Jayhawker Soule

Apparently, you don't have a clue what you belive from one moment to another. For example:

You previously wrote ...

You subsequently wrote ...

As for your: "If religion causes people to kill then all religious people would be murderers." That is so obviously irrational and absurd that it should only evoke laughter or amazemnent. You need to rethink some things.

Blu

ReasonableDoubt:

Actually you missed quote me which causes me to think you have absolutely no idea where you are coming from.

I actually didn't write this passage that you claimed I wrote:

ReasonableDoubt:
You previously wrote ...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would God have his people kill the societies mentioned in the Bible? Because they were rebelling against God to such an extent, that there could be no more hope for them. They were totally in Lucifers camp, totally anti-God, vile and hurtful. So they were cleansed from the earth, removed, and the land given to those who did follow God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway you need to read everything I wrote in this thread to understand my position. I think in other threads I have read some of what you wrote which made me address the "religion as a cause to violence" subject. I meant this quote: "If religion causes people to kill then all religious people would be murderers," to sound absurd and irrational because I think the idea that religion is the cause of war, terrorism and murder is absurd and irrational.

Blu

ReasonableDoubt:

You should rename this thread: Human beings'Bloodlust....

It is EXTREMELY more accurate.

Thanks

Jayhawker Soule

You are absolutely correct. I had you confused with Bait, and I sincerely apologize for that.

Datheron

Blu,

All you're saying is that it's all in the humans, and ultimately we're what makes good or evil. Good, I agree; such an argument implies that no God exists (and if he does, he has no effect on how people act), and it also implies that God cannot be responsible for anything good either.

On the other hand, just because religion can be used as a tool of oppression, suffering, and destruction, does that mean that it's completely blameless? Would you give a gun to a little kid, then blame the kid when he pulls the trigger by accident? Would you allow the widespread production of nuclear weaponry, and then blame countries that do not have the self-restraint to keep them from being deployed? The tool is what makes these horrors possible, and because of that, they are just as responsible as the users of these tools.

Zar

Isn't the reductio ad absurdum of the very first post that the argument, in the fray of confusion it creates, makes the quantum leap of equivocating a mere human's opinon of the Word of God with the actual Word of God? Isn't this what the argument really hinges on?

And in every day conversation, isn't it the most common of temptations for the fundamentalist to thus confuse and conflate his opinion of God with the voice of God himself, thereby declaring himself to be the voice of God?

Tercel

<strong>Datheron,</strong>

I completely agree with your statements here. However, your analogies are far from sound. It is clearly irresponsible to give someone a tool that can only be used to cause suffering. But what about if a tool has mixed value?
Kitchen knives for example can be used to cut vegetables. Or they could be used to stab a family member. Are the knife makers responsible? Most people, I think, would say: No. The main purpose of the knife is good. Knives are useful implements. And the knife makers are doing us a service by providing us with useful knives. The cannot be held responsible just because some crackpot uses a knife in a destructive manner when such a use was not the intended purpose of the makers.

If you read what you wrote, you should see that the example "tools" you mentioned had the sole purpose of causing harm. In order to sustain such an analogy it seems to me you would have to demonstrate that the sole purpose, or at least the primary purpose of religion is to cause harm/suffering/destruction etc.
I really really really hope you don't believe that to be true.

So returning to your question:
I think it is completely blameless, in the same way that the knife makers could not be held to blame for the misuse of their otherwise helpful product: Neither can "religion" be held to blame for it's misuse, unless you believe terrorism to be the primary goal of religion.

Tercel

Echo,
I've been reading recently some stuff on the composition of the early parts of the Old Testament and I'm finding it quite fascinating. Research seems to suggest that some of these commands aren't mistaken attributations to God so much as what we would term "propaganda". It appears that generally the writers portrayed God as condemning to death which ever nation that the writer's country happened to be fighting at the time of writing.

People are sometimes wrong certainly. And there have been Christian groups that have gone so far as to deny free-will completely. However I am very inclined to believe in free will since I seem to experience it.

HRG

But what if the knife maker knows that his knife will be used in a murder, and nevertheless decides to make it ?

Regards,
HRG.

Tercel

I imagine all major knife-making firms would, if they thought about it, know that at least one of the knives they'll ever make is going to be used in a murder. However, it is not the knife-maker's responsibility that someone will misuse a product intended to help people. So I see nothing wrong with knife makers continuing their work despite knowing that at least one of their creations with undoubtedly be used to create future suffering.

Similarly, assuming you have children, it is all but certain that at least one of your (hopefully distant) descendents will kill someone. However, you cannot be blamed for the decision to have children despite knowing this.