally considered that they do or they don't? (Cos for me, the main reason I detest Benedict XVI with a passion is his inflammatory rhetoric against homosexuality - gay marriage 'undermines the future of humanity itself,' apparently.)

Quote originally posted by FrostPheonix:
In fact, 'believe' in many verses comes from the word pisteuo; which means "commit unto, commit to (one's) trust, be committed unto, be put in trust with, be committed to one's trust", which is taking up Jesus' teachings and no just saying 'Yeah, I believe he existed' but to also make the commitment to follow him.
Yeeeaaaah... but if we're going to run with the whole 'it's not been translated properly' thing, we have to take into consideration the school of thought that ventures that perhaps even the most well-known of the Commandments doesn't mean what everyone thinks it means. (Seriously, read that link. It's thought-provoking.) This is one of my other main troubles with ancient holy books - you can never be 100% certain you've actually translated it right.

Quote originally posted by FrostPheonix:
Christian would not shoot Satanist on sight. That goes completely against Jesus' teachings.
Trudat. :D

Quote originally posted by FrostPheonix:
The Bible, or religion for that matter, wouldn't have been the direct cause, rather the person who taught them this or their own misinterpretation.
Again, way more concise than I managed.

Quote originally posted by FrostPheonix:
I have exams soon, so I won't be replying much until they are over ; like talking to you guys though. Its really thought provoking.

Ramona Flowers
Reply With Quote