Is Judaism a Religion of Peace?

[Anarcho-fascist]

Wrong again. You do not seem to understand the difference between an idea and behavior. A religion presents an idea. The fact that not all people respond to that idea in the same way demonstrates that the religion is not the issue, but how the individual interprets that religion is the issue.

Ideas influence behavior.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

In bold. That's the fallacy in your example. No one KNOWS what the exact consequences will be. It depends on individual interpretation and feelings.

One can know some of the consequences of their actions.

 

[Demon of Light]

Absolutely is interpretation. You are equating faithfully following a religion with believe, literally, in what a religion's book says. YOU don't get to dictate what is faithfully following a religion. This is why your thinking is black/white. The religious tenets of a particular sect, based on their interpretation of the holy book of that religion is as valid as another sect's.

It is not an interpretation. This is a matter of choosing what parts you want to follow and what parts you do not follow. I already demonstrated that by isolating that quote on Reform Judaism where the individual explicitly states that his sect is disregarding parts of their religious texts. That is not an interpretation of anything.

Absolutely.

The fact that you do not demonstrates that you do not understand how different religions are forrmed and how the literalist view is just ONE interpretation. Try to not think in such rigid terms. Absolutes tend to be failures in debate.

Basically you are just twisting everything around to argue that people do not do bad things because of their religion, which is just patently absurd. News flash: words have meanings and you cannot just make up meanings for them.

Disagreeing to just disagree is what you do. My assessment was spot on. You're just upset that I called you out on it.

I'm upset that you have failed to tell me what you think my point was. You claimed I was making your point for you rather than making my point and when I asked you to say what you thought my point was because I did not believe you knew, you dodged the question by attacking me. That pretty much proved you don't know what my point is and are just stumbling around in this debate.

There are plenty of different sects of Christianity that have interpretted the bible differently. All completely valid. Your claim that things are NOT open to interpretation is absurd and proven incorrect by all of the different sects of all major religions.

That does not even make sense. People believing things that are in direct contradiction with their religious texts is not a different interpretation of a belief, it is a different belief altogether. A sect can interpret a text differently to some extent, but sometimes a sect just brings in new beliefs and throws out old ones. That is not a new interpretation by any stretch.

And many do not.

So, many do not act according to what their religion says. I have to say I agree.

It is the adherent's interpretation of what the religion advocates and the behavior that that person must do that is the cause. Since not everyone does the same thing, one cannot blame the religion. An individual's interpretation is the issue.

This is just plain ridiculous at this point. I am actually arguing that people often do not follow the tenets of their religion and you insist that the people not doing that means religion is never at fault, but instead it is because of some difference of interpretation. The difference is that some people faithfully follow the tenets of their religion and others don't. Your argument that every person who claims to be a follower of a religion but does not adhere to all the tenets is just interpreting them differently is beyond ridiculous.

:lol::lol::lol:

In bold. Keep talking Demon. You are doing a great job helping me.

Dude:

The point here is about whether Jews not stoning women for adultery is a result of them interpreting religious texts differently or just not following certain tenets they find personally offensive. I see no reason why what Islamic countries do has any relevance to that point.

It was not even remotely a mistake of wording, but just me noting what the debate is about. Epic fail.

 

[First Thought]

Ideas influence behavior.

Of course they do. This is why some love in the name of and others kill in God's name. At the end of the day, though, it is the individual who turns an idea into an action. Instead of attacking or blaming ideas, we should be challenging people to take responsibility for the choices they make.

 

[Degreez]

The whole premise of this thread is faulty.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Ideas influence behavior.

Everything influences behavior. Ideas do not dictate behavior. The interpretation of those ideas, along with ones own morality, values, experiences, and perceptions influence behavior.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

One can know some of the consequences of their actions.

No. One can know what POSSIBLE consequences of their actions could be.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It is not an interpretation. This is a matter of choosing what parts you want to follow and what parts you do not follow. I already demonstrated that by isolating that quote on Reform Judaism where the individual explicitly states that his sect is disregarding parts of their religious texts. That is not an interpretation of anything.

Ah, no you did not. Your quote said nothing about disregarding anything. It indicated that the Reform Jews do not belief that issues from the ancient past are appropriate in modern times. This is how they reinterpret Judaic Law, because it is their belief that what was written is NOT to be taken literally. These were guidelines around morality that are to be applied to current society.

Basically you are just twisting everything around to argue that people do not do bad things because of their religion, which is just patently absurd. News flash: words have meanings and you cannot just make up meanings for them.

No, I am demonstrating quite clearly that people do bad things because of how they interpret their religion and the tenets of their religion. You have done ZERO to show otherwise.

I'm upset that you have failed to tell me what you think my point was. You claimed I was making your point for you rather than making my point and when I asked you to say what you thought my point was because I did not believe you knew, you dodged the question by attacking me. That pretty much proved you don't know what my point is and are just stumbling around in this debate.

I told you clearly what I think your point was. You just don't like it because I called you out on it. Too bad.

That does not even make sense. People believing things that are in direct contradiction with their religious texts is not a different interpretation of a belief, it is a different belief altogether. A sect can interpret a text differently to some extent, but sometimes a sect just brings in new beliefs and throws out old ones. That is not a new interpretation by any stretch.

And what you just said makes no sense. If you have a religious text, different sects take different meanings from that text. Some believe that it is literal. Some believe it is figurative. This is one example of how different sects interpret these texts. We see this in pretty much any sect of any religion.

So, many do not act according to what their religion says. I have to say I agree.

No, many interpret the tenets of their religion, differently. Do not make statements I did not make. It makes you look dishonest and foolish.

This is just plain ridiculous at this point. I am actually arguing that people often do not follow the tenets of their religion and you insist that the people not doing that means religion is never at fault, but instead it is because of some difference of interpretation. The difference is that some people faithfully follow the tenets of their religion and others don't. Your argument that every person who claims to be a follower of a religion but does not adhere to all the tenets is just interpreting them differently is beyond ridiculous.

Firstly, I never said that religion has no fault. Secondly, your inablity to understand how interpretation of religion and how this applies to different sects and beliefs is FAR beyond ridiculous.

Dude:



It was not even remotely a mistake of wording, but just me noting what the debate is about. Epic fail.

If that's what you want to claim, NOW, OK. Doesn't change the fact that you have done nothing to prove your position. Keep trying, though.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

The point here is about whether Jews not stoning women for adultery is a result of them interpreting religious texts differently or just not following certain tenets they find personally offensive. I see no reason why what Islamic countries do has any relevance to that point.

What people DO is probably the most accurate reflection we have of whether their beliefs are violent or not. Is their belief system inspiring them to commit acts of violence?

 

[Demon of Light]

Ah, no you did not. Your quote said nothing about disregarding anything. It indicated that the Reform Jews do not belief that issues from the ancient past are appropriate in modern times. This is how they reinterpret Judaic Law, because it is their belief that what was written is NOT to be taken literally.

Actually they took them quite literally. There was no interpretation of what was said. It is in fact because they took them literally that they said it no longer applied. Killing adulterers with stones is quite a horrendous thing in the modern era, it was really always a horrendous thing, and so they have disregarded that part of their religious texts. That is not reinterpreting the texts, but disregarding old beliefs for new ones.

No, I am demonstrating quite clearly that people do bad things because of how they interpret their religion and the tenets of their religion. You have done ZERO to show otherwise.

The main difference between my argument and yours is that you use personal responsibility to shield religions while I use it to point out the fallacy of your argument.

I told you clearly what I think your point was. You just don't like it because I called you out on it. Too bad.

No you didn't. You just said I disagree to disagree. That is clearly not what you thought my point was when I asked.

And what you just said makes no sense. If you have a religious text, different sects take different meanings from that text. Some believe that it is literal. Some believe it is figurative. This is one example of how different sects interpret these texts. We see this in pretty much any sect of any religion.

You are confusing the fact that there are sometimes legitimate differences of interpretation with the differences between sects altogether. Some differences are all about bringing in new beliefs and rejecting old ones.

No, many interpret the tenets of their religion, differently. Do not make statements I did not make. It makes you look dishonest and foolish.

So when the Ten Commandments say "do not bear false witness" someone thinking it is ok for a Christian or Jew to lie like a dog is just interpreting the Ten Commandments differently. Is that what you are saying?

Firstly, I never said that religion has no fault.

No, you just said that people following a religion and doing things explicitly prohibited by their religious texts are just "interpreting" things differently and so it is the person and that individual's "interpretation" that is at fault. You might as well say religion has no fault.

Secondly, your inablity to understand how interpretation of religion and how this applies to different sects and beliefs is FAR beyond ridiculous.

Let us be clear, you are the one who insists a blatantly ridiculous contradictory understanding of explicit instructions is merely a matter of "interpretation" rather than blatantly refusing to follow the tenets of your religion.

If that's what you want to claim, NOW, OK.

What do you mean "now"? Anyone who even bothered reading that whole sentence would know your response was completely absurd.

What people DO is probably the most accurate reflection we have of whether their beliefs are violent or not. Is their belief system inspiring them to commit acts of violence?

That person's individual beliefs are different from the religion they profess to follow.

 

[scourge99]

Of course they do. This is why some love in the name of and others kill in God's name. At the end of the day, though, it is the individual who turns an idea into an action. Instead of attacking or blaming ideas, we should be challenging people to take responsibility for the choices they make.

I believe this ignores such things as conditioned responses, indoctrination, group think, and herd behavior.

CC,
As a therepist/psychologist, do/would you blame or accuse the patient entirely for the state of their condition?

In my understanding, religion (teachers, pastors, priests, holy books, social groups) can run the gamut of responsibilty for the harm its followers cause.

Edit: our laws enable prosecutors to charge people with conspiracy, even if they took no direct part in the crime. E.G., a person inciting others to kill. Though, I imagine that getting convictions is much more difficult. Do you disagree with conspiracy laws?

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

No. One can know what POSSIBLE consequences of their actions could be.

No. If I shoot someone I know I will cause that person harm. If I shoot someone in front of a bunch of cops I know that I will be shot and/or arrested.

 

[mikhail]

No not really does the OP think he is being somewhat clever by his attempt to make a point?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

No. If I shoot someone I know I will cause that person harm. If I shoot someone in front of a bunch of cops I know that I will be shot and/or arrested.

No, if you shoot AT someone, they might move. If you shoot AT someone infront of a bunch of cops, nothing might happen to you if you, too, are a cop.

There is no black/white.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

CC,
As a therepist/psychologist, do/would you blame or accuse the patient entirely for the state of their condition?

Please explain how this coordinates in any way to action based on a belief system.

 

[scourge99]

I believe this ignores such things as conditioned responses, indoctrination, group think, and herd behavior.

CC,
As a therepist/psychologist, do/would you blame or accuse the patient entirely for the state of their condition?

In my understanding, religion (teachers, pastors, priests, holy books, social groups) can run the gamut of responsibilty for the harm its followers cause.

Edit: our laws enable prosecutors to charge people with conspiracy, even if they took no direct part in the crime. E.G., a person inciting others to kill. Though, I imagine that getting convictions is much more difficult. Do you disagree with conspiracy laws?

Please explain how this coordinates in any way to action based on a belief system.

Take indoctrination for example.

Indoctrination is typically utilized by organized groups who have firmly established their doctrines and principles as unquestionable 'truths'. Indoctrination perpetuates or 'teaches' via dogma to gain adherence from new members where factual evidence as to the truth or actuality of the group's doctrines are lacking."

It would seem to be an effective tool for causing beliefs when no credible evidence is available for proofs or persuasion; when there are no facts upon which to build logical progressions.

When someone is indoctrinated their bad actions or thoughts that are in line with the teachings are in large part the fault of the teacher(s).

I don't think indoctrination is necessarily negative depending on one's particular point of view. It would seem to be an effective tool for causing beliefs when no credible evidence is available for proofs or persuasion; when there are no facts upon which to build logical progressions. The religious (particularly Christians and Mormons) seem eager to utilize this method on children, the elderly, those in desperate situations, or others who are in vulnerable mental states.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

No not really does the OP think he is being somewhat clever by his attempt to make a point?

Sadly, he does. This is what passes for intellectualism in America today.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

That person's individual beliefs are different from the religion they profess to follow.

Actually, religions evolve over time, so the majority = the religion. You cannot define a religion by the beliefs of a small minority of fanatics.

 

[Gardener]

Sadly, he does. This is what passes for intellectualism in America today.

Well, in high school, perhaps.

 

[Winston Smith]

No not really does the OP think he is being somewhat clever by his attempt to make a point?

I didn't think it was terribly subtle, but considering how many people failed to catch it, I may have been wrong.

 

[Demon of Light]

Actually, religions evolve over time, so the majority = the religion. You cannot define a religion by the beliefs of a small minority of fanatics.

Religion is not like some legal document that can be changed by a majority vote. A sect of a religion is not the same as the religion. Sects may simply have legitimate disagreements over interpretation or they may in some cases completely diverge from their religious texts. I am not defining religion by the fanatics, but by the texts that contain the tenets of the religion.

 

[d0gbreath]

All of the Holy books have God telling you to kill the unclean (those "others" that aren't part of your religion). I consider this to be concrete proof that those books do not contain the word of God.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

No, if you shoot AT someone, they might move. If you shoot AT someone infront of a bunch of cops, nothing might happen to you if you, too, are a cop.

There is no black/white.

Quit it with the ridiculous sophistry, I get that there is no absolute certainty about anything. If I hold a working loaded M-16 to someone's head (who doesn't have any metal plates etc. in the way) and pull the trigger that person is going to be injured, now maybe the quantum uncertainty of the bullet's position will cause the bullet to appear on the other side of the person's head without going through it, but for any definition of the word "know" that is useful in everyday life, I know that doing the action described will hurt that person.

In independent_thinker2002's example you might or might not say that you know that the husband will get violent depending on what you know about e.g. the husband's personality and how strict you are with the use of the word "know". Just because you aren't the proximal cause of someone's reaction to a certain situation doesn't mean you are absolved of all responsibility if you played a role in creating that situation.