So the Pope is a marxist.... (wait for it)

[kandrathe]

Point 1: It's a little more than complicit when you are asking people to go slaughter people on your behalf. Trying to say that is complicit, and nothing more is not a very realistic approach.

It is hard to understand outside of the context of that time. In many ways the Caliphate brought it upon themselves by mistreating non-Islam believers and destroying or seizing all the Churches. The pope gave a speech. Many years later 20,000 peasants marched to the Holy Land unprepared for any battle and were mercilessly slaughtered. And, you know how these "for justice" things build. In that age, warfare was considered a glorious opportunity to improve your lot in life. It was not considered to be the horror we ascribe to it now.

Point2: That doesn't change the fact that these things were done by religious people, and these things done in the name of religion show that it does not pacify the populace.

Some self proclaimed "religious" people say and do horrible things. Why? Because they are people. I would hazard to say that if you examined the population for crime, drug abuse, etc. that a person religious affiliation has little meaning. Just because you claim to be a horse, doesn't make you a horse.

Point 3: I'm not trying to convict millions. Otherwise, I would have brought up the super awesome funding that people like Focus on the Family gets, or some of the atrocious groups that work to further perpetuate stereotypes. I could convict millions on those accounts, but I purposely left them out, because that wasn't my intent. My point was to show that it isn't a pacifistic teaching coming from the pulpit. And you can do a little research / read those links I posted, these aren't people ordained by the holy baptist church of bob, or the WBC. they are from nationally recognized, nationally run denominations.

And, "Focus on the Family" is promoting violence? People like Worley still have the freedom to speak their mind, even when it is hateful. Now, people will judge his words and gather to protest him.

But since I've now brought it up, we can use groups like Focus on the Family, and their ilk, coupled with the record that we have of pastors who are still out there, preaching the approval of violence towards LGBT, towards the continued subservience of women as a lesser to man, and on and on, to show that the current religious structure in Christianity is not pacifistic in practice. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't pacifistic sects of modern christianity, or that there aren't entire denominations that do embrace the "legitimate" teachings of the New Testament.

The record of at least 3 anecdotes who made the press. But, again, you think "Focus on the Family" is promoting violence?

Point 4: If you read the bible, all have sinned and come short of the glory of god. Sometimes, there are groups of christians who forget that, especially when it fits to further divide the populace, protect their own interests, persecute those who have a differing viewpoint, or lifestyle than their own.

As an aside, the the pre-disposition to being divided, Sectarianism, pushes this to an extreme, by working to further create derision amongst a group of believers. This is beyond the normal "divisionist" behavior of the human condition.

My neighbors divide into factions, but not on religious grounds. My co-workers divide into factions, but not on religious grounds. When I was in high school, we were divided into factions, but not on religious grounds. Cliques or tribes are innate behavior for us. " Humans evolved to be innately prepared to commit to the institutions and projects of their tribes but culture dictated how to recognize who belonged to the tribes, what schedules of aid, praise, and punishment was due to tribal fellows, and how the tribe was to deal with other tribes — allies, enemies, and clients. " [Richardson]

Also, While my current posts are focusing on Christianity, I would hold most other world religions (short of buddhism) to the same standards, and point to the same issues associated with all of them.

I think the myriad of belief systems makes that a hard judgement between black and white. I can't say that all Islam inspires violence, while clearly some sects are very violent. Or, maybe it's the interpretation of the Koran by specific clerics who's flock then take matters into their own hands. Sound familiar? A narrow reading of the Geneva convention, and a room full of word smithing lawyers enabled our government to justify "enhanced interrogation techniques", but we'd not want to call it torture. Whether one is blowing up a market filled with women and children, or water boarding the person suspected of doing it -- somewhere the knowledge of right from wrong was lost -- the inspiration for their justification is the very thing that positive philosophies seek to change.

People have brains, and mouths, and ears, so they will use them to spread their opinions and philosophies. How are you going to influence that for the better? (see also; Terror Management Theory, although I believe it is more complicated than this.) People will subscribe to a world view (Weltanschauung), and so language and reason are our tools for convincing each other of the "truth" of our world view, and the "falsity" of others. But, then, people seldom accept the whole bushel basket of beliefs in the belief system resulting in changes over time -- some good, and some bad. A world view can be "Christian", or it could be "Enlightenment", or "Marxist", or "Nazi Third Reich". We all have one, and according to Leo Apostel, they encompass; an explanation of the world as it is, a plan for the future (Where are we going?), a system of ethics/values (What should we do?), a theory of action (How do we attain our goals?), epistemology (what is true and false?), and etiology, or an account of origin and building blocks.

The bottom line is; There are 7 billion people in the world, and the more homogeneous our world views, the better we will get along with each other.