Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
Just saying, but WWII was kinda based on religion.
Offline
Just saying, but WWII was kinda based on religion.
No, WWII was based upon warmongering.
@Twipply: If you can provide more reliable sources, I promise to answer. I myself is fairly uneducated about when the parts of the Bible was written and by whom, so I would like to have some more facts... just sayin. It will probably not change my belief in God, but it will maybe question my thoughts about church etc.
Last edited by TheGreenTroll (Feb 25 2012 3:07:49 pm)
That is a much more respectable answer (Holy Wars). However, that was a very long time ago.
I wonder if a main difference between then and now is the power the church has to do such things.
@Twipply: If you can provide more reliable sources, I promise to answer.
Birth and death of jesus:
Birth source.
Death source.
New testament composition:
Source.
As far as I can tell, the dates seem fairly consistent. Isn't there also something about very few of the authors having met jesus directly?
Just saying, but WWII was kinda based on religion.
No, WWII was based on warmongering
It's actually kinda based on both. Now i get what your talking about TGT but, it is also based on religion.
Before WWII, The Jewish, Muslim, and Christians were fighting over the holy land and stuff. That caused Jews to move to the Roman Empire. Then:
These expulsions scattered the Jewish people throughout the Roman Empire, and later immigration spread the population of Jews across Europe, Southwest Asia, and North America. A result of this scattering is the existence of the Jewish Diaspora. Yes I copied and pasted this paragraph from Apex.
Then the Jews immigrated around in large aliyahs Long story short, the Nazi Party became more popular, to drive the jews out. Then the Jews went back to the Holy Land.
That's the religious part of it, but its not the entire reason that WWII happened.
Well that was kinda off-topic, but it had to do with religion, so you know...
krubby wrote:Just saying, but WWII was kinda based on religion.
TheGreenTroll wrote:No, WWII was based on warmongering
It's actually kinda based on both. Now i get what your talking about TGT but, it is also based on religion.
No....
The only real connection that religion had with WWII is that Jews were but one of the many groups that Hitler persecuted. Unless homosexuality is also a religion, WWII only had a very small connection to religion. Everything else you said doesn't connect Judaism to WWII at all; it's a list of irrelevant facts about early Europe.
This is getting off-topic, though. Let's focus on religion vs science, not religion vs WWII.
xputnameherex wrote:That is a much more respectable answer (Holy Wars). However, that was a very long time ago.
I wonder if a main difference between then and now is the power the church has to do such things.
TheGreenTroll wrote:@Twipply: If you can provide more reliable sources, I promise to answer.
Birth and death of jesus:
Birth source.
Death source.New testament composition:
Source.As far as I can tell, the dates seem fairly consistent. Isn't there also something about very few of the authors having met jesus directly?
No, the church would certainly not still do that. I would be very surprised if you actually believed that the Vatican would wage a war on the rest of the world. Even still, would you say Christians have more power than Muslims, and aren't some Muslims currently waging a war on the Western world? But who are these Muslims? They are people who stray from the correct teachings of their beliefs and turn to violence, much like Urban II.
Jaybm wrote:krubby wrote:Just saying, but WWII was kinda based on religion.
TheGreenTroll wrote:No, WWII was based on warmongering
It's actually kinda based on both. Now i get what your talking about TGT but, it is also based on religion.
No....
The only real connection that religion had with WWII is that Jews were but one of the many groups that Hitler persecuted. Unless homosexuality is also a religion, WWII only had a very small connection to religion. Everything else you said doesn't connect Judaism to WWII at all; it's a list of irrelevant facts about early Europe.
This is getting off-topic, though. Let's focus on religion vs science, not religion vs WWII.
Soooo... you're saying that to discuss WWII and religion's role in it, we need to make an ENTIRELY new topic? What's with people on this forum and their obsession with tagging the slightest thing as spam?
Offline
Jaybm wrote:krubby wrote:Just saying, but WWII was kinda based on religion.
TheGreenTroll wrote:No, WWII was based on warmongering
It's actually kinda based on both. Now i get what your talking about TGT but, it is also based on religion.
No....
The only real connection that religion had with WWII is that Jews were but one of the many groups that Hitler persecuted.
I didn't post opinions, i only posted fact. So Apex Learning would disagree.
Everything else you said doesn't connect Judaism to WWII at all; it's a list of irrelevant facts about early Europe.
Its called supporting a thesis statement with fact, to get the point across to the reader.
WWII only had a very small connection to religion.
Thats an opinion, and not really.
This is getting off-topic, though. Let's focus on religion vs science, not religion vs WWII.
This isn't a religion vs science topic, its about religion in general. Besides, no point in making an entire topic just about religion vs WWII.
shift wrote:The only real connection that religion had with WWII is that Jews were but one of the many groups that Hitler persecuted.
I didn't post opinions, i only posted fact. So Apex Learning would disagree.
I never said you posted opinions... I said that everything below the quoted portion was irrelevant to the topic. The Jewish Diaspora has very little to do with WWII. Unless you think Hitler started WWII in order to recapture the Holy Lands?
Shift wrote:Everything else you said doesn't connect Judaism to WWII at all; it's a list of irrelevant facts about early Europe.
Its called supporting a thesis statement with fact, to get the point across to the reader.
Irrelevant facts don't help.
Shift wrote:WWII only had a very small connection to religion.
Thats an opinion, and not really.
The only part of that statement that is opinion is the measurement of just how small. If you want, I can give you a list to pick from: very, pretty, extremely, sorta, helluva, infinitely, kinda, and DAYUM.
However, your response, "not really," is entirely opinion for the same reason.
Shift wrote:This is getting off-topic, though. Let's focus on religion vs science, not religion vs WWII.
This isn't a religion vs science topic, its about religion in general. Besides, no point in making an entire topic just about religion vs WWII.
When you consider religion as a theory, you're already connecting it to science (via theory). Other than that, I never said we should make another topic for religion and WWII; I'm merely suggesting that we ignore a comparative topic that is barely connected. Or should we next argue about religion vs potatoes? Actually, those two are connected even more, in my opinion.
_________________________
Let's get back to science. Where's Twipply when you need him?
everything below the quoted portion was irrelevant to the topic. The Jewish Diaspora has very little to do with WWII.
Irrelevant facts don't help.
I never said it did. I was stating how, and why the Jews left the holy lands, causing them to go to other places. The nazi party wanted to drive them out of these other places by persecuting them, and it actually worked. The population of the holy lands went from 11% Jewish to 33% Jewish during that time.
I may have been back tracking it too far, but its not irrelevant.
Unless you think Hitler started WWII in order to recapture the Holy Lands?
The only person who knows why Hitler did what he did, is Hitler.
The only part of that statement that is opinion is the measurement of just how small. If you want, I can give you a list to pick from: very, pretty, extremely, sorta, helluva, infinitely, kinda, and DAYUM.
"The only part of the statement that was an opinion is the measurement" the entire statement was about the measurement. Oh and i choose... pretty or sorta. Is there a in between option, like averagely?
However, your response, "not really," is entirely opinion for the same reason.
I know.
When you consider religion as a theory, you're already connecting it to science (via theory).
I never said religion was a theory. Its a belief. Big difference.
I'm merely suggesting that we ignore a comparative topic that is barely connected.
If you want to ignore, then why would you respond in the first place?
Or should we next argue about religion vs potatoes? Actually, those two are connected even more, in my opinion.
I know you were being sarcastic, but you need to back up your opinions with some sort of support.
Last edited by Jaybm (Feb 26 2012 4:27:23 pm)
I never said it did. I was stating how, and why the Jews left the holy lands, causing them to go to other places. The nazi party wanted to drive them out of these other places by persecuting them, and it actually worked. The population of the holy lands went from 11% Jewish to 33% Jewish during that time.
I may have been back tracking it too far, but its not irrelevant.
Too far = irrelevant. If it weren't irrelevant, then it wouldn't be too far. The Nazis didn't care that Jews were at point x and not point y, but rather they cared that they were.
The only person who knows why Hitler did what he did, is Hitler.
Okay then... didn't you just support my side of the argument? (That's rhetorical, by the way. It'd be pretty pointless to quote this.)
"The only part of the statement that was an opinion is the measurement" the entire statement was about the measurement. Oh and i choose... pretty or sorta. Is there a in between option, like averagely?
No, the statement was primarily meant to propose that the connection is small, not the measurement of how small. (Again, it's pointless to quote this part.)
I was trying to think of something like averagely, but I didn't think that was a word. I figured that "sorta" and "kinda" would suffice.
I never said religion was a theory. Its a belief. Big difference.
Nor did I say that you said so. However, the name of this topic would disagree with you; we're looking at religions as theories and beyond (!!). Not a theory by the scientific definition, but by the common definition.
If you want to ignore, then why would you respond in the first place?
Because you seem hell bent on discussing it.
I know you were being sarcastic, but you need to back up your opinions with some sort of support.
Lol, actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. I might have exaggerated a little, but whatever. If you really want me to support the connection there, then I advise we continue this elsewhere; that's way off-topic. (It's not on-topic just because it connects to religion.)
You may be suggesting that I cite my sources... If you are, know that I'm pulling information from my classes, knowledge of previous research, and the occasional recent website. I have no intention of linking you to everything I know.
I apologize if I seem too argumentative, but this is like an online study session for me.
WWII
Ctrl + F "religion"
Too far = irrelevant. If it weren't irrelevant, then it wouldn't be too far.
Meh, that depends... It may not be 100% relevant to WWII, but it definitely matters enough to be considered. So therefore, weather it is relevant 100% or 0.00001%,(yes this is an exageration) its still relevant. I think its about 48.71% relevant.
The Nazis didn't care that Jews were at point x and not point y, but rather they cared that they were.
Again, the only person who knows what the nazis did or did not care about, is the nazis. We can't assume what they did or did not care about.
Okay then... didn't you just support my side of the argument? (That's rhetorical, by the way. It'd be pretty pointless to quote this.)
Ok then i won't quote it... oops.
I was trying to think of something like averagely, but I didn't think that was a word. I figured that "sorta" and "kinda" would suffice.
Well I just looked it up, and averagely is the adverb of average. So yes its a word. I choose averagely.
However, the name of this topic would disagree with you; we're looking at religions as theories and beyond (!!). Not a theory by the scientific definition, but by the common definition.
Well then, i disagree with the name of the topic! I think religion is more of a belief, considering the scientific definition of theory. I guess it could be a theory by common definition, but I like the scientific definition better.
Lol, actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. I might have exaggerated a little, but whatever. If you really want me to support the connection there, then I advise we continue this elsewhere; that's way off-topic. (It's not on-topic just because it connects to religion.)
I say we just drop this entire thing about religion and potatoes, before we actually start talking about the connection between religion and potatoes.
__________
I suggest you send your response in PM version before we get to off-topic. Might be to late for that but you know... PM.
TakoMan02 wrote:World leaders who have claimed to be religious are certainly putting forward a foot that says otherwise, like America for example. I'm not sure how much of a Bible-fanatic Obama is, but if it fails him now, when will it do us good? I have yet to see the Bible single-handedly influence a nation to do great good in this world - ironic given its initiatives.
But perhaps my range isn't lateral enough. If someone could enlighten me on the effects of the Bible to the world that would be grand. In particular, its effects on one nation and how that nation interacts with its neighbors.
You're kidding, right? I thought you took some kind of world history class... Do the Crusades ring a bell? The Protestant Reformation? The Catholic/Counter Reformation? The entirety of the Roman/Byzantine empire? Those are just a few events in early Europe; there are countless more. Granted they're not all positive, but the point stands.
Positive. Positive effects of religion on a country.
If anyone would like to jump in here and give me a few examples, go right ahead.
In terms of morality, what's wrong with Buddhism? What's wrong with Jainism? Hindu? These guys know what they're doing, and it's quite evident if you study their history. There has not been a single war due to Buddhism. There has not been a single homicide committed by a Buddhist. But they are horrible, foolish people in the eyes of a Christian.
I don't know what it is, perhaps paranoid would be the best adjective. I can't grasp the thought of a Buddhist being this foolish human who is only bringing society to a lower standard. You know what that is? That's like saying a kitten is dangerous. That's like saying oranges are evil because you prefer apples.
Being a former Christian, I can assume someone response might be "God is the one true truth, all will ultimately become corrupt without Him". Well, I guess they'll just make the world a better place while they're around, and Christians can spend their time complaining about it. Because it's obviously the moral decision.
Hopefully a few readers will understand that morality isn't always what you're told, but what you decide for yourself.
Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
Offline
Just came because the views were legit 1337. Well, i have nothing else to say but goodbye to this topic.
Warned for spam.
In terms of morality, what's wrong with Buddhism? What's wrong with Jainism? Hindu? These guys know what they're doing, and it's quite evident if you study their history. There has not been a single war due to Buddhism. There has not been a single homicide committed by a Buddhist. But they are horrible, foolish people in the eyes of a Christian.
STEREOTYPING!
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
Positive. Positive effects of religion on a country.
I think you misunderstood- the listed events weren't entirely positive, but they each had positive aspects. I could make an argument to defend each one, but that seems pointless.
Entirely positive events would be... nonexistent. I can't think of anything that didn't have some kind of negative aspect or repercussion.
In terms of morality, what's wrong with Buddhism? What's wrong with Jainism? Hindu? These guys know what they're doing, and it's quite evident if you study their history.
What do you mean by "these guys know what they're doing"? That's too vague; are you saying they know how to sit in a half lotus and nearly starve to death? That's nice. (I'm not saying they're foolish; I'm just trying to clarify your statement.)
There has not been a single war due to Buddhism.
I think your history textbook is a bit outdated... Do you honestly think that Buddhism has never influenced any kind of belligerence throughout East and Southeast Asia in all the millennia it has been practiced? A Buddhist may not have started a war himself, but his actions and deviance clearly caused plenty of issues throughout history. Or did Confucian governments revere their polar opposites?
There has not been a single homicide committed by a Buddhist. But they are horrible, foolish people in the eyes of a Christian.
Being a former Christian, I can assume someone response might be "God is the one true truth, all will ultimately become corrupt without Him". Well, I guess they'll just make the world a better place while they're around, and Christians can spend their time complaining about it. Because it's obviously the moral decision.
That might be the extremely stereotypical, religious Texan's point of view, but I don't personally know anybody who actually thinks that people with other religious views are evil, corrupt, and doomed. And I have an old, Italian grandmother. (How's that for stereotypes?)
I think you misunderstood- the listed events weren't entirely positive, but they each had positive aspects. I could make an argument to defend each one, but that seems pointless. Entirely positive events would be... nonexistent. I can't think of anything that didn't have some kind of negative aspect or repercussion.
I didn't necessarily mean single events, more like positive effects of their theistic culture. If you can withdraw positive effects from these negative events, go ahead.
What do you mean by "these guys know what they're doing"?
They can see the difference between right and wrong, and can actually solve their problems peacefully.
I think your history textbook is a bit outdated... Do you honestly think that Buddhism has never influenced any kind of belligerence throughout East and Southeast Asia in all the millennia it has been practiced? A Buddhist may not have started a war himself, but his actions and deviance clearly caused plenty of issues throughout history. Or did Confucian governments revere their polar opposites?
Their entire religion focuses on nonviolence, and you sit here trying to convince me they actually encourage belligerent behavior? Whatever, the point still stands that they are very peaceful, very wise, and most certainly not causing this Earth to be a horrible place.
(PS: It is possible for people to claim themselves Buddhist, but not actually be Buddhist. Merely an imitation. These people more than likely start wars and violence with surrounding areas.)
That might be the extremely stereotypical, religious Texan's point of view, but I don't personally know anybody who actually thinks that people with other religious views are evil, corrupt, and doomed. And I have an old, Italian grandmother. (How's that for stereotypes?)
STEREOTYPING!
Psalms 14:1; 53:1 - "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no god.'."
If you believe in that, you believe Buddhists are foolish people.
---
In any case, God being real or not is completely and utterly irrelevant on this thread. It has even from the beginning. (Directed at anyone who thinks this was).
My main concern, now, is Christianity's impact on the world, seeing how it is the most popular and the most influential. If it can be argued society is going downhill, and Christianity is going uphill, what does it say about Christianity?
Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
Offline
Shift wrote:What do you mean by "these guys know what they're doing"?
They can see the difference between right and wrong, and can actually solve their problems peacefully.
As opposed to how others solve the problem of tying their shoes by launching a nuclear missile at it? I think everyone is capable of solving their problems peacefully.
Their entire religion focuses on nonviolence, and you sit here trying to convince me they actually encourage belligerent behavior? Whatever, the point still stands that they are very peaceful, very wise, and most certainly not causing this Earth to be a horrible place.
When did I ever say Buddhists "encourage belligerent behavior"? I think I was pretty clear when I stated otherwise:
A Buddhist may not have started a war himself, but his actions and deviance clearly caused plenty of issues throughout history. Or did Confucian governments revere their polar opposites?
So, try again. The rest of my statement consisted of how Buddhism inadvertently caused issues. Inadvertently. Example: Confucian China no likey freaky Buddhist hippies. Freaky Buddhist hippies have different ideals. Confucian China SMASH FREAKY BUDDHIST HIPPIES! Freaky Buddhist hippies inadvertently caused smash. Freaky Buddhist hippies say "Ooo, we sowwyz! But we likey our religion; plz let us stay!! D:"
Psalms 14:1; 53:1 - "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no god.'."
If you believe in that, you believe Buddhists are foolish people.
That might be the extremely stereotypical, religious Texan's point of view, but I don't personally know anybody who actually thinks that people with other religious views are evil, corrupt, and doomed. And I have an old, Italian grandmother. (How's that for stereotypes?)
My main concern, now, is Christianity's impact on the world, seeing how it is the most popular and the most influential. If it can be argued society is going downhill, and Christianity is going uphill, what does it say about Christianity?
First, you can't completely change the topic just because you felt like it and you have mod powers. Second, wtf are you saying about hills? That isn't relevant to the original purpose of this topic, nor the one you just created. Not to mention the fact that nobody ever said anything along the lines of "society is going downhill," and "Christianity is going uphill."
Last edited by Shift (Feb 29 2012 5:56:24 pm)
Offline
TakoMan02 wrote:Psalms 14:1; 53:1 - "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no god.'."
If you believe in that, you believe Buddhists are foolish people.
Shift wrote:That might be the extremely stereotypical, religious Texan's point of view, but I don't personally know anybody who actually thinks that people with other religious views are evil, corrupt, and doomed. And I have an old, Italian grandmother. (How's that for stereotypes?)
TakoMan02 wrote:My main concern, now, is Christianity's impact on the world, seeing how it is the most popular and the most influential. If it can be argued society is going downhill, and Christianity is going uphill, what does it say about Christianity?
First, you can't completely change the topic just because you felt like it and you have mod powers.
I don't see any reason to be upset about me changing the topic title. The debate is still the same. We derailed several weeks ago, but I don't mind, because I don't want to make a third topic about religion and this is actually a topic that interests me.
We concluded that religion was 1) greatly influenced by the religions it considers trash, 2) its purpose was originally to explain the unexplainable, but these days it is used as a moral guide, and then we are currently questioning its moral authority.
This questioning of moral authority leads directly into its impact with the world. The first two subjects are irrefutable and gone. If you want to discuss them all over again, go right ahead.
I also have yet to receive my positive effects of religion on a country. If not, then on a scale of 1-10 on its usefulness, it would be at about a 0.2.
Second, wtf are you saying about hills? That isn't relevant to the original purpose of this topic, nor the one you just created. Not to mention the fact that nobody ever said anything along the lines of "society is going downhill," and "Christianity is going uphill."
I was asking a question that's relevant to the topic at hand.
Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
Offline
well instead of religioun class the **** up school system can teach science or for english or any other importend thing
i have lucky that i know english better then the average american and im only 12 with israels crappy school system
jews are teachens to hate arabs and christians (not all and my class is not like that) while arabs teachen to hate christians and jews and christions etc.
Seeing how Christianity is single-handedly the most populous religion on the Earth,
Wrong!
There are more Muslims than Christians.
I'm not going to argue, but more like say something my Science teacher said.
We were talking about evolution, and this is basically what he said:
Know what you believe by analyzing both sides. Be able to defend your view.
Debating is good.
You are all giraffes.
So I think this is a good topic. Shows how other people think.
proc's discorb stylish themes for forums/the game
꧁꧂L O V E & C O R N꧁꧂ ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
danke bluecloud thank u raphe [this section of my sig is dedicated to everything i've loved that's ever died]
?
Offline
Takoman02 wrote:Seeing how Christianity is single-handedly the most populous religion on the Earth,
Wrong!
There are more Muslims than Christians.
http://geography.about.com/od/culturalg … ligion.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#R … _movements
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Try again.
And that's a very interesting quote Zoey, I like it.
Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
Offline
[ Started around 1738731084.7715 - Generated in 0.177 seconds, 12 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.91 MiB (Peak: 2.23 MiB) ]