| Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Christians | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 26 2008, 09:15 PM (680 Views) | |
| Nick | Nov 28 2008, 08:40 PM Post #31 |
Brit
|
Look at the Crusades. Look at Nazi Germany. Look at the KKK. Look at the Rwandan genocide. Look at the recent massacres in India. The prejudiced types you mentioned are generally involatile because they have no real symbol of unity; they are isolated individuals. Many religions are worldwide organisations with millions of members; they have communities unified by their beliefs. It's very different to the individual level. |
| jesus somebody get onto msn | |
 |
 
|
| Captain Bravo | Nov 28 2008, 11:53 PM Post #32 |
You play my nerves like strings
|
Thanks for clarifying for me, Nick. And while mass murder isn't always the result, there have been serious bouts of oppression, even within our own society in the last century, and their effects still persist today. Nick's arguments about logic need to be taken into consideration, too. Sexists can't go round murdering the other gender; both are needed for the survival of the human race. Yet still, women used to be (And still are in many ways) considered the "weaker sex." Racism is alive and kicking. The election should have been enough to tell you that. And Wind Sword, I'm well aware that being a Christian means I'm denying many other ideas from the rest of the world about our existence and how we're to live, but it also means that I must live not like a superior to the world around me pushing my views on them, but a servant, as Christ did. He could have come in glory, but we believe there was a reason He came in poverty, don't we? Isn't it then our obligation to follow in those footsteps, and not to glorify ourselves? Elitism won't get you anything, especially not respect. We should each be striving to be a blessing in the lives of others, that they might also see the joy our faith instills in us. It's not something that can be forced. That's what I'm talking about. It's both frustrating and devastating to me that there are so many people who don't understand that. |
|
What happens if I can't check my MySpace when we get there? Formerly Levin, Glen, Gale, Sailor Neptune, Erk (At the old FEFF)  I'm reviving my forum Brand of Flame. If you're interested in helping out, or just stopping by Here is the link. | |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Nov 29 2008, 01:47 PM Post #33 |
Troll
|
I think bringing religion to the point of murder may be too far to make the feasible claim because in many cases religion is the universal excuse. If you look at Nazi Germany, for example, Hitler used anti-semitism to fuel the reconstruction of Germany after the brutal reparation payments from World War I: Hitler's grasp for power and necessity to unify the nation forced him to blame members of Judaism. If you look at the Crusades, why wouldn't the Church want to raid the Middle East? The Dar al Islam - one of the most prominent trading networks in the history of the world - generated mass income: the Church completely wants to get in on that and can spur on the common man by calling it an issue of religion. Religion - in all cases - is a tool. Whether people use their religion as a motivating factor for others, for their own personal piety, or for other reasons (such as cultural assimilation), Relgion is always used for something. My big fear with acting on any religion beyond the personal level doesn't lie in violence, but rather in imposing arbitrary moral codes on everyone through law. Obviously people in certain religious groups would approve of certain laws, such as practitioners of Islam if we passed a law mandating prayer to Mohammed. However, the other groups affected would fight back or be suppressed under such law. If practitioners of a given wish to see religious tenets as law, let them defend such tenets with logic rather than divine mandates. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Nick | Nov 29 2008, 05:23 PM Post #34 |
|
Brit
|
I can see where you're coming from with the ulterior motives; it's true that gains are made beyond the cleansing of evildoers, which I have to admit I overlooked in my previous post, although I'm holding out that ethnic cleansing would most likely be involved - but as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. On the issue of problems with religion, personally I regard enforcement of arbitrary moral law similarly to violence. It entails imposing penalties - whether monetary, physical or whatever - on people who hold a different moral code, purely because they hold a different moral code (obviously, moral rules with logical justification behind them are exempt from this). I believe we find common ground in that we both find imposing morals on others with religious justification to be unacceptable. |
| jesus somebody get onto msn | |
|
|
|
| Greth | Dec 2 2008, 03:31 AM Post #35 |
fuck all y'all
|
This is a tough subject for me simply because im a Methodist raised kid who never really believed in Christianity. I've grown up to become to accept Ásatrúism, making me an Asator if you will. Religion is an odd subject for me, because even now there are things I'm, unsure of, and the Odinists on the Euro-side of the world confuse and scare me due to the fact im pretty intolerant of racism. That's something different though. As someone who grew up around alot of Christians I can see where Levin is getting at, and since I have no problem with Christianity, I can sympathize with anyone who turns their religion's teachings as little more than ear fodder, or takes the other turn and becomes a whole-hearted extremist/bigot. |
|
Has been known as: mrmastodon, Greth, MF Greth, L, Shu, Sailor Star Healer Voted most manly last time, and most underrated twice in a row, shit yeah! | |
|
|
|
| Conan O'Brien | Dec 2 2008, 12:52 PM Post #36 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
|
Religion is in ALL cases a tool? Really? Fasting Tibetan monks are looking for what exactly? What am I using it for? Maybe I'm just stupid, right? Hitler used anti-semitism to slaughter the Jews, that's true. At times, by appealing to deicide. That's when he wasn't using atheism as justification for killing priests and Jehovah's Witnesses and paganism as an excuse for seizing control of the Church. He attacked communism and socialism while attacking capitalism and taking control of the national industries. The fact was, the man was a self-contradicting hate-filled moron who wanted nothing more than to remove anyone he thought threaten his power. Religion happened to be one excuse he used. Mao and Stalin used atheism as an excuse for their slaughter. The early settlers used security against Indians as their excuse. Mankind will always have its excuses. I'm reminded of the episode of South Park where hundreds of years in the future, there is no religion, but three atheist faction are at war because the other factions aren't "logical" enough. The point is clear, mankind(and otters) will always make its excuses to kill each other. The history of the crusades have been hijacked by revisionist and at times Marxist historians. First of all, do you know of any evidence that the Church started the Crusades to take control of the trade routes? Minutes from a meeting? Private letters? Or is random guessing and smearing more your thing? What they do have are a bit more straightforward. The Christian world was on the verge of being completely conquered by Muslim jihad. The Byzantine Empire was on the brink of destruction when it asked for help from its only ally, the Vatican. They declared a crusade. Over the next couple of centuries, Muslims and Christians fought. End of story. Of course there were some horrible atrocities, but that was medieval warfare. Slaughtering innocents was part of the business. |
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Dec 2 2008, 04:37 PM Post #37 |
|
Troll
|
Religion is indeed a tool in every case. The fasting Tibetian monks want a thriving spiritual life: the use religion to attain this end. If you can answer the question: "Why are you religious?", then you can effectively demonstrate how you use religion as a tool. If you love God, you use religion as a means for loving God. If you only go through the motions, religion becomes a vehicle for cultural assimilation. As I noticed with the defensive tone throughout your post I can assume you took my view of religion to be one attacking religion. I merely acknowledge that religion has been abused in the past by multiple parties and used as the universal excuse; for me to claim religion is the source of all evil and is intrinsically wrong is equivalent for me to lead a crusade to ban the use of knives in the United States because criminals effectively use knives to kill people. As for your examples, I agree completely with Hilter and Mao/Stalin, both using Christianity and Atheism respectively as tools to take out their opponents. This isn't to say religion is the only tool - such as the cases discussed with Hitler, Mao, and Stalin - but the evidence points heavily to religion as one of the most universal and frequently abused excuses to commit atrocities throughout our history. This isn't to say religion is bad, again, as I have no interest in condemning the works of Dorothy Day and other religious figures who truly put their faith into practice. As for the crusades, I don't appreciate you claiming what I've done is "smearing". When you consider the prominence and wealth generated by the Dar-al-Islam, the reasoning for the Christian - primarily Catholic - backlash becomes evident. Furthermore, the struggle for "the Holy Land" in the Fertile Crescent mirrors the conflicts regarding land - a form of wealth - today. Don't want to take my word for it? "This approach has led to the reformulation and reexamination of various questions concerning crusading. Among these is motivation, which was traditionally considered to include both secular and religious motives, of which the respective importance was assessed differently by scholars according to their religious beliefs and the standards of their times." (Source, Page 20) Secular factors came into play throughout the crusades, such as power and influence of the Catholic Church along with the financial prominence of the Dar-al-Islam. If you're still not convinced, I assert the primary reason for the Reniassance can be derived from the Western World's desire for luxury items from the Middle East and India. Keep in mind multiple crusades occured, I'm not convinced the first Crusade was "end of story" as you so delicately put it. Read up on the Albigensian Crusade if you have time. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Nick | Dec 2 2008, 06:53 PM Post #38 |
|
Brit
|
Just gotta say, I love that episode of Southpark. |
| jesus somebody get onto msn | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Dec 3 2008, 12:17 AM Post #39 |
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
Uhhh, no it doesn't. Have you read the Constitution? Where does the phrase 'separation of church and state' show up? The Constitution prevents a state sponsored religion, and provides people the freedom to practice a religion of their choosing, but there is nothing in there about complete separation from religion and government. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson, IIRC. But its not in the Constitution. I just thought I'd say that. Don't really have much time to jump into a full blown debate like the good ol' days, even if Wind Sword is back. 
|
| |
|
|
|
| Soja | Dec 3 2008, 12:55 AM Post #40 |
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves
|
Even then, it could be said that Christ advocated a separation from the State. It often is. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's." Later on, John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." And yet in the United States we cannot fully separate the two. That is because the people are regarded as the State, but the people are also the Church. The sad truth is that religion will be abused by men to attain their goals in the same way that they will abuse any advantage, be it substances, wealth, influence. Religion imparts a great amount of influence over other people. What people must realize is that religion is not faith itself. Religion in its best can be a force of immense good, but the same can go otherwise in the hands of evil men. There is no doubt that Christianity is one of the best reasons why classical western culture survived at all, but one is best to not remain naive lest they be misled by a treacherous man who speaks with a sweet tongue. |
Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover | |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Dec 3 2008, 06:57 AM Post #41 |
|
Troll
|
I would also argue that so many Supreme Court decisions have upheld the idea of separation of church and state that we have accepted it into our code of law. For examples of things that aren't in the Constitution I would point to illegal pirating of music, laws against drunk driving, etcetera. Perhaps I'm just harping on technicality though. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Dec 3 2008, 05:43 PM Post #42 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
Supreme Court decisions may have upheld the consept, I'm just saying that the phrase just physically isn't there. I'm a Constitutionalist, so therefore I'd like to see the Constitution interpreted by whats actually there, but there are others that believe that the Constitution is a "living breathing document that changes with the times", and therefore interrupt it differently. Pretty much all I'm saying, is if you want grounds to point at the Separation of Church and State as being constitutional, you need to point at something else other than the Constitution, if that makes any sense. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Dec 3 2008, 06:16 PM Post #43 |
|
Troll
|
That makes sense, although I think I would argue that John Rawls' ethical theory of the Veil of Ignorance provides the proper logical backing for separation of church and state in American Society. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Simon | Dec 3 2008, 08:41 PM Post #44 |
The strongest among you may not wear a crown
|
I don't think Sentenal is arguing whether separation of church and state is Constitutional or not; he's merely pointing out that the phrase, in favor or against, doesn't appear in the Constitution, so were the only backing for that statement the Constitution, it wouldn't be valid. He's not saying that there isn't any backing anywhere, or not enough for it to be de facto Constitutional law; only that it's not Constitutional if the only backing is the Constitution in this case, because the phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution. Obviously, since you have enough backing to essentially show it is Constitutional, that's not the case. Y'all aren't in disagreement. >_> |
Previously: Ron DeLite, Simon
| |
|
|
|
| Conan O'Brien | Dec 3 2008, 11:14 PM Post #45 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
|
To say that religion is a tool in every case, one has to necessarily believe that none of the existing religions are true. If the Bible is true after all, religion isn't a tool, its just believing something that's true. The answer to "Why am I religious" essentially boils down to "It's true". I hope you'll excuse my hostility, BTW. You listed alleged Christian atrocities and immediately afterwards said religion was a tool. Perhaps I misinterpreted, but you phrased it as if religion was just something people used as justification for hostility.
Is it an oft used excuse for killing. Yes that's true. And by number of incidents alone, I'd hazard a guess that religious differences would be the number one excuse. But by body count, I don't think so. Not to engage in a pointless "Who Killed More" debate, but Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot killed roughly 37 million in the name of state sponsored atheism and collectivism. I'd be willing to guess that's a higher number than Christianity managed in two millennia. And of course, being the excuse and the cause are entirely separate. I'd venture that many of the Christian atrocities would have occurred in the absence of Christianity.
? You've effectively proved that some secular motive played a part. The quote you provide says zero about the Dar-al Islam, trade, commerce, or anything like that. I wasn't in the mood to read 20 pages about the Crusades, but a word search turned up nothing for "trade" "route" "Dar" "money" "commerce" "merchant" "silk" "caravan" "camel" "Benjamin Franklins" or anything like that. I can think of far less sinister secular motives. Self-preservation comes to mind, or having Byzantium in your debt.
That's still only circumstantial. Yes, there was financial gain from controlling the Muslim trade routes. That doesn't mean it was the reason. O. J. Simpson saw financial gain from the interest generated when his wife died. I'd hardly call that his motive. In the end, the obvious, self-preservation and OJ being a wife-beating bastard, outweigh the less likely, trade routes and money.
I said "Over the next couple of centuries." They likely all saw it as the same overall conflict. Meh, let's make this my penultimate post. |
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Forum · Next Topic » |
12:42 PM Nov 23
