[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Because devoting yourself to God is an act of faith that requires a sense of commitment. If the commitment is to the bible it is a major distraction and major challenge for some people to adopt something that has aspects to it that are hard to get over.

How does one establish a faith when they cannot fully buy into that which they are attempting to have faith in, especially when there are those who instruct others not to cherry pick pieces of the bible?

Basically the definition of faith is commitment, if you look in Hebrews 11.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You and the others are right, I can't defend this. However, the idea that "I don't want my tax dollars to be helping somebody else" is not all that uncommon, no?

Yes, but the underlying assumption is that I'd rather be in charge of my own money. I'd rather have my dollars helping somebody else because I gave it to them, not because they robbed me through force of government.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That's just it, though - what does a talking snake have to do with how you live your life?

Depending on your position on Original Sin, possibly lots.

[SpaceMonkey]

It sure beats reading chicken entrails.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, but the underlying assumption is that I'd rather be in charge of my own money. I'd rather have my dollars helping somebody else because I gave it to them, not because they robbed me through force of government.

Fair enough. All I would add is that some people see the government as having a legitimate role in helping others, and others might support any means to help the poor.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Fair enough. All I would add is that some people see the government as having a legitimate role in helping others, and others might support any means to help the poor.

Sure, and in my mind, that's just as wrong as somebody who would resort to any means to help himself. One person's rights should not be trampled just because it might make another a little bit happier. (This "my happiness > your rights" philosophy has been used to oppose things like women's lib and gay rights, and I disagree with those people too.)

[dcmacdaddy]

Your very question presupposes that all religions have in-built logical faults and/or logical inconsistencies. In addition,
your very question presupposed that areligious individuals have thought systems that are purely logical.

Both assumptions are false.

All people have intellectual frameworks with which they construct the world around them. None of these frameworks are purely logical. Some frameworks strive for greater logical consistency than others but there is no perfectly logical intellectual framework. (Whether that intellectual framework is based on some religious text and its corresponding beliefs or based on some secular text and its corresponding beliefs it will contain logical inconsistencies.) You'd be better off simply asking how people deal with illogical aspects of thought. Your post title and initial post are pretty much irrelevant otherwise.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Sure, and in my mind, that's just as wrong as somebody who would resort to any means to help himself. One person's rights should not be trampled just because it might make another a little bit happier. (This "my happiness > your rights" philosophy has been used to oppose things like women's lib and gay rights, and I disagree with those people too.)

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, I'm just defending my perception of others.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The churches are actually repositories of cultural values, not reflections of Jesus' teachings.

I like the way you phrased that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Your very question presupposes that all religions have in-built logical faults and/or logical inconsistencies. In addition,
your very question presupposed that areligious individuals have thought systems that are purely logical.

Both assumptions are false.

All people have intellectual frameworks with which they construct the world around them. None of these frameworks are purely logical. Some frameworks strive for greater logical consistency than others but there is no perfectly logical intellectual framework. (Whether that intellectual framework is based on some religious text and its corresponding beliefs or based on some secular text and its corresponding beliefs it will contain logical inconsistencies.) You'd be better off simply asking how people deal with illogical aspects of thought. Your post title and initial post are pretty much irrelevant otherwise.

I disagree. I deal with illogical aspects of my mind by trying to find them out and correct them. Few people do anything similar with their religious beliefs.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I disagree. I deal with illogical aspects of my mind by trying to find them out and correct them. Few people do anything similar with their religious beliefs.

Are you sure about that? It seems to me that pretty much everyone does that at least once in their lives.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Are you sure about that? It seems to me that pretty much everyone does that at least once in their lives.

Once in 80 years? I rest my case.

[imitchellg5]

Well it'd be a pain in the butt if you had to consider global warming, a failing economy, Gordon Brown, American Idol, AND redefine your faith constantly.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Well it'd be a pain in the butt if you had to consider global warming, a failing economy, Gordon Brown, American Idol, AND redefine your faith constantly.

I realize this post is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but what you're suggesting is that someone not seek to change, learn, or grow.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Well it'd be a pain in the butt if you had to consider global warming, a failing economy, Gordon Brown, American Idol, AND redefine your faith constantly.

Welcome to life.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Back when I was a believer, dealing with biblical absurdities was easy: if God can create the world, why can't he create talking snakes?

Ultimately, you have to realize that "God made the universe" is a far greater absurdity than talking animals, virgin births, or casting lots. Nitpicking the small stuff is pointless when you're avoiding the big issues.

No one seems interested in this point. Why? If God can create the universe, then God must be omnipotent; if God is omnipotent, then God can create talking animals.

So why would anyone think God creating the universe is believable, but minor miracles are not?

[Shaddim]

Who says they don't talk? Hell, I know exactly what my cats are saying.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No one seems interested in this point. Why? If God can create the universe, then God must be omnipotent; if God is omnipotent, then God can create talking animals.

So why would anyone think God creating the universe is believable, but minor miracles are not?

I was wondering if besson would address this question, but I guess it's too logical.

I mean if someone excepts there is a god then they accept "that anything is possible" and magic and all that; including talking snakes.

While Im not an atheist, you are right, it is a greater absurdity that he created the universe than a talking snake.

And therefore logically a greater absurdity to believe in god itself....since god represents the all powerful...anythings-possible.

For the record besson, I think the snake is more like the devil disguised as a snake. It doesn't really matter; what matters is the lesson of the story...if you get no lesson from it, there's no point in the story. The bible is not meant to be a technical history book, or a science book. We already have plenty of those books.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Maybe I'm mistaking you for someone else, but weren't you for teaching Intelligent Design in science classrooms?

I'm against teaching that evolution is the only possible way that life as we know it on Earth came to be.

Evolution is a theory. Large parts of it are based on assumption (and, when it comes down to it, faith), as these parts cannot be replicated or proven. You can draw lines between proteins coming together, and you can draw lines between different species of animals with similarities, but there's a huge gap between single-celled organisms and highly complex, multi-cellular organisms.

I'm against the idea that any questioning or doubt of evolution is something that should be squashed out and suppressed. You don't have to believe in God to question whether or not evolution is really the way things happened.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm against the idea that any questioning or doubt of evolution is something that should be squashed out and suppressed. You don't have to believe in God to question whether or not evolution is really the way things happened.

No one is advocating that "any questioning or doubt of evolution is something that should be squashed out and suppressed". Heck the whole scientific method is based upon questioning and doubt. That is how science advices. Data is obtained; It is poked, prodded, and probed, and new results are obtained while old conclusions (when deemed inaccurate) are tossed out. It is a never-ending cycle of conclusion-doubt-test-new/modified conclusion.

What people are advocating for is that "any questioning or doubt of evolution NOT BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is something that should be squashed out and suppressed" from scientific discourse.

In other words, people are opposed to those who would question and doubt a scientific theory using non-scientific methods and non-scientific assumptions. Intelligent Design loosely employs the scientific method but is based on a series of non-scientific assumptions and focuses on the issue of origins which is only very loosely related to the Darwinian theory of evolution which doesn't address origins at all. And creationism is completely un-scientific altogether. I don't think either Intelligent Design or creationism are relevant in any way to questioning a scientific theory as they are un-scientific approaches to answering a scientific question.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are some who advocate for a literal interpretation of all of the bible. Does this include the talking snake part and the living in a whale part? I've heard the argument that these were intended to be metaphors, but how does one know which parts of the bible to take literally?

Please answer the following honestly, and I don't mean this as an attack in any way, shape, or form... We all struggle with our faiths or lack of a faith, I think that doubt is perfectly natural: do you Christians ever read parts of the bible and sort of get a sinking feeling in your stomach that something is just a little too hard to believe and/or a little too uncomfortable? How do you deal with these sorts of things without questioning your own faith?

In order to apply the principles of logic to Scripture, you have to presuppose what the intention of the author was in the text. A fully developed understanding would also include culture and period. The statement; "Giant metallic birds" may seem illogical to you for example, but from one trying to explain his first witness of an airplane in flight, may be quite logical.

While varying interpretations are not exclusive to religious text, too often those hostile to the tenets of a faith may find it necessary to parse what is legitimate from what is not legitimate; failing to acknowledge the overall message of the text. Biblical scholars know for example that even the historically factual details of Scripture are often metaphorical of a condition. In this sense, all of Scripture is a metaphor of both our physical and eternal condition in Christ.

Religious people generally deal with these anomalies through faith in the overall message.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Religious people generally deal with these anomalies through faith in the overall message.

But the overall message is a sum of its individual parts, no? And it's clear that there's no consensus as to the overall message of scripture, let alone the individual parts.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Reread this sentence and tell me if you still think it makes sense, because it doesn't to me. I have to have faith in my claim that I don't have faith? Why? I am me. I can read my mind. I know whether or not I have faith.

Not believing in a particular thing is, in itself, a conflicting belief system.

Similarly, any level of faith or belief without evidence can be construed as "religion." Most of the adherents of global warming fall into the category of "believers" rather than "understanders" in this manner, for example.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In this sense, all of Scripture is a metaphor of both our physical and eternal condition in Christ.

Are you talking narrowly about the New Testament?

Also, are you saying that there's no room for logic among those faithful to scripture? Logic is very important to me as a person of faith. For example, although I invariably accept that there have been miracles that transcend the normal logic of the natural universe, I won't accept religious claims that are not theologically consistent.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But the overall message is a sum of its individual parts, no? And it's clear that there's no consensus as to the overall message of scripture, let alone the individual parts.

The reason there is no consensus isn't that it is necessarily hard to interpret, it's that people would rather believe the more 'magical' or supernatural-events perspective of the bible than the meaningful philosophical perspectives.
They prefer the magical interpretation because it more effectively affirms their faith. So what we have is people trying to pigeon hole more magical beliefs into reality; into interpretation.

Evolution is a good example; I don't think anyone would question evolution for a second if they weren't religious. There's simply no other theories without the creation story.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Not believing in a particular thing is, in itself, a conflicting belief system.

I don't see that connection: just because you don't have faith in god or some other religious concepts, doesn't imply you have to be faithless in everything. You could believe that there is no god, but still not believe in a particular religion. What can be illogical is what you believe in, not necessarily that you believe in something.

To me, the question whether or not there is a god is largely irrelevant to me. Unless you're thinking about the meaning of life, i. e. to give value to your own existence, I don't see any reason to invoke the concept of god. But even then, it seems like a man-made problem to me: it's that we want to ascribe value to our lives, so in a way we start with a premise (life makes sense) and look for a way out.

Originally Posted by finboy 

Similarly, any level of faith or belief without evidence can be construed as "religion." Most of the adherents of global warming fall into the category of "believers" rather than "understanders" in this manner, for example.

If you `believe' in the validity of a scientific theory, then by definition, you can falsify that theory. That is the basic difference: no faith is needed, when a scientist makes a prediction on the average temperature for the next decade or so, we can check ten years from now (or if he's wrong, possibly even earlier) whether the prediction is correct within the margin of error.

You cannot prove or disprove the veracity behind many religious doctrines (e. g. whether there is a god or not), that's something you have to believe, because it cannot in principle be falsified.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No one seems interested in this point. Why? If God can create the universe, then God must be omnipotent; if God is omnipotent, then God can create talking animals.

So why would anyone think God creating the universe is believable, but minor miracles are not?

Well, he has made animals talk before....

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

No one is advocating that "any questioning or doubt of evolution is something that should be squashed out and suppressed". Heck the whole scientific method is based upon questioning and doubt. That is how science advices. Data is obtained; It is poked, prodded, and probed, and new results are obtained while old conclusions (when deemed inaccurate) are tossed out. It is a never-ending cycle of conclusion-doubt-test-new/modified conclusion.

What people are advocating for is that "any questioning or doubt of evolution NOT BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is something that should be squashed out and suppressed" from scientific discourse.

In other words, people are opposed to those who would question and doubt a scientific theory using non-scientific methods and non-scientific assumptions. Intelligent Design loosely employs the scientific method but is based on a series of non-scientific assumptions and focuses on the issue of origins which is only very loosely related to the Darwinian theory of evolution which doesn't address origins at all. And creationism is completely un-scientific altogether. I don't think either Intelligent Design or creationism are relevant in any way to questioning a scientific theory as they are un-scientific approaches to answering a scientific question.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm against teaching that evolution is the only possible way that life as we know it on Earth came to be.

Are you confusing evolution with origins of life? Evolution doesn't explain where life came from, it only explains how life evolved to be what it is. The origins of life on Earth is still under debate, and there are several competing popular theories. The two most favorable theories are, of course, abiogenesis and panspermia.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Evolution is a theory.

So is gravity.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Large parts of it are based on assumption (and, when it comes down to it, faith), as these parts cannot be replicated or proven.

Like what? And no, faith isn't involved.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You can draw lines between proteins coming together, and you can draw lines between different species of animals with similarities, but there's a huge gap between single-celled organisms and highly complex, multi-cellular organisms.

No there isn't.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm against the idea that any questioning or doubt of evolution is something that should be squashed out and suppressed.

No one squashes or suppresses alternative theories, so long as they follow the scientific method.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You don't have to believe in God to question whether or not evolution is really the way things happened.

No, but testing and evidence helps.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Are you confusing evolution with origins of life? Evolution doesn't explain where life came from, it only explains how life evolved to be what it is.

Yeah, so many scientists resort to saying alien life gave us life on earth, but they never then go to the next step to explain where that alien life came from. It's much easier to credit E.T. than the truth of the divine.

So is gravity.

shifuimam didn't get the Creationist memo that we don't use that one-liner anymore.

No there isn't.

Sure, whatever you say. The more important issue is that you can go millions of generations without ever gaining the immense number of beneficial mutations that would be required to go from the simplest life to more complex life, to go from pond scum to frogs, let alone pond scum to people. Creatures change and adapt within their kind based on selection pressure - microevolution. Macroevolution is an utter falsehood. But if it helps you to believe the Darwinian fairy tale because you just have to reject G-d, that's your call.

No one squashes or suppresses alternative theories, so long as they follow the scientific method.

Is macroevolution falsifiable in your opinion?

[besson3c]

Why is this something that requires choosing sides? You're right, science cannot explain where we came from. Why can't one just say "I don't know where we came from" and leave it at that? Some of us are more comfortable with that lack of certainty than they are in assigning the origins of our universe to the supernatural.

[Big Mac]

Fair question, besson, but I know where we came from because my people were delivered the information directly from the source. I don't have to guess, even though that may sound comical to you (just as comical as macroevolution is to me).

[besson3c]

Yeah, but that's where things become circular to me.

You believe what is printed in the bible because it is printed in the bible, and in order to believe what is printed in the bible you have to have faith which is established from reading the bible, or something like that? I've always been told that I can create a faith in God by reading the bible, but don't you sort of need a faith already to want to read the bible and try to understand it? After all, if you didn't believe there would be a positive outcome from reading the bible, why bother?

[Big Mac]

I believe what is printed in the Torah because my people received it at Mount Sinai at once as a national revelation. From one generation to the next we recount the events of that history on an annual basis and have always lived what is contained in the books. More importantly, there is an unbroken chain of live Torah instruction from Moses to the teachers of each successive generation. I believe in the rest of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures because they augment the Torah, and our prophets verified them as part of the prophetic and sacred writings that make our canon. Also, the entirety of human history testifies to the distinction my nation bears for being chosen to receive the Divine text.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I believe what is printed in the Torah because my people received it at Mount Sinai at once as a national revelation.

This statement is clearly circular. Everything following the "because" is also believed, not the cause of the belief.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But the overall message is a sum of its individual parts, no? And it's clear that there's no consensus as to the overall message of scripture, let alone the individual parts.

... not unlike the US Constitution for example. The overall message of the OT is clear to those who revere its tenets, the overall message of the NT is clear to those who revere its tenets. Those who don't revere these texts will insist they say only what they want them to say. This will never be exclusive to religion or religious people regardless of the individual parts in contention.

[besson3c]

If the overall message is clear why are there so many Christian faiths, some of which have even gone to war against each other?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If the overall message is clear why are there so many Christian faiths, some of which have even gone to war against each other?

Because throughout history (and in the present day), 95% of the population of this planet are complete cretins.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Because throughout history (and in the present day), 95% of the population of this planet are complete cretins.

True, but you are quick to point out the violent nature of Islam. Others point out the violent history of Christianity (many generations ago). What about Buddism? It seems like throughout the history of the Earth in relative comparison this has been a pretty peaceful religion. Has this message been that much more clear, or is there just less of a focus on self-righteousness and the actions of others?

Do you think that some religions inspire these cycles of killing heretics, and then realizing the lack of a productive reason to be doing so?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If the overall message is clear why are there so many Christian faiths, some of which have even gone to war against each other?

What do you mean by "Christian faiths?"

[besson3c]

Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. I guess it would have been more accurate to say "Christian denominations"?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

True, but you are quick to point out the violent nature of Islam. Others point out the violent history of Christianity (many generations ago).

Again, the difference is between being "on book" and "off book".

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What about Buddism? It seems like throughout the history of the Earth in relative comparison this has been a pretty peaceful religion.

Aside from all the kung-fu, you mean?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you think that some religions inspire these cycles of killing heretics, and then realizing the lack of a productive reason to be doing so?

With the exception of islam (which I believe to be violent at its core), most religious violence is caused by cretins wrapped up in the colours of a religion so as to influence the proles. Note that this doesn't apply to the crusades or the Spanish inquisition, both of which were essentially counter-actions to stop the cancer of islam from spreading.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

True, but you are quick to point out the violent nature of Islam. Others point out the violent history of Christianity (many generations ago).

Yes, Christianity had a very violent past, but that violence should not be taken completely out of context. Christians picked up the sword largely in defense, not offense. Indeed, Islam would have conquered Europe if Christian armies had not been victorious on September 11th, 1683 at the Battle of Vienna. The Crusades and Inquisitions, as terrible as they were, were the responses to Muslim incursions against the Christian world.

What about Buddism? It seems like throughout the history of the Earth in relative comparison this has been a pretty peaceful religion.

Yes, Buddhism is a peaceful faith, and there is a lot to be admired in that. Buddhists are so peaceful that when Muslim forces tried to conquer India the Buddhists were murdered off while the Hindus took up arms and repelled the invaders. That's why the Buddhist population of India no longer exists. Buddhism couldn't be a leading faith in the world because there would be no one to fight even defensive wars.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yes, Christianity had a very violent past, but that violence should not be taken completely out of context. Christians picked up the sword largely in defense, not offense. Indeed, Islam would have conquered Europe if Christian armies had not been victorious on September 11th, 1683 at the Battle of Vienna. The Crusades and Inquisitions, as terrible as they were, were the responses to Muslim incursions against the Christian world.

What about the Catholic on Protestant wars depicted in the Cate Blanchett movie "Elizabeth"? This was so bloody that it formed the Anglican church where England could carry on their version of Catholocism without a dependence on Rome.

Do you think that God is pleased about religious domination, mass killings and the like? Would it be accurate to say that the pacifist nature of Buddism was more Godly than the bloody nature of Christianity in, say, the 1500s? Would a lesson for today be that God would much prefer us to live in peace rather than killing each other in the name of doing God's work for him?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you think that God is pleased about religious domination, mass killings and the like? Would it be accurate to say that the pacifist nature of Buddism was more Godly than the bloody nature of Christianity in, say, the 1500s? Would a lesson for today be that God would much prefer us to live in peace rather than killing each other in the name of doing God's work for him?

It's the paradox of living in a world where 95% of the population are donkeyorificies - peace must be fought for.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's the paradox of living in a world where 95% of the population are donkeyorificies - peace must be fought for.

The problem is, the militant cultures/societies in our history that were trying to wipe out others were probably doing this in the name of peace - the idea that their own culture would be far less threatened without the influences of outside religions. Strong leadership can get the general population to rally behind these sorts of ideas.

It seems like the best way to maintain the peace is with peaceful alliances, and taking a very Ron Paul-like mind-your-own-business approach to global affairs. Everybody jokes about invading Canada, but why hasn't anybody done it? Canada is rich in natural resources. For starters, Canada has strong alliances including the US, and it also generally does not provoke other nations. Even without the US, it would be very difficult for a nation to get away with a random invasion of Canada without a major global conflict.

I know this is slightly off topic, but I think this approach to nationalism works for religion too. If you don't try to convert people (especially by sword) and just let other countries and cultures exist as they please, it gives little reason for another religion (and country) to want to attack unless they were in conquer-all mode.

We have thankfully figured out that Christianity works best when it is not forced and we have the freedom to practice whatever religion we choose. Maybe some day we'll figure out the same with regards to our relations with other countries.

What Christianity (and Buddism) have figured out, I think, makes the notion of "fighting" for peace so far as religion goes an obsolete concept.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What about the Catholic on Protestant wars depicted in the Cate Blanchett movie "Elizabeth"? This was so bloody that it formed the Anglican church where England could carry on their version of Catholocism without a dependence on Rome.

Do you think that God is pleased about religious domination, mass killings and the like? Would it be accurate to say that the pacifist nature of Buddism was more Godly than the bloody nature of Christianity in, say, the 1500s? Would a lesson for today be that God would much prefer us to live in peace rather than killing each other in the name of doing God's work for him?

I cannot justify all of the bloody history of Christianity. The Catholic-Protestant warfare is one very potent indictment of both sects and the religion as a whole because according to the founder of Christianity true Christians should be at peace with each other.

I would say that Buddhism is holier in isolated comparison to unjust violence sometimes practiced by other religions. Sometimes Christian violence occurred for defensive purposes, but other times it was because Christian doctrine can be very exclusive and exclusionary - the Christian way or hell-fire. Christianity has moderated through the centuries to a large degree to become a much more tolerant faith, but Islam is also very exclusive and super-sessionist in nature. It has not moderated and will not moderate unless its followers are beaten and disgraced to the point that they are compelled to be more tolerant since the gates of Islamic interpretation that could have allowed for reformation were closed soon after the religion took off.

I can only directly defend my religion. Judaism teaches that peace is one of the highest conditions to aspire to. It is stated that the entirety of the Torah is meant for the ultimate promotion of peace. Our holiest place on earth, Jerusalem, is called the city of peace, and one of the main components of our belief about the end of this world as we know is that humanity will be united in peace, brotherhood, a common language and universal knowledge of divine truth.

Jews are also commanded, however, to defend ourselves and each other against attackers. And there is one special condition that compels us religiously to fight in common defense: Am Yisrael (the Nation of Israel) is commanded to defend itself when it is under attack, especially when we regain sovereignty over any part of Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel), and we are forbidden to cede any part of the land to an enemy who seeks to take it, unless we give it away under our own terms in exchange for true, lasting peace. So violence is mandated in that circumstance, but it is violence confined to definitive, quite narrow borders (even if we're talking about Greater Israel in terms of territory), rather than the unconstrained violence seen in other religions that do not limit themselves to a specific geographic boundary.

Jews are also enjoined from going out to seek converts or force the rest of humanity to accept what we believe, which is another major mark of differentiation that makes Judaism inherently much more peaceful in comparison to the exclusive doctrines of Christianity and Islam.

[besson3c]

Does it not seem a little counter-productive though, to perpetuate more and more bloodshed in the name of religious belief? Especially bloodshed that seems to have no end to it? At what point do God's commandments to not kill others in combination with the realization of the longevity of the war and senselessness of war in general override the zeal behind defense in the name of religion?

In asking this, I'm in no way choosing sides, suggesting that Jews or Palestinians should give in, whatever, I mean this in a very general sense applied to both sides of this conflict or any other, really. To those of us that are looking on and aren't wrapped up in the religious aspects to this war, it's very easy to say "I have a solution... How about stopping ****ing killing each other?" It's a sarcastic and smart-ass way of looking at it, but is it far from being sensible?

I guess I've never understood why not killing people and the horrors that go along with any war do not override religious text and religious principle from either/or a religious and/or practical standpoint. From a purely global perspective, as far as keeping peace around the world it is very easy to say that we would all be better off without any sort of religion.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

From a purely global perspective, as far as keeping peace around the world it is very easy to say that we would all be better off without any sort of religion.

This is a very easy thing for an atheist to say if they believe (as they generally do) that all religions are equal.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This is a very easy thing for an atheist to say if they believe (as they generally do) that all religions are equal.

I'm neither an atheist nor do I believe that all religions are equal. I'm agnostic, and I think that Scientology takes crazy to a whole new level