Which religion is the most evil and has killed the most people?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Square Jaw
These can be two separate answers.

Non Jihadist
I think Christians and Jews for both

Peace be with you

inimalist
the state

Non Jihadist
Originally posted by inimalist
the state

If it's judeo-christian

TacDavey
A question like that serves no other purpose than to incite flame wars and bash religion. Unless you're writing a paper on it or something, which is doubtful. Sad people really have nothing better to do with their time. no

Non Jihadist
It is a question, I have written all my papers.

inimalist
Originally posted by Non Jihadist
If it's judeo-christian

every state religion has been used to justify evil

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist
the state

That's the religion that made me become atheist in the first place.

inimalist
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the religion that made me become atheist in the first place.

lol, me too!

TacDavey
Originally posted by Non Jihadist
It is a question, I have written all my papers.

I know it's a question... You're response confuses me. confused

Pinkie Pie
Originally posted by Square Jaw
These can be two separate answers.

None. Religion is a concept. True evil are the men serving it and killing in its name smile The religion that's gotten the most glances revolving evil killings in history is probably Christianity. Few seem to remember that one of the commandments ask of you not to kill stick out tongue

Few realize that killing is not done by religion. It's done by men failing to follow it, many of the times.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
None. Religion is a concept. True evil are the men serving it and killing in its name smile The religion that's gotten the most glances revolving evil killings in history is probably Christianity. Few seem to remember that one of the commandments ask of you not to kill stick out tongue

Few realize that killing is not done by religion. It's done by men failing to follow it, many of the times.

Thank you! I've been trying to explain exactly that for, like, 3 pages on another thread.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
None. Religion is a concept. True evil are the men serving it and killing in its name smile The religion that's gotten the most glances revolving evil killings in history is probably Christianity. Few seem to remember that one of the commandments ask of you not to kill stick out tongue

Few realize that killing is not done by religion. It's done by men failing to follow it, many of the times.

It's also at times done by men (and women) succeeding in following it.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's also at times done by men (and women) succeeding in following it.

If the religion tells you to, yes. But many people forget that very important part of the equation when blaming a religion for a persons actions.

Bardock42
Originally posted by TacDavey
If the religion tells you to, yes. But many people forget that very important part of the equation when blaming a religion for a persons actions.

Perhaps, blame is not a zero-sum game though, enough of that to go around.

King Kandy
Most violent religion... probably Judaism. Christianity and Islam killed "more" but back in the days of old Israel there was a lower population in general.

To be honest, all three major abrahamic religions suck in this category.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Bardock42
Perhaps, blame is not a zero-sum game though, enough of that to go around.

I would say that in many if not most cases the blame rests almost completely on the person.

Bardock42
Originally posted by TacDavey
I would say that in many if not most cases the blame rests almost completely on the person.

Hmm, I think I'd disagree, especially with Religiously inspired violence there's usually instigators...or even more people in positions of power who order that violence.

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
I would say that in many if not most cases the blame rests almost completely on the person.

what motivates a person then?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
what motivates a person then?

Free will!

kgkg
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Free will! Sex.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Free will!

I actually expect that arguement, yet I suspect that Tac would also be willing to say religion has no positive affect on people's behaviour as well.

as, if not, it is special pleading smile

TacDavey
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I think I'd disagree, especially with Religiously inspired violence there's usually instigators...or even more people in positions of power who order that violence.

But again, it's the people who are ordering the violence. The blame is on the people.

Originally posted by inimalist
what motivates a person then?

Different things I suppose. Insanity, lust for power, maybe they are just angry... Who knows? It would be different depending on the person.

Originally posted by inimalist
yet I suspect that Tac would also be willing to say religion has no positive affect on people's behaviour as well.

Why would you say that? The religion may play a role in the violence being done in it's name in that if the religion did not exist, the violence wouldn't have been committed. I don't know if that's what you're getting at or not.

At any rate, if that is what you're saying, that does not make the religion responsible any more than a rape victim is responsible for a rape. After all, had she not existed, the rape wouldn't have happened.

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
Why would you say that? The religion may play a role in the violence being done in it's name in that if the religion did not exist, the violence wouldn't have been committed. I don't know if that's what you're getting at or not.

At any rate, if that is what you're saying, that does not make the religion responsible any more than a rape victim is responsible for a rape. After all, had she not existed, the rape wouldn't have happened.

fair enough, my bad, shouldn't assume things

I don't think we disagree too much then

TacDavey
Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, my bad, shouldn't assume things

I don't think we disagree too much then

Really? I think this is the first time that's happened. eek!

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by King Kandy
Most violent religion... probably Judaism. Christianity and Islam killed "more" but back in the days of old Israel there was a lower population in general.

To be honest, all three major abrahamic religions suck in this category.

Do you mean in terms of teachings or in terms of kill count?

Pinkie Pie
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's also at times done by men (and women) succeeding in following it.

The cases are minority. None of the bombers within Islam follow their religion. The Christian Crusade didn't follow the religion. The frequent killing in the middle-east doesn't follow religion.

The cases where it's asked of the religion to kill is a minority yes Most if not all the times you're asked to kill can be bypassed by quoting various sections of the book. The following aren't direct quotes but worth mentioning because they are true still. Granted, there are exceptions but they are minute.

There's for example the permitting of killing when a woman has preformed adultery within Islam, but in many of the cases the woman want it done to her because she feel she has failed Allah and want to be redeemed. I myself find it a little perverted but I'm not one to judge. I understand the love and devotion many feel towards their God and the ethics by which they live stick out tongue

Fundamental values in Islam:
- Don't take another life.
- Don't take your own life.
- Don't force religious values onto others.

Fundamental values in Christianity:
- Don't take another life.
- Love and pray for your enemies.
- If struck on the cheek, turn the other for him.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
The cases are minority. None of the bombers within Islam follow their religion. The Christian Crusade didn't follow the religion. The frequent killing in the middle-east doesn't follow religion.

The cases where it's asked of the religion to kill is a minority yes Most if not all the times you're asked to kill can be bypassed by quoting various sections of the book. The following aren't direct quotes but worth mentioning because they are true still. Granted, there are exceptions but they are minute.

There's for example the permitting of killing when a woman has preformed adultery within Islam, but in many of the cases the woman want it done to her because she feel she has failed Allah and want to be redeemed. I myself find it a little perverted but I'm not one to judge. I understand the love and devotion many feel towards their God and the ethics by which they live stick out tongue

Fundamental values in Islam:
- Don't take another life.
- Don't take your own life.
- Don't force religious values onto others.

Fundamental values in Christianity:
- Don't take another life.
- Love and pray for your enemies.
- If struck on the cheek, turn the other for him.

The Christian Crusades very much followed the Catholic Religion, you can't pick and choose. For Catholics, the pope, the bible and everything around it is their religion not just the text, as such following the popes decrees is very much following the Religion.

Same with islam, to some following their Religion is following their Religious leaders.

You trying to distill some sort of universal "that's the religion everyone should follow to be called muslim/christian/etc." is silly and useless.



You guys are trying to make an argument like the Vietnam war is not "fault" of the US because their constitution didn't say to wage it.

Pinkie Pie
Many religious leaders fail to follow their own religion because of bias or perverse priorities. "Excused killings" so to speak. A religious leader asking of you to kill doesn't change the writings in the book, which contain the fundamental values of both religions. Religious leaders are just breathing interpretations of the book. Humans, flawed, biased.

I'm pretty confident the many killers within the Christian Crusade has ended up in Hell. There's a very easy way to see if something is viewed right or wrong in the eyes of true Christianity: What would Jesus do?

Call me radical, but any religious leader that order something Jesus would never do is lost.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Bardock42
The Christian Crusades very much followed the Catholic Religion, you can't pick and choose. For Catholics, the pope, the bible and everything around it is their religion not just the text, as such following the popes decrees is very much following the Religion.

Same with islam, to some following their Religion is following their Religious leaders.

You trying to distill some sort of universal "that's the religion everyone should follow to be called muslim/christian/etc." is silly and useless.



You guys are trying to make an argument like the Vietnam war is not "fault" of the US because their constitution didn't say to wage it.

That is not the same at all. A better example is someone saying that the constitution is evil because some people waged a war in it's name, regardless of the fact that the constitution does not promote or demand such things at all.

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
Really? I think this is the first time that's happened. eek!

HA!

no, its just that a lot of religious people seem more than willing to say religion plays no role in people behaving poorly, but will then say it is of pivotal importance in someone behaving well. I sort of assumed the same here, but was mistaken

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
That is not the same at all. A better example is someone saying that the constitution is evil because some people waged a war in it's name, regardless of the fact that the constitution does not promote or demand such things at all.

so, even if God's representative on earth says, in no uncertain terms, that this is a war in God's name for Christian principles, you would say this representative is mistaken because the Bible emphasizes non-violence over violence?

Pinkie Pie
Man is biased and flawed. I don't believe Jesus would ever condole in any Christian war. And I've come to understand he's a pretty important role in Christianity.

inimalist
Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
Man is biased and flawed. I don't believe Jesus would ever condole in any Christian war. And I've come to understand he's a pretty important role in Christianity.

so you would say any religious institution that thinks war can be waged in the name of Christ is illegitimate then?

Pinkie Pie
Would he ask it of you? Not in a million years. That's what I believe smile Then again, I'm not Christian. I don't know God.

inimalist
ok, so then, if a church or religious authority were to come out and say, "God wants you to kill X", X being a person or a nation or another religion, you would think that this is man speaking, not God?

Pinkie Pie
I don't think most positions of authority know God better than minor figures within the religion. Their words carry little more value than the little man. They are falsely consider men of authority to me, because I've never thought religion to have a hierarchy beyond God and not-God smile

In short, yes. I'd believe it being man speaking and not God. I even know a priest of Christianity who doesn't believe in God.

Bardock42
Nah, you guys are still trying to equate certain holy texts with the Religion. You can validly attribute deaths and destructions to certain Religious sects (be it of Christianity or Islam or any other). If we were to attribute deaths to the Bible and the Qur'an, you guys might have a point, but we are talking about Religions, which are institutions, which can and should be blamed. Of course you can always try to semantically trace it back to just the people that did it, because there will always be people actually doing the deeds, but that's completely disregarding the bigger, valid, and important picture. Marx and Das Kapital may not be responsible for the deaths in Communist Russia, but Communism and specifically this implementation of Communism is (as are the people who actually did it, and the people who ordered it, like I said, enough blame to go around for everyone).

TacDavey
Originally posted by inimalist
HA!

no, its just that a lot of religious people seem more than willing to say religion plays no role in people behaving poorly, but will then say it is of pivotal importance in someone behaving well. I sort of assumed the same here, but was mistaken

Well, like I said, I can see the religion plays a role in causing the violence. But I don't think you can fault the religion for the role it plays.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, even if God's representative on earth says, in no uncertain terms, that this is a war in God's name for Christian principles, you would say this representative is mistaken because the Bible emphasizes non-violence over violence?

Well, personally, I'm not Catholic, and I don't have any religious leader that is suppose to tell me what God is saying. Outside, perhaps a Pastor, who only reads and teaches the Bible. He doesn't claim to be like a telephone relaying God's messages.

But if you look at a teaching that says: "Though shalt not kill" and then a "leader" stands up and says, "God says we should kill". I'm seeing a contradiction there.

So in short, yes. I would say he's either crazy, or simply wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, you guys are still trying to equate certain holy texts with the Religion. You can validly attribute deaths and destructions to certain Religious sects (be it of Christianity or Islam or any other). If we were to attribute deaths to the Bible and the Qur'an, you guys might have a point, but we are talking about Religions, which are institutions, which can and should be blamed. Of course you can always try to semantically trace it back to just the people that did it, because there will always be people actually doing the deeds, but that's completely disregarding the bigger, valid, and important picture. Marx and Das Kapital may not be responsible for the deaths in Communist Russia, but Communism and specifically this implementation of Communism is (as are the people who actually did it, and the people who ordered it, like I said, enough blame to go around for everyone).

If a religion teaches that you are suppose to kill for it, yes. The religion can also be faulted. Christianity does not teach that you should kill people, thus, it cannot be faulted when people do for whatever reasons they concoct in their head.

Again, the only time you can fault a religion for being "evil" is if it genuinely demands it's followers be evil. And I'm pretty sure none of the mainstream religions do so.

The MISTER
Originally posted by inimalist
so, even if God's representative on earth says, in no uncertain terms, that this is a war in God's name for Christian principles, you would say this representative is mistaken because the Bible emphasizes non-violence over violence? Something like that happened with that dove church that burned the Quran. People can commit actions in the name of a religion but both the actions and the religion need to be examined to see if there is any truth to their claim or if they just interpreted the message incorrectly either by accident or by twisting the context on purpose.

If someone started burning churches in the name of atheism I don't think that you could say atheism is to blame.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Square Jaw
These can be two separate answers. Idiolatry.

Bardock42
Originally posted by TacDavey

If a religion teaches that you are suppose to kill for it, yes. The religion can also be faulted. Christianity does not teach that you should kill people, thus, it cannot be faulted when people do for whatever reasons they concoct in their head.

Again, the only time you can fault a religion for being "evil" is if it genuinely demands it's followers be evil. And I'm pretty sure none of the mainstream religions do so.

Some types of Christianity (accepted types, too) have in the past and some might still do. You can't redefine Christianity in the way that you want for this argument. Christianity is more than just following the bible or the new testament.

inimalist
Originally posted by The MISTER
If someone started burning churches in the name of atheism I don't think that you could say atheism is to blame.

well, that is conflating to issues. sure, atheism, as in the doctrine or philosophy, sure, it can't be legally responsible or bare any of that sort of blame, but the person's beliefs almost certainly would have had some causal role in why they burned churches.

An atheist can be moved to do things against religious establishments they don't like, much like someone's religion can lead them to hating other groups of people or violence. There is a difference between saying that and blaming anything.

King Kandy
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Do you mean in terms of teachings or in terms of kill count?
A little of both.

Pinkie Pie
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Do you mean in terms of teachings or in terms of kill count? The latter doesn't matter at all if the former is not involved. It's an irrelevant factor.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Bardock42
Some types of Christianity (accepted types, too) have in the past and some might still do. You can't redefine Christianity in the way that you want for this argument. Christianity is more than just following the bible or the new testament. That's quite incorrect. In this post you just attempted to redefine christianity. Christ is actually in the term Christian. Why would you think that christianity is more than following the teachings of Christ?

Bardock42
Originally posted by The MISTER
That's quite incorrect. In this post you just attempted to redefine christianity. Christ is actually in the term Christian. Why would you think that christianity is more than following the teachings of Christ?

Because that's how it's been used for two thousand years and that's how language works. At the core it tends to be accepting Jesus as God/Son of God and your saviour, I suppose you could claim it is ultimately following the teaching of Christ, but as they are open to interpretation there's a lot of Religions fallen under the label of Christianity like Catholicism, Baptism, Mormonism, Russian and Greek Orthodox or the Church of England.

ADarksideJedi
No religion excert for islam is the only one that I think had kiilled most people.

Pinkie Pie
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No religion excert for islam is the only one that I think had kiilled most people. You really need to elaborate this no expression Are you saying that no religion except Islam is evil?

TacDavey
Originally posted by Bardock42
Because that's how it's been used for two thousand years and that's how language works. At the core it tends to be accepting Jesus as God/Son of God and your saviour, I suppose you could claim it is ultimately following the teaching of Christ, but as they are open to interpretation there's a lot of Religions fallen under the label of Christianity like Catholicism, Baptism, Mormonism, Russian and Greek Orthodox or the Church of England.

Yes, there are a lot of different believes that claim to be following the teachings of "Jesus".

I'm missing how this makes Christianity evil.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Bardock42
Because that's how it's been used for two thousand years and that's how language works. At the core it tends to be accepting Jesus as God/Son of God and your saviour, I suppose you could claim it is ultimately following the teaching of Christ, but as they are open to interpretation there's a lot of Religions fallen under the label of Christianity like Catholicism, Baptism, Mormonism, Russian and Greek Orthodox or the Church of England. Catholicism, and Baptist are both denominations and you could probably say the same about the orthodox churches. I'm not sure if Mormons call themselves christians or not but if they do then they would be a denomination as well. Saying that they are separate religions is similar to saying Texas is the USA. They're connected but one is whole (USA/Christianity) and one is part of the whole (Texas/ Denominations)

At the core of Christianity you have the teachings of Christ.

Bardock42
Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, there are a lot of different believes that claim to be following the teachings of "Jesus".

I'm missing how this makes Christianity evil.

Well the thread starter defined evil as having caused the most deaths as far as I can tell. Obviously the thread starter is a troll, but regardless I don't believe Christianity to be evil, I do believe that Christianity has a death toll though, caused by its denominations (which MISTER did correctly point that we should be semantically precise)

TacDavey
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well the thread starter defined evil as having caused the most deaths as far as I can tell. Obviously the thread starter is a troll, but regardless I don't believe Christianity to be evil, I do believe that Christianity has a death toll though, caused by its denominations (which MISTER did correctly point that we should be semantically precise)

Ah, my mistake. I seem to be mixing this discussion up with another thread.

ADarksideJedi
No I am not saying that it is evil I am saying that they had kiilled the most people.

Pinkie Pie
They have had the most notable killings but I think "Christianity" has killed more.

inimalist
Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
They have had the most notable killings

in the past 12 years maybe...

Pinkie Pie
That's my point. It's fresh in mind what they have done recently. Or what people have done in the name of Islam, is more properly put stick out tongue

Christianity has the death count for sure.

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by inimalist
the state

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
The latter doesn't matter at all if the former is not involved. It's an irrelevant factor.

I'm sorry, what?

Did you just want to use the words ''latter'' and ''former'' in a sentence? Your reply makes zero sense in the scope of the conversation I was having.

Pinkie Pie
I apologize. I assumed you were talking about kill count in relevance to the topic of the thread. It was how I interpreted you. My point was that no matter the count it's not the religion that's "evil" unless the first part is involved.

I meant that kill count matter nothing if teaching is not involved. If it's kill count without teaching then it's just man being wicked. I meant that you need teaching involved in order for it to be evil.

I do like the word latter though. It sounds neat big grin

alltoomany
all of them...Wars were (still,too) started bc thier laws of religion was better than the others (pick one)

The MISTER
I will say this.. People who call themselves christians can be some of the most evil people you could ever meet. What's in a name and all that..

ADarksideJedi
True but not all.

alltoomany
Originally posted by The MISTER
I will say this.. People who call themselves christians can be some of the most evil people you could ever meet. What's in a name and all that..

Evil does hide amoung the good

ADarksideJedi
But it also can hid among the bad as well.

alltoomany
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
But it also can hid among the bad as well.

Well evil hiding among the bad is a given. Some good doers do hide among the evil, but as many.

ADarksideJedi
But when they do it is shown by them when they do evil things.

alltoomany
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
But when they do it is shown by them when they do evil things.

study proverbs

ADarksideJedi
Originally posted by alltoomany
study proverbs

What does that have to do with anything?I also don't have a bible close to me right now.I forgot it at my parents when I moved out.

anaconda
as long as it is done in name of a religion it doesnt matter. All religions are evil and supressive clinging to one makes one a looser

Deja~vu
Well if god really cared, he/she/it would just say the word STOP. And we'd be living with pots of gold under the rainbows. I could dig that.

chomperx9
why is everyone afraid to say muslims ?

Pinkie Pie
Originally posted by chomperx9
why is everyone afraid to say muslims ? It has been said. Most don't say it though because most know it'd be expressing ignorance and they don't want to make fools of themselves. Islam is anything but a wicked religion.

All those wars you see. All the suicide bombers. All the talk by Muslim terrorists. It goes against Islamic teachings yes

Bardock42
Originally posted by chomperx9
why is everyone afraid to say muslims ?

I'm not sure whether it is fear, accuracy seems the more important problem.

dadudemon
Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm not sure if Mormons call themselves christians or not.

The full name is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

We consider Jesus Christ to the be literal head of our church.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
It has been said. Most don't say it though because most know it'd be expressing ignorance and they don't want to make fools of themselves. Islam is anything but a wicked religion.

All those wars you see. All the suicide bombers. All the talk by Muslim terrorists. It goes against Islamic teachings yes Since I live in the Arab capital of the US, Michigan, I know quite a few Muslims and we're pretty good friends. I don't agree with their teachings and I think the young girls see how American women can pick a husband for themselves instead of having family pick it, but they can also say no, I suppose. Some families are stricter than others. But it's funny when it's prayer time, in class, and she whispers it really quiet...lol. I know what she's doing though..lol

It's the extremists in any religion that are rotten.

alltoomany
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Since I live in the Arab capital of the US, Michigan, I know quite a few Muslims and we're pretty good friends. I don't agree with their teachings and I think the young girls see how American women can pick a husband for themselves instead of having family pick it, but they can also say no, I suppose. Some families are stricter than others. But it's funny when it's prayer time, in class, and she whispers it really quiet...lol. I know what she's doing though..lol



It's the extremists in any religion that are rotten.
I 2nd that!

Pinkie Pie
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Since I live in the Arab capital of the US, Michigan, I know quite a few Muslims and we're pretty good friends. I don't agree with their teachings and I think the young girls see how American women can pick a husband for themselves instead of having family pick it, but they can also say no, I suppose. Some families are stricter than others. But it's funny when it's prayer time, in class, and she whispers it really quiet...lol. I know what she's doing though..lol

It's the extremists in any religion that are rotten. And the extremists often forget the fundamentals of their religion stick out tongue

chomperx9
Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
It has been said. Most don't say it though because most know it'd be expressing ignorance and they don't want to make fools of themselves. Islam is anything but a wicked religion.

All those wars you see. All the suicide bombers. All the talk by Muslim terrorists. It goes against Islamic teachings yes Agreed, Also them making Threats towards our nation and towards producers over some immature cartoon episodes like on south park. if you dont like whats on TV then change the channel, nobody is forcing you to watch or listen to anything. we all find things disturbing online or on tv every now and then.

inimalist
Originally posted by chomperx9
Agreed, Also them making Threats towards our nation and towards producers over some immature cartoon episodes like on south park. if you dont like whats on TV then change the channel, nobody is forcing you to watch or listen to anything. we all find things disturbing online or on tv every now and then.

I know its not the same, but this week in France a group of Christians defaced Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" and some other works, and roughed up a security guard, simply because they didn't like the work.

(Serrano himself is a devout Christian and used the work Piss Christ do deride the commercialization of the Christian faith)

every religion has its intolerant whackos

Pinkie Pie
Those making threats for such petty reasons or whatever other reason does next to never, if not even never have the Qu'ran (or Bible) backing them up. It's virtually a direct violation of it stick out tongue

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
And the extremists often forget the fundamentals of their religion stick out tongue Since many churches are full of many mentally ill or people with lots of problems they hope god will solve, it is pretty conceivable that the crazies will read more into the teachings and then act on them. Otherwise, many are just ignorant.

ADarksideJedi
Every Religion believes that but is not really ignorant it is just wishing to get better or believing to get better which is a state of mind.

SamZED
The "guns dont kill people" saying comes to mind.

ADarksideJedi
Yea I am for that saying it is the killer's fault not the gun.

Deja~vu
But it is. Jumpy

inimalist
there is a big difference between fault and cause

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by inimalist
there is a big difference between fault and cause

The main difference (and only real one) is that "fault" is cause, but with a negative implication. "Who's at fault!?" clearly implies that somebody screwed up, and won't be rewarded for what they caused.

TacDavey
What does it matter what fault and cause mean? The point is you can't blame the gun for killing a person, you blame the person who pulled the trigger.

You can really only place blame on something that has intelligence.

inimalist
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The main difference (and only real one) is that "fault" is cause, but with a negative implication. "Who's at fault!?" clearly implies that somebody screwed up, and won't be rewarded for what they caused.

I think fault also implies some type of intelligent actor, whereas a cause can be anything.

To relate it to the thread, whether or not a religion might have some facets that cause people to act violently, the religion as a conceptual entity really can't be "blamed" in the sense that it bares moral or legal responsibility.

Guns might not be responsible for killing people, but they play a remarkably important role in people getting shot

Originally posted by TacDavey
What does it matter what fault and cause mean? The point is you can't blame the gun for killing a person, you blame the person who pulled the trigger.

You can really only place blame on something that has intelligence.

there are numerous studies that show the mere presence of a weapon makes people more likely to be violent.

It is reliable enough that it is known as the "weapons effect"

you can't blame it, but in understanding what caused a person to be violent, a gun is a pretty important variable.

TacDavey
Originally posted by inimalist
there are numerous studies that show the mere presence of a weapon makes people more likely to be violent.

It is reliable enough that it is known as the "weapons effect"

you can't blame it, but in understanding what caused a person to be violent, a gun is a pretty important variable.

It's a variable, sure. But then, so is the person getting shot. I wouldn't place the blame on them either. Depending on the situation, of course.

inimalist
Originally posted by TacDavey
It's a variable, sure. But then, so is the person getting shot. I wouldn't place the blame on them either. Depending on the situation, of course.

yes

the person getting shot is a very important part of someone getting shot.

hence the difference between attributing a causal relationship to something and attributing blame to something

TacDavey
Originally posted by inimalist
yes

the person getting shot is a very important part of someone getting shot.

hence the difference between attributing a causal relationship to something and attributing blame to something

thumb up Indeed.

Digi
Originally posted by inimalist
the person getting shot is a very important part of someone getting shot.

Heh. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.

no expression

inimalist
Originally posted by Digi
Heh. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.

no expression

heh

laughing out loud

Bardock42
Originally posted by Digi
Heh. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.

no expression

I found you through your facebook group "If 1,000,000 people join this group, it will have 1,000,000 people in it"

Daemon Seed
Originally posted by Digi
Heh. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.

no expression

That's the ironic thing about irony.

lil bitchiness
The only thing I find very interesting about Christianity and Christians is that their book, as in written by them (so New Testament, seeing how Old Testament is Jewish) is actually quite friendly in that sense (in comparison to other Abrahamic religions).

It tells Christians to turn to other cheek, love your neighbour, help people and what not, and it isn't calling for violence, YET, Christians, for some misguided reasons have been known to flip shit and go on a violent converting sprees when their religion that isn't even telling them to do that.

Why is this?

Daemon Seed
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The only thing I find very interesting about Christianity and Christians is that their book, as in written by them (so New Testament, seeing how Old Testament is Jewish) is actually quite friendly in that sense (in comparison to other Abrahamic religions).

It tells Christians to turn to other cheek, love your neighbour, help people and what not, and it isn't calling for violence, YET, Christians, for some misguided reasons have been known to flip shit and go on a violent converting sprees when their religion that isn't even telling them to do that.

Why is this?

Because usually in those situations Religion and the state were linked. It's imperialism.

TacDavey
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The only thing I find very interesting about Christianity and Christians is that their book, as in written by them (so New Testament, seeing how Old Testament is Jewish) is actually quite friendly in that sense (in comparison to other Abrahamic religions).

It tells Christians to turn to other cheek, love your neighbour, help people and what not, and it isn't calling for violence, YET, Christians, for some misguided reasons have been known to flip shit and go on a violent converting sprees when their religion that isn't even telling them to do that.

Why is this?

Because people are people. Some are bad, and some are good. A lot of people will find any reason to support doing evil.

It's like asking why do some americans murder people when the law of an american citizen clearly states not to do that.

They might call themselves Christians, but they are more importantly individuals that make their own choices.

inimalist
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The only thing I find very interesting about Christianity and Christians is that their book, as in written by them (so New Testament, seeing how Old Testament is Jewish) is actually quite friendly in that sense (in comparison to other Abrahamic religions).

It tells Christians to turn to other cheek, love your neighbour, help people and what not, and it isn't calling for violence, YET, Christians, for some misguided reasons have been known to flip shit and go on a violent converting sprees when their religion that isn't even telling them to do that.

Why is this?

largely a selective reading, actually.

There are just as many parts where Jesus talks about being the sword, and where he says cast away your families to follow him, or stone the non-believers.

The other part, I would say at least, is political/social. Some member of the authority wants people to do what he says, so he manipulates their religion such that they create "us" and "them". The rest is simple group psychology.

Mindship
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The only thing I find very interesting about Christianity and Christians is that their book, as in written by them (so New Testament, seeing how Old Testament is Jewish) is actually quite friendly in that sense (in comparison to other Abrahamic religions).

It tells Christians to turn to other cheek, love your neighbour, help people and what not, and it isn't calling for violence, YET, Christians, for some misguided reasons have been known to flip shit and go on a violent converting sprees when their religion that isn't even telling them to do that.

Why is this? Elitist compartmentalization.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by inimalist
largely a selective reading, actually.

There are just as many parts where Jesus talks about being the sword, and where he says cast away your families to follow him, or stone the non-believers.

The other part, I would say at least, is political/social. Some member of the authority wants people to do what he says, so he manipulates their religion such that they create "us" and "them". The rest is simple group psychology.

I disagree. Comparitivley it isn't nearly as explicit in its violence nor is it as frequent. I have only found one line where Jesus says he brought someone sword or something.

Therefore it is still a whole lot friendlier than other Abrahamic religions - and by miles.

Yet...you wouldn't think that to be the case...looking at the evidence of actions and all.

Originally posted by Mindship
Elitist compartmentalization.

thumb up

morganbrown
Religion not involved in the evil and killed the people. Its Type of man found in every Religion.

inimalist
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I disagree. Comparitivley it isn't nearly as explicit in its violence nor is it as frequent. I have only found one line where Jesus says he brought someone sword or something.

Therefore it is still a whole lot friendlier than other Abrahamic religions - and by miles.

Yet...you wouldn't think that to be the case...looking at the evidence of actions and all.

lol, I might have to go back and read up on my Koresh, as I'm pretty sure most of his interpretations are from the NT

but ya, I don't disagree... to some extent...

Deadline
Originally posted by inimalist
largely a selective reading, actually.

There are just as many parts where Jesus talks about being the sword, and where he says cast away your families to follow him, or stone the non-believers.

The other part, I would say at least, is political/social. Some member of the authority wants people to do what he says, so he manipulates their religion such that they create "us" and "them". The rest is simple group psychology.

Yea I'm not even sure wether Jesus was a pacifist.

inimalist
Originally posted by Deadline
Yea I'm not even sure wether Jesus was a pacifist.

I might have overstated what I said

I think most and probably the best interpretations would see Jesus as a pacifist, however, in the views of some more radical sects, or with the much more mainstream "liberation theology" that is widespread in poor areas of South America, it is possible to see Jesus as advocating some type of violence.

Deadline
Originally posted by inimalist
I might have overstated what I said

I think most and probably the best interpretations would see Jesus as a pacifist, however, in the views of some more radical sects, or with the much more mainstream "liberation theology" that is widespread in poor areas of South America, it is possible to see Jesus as advocating some type of violence.


It's ok you didn't overstate what you said.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.