• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why

eja2721

New member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Location
Roanoke
Why would anybody kill somebody because they don't belive in a certain faith
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
eja2721 said:
Why would anybody kill somebody because they don't belive in a certain faith
Because Religion is about control. If you live in a society, yet do not worship that society's gods, you are seen as a threat to the values and authority structure of that society. To not subject yourself to the state's religion is to not subject yourself to the state itself. In other words, it is treason.
 

bellisaurius

New member
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
chicago
I blame the thinkers.

Hear me out. Before concepts such as G_d, city, state, etc... people just went around beating each other up for the sheer joy of it (that old mamlian play instinct in action), or over some need or concern). People didn't neccessarily hate each other, they just went and did things.

After these concepts, real divisions could occur. Once we get Plato, you can start thinking of things in abstract terms evenmtually leading to thoughts like Stalins "a single death is a tragedy, a thousand is a statistic." People in abstract can be thought of as bad as you want. They can be demonized well past the point of simple barbarians, into dangers to ones soul or psyche.

As bad as religion is, philosophy may be worse in terms of brining people into the faith. Look at nationalism. If you don't espouse my particular national belief, i can call the powers of a state to destroy yours. Then again, I don't know if religion and philosophy are really seprerate.

Nevertheless, apparently this schismatic nature of differing beliefs is a healthy thing. It apparently encourages people's and governments to stay on their toes. Can you imagine a lot of the industrial revoloution happening in europe if the generals weren't salivating over the increase in operationla speed in their troops from railroads?

This argument's a bit incomplete, but I've been thinking on the topic for a while.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Deus Ex Machina said:
Because Religion is about control. If you live in a society, yet do not worship that society's gods, you are seen as a threat to the values and authority structure of that society. To not subject yourself to the state's religion is to not subject yourself to the state itself. In other words, it is treason.
This is a very negative and ill-thought conclusion. If, indeed, religion was about control, then why would holy books such as the Bible preach that every stem of government and law come before the commands of God? Why would a faith teach you that you can, yourself, achieve a personal relationship with your deity. These are all incredibly self impowering teachings. Communist countries rely on atheism because they know that any religion would allow a person to make choices other than what the controling factor would allow. Religion, to the contrary, is about personal responsibility without the restraints of anyone else. Granted, many people USE religion as an excuse to kill others. But the reality is nearly every faith teaches to bring others to enlightenment through love and firm insistance, and never violence. The truth is, if you force someone to make a choice, you're not really allowing them to make a choice at all. Anyone truly following a faith wants others to join them, but they feel this way due to the love they have for those around them and the wishes for the rest of the world to experience the world the way that person experiences it.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
sebastiansdreams said:
This is a very negative and ill-thought conclusion. If, indeed, religion was about control, then why would holy books such as the Bible preach that every stem of government and law come before the commands of God? Why would a faith teach you that you can, yourself, achieve a personal relationship with your deity. These are all incredibly self impowering teachings. Communist countries rely on atheism because they know that any religion would allow a person to make choices other than what the controling factor would allow. Religion, to the contrary, is about personal responsibility without the restraints of anyone else. Granted, many people USE religion as an excuse to kill others. But the reality is nearly every faith teaches to bring others to enlightenment through love and firm insistance, and never violence. The truth is, if you force someone to make a choice, you're not really allowing them to make a choice at all. Anyone truly following a faith wants others to join them, but they feel this way due to the love they have for those around them and the wishes for the rest of the world to experience the world the way that person experiences it.

When somone says they won't join a religion because it is controling and like a cult they are actually getting the opposite feeling. God gave us choice and reason, he could have actually made all of us worship him, but he didn't. He didn't want to be CONTROLLING.
 

eja2721

New member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Location
Roanoke
All good points but let me throw you a curve ball. I'm Muslim. Am I now a threat because I don't follow your religion? Am I committing treason? I don't see you all as a threat.

If you justify killing someone because of what they think, you justify a violence which will consume us all. You don't like Al Quida, yet you think just like them. How are you any better than them because YOU think YOU are right. THEY think THEY are right. So who's right? The Christians? The Muslims? Or the person who does not hate or hold a grudge against somebody different then them. Hating based on someone's thoughts is the same as hating someone because of the color of their skin.

Judge a man by his character, not by his apperances.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

eja2721 said:
All good points but let me throw you a curve ball. I'm Muslim. Am I now a threat because I don't follow your religion? Am I committing treason? I don't see you all as a threat.

If you justify killing someone because of what they think, you justify a violence which will consume us all. You don't like Al Quida, yet you think just like them. How are you any better than them because YOU think YOU are right. THEY think THEY are right. So who's right? The Christians? The Muslims? Or the person who does not hate or hold a grudge against somebody different then them. Hating based on someone's thoughts is the same as hating someone because of the color of their skin.

Judge a man by his character, not by his apperances.
Of course you are not a threat. There is a very large chasm between having faith that Christ is real and that He is God and wanting to kill, hurt, or even discriminate against anyone who feels differently.
 

eja2721

New member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Location
Roanoke
I don't quite understand what you're saying. Are you insulting me or are you on my side?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
eja2721 said:
Why would anybody kill somebody because they don't belive in a certain faith
What on earth are you referring to?

You could have just been asking this as a broad, theological question, but something tells me you're basing your question on an actuality.
 

eja2721

New member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Location
Roanoke
Nevermind, I misuderstood what you said. I didn't mean to make it seem like I want people to take my side. Frankly, I could careless wheather people take my side because ultimatly, none of us are trying to change the system. We're ether complaning or agreeing.
 

eja2721

New member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Location
Roanoke
Oh, and by the way, people killing each other over religious and political differences IS an actuality. Take the Cold War (political) and the Crusades (religious) for example.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
eja2721 said:
Frankly, I could careless wheather people take my side because ultimatly, none of us are trying to change the system. We're ether complaning or agreeing.
Speak for yourself.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
eja2721 said:
Oh, and by the way, people killing each other over religious and political differences IS an actuality. Take the Cold War (political) and the Crusades (religious) for example.
People kill each other over any and everything. The vast majority of the time it's political and not religious.

I'm just asking what made you ask why anyone would kill someone else "just because they were of a different faith."
 

eja2721

New member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Location
Roanoke
You gotta be kidding me! You don't think Al Quida is killing the "infidels" because of their faith? Osama declared a Jihad against ALL people who are not of the faith. The Romans killed the Jews because of their faith. The Christians killed Muslims and Jews because they did not believe in Christ as the Savior (during the Crusades). The Protestants and Catholics in Great Britian fought for years. The Protestants and Catholics in Ireland are still fighting to this day. Now, what made you think people aren't dying over their religion?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
eja2721 said:
You gotta be kidding me! You don't think Al Quida is killing the "infidels" because of their faith? Osama declared a Jihad against ALL people who are not of the faith. The Romans killed the Jews because of their faith. The Christians killed Muslims and Jews because they did not believe in Christ as the Savior (during the Crusades). The Protestants and Catholics in Great Britian fought for years. The Protestants and Catholics in Ireland are still fighting to this day. Now, what made you think people aren't dying over their religion?
I wasn't saying it hasn't happened, I was just curious as to what made you bring it up NOW. None of that is new news. Osama's jihad is years old, the Crusades are ancient history, and the separatists in GB aren't fighting so much over religion anymore as it now is political power and revenge.

It just seemed like a very broad question, and I was curious if there was any incident behind it or just a random thought.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. (The Holy Qur'an IV.89)
Just one example of divine revelation inciting violence. Need I add a few quotes from the Bible too?
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Deus Ex Machina said:
Just one example of divine revelation inciting violence. Need I add a few quotes from the Bible too?
For real. Dueteronmy anyone? Genocides anyone?

Taken out of context you could probably find Allah's support for Circus tents as well.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

eja2721 said:
I don't quite understand what you're saying. Are you insulting me or are you on my side?
I'm certainly not attempting to insult you. I'm saying that while I do not agree with who you have chosen to follow, I do not believe that there is any reason on earth for me attempt to be violent or predjudice against you.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Gandhi>Bush said:
For real. Dueteronmy anyone? Genocides anyone?

Taken out of context you could probably find Allah's support for Circus tents as well.
That's right. It is of course all in the context. And if you take one line out of any book anywhere you'll get nowhere. So why is it that people love to quote these single lines from books of faith to use them against the message? If someone did that in a novel to prove a point, anyone in the literary community would shake their heads in dissaproval and ask for context and more suportive evidence. It is simply a method of attempting to bring a faith into a bad light, that is effective, but not realistic nor informative.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
sebastiansdreams said:
That's right. It is of course all in the context. And if you take one line out of any book anywhere you'll get nowhere. So why is it that people love to quote these single lines from books of faith to use them against the message?
So tell me, Sebastian, what is the message that I am missing in the aforementioned Sura of the Qur'an (IV.89)? And tell me, what is the "message" in your deity's commanding the extermination of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3)? Surely it was not compassion, peace, love and saving trees.

It would be just fine if people would interpret these violent passages as being derivative of the middle eastern mindset. But you Christians, Jews and Muslims are claiming that your holy books are the word of your god(s), rather than the man-made propaganda that which is so evident in many parts.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Deus Ex Machina said:
So tell me, Sebastian, what is the message that I am missing in the aforementioned Sura of the Qur'an (IV.89)? And tell me, what is the "message" in your deity's commanding the extermination of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3)? Surely it was not compassion, peace, love and saving trees.

It would be just fine if people would interpret these violent passages as being derivative of the middle eastern mindset. But you Christians, Jews and Muslims are claiming that your holy books are the word of your god(s), rather than the man-made propaganda that which is so evident in many parts.
If I remember the history correctly, the Amalekites were an incredible risk to the very existance of many poeple, and the Hebrew people being one of those peoples. Now, remember the Bible says there is a time for war and a time for peace. We know that sometimes war is in fact inevitable. So, God being all-knowing and all-seeing knew that if the Amalekites were allowed to live (any of them) they may again rise up with a greater vengence (a reasonable fear, vengence is a very very dangerous emotion). So, was is inevitable, the Hebrew people came to God seeking His guidance, and He gave it to them. It ain't pretty, but it's realistic. The compassion comes in saving the lives of those that the Amalekites would have taken in greater number as their army continued to grow. Peace is not a reality in the world, it is something to be sought after, but when war is on your doorstep, an intellegent and loving God will offer guidance to the side that seeks Him. As far as saving trees, well... ashes to ashes. I'm sure the burial of the Amalekite as people did wonders for the vegational growth around the area. The point is this. The Bible is not a warm and fuzzy book all around because, regardless what some would like to believe, the world we live in is not a warm and fuzzy place all the time. War is sometimes forced upon people, and it is necessary for the survival for the less aggresive to be smart and quick with their defense, otherwise they will be wiped off the face of the earth.
And please show me the passages that are so clearly propoganda as opposed to historical accounts and/or statements of faith?
 
Last edited:

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
sebastiansdreams said:
If I remember the history correctly, the Amalekites were an incredible risk to the very existance of many poeple, and the Hebrew people being one of those peoples. Now, remember the Bible says there is a time for war and a time for peace. We know that sometimes war is in fact inevitable. So, God being all-knowing and all-seeing knew that if the Amalekites were allowed to live (any of them) they may again rise up with a greater vengence (a reasonable fear, vengence is a very very dangerous emotion). So, was is inevitable, the Hebrew people came to God seeking His guidance, and He gave it to them. It ain't pretty, but it's realistic. The compassion comes in saving the lives of those that the Amalekites would have taken in greater number as their army continued to grow. Peace is not a reality in the world, it is something to be sought after, but when war is on your doorstep, an intellegent and loving God will offer guidance to the side that seeks Him. As far as saving trees, well... ashes to ashes. I'm sure the burial of the Amalekite as people did wonders for the vegational growth around the area. The point is this. The Bible is not a warm and fuzzy book all around because, regardless what some would like to believe, the world we live in is not a warm and fuzzy place all the time. War is sometimes forced upon people, and it is necessary for the survival for the less aggresive to be smart and quick with their defense, otherwise they will be wiped off the face of the earth.
And please show me the passages that are so clearly propoganda as opposed to historical accounts and/or statements of faith?
So... in this we see that genocide is okay? If a leader in today's world stood up and said that his imaginary friend said they should go to war, what would happen?
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
sebastiansdreams said:
If I remember the history correctly, the Amalekites were an incredible risk to the very existance of many poeple, and the Hebrew people being one of those peoples. Now, remember the Bible says there is a time for war and a time for peace. We know that sometimes war is in fact inevitable. So, God being all-knowing and all-seeing knew that if the Amalekites were allowed to live (any of them) they may again rise up with a greater vengence (a reasonable fear, vengence is a very very dangerous emotion). So, was is inevitable, the Hebrew people came to God seeking His guidance, and He gave it to them. It ain't pretty, but it's realistic. The compassion comes in saving the lives of those that the Amalekites would have taken in greater number as their army continued to grow. Peace is not a reality in the world, it is something to be sought after, but when war is on your doorstep, an intellegent and loving God will offer guidance to the side that seeks Him. As far as saving trees, well... ashes to ashes. I'm sure the burial of the Amalekite as people did wonders for the vegational growth around the area. The point is this. The Bible is not a warm and fuzzy book all around because, regardless what some would like to believe, the world we live in is not a warm and fuzzy place all the time. War is sometimes forced upon people, and it is necessary for the survival for the less aggresive to be smart and quick with their defense, otherwise they will be wiped off the face of the earth.
There we have it, ladies and gentlemen, a bible-based justification for genocide. This is why I repeatedly denounce the idea of taking human writing, with all of its prejudices, and calling it the "word of God."

Here's the recipe: All you need is the willingness to whitewash atrocities (as demonstrated above), plus the lack of economic future, plus an angry disposition, and what do you have?.. a terrorist!

Thank goodness Sebastian is a cool guy, with a good future ahead of him.

sebastiansdreams said:
And please show me the passages that are so clearly propoganda as opposed to historical accounts and/or statements of faith?
Too numerous. When one invents a god who tells people to kill, rape and pillage their enemies, that would not be history, but propaganda.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Deus Ex Machina said:
There we have it, ladies and gentlemen, a bible-based justification for genocide. This is why I repeatedly denounce the idea of taking human writing, with all of its prejudices, and calling it the "word of God."

Here's the recipe: All you need is the willingness to whitewash atrocities (as demonstrated above), plus the lack of economic future, plus an angry disposition, and what do you have?.. a terrorist!

Thank goodness Sebastian is a cool guy, with a good future ahead of him.
Genocide is one issue. The mass slaughter of a people solely for the purpose of them being that people. This is an entirely seperate issue completely. They were an aggresive and war-like people. They posed a threat to those around them, specifically the Hebrew people. If the lives of you and your family, no, you're entire people, rest on the single decision of whether or not you attack these other people before they attack you, then you are left to make that choice. They sought God's guidance on what to do from that point. And He gave them a stragegy. The Amalokites where not a peaceful and prosperous people who were sitting around minding their own business. They were, themselves an army, and they were an army that brought their wives and children with them in their travels. It is a sad occurance. But the reality is, that if the Amalokites had their way with the Hebrew people, it would be the exact same situation. And the Hebrew people went to God about it.
Now, am I saying that it is impossible to use God's word as an excuse for genocide? Of course not. People will use anything and everything they can possibly get their hands on to come up with a reason for hatred and death. But this passage in the Bible is talking not about genocide, but about war betwen peoples, and how you can seek God's guidance in anything and everything (even when it is something as horrible as war). So you're accusations are incorrect. At it's very worst it is, rather a Bible-based justification for intellegent warfar, when necessary for survival.

Too numerous. When one invents a god who tells people to kill, rape and pillage their enemies, that would not be history, but propaganda.
Of course the first major problem with this statement is that it is only your opinion that God was created by people and not the other way around. Secondly, if you read more closely this passage, God told them not to use any of their goods. He had them destroy all of it, because He did not want there to be any doubt that the reason these people died was because they were a threat to the Hebrew people's lives, not so that they could plunder their property. Furthermore, in war killing is often considered a seperate issue than murder, and their is absolutely no reason to believe that God EVER had anyone rape another person. That is a very off center claim.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Gandhi>Bush said:
So... in this we see that genocide is okay? If a leader in today's world stood up and said that his imaginary friend said they should go to war, what would happen?
Well, assuming that we are talking about a God of a people that everyone of that people accepts to be true, and if the leader stands up and says these people are going to kill us all if we do not take action soon, and we have gone to God about it and He has guided us to do so... Well I don't know how it would go over... but it is certainly logical that when it comes to kill or be killed, unfortunately sometimes killing is a horrible necesity.
 
Top Bottom