Are you religious?

[tattybadger]

Bugger me my stumpy old chum - have you got less to do than me?

[Dwarf]

Bugger me my stumpy old chum - have you got less to do than me?

Loads mate, just not doing it.
Having said that been to the bank between posts to sort out change of codes which they screwed up, after having my school/office burgled a weekend ago.
Only a little money taken but I sent up the old prayer and we had a thunderstorm the other day, so I am looking for a singed delinquent to jump on and show him the fine arts of a disgruntled ex-infantryman.

[tattybadger]

Bugger me my stumpy old chum - have you got less to do than me?

Loads mate, just not doing it.
Having said that been to the bank between posts to sort out change of codes which they screwed up, after having my school/office burgled a weekend ago.
Only a little money taken but I sent up the old prayer and we had a thunderstorm the other day, so I am looking for a singed delinquent to jump on and show him the fine arts of a disgruntled ex-infantryman.

Praying hard that you catch the little shite and break its knuckles with a lump hammer.

Bless you my son.

[BoomShackerLacker]

...All these people, and countless more have found a profoundness and joining, albeit momentarily, to something greater that cannot be seen or demonstrated rationally. But not through the God of the literal bible or koran or torah, but by using them as a startpoint or guide.

The path is essentially that laid out by the Buddha, that all men must come to a personal, internal understanding....

A thoughtful post if ever there was one.

As we look round the world, and over time, which of all these ‘starting points’ has led to generating the most value, in terms of enlightenment (scientific and philosophical), freedoms, reforms (education and social) and all those things in life we hold most precious and prize as civilised?

And which have done the opposite, in terms of oppression through to inequalities, over the expanse of time? We might say which people groups from which ‘codes’ are banging on the doors of which nations (with which ‘codes’) to get in?

I ask this as the danger is to say ‘all ideas are roughly equal’ and why should we differentiate at all; when evidence of people’s every day lives would say otherwise.

[BoomShackerLacker]

"After the First World War our historians abandoned the vision of the Enlightenment that had evoked the dream of unlimited moral progress.

Positivism [rationalism] had set out to eliminate all metaphysical [religious et al] claims of knowledge.

Behaviourism had started on the course that was to lead to cybernetics, which claims to represent all human thought as the working of a machine.

Sigmund Freud's revolution had started too, reducing man's moral principles to mere rationalisation's of desires.

Sociology had developed a programme for explaining human affairs without making distinctions between good and evil.

Our true convictions were being left without theoretical foundation.

One might indeed say that we too renounced the ideals of the nineteenth century. Alan Bullock wrote of Hitler that he was terrifyingly literal, and this was true also for Lenin. Our academic wisdom has lain, on the contrary, in never meaning what we said; our version of the disasters of Europe was a harmless whisper of their teachings.

History will not celebrate this performance, but it will still recognise that it kept us faithful at heart to the ideals of the nineteenth century.

…

In general, therefore, our morally neutral account of all human affairs has caused our youth, and our educated people in general, to regard all moral professions as mere deceptions – or at best as self-deceptions.

For once we induce ourselves to regard all established rules of moral motives as mere conventions, we must come to suspect our own moral motives, and thus our best impulses are silenced and driven underground.

Such self-suspicion does torment our age, and particularly our youth, seducing them into destructive forms of moral expression, since these alone seem proof against self-doubt.

…

In other words we… have been busily engaged in laying the groundwork for nihilism.”

Michael Polanyi and Harry Prosch, Meaning

[Excognito]

Odd how the religious mind operates. A doctor in the states has been murdered for carrying out abortions. He has been subject to threat and a hate campaign by religious types for years and now some of them have managed to murder him.

Why do think it's odd?

I suppose if you believe in imaginary friends and magic nothing would seem odd but back here in reality...

I asked why *you* think it's odd. (or, at least, tried to ..)

You know why its odd. I don't need to answer the question. I also know the twisted logic that drives these people to hate and murder in the name of their god - as I said 'Odd how the religious mind works.
I wonder why they didn't trust their god to strike down this sinner - Oh yes, becasue their god does not exist and can't do anything.

Who cares why I do or don't think it's odd. I'm not the one expressing an opinion - you are. Or don't you know why you think it's odd? Or do you think you're above having to explain yourself?

I think you are getting above yourself here. I'm as free as the next person to express an opinion in this thread or any other and its up to me whether or not I feel the need to justify my opinion or not.

Quite right too. However, I'm as free as the next person to ask you to justify your opinion.

In this case there really isn't any need to because we all know why its odd but I'm bored so here goes.
'You should not murder' is one of the 10 commandments. Its also basic common humanity.

Is this the same common humanity that thinks it's OK to kill unborn humans as a means of contraception?

You are quite right that one of the Commandments contains restrictions against murder. This stricture also applies within many branches of Christianity to the unborn. For example, see http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p3s2c2a5.htm - in particular the section starting at 2270. The legal and moral right to life, within the RC Church, starts at conception. This is a long-standing position - see the reference to the Didache 2.2 in the footnotes (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/...iii.i.iii.html). Murdering a pregnant woman is seen by many as particularly abhorrent by many because it amounts to multiple murder, at least one of whom is defenceless.

What the murderer has done is to commit murder. He/she has justified doing this by claiming to need to defend the lives of as yet unborn foetuses.

"Policeman Joe Bloggs yesterday murdered hitman Fred Smith, as Smith was going about his work. Bloggs' so-called 'justification' was that he was needed to defend the lives of as-yet living people."

Let's also look at Catechism 2265: 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

The obvious question is "who is responsible for the lives of others". The immediate answer may well be those placed in authority, such as police or the military. However, another interpretation is that we all have such a responsibility - The Tale of the Good Samaritan.

The catechism summary is reasonably explicit:
2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.
2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice, gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
2323 Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.

In other words: Abortion is a crime. An embryo must be defended like every other human being. There is right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.

This gives a very strong justification that killing an abortionist is not murder, but a legitimate defence of innocent human beings. However, there exists the need to show that some lesser measure would not suffice for killing the abortionist to be legitimate.

Consider this. Assume an abortionist kills 5 humans every working day; that's 25 killed per week or 100 per month or 1000 a year (good holiday package). Over a 10 year period, that's 10,000 (ten thousand) people.

This logic is twisted firstly because you cannot equate the murder of one man with the potential saving of as yet unformed people.

I don't understand your argument.

Secondly the murderer has not succeeded. The abortions will continue somewhere else anyway being done by some one else.

So you're saying, by inference, there's no point in sending criminals, such as thieves, paedophiles, drug-dealers or assassins to jail as somebody else will simply fill the niche?

Bloggs in the above example was being twisted in his logic for shooting Smith because Smith's boss will simply hire another gunman to finish the job? No point in shooting a suicide-bomber, because another one will pop along?

Are you claiming that all the abortions X would have performed will be performed anyway?

The murderer may be claiming the right to punish the Doctor, but actually he/she has no right to do so. From a religious standpoint they have abrogated the rights of god alone to mete out punishment

I'd partially agree with that from a Christian viewpoint. Consider, for example, the Catechism again: 2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

But I agree that killing by an individual as punishment is neither warranted nor justified.

and from a realistic point of view it is not up to one individual to decide who need punishing.

?

From a realistic point of view, history has been made by individuals making those kinds of decisions.

It is always up to the individual to decide what needs doing, whether by abrogating these decisions to the state or by taking individual responsibility.

[BuggerAll]

Odd how the religious mind operates. A doctor in the states has been murdered for carrying out abortions. He has been subject to threat and a hate campaign by religious types for years and now some of them have managed to murder him.

Why do think it's odd?

I suppose if you believe in imaginary friends and magic nothing would seem odd but back here in reality...

I asked why *you* think it's odd. (or, at least, tried to ..)

You know why its odd. I don't need to answer the question. I also know the twisted logic that drives these people to hate and murder in the name of their god - as I said 'Odd how the religious mind works.
I wonder why they didn't trust their god to strike down this sinner - Oh yes, becasue their god does not exist and can't do anything.

Who cares why I do or don't think it's odd. I'm not the one expressing an opinion - you are. Or don't you know why you think it's odd? Or do you think you're above having to explain yourself?

I think you are getting above yourself here. I'm as free as the next person to express an opinion in this thread or any other and its up to me whether or not I feel the need to justify my opinion or not.

Quite right too. However, I'm as free as the next person to ask you to justify your opinion.

In this case there really isn't any need to because we all know why its odd but I'm bored so here goes.
'You should not murder' is one of the 10 commandments. Its also basic common humanity.

Is this the same common humanity that thinks it's OK to kill unborn humans as a means of contraception?

You are quite right that one of the Commandments contains restrictions against murder. This stricture also applies within many branches of Christianity to the unborn. For example, see http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p3s2c2a5.htm - in particular the section starting at 2270. The legal and moral right to life, within the RC Church, starts at conception. This is a long-standing position - see the reference to the Didache 2.2 in the footnotes (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/...iii.i.iii.html). Murdering a pregnant woman is seen by many as particularly abhorrent by many because it amounts to multiple murder, at least one of whom is defenceless.

What the murderer has done is to commit murder. He/she has justified doing this by claiming to need to defend the lives of as yet unborn foetuses.

"Policeman Joe Bloggs yesterday murdered hitman Fred Smith, as Smith was going about his work. Bloggs' so-called 'justification' was that he was needed to defend the lives of as-yet living people."

Let's also look at Catechism 2265: 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

The obvious question is "who is responsible for the lives of others". The immediate answer may well be those placed in authority, such as police or the military. However, another interpretation is that we all have such a responsibility - The Tale of the Good Samaritan.

The catechism summary is reasonably explicit:
2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.
2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice, gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
2323 Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.

In other words: Abortion is a crime. An embryo must be defended like every other human being. There is right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.

This gives a very strong justification that killing an abortionist is not murder, but a legitimate defence of innocent human beings. However, there exists the need to show that some lesser measure would not suffice for killing the abortionist to be legitimate.

Consider this. Assume an abortionist kills 5 humans every working day; that's 25 killed per week or 100 per month or 1000 a year (good holiday package). Over a 10 year period, that's 10,000 (ten thousand) people.

This logic is twisted firstly because you cannot equate the murder of one man with the potential saving of as yet unformed people.

I don't understand your argument.

Secondly the murderer has not succeeded. The abortions will continue somewhere else anyway being done by some one else.

So you're saying, by inference, there's no point in sending criminals, such as thieves, paedophiles, drug-dealers or assassins to jail as somebody else will simply fill the niche?

Bloggs in the above example was being twisted in his logic for shooting Smith because Smith's boss will simply hire another gunman to finish the job? No point in shooting a suicide-bomber, because another one will pop along?

Are you claiming that all the abortions X would have performed will be performed anyway?

The murderer may be claiming the right to punish the Doctor, but actually he/she has no right to do so. From a religious standpoint they have abrogated the rights of god alone to mete out punishment

I'd partially agree with that from a Christian viewpoint. Consider, for example, the Catechism again: 2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

But I agree that killing by an individual as punishment is neither warranted nor justified.

and from a realistic point of view it is not up to one individual to decide who need punishing.

?

From a realistic point of view, history has been made by individuals making those kinds of decisions.

It is always up to the individual to decide what needs doing, whether by abrogating these decisions to the state or by taking individual responsibility.

As I say - strange how the religious mind works. Here we have justification of cold blooded murder in pursuit of religious belief.

[Excognito]

Now I agree totally with Buggerall that the religious murderers have got it all arrse about face, and don't understand the roots of their religion. I concur with his post, and see the worst of religious intolerance manifesting here.

I think one has to be careful here to distinguish between murderers and killers. This distinction clearly exists in secular as well as religious thought. If one happens to be an Uber-Christian or Uber-Buddhist, then killing humans is never right and the deliberate act of killing is (probably) always murder. I know people who claim that they would never kill somebody even to save the lives of others (and I'm pretty sure one of them was an atheist). OTOH, ones's state philosophy or religion might lead one to believe that non-adherents or people of different races / social groupings were to be eradicated; in which case, it would not be murder. From a purely logical point of view, the distinction is relative. For example, 250 years ago, being a slave trader or slaver captain would have been a perfectly legitimate occupation. The kind of outrage being expressed about "religious" people killing abortionists would probably have been expressed if militant Christians had started killing slaver. Whilst many people might agree killing slavers might be 'not the done thing, old boy', I suspect there would be less outrage and a few more murmers of approval down the pub or in the pages of the Grauniad.

Interesting how the fundamentalists of all faiths seem to agree in their actions while saying how different they are, and that the others are destined to hell. The imposers of the Sharia, and the imposers of the Christian right have far more in common than they seem to realise.

No different to any other sphere of human partisanship - ask any Communist.

However it comes from trying to believe literally in a bible or a koran, something that was not intended originally. The bible is meant to be understood allegorically, a classic example being Jacob's Ladder which is a classic example of the esoteric leading to spiritual insight, and which has little meaning if taken only literally.
In the Christian Orthodox world it was and is understood that one cannot understand God completely with our faculties, yet one can arrive at a greater understanding. Their icons, and readings are to allow one to use the inner senses to achieve a connection however tenuous with the divine and, if you like, a religious experience, to understand better one's relation to the Creator.
In the West this did not happen, although there have been mystics who agreed with the above, and a literal interpretation was placed on things. The bible was taken to be literal rather than allegorical, and this leads to two major flaws in understanding.
1. By placing all that you need to know in a book you immediately place limitations on how the divine is to be seen. God is therefore anthromorphisized(?) and becomes that 'Friend on a cloud'. How can one limit God?
2. One closes oneself to the inner experiences or greater understandings that an allegorical reading can lead to. Therefore it allows the rise of the 'You must do this', and 'God wants us to do this' groupings, alienating the individual from the personal experience that must be achieved if the Creator is to be understood at any level.

Unfortunately, as I have argued before, most of you are coming from this argument with the western Christian God as a startpoint,

I don't think I've had that physical 'Friend on a cloud' image of God since I was about 10. I'm not sure many of the Christians I know think that way either. Whilst some of them take the Bible a lot more literally than I do, the majority realize the allegorical nature of much of the content - sermons in our local Evangelical Church usually address the 'behind the scenes' meanings of scriptural text. Furthermore, the personal experience of and knowledge of God is a fairly consistent theme.

[Excognito]

... Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.... An embryo must be defended like every other human being. There is right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm ...

As I say - strange how the religious mind works. Here we have justification of cold blooded murder in pursuit of religious belief.

Strange how the atheist mind works ... well, I assume it's working.

Here we have yet another meaningless, unsubstantiated, unreasoned attack on religious thinking that is supposed to be taken seriously.

[Excognito]

Came accross this quote from Voltaire where he defined his ideal religion, one that should be as simple as possible.

"Would it not be that which taught much morality and very little dogma? That tended to make men just without making them absurd? That which did not order one to believe in things that are impossible, contradictory, injurious to divinity, and pernicious to mankind, and which dared not menace with eternal punishment anyone possessing common sense? Would it not be that which did not uphold its belief with executioners, and did not innundate the earth with blood on account of unintelligible sophism?..... which taught only the worship of one god, justice, tolerance and humanity?"

I imagine even the atheists would find the above to be laudable in its aims, given that (many) men are disposed
to religions.
And how many modern faiths fall short of this ideal?

"which taught only the worship of one god, justice, tolerance and humanity?"

I think you'll find that's what Christianity is supposed to teach. How well it gets put into practice is another matter ...