Ed Please tell me why you kill

[baron]

Oh well, you've convinced me. With a watertight argument like that, who could possibly argue.

Argumentum ad populum

I've already posted links / excerpts for those who are ignorant of the facts. So let's see your links showing that the Troubles were a religious conflict. I've asked you several questions in this thread and you've responded to none and contributed nothing. Will that trend continue or will you finally post evidence of your claims?

 

[Craig B]

So that kind of destroys your own argument. How could there have been any religious motivation if resolution was obtained without reference to the religions involved? It makes no sense. Not that it would make a difference as it's accepted knowledge that the Troubles were not grounded in religion, but still.

Not in the doctrines expounded in the texts of these religions. This has been referred to above. Religion as such was an important element. Look at the discussion in previous posts, by Abaddon for example.

Ample reference was made to the religions involved, in the peace negotiations, but not to their sacred texts. Your points are simply not accepted, and have already been discussed. If you disagree say why.

 

[baron]

Not in the doctrines expounded in the texts of these religions. This has been referred to above. Religion as such was an important element. Look at the discussion in previous posts, by Abaddon for example.

I'm not aware of any citation or evidence provided showing the Troubles were grounded in religion. What post should I be looking at?

Ample reference was made to the religions involved, in the peace negotiations, but not to their sacred texts. Your points are simply not accepted, and have already been discussed. If you disagree say why.

My points have not been accepted because you are wrong. I am putting forwards, with citations, the accepted view of history. If you have an alternative view then let's see the evidence. Quick, before Mike G posts it. I'm kidding.

 

[Tricky]

Me personally? I kill (or accept killed things) in order to eat them. Every single thing I digest is of biologic origin, plants and animals, and they are either dead when I eat them or will be shortly after I eat them. That is a simple fact of being an organic being, except for the few organisms that can feed on inorganic substances. So killing becomes necessary so I can survive.

 

[gabeygoat]

For ***** and giggles

 

[Thor 2]

My points have not been accepted because you are wrong. I am putting forwards, with citations, the accepted view of history. If you have an alternative view then let's see the evidence. Quick, before Mike G posts it. I'm kidding.

Interesting couple of sentences here.

"My points have not been accepted because you are wrong."

I can't even begin to understand this.

"I am putting forwards, with citations, the accepted view of history."

The accepted view of history? The accepted according to whom?

 

[Elagabalus]

I don't know. I've always just loved to kill. I really enjoyed it. But then I got famous, and - it's just too hard for me. And so many witnesses. I mean, *everybody* recognized me. I couldn't even lurk anymore. I'd hear, "Who's that lurking over there? Isn't that **** *******?" So I came to ****** to kill. And it's really worked out very well for me.

 

[Thor 2]

I don't know. I've always just loved to kill. I really enjoyed it. But then I got famous, and - it's just too hard for me. And so many witnesses. I mean, *everybody* recognized me. I couldn't even lurk anymore. I'd hear, "Who's that lurking over there? Isn't that **** *******?" So I came to ****** to kill. And it's really worked out very well for me.

These words could have been written by the God of Abraham.

Is that you God, hiding behind the name of Elagabalus?

 

[MikeG]

......."I am putting forwards, with citations, the accepted view of history."

The accepted view of history? The accepted according to whom?

The poster himself, of course. And the claim to have provided citations is laughable.

 

[baron]

Interesting couple of sentences here.

"My points have not been accepted because you are wrong."

I can't even begin to understand this.

"I am putting forwards, with citations, the accepted view of history."

The accepted view of history? The accepted according to whom?

Read up on David Irving. Then you may finally 'begin to understand' the very simple concept of accepted versions of history.

 

[Craig B]

These words could have been written by the God of Abraham.

Is that you God, hiding behind the name of Elagabalus^WP?

That was the name of a God. A very naughty God from Syria. The emperor started off with another name.

In his early youth he served as a priest of the god Elagabal in the hometown of his mother's family, Emesa. As a private citizen, he was probably named Sextus Varius Avitus Bassianus.​

 

[Craig B]

I'm not aware of any citation or evidence provided showing the Troubles were grounded in religion. What post should I be looking at?

Your quote from the BBC in #55 was rejected in #60 and in #72. As a view of history I don't accept it at all. Religion was important in the Troubles. Please believe me on this. But its importance did not derive from the doctrinal content of the books regarded as canonical by the religious communities in N Ireland.

My argument for this is founded on the observation that the doctrines of Catholicism and the Reformed churches, as expounded in their canonical texts, have in no way been altered, and nonetheless the communal violence has more or less ended. But the communal violence, while it lasted, was based on religious hostility.

Let me give an analogy. Suppose I said, the colour bar in the old South had nothing to do with people being Black or White. Then I would be talking utter nonsense. But it is nevertheless true to say, that none of the physiological properties of melanin, or the absence of melanin, was the cause of this communal discrimination. The proof: the melanin is still where it used to be, but the communal discrimination has been outlawed from public life, and happily mitigated in society generally.

 

[Orion]

Don't know.

 

[Orion]

"Religion is meant to bring love and peace, so I believe.
Two problems with this statement.
1) 'We don't know who means religion to bring love and peace.
-Who can be anybody: God, the Devil, the religion's human founder, the religion's current leaders, the mythological writer, the common practitioner now, the common practitioner then, or anybody else.
-Mean isn't always equivalent to purpose.
-Maybe religion doesn't mean any one thing.
--This is my belief.

2) YOUR belief doesn't make the statement true.
-The readers of your question may not believe it.
-I don't believe it.
-It seems a little arrogant to assume that your belief is shared
by everyone"

I emphasise that this is my belief. It does not make the statement true and I don't care if anyone shares my belief. I have no hidden agendas... I wanted to say how I feel and what I don't understand... I am looking for answers.

I find the divine command theory very-very helpful... so are some of the other responses... thank you very much.

 

[Craig B]

Don't know.

You wrote that you wanted to understand. Has the thread helped you to do that, or has it hindered your understanding?

 

[MikeG]

Orion, I find your answer utterly incomprehensible. Are you answering a specific point that somebody made? If so, could you use the quote function. If not, what on earth has your analysis, if we can call it that, of the "Religion is meant to........" quote got to do with the subject of the thread?

 

[Orion]

One more question:
A small percentage of Muslims (extremists) are involved in killing... why don't the thousands of "ordinary Muslims" across the world not condemn the practice of a few? I don't here your voice.

 

[Craig B]

One more question:
A small percentage of Muslims (extremists) are involved in killing... why don't the thousands of "ordinary Muslims" across the world not condemn the practice of a few? I don't here your voice.

Then you aren't listening.

ETA. This is from the Israeli paper Haaretz, for example. But you can look up these things yourself. So far you have expressed your own lack of understanding, copypasted a list from the Internet, and confessed ignorance of a very widespread phenomenon, Muslims denouncing terrorism, which has been exhaustively discussed in this forum too. It might be better if you could express your views and the reasons why you hold them, in a more detailed post, which could then be discussed here.

 

[MikeG]

One more question:
A small percentage of Muslims (extremists) are involved in killing... why don't the thousands of "ordinary Muslims" across the world not condemn the practice of a few? I don't here your voice.

Are you deliberately avoiding the umpteen messages put out against Muslim terrorism by Muslims themselves, or do you just choose the wrong sources of news?

Can you tell us why you aren't answering any of the points raised in this thread? It's almost as though you have no interest in anyone else's views on the subject.

 

[baron]

Your quote from the BBC in #55 was rejected in #60 and in #72.

I genuinely don't understand what you're talking about. There was no evidence in #60, just you saying,

I beg leave to dissent from the view that "being Protestant" has no influence on the thinking or actions of members of the Orange Order.

#72 was

Sure, I am only Irish and I only lived through all of that nonsense. What would I know about it?

Are you seriously suggesting these posts constitute evidence that would overturn any serious account of history? I'm not even being sarcastic, you must mean something else but I'm at a loss to understand what.

As a view of history I don't accept it at all. Religion was important in the Troubles. Please believe me on this.

Watch those goalposts. The issue I disputed was that the Troubles were religiously motivated, specifically a 'religious war'. You agreed with this. Here is the original post.

The particular insanity that is religious war is fully illustrated by Northern Ireland.

But its importance did not derive from the doctrinal content of the books regarded as canonical by the religious communities in N Ireland.

My argument for this is founded on the observation that the doctrines of Catholicism and the Reformed churches, as expounded in their canonical texts, have in no way been altered, and nonetheless the communal violence has more or less ended. But the communal violence, while it lasted, was based on religious hostility.

Let me give an analogy. Suppose I said, the colour bar in the old South had nothing to do with people being Black or White. Then I would be talking utter nonsense. But it is nevertheless true to say, that none of the physiological properties of melanin, or the absence of melanin, was the cause of this communal discrimination. The proof: the melanin is still where it used to be, but the communal discrimination has been outlawed from public life, and happily mitigated in society generally.

I still assert that your observation proves the opposite, not that it needs further proof. Resolution of a religious war would clearly involve some religious solution. The fact there was none in Northern Ireland hits very heavily that religion was not at issue. When UK / Argentina hostilities ended there was no change to the Catholic texts or the Church of England texts, but that doesn't make it a religious war.