• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is why religion is a problem

Anyone have any statistics on the number of times someone didn't do something morally wrong because their religious convictions prevented them from doing it? Any numbers on that?
 
m_huber said:
This man read the Bible, and from that reading concluded that the best thing that he could do would be to have sex with his daughter. "I would not sleep with my daughter unless it were for religious reasons" implies that the problem is with religion. He was a self-proclaimed pastor, but then, most are. It is also moot that the court didn't buy his defense. This man did what he did because of religion.

Religion overrides good sense. This is a perfect illustration of how "God told me to do it" justifies any action. And God only tells people to do things when they have belief in some God; AKA: religion.
Click to expand...

I have also read the same Bible, and come to the opposite conclusion. I have also been appointed and ordained to the position of Elder over a Presbyterian congregation. (One might say that this alone is de facto evidence of "religion over reason", but that would be only a matter of opinion.)

Thus I assert that, given all available evidence, it is not "religion" that is at fault, but that religion has instead been touted as the "Cause of Convenience" by a criminal for his own criminal actions.

After having worked in Prison Ministries, I can assert that criminals generally fall into two broad categories: (1) the type the claims innocence by virtue of having been framed or "set up", and (2) the type that acknowledges their crimes and tries to justify them with some higher-order issues of philosophy or religion. Either way, they are trying to divert their guilt by laying the blame elsewhere.

(Some criminals do acknowledge their guilt and accept their convictions, but these folks seem to be very rare.)

Had he read a Biology textbook, claimed to be a self-made Scientist, and cited his Biological urges as justification for incestuous rape, then Science would have been blamed for his actions.

Religious belief does not justify any criminal act.
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
Please cite the relevant Bible passages.
Click to expand...

Okay.
BibleGateway said:
Genesis 19: 30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [g] ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [h] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
Click to expand...

BibleGateway said:
Zechariah 14: 2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
Click to expand...

BibleGateway said:
Judges 21 : 10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 "This is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin." 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

13 Then the whole assembly sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites at the rock of Rimmon. 14 So the Benjamites returned at that time and were given the women of Jabesh Gilead who had been spared. But there were not enough for all of them.

15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16 And the elders of the assembly said, "With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left? 17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs," they said, "so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can't give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: 'Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.' 19 But look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, to the north of Bethel, and east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and to the south of Lebonah."

20 So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, "Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the girls of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, then rush from the vineyards and each of you seize a wife from the girls of Shiloh and go to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, 'Do us a kindness by helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war, and you are innocent, since you did not give your daughters to them.' "

23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the girls were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.
Click to expand...

Plenty more where that came from too.
 
GEN 19:30-38 tells the story of two incestuous daughters who got their father drunk and took advantage of him to become pregnant.

ZEC 14:2, when taken in context with previous chapters and the remainder of the 14th chapter, details how God punished the people of Jerusalem for their crimes against His authority (a.k.a., "sins"). Back then, rape (or "forced marriage") was an approved way of obtaining wives, even under pagan (non-Judaic/non-Mosaic) law.

(I know, it's an Appeal to Tradition. But it does seem to imply an attempt by the biblical author to justify actions by religious means.)

JDG 21:10-21 is summed up in verse 21, which says "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." A clear case of using religion to justify violence, and not one of religion itself justifying violence.

Keep in mind that I do not speak for God, and that I no longer hold the Bible to be the "Inerrant Word" of God, merely a series of authoritative documents, thanks to a strict interpretation of 2Chronicles 4:2 which reads, “Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”

If a circle is ten cubits from brim to brim, then its circumference should be closer to 31.42 cubits, or ten times the value of Pi. Either the author made a mistake (making the Bible inaccurate), or the value of Pi has changed since the time this passage was written.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
Are we trying to prove that they don't kill people??

BTW, I'd have articulett in my corner any day.
Click to expand...

Man, you are over-medicated.:)

Articulett with you. Challenge you duel. Steal woman. Grog beat chest.

But Mongo only pawn in game of life.
 
Fnord said:
I have also read the same Bible, and come to the opposite conclusion. I have also been appointed and ordained to the position of Elder over a Presbyterian congregation. (One might say that this alone is de facto evidence of "religion over reason", but that would be only a matter of opinion.)

Thus I assert that, given all available evidence, it is not "religion" that is at fault, but that religion has instead been touted as the "Cause of Convenience" by a criminal for his own criminal actions.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Doesn't your argument actually support the contention that there is a problem with the religion? I.e. you both come to quite different conclusions despite apparently starting from the same place with the same evidence (as provided by the religion)?
 
Darat said:
Doesn't your argument actually support the contention that there is a problem with the religion?
Click to expand...

Yes. It does.

I've know that there is a problem with "Religion" for quite some time. It is just one more political construct, to be used to justify any action as divine will. Check my previous posts, especially the ones where I state that "Religion is the politics of faith."

One of the major problems with any religion is that there is no single authority for the interpretation of Scripture. Another is the inherent inaccuracy of Scripture, due to it being written by humans, which are fallible. Yet another is that there are many scriptures considered "the One and the True" by their believers.

Had the Bible, in its entirety and in God's own handwriting, been delivered unto Moses, then there would be no room for mis-interpretation.

As it is, take any document considered holy (Buddhic, Judaic, Vedic, et cetera), and you will find errors and contradictions. Some passages seem to justify the most heinous of acts, while others seem to condemn to death anyone who commits the slightest infraction of diet, sex, or non-belief.

Now try to build a political system on those holy words. You may as well try to apply the U.S. Tax Code in a fair and equitable manner.

I have been, and likely will always be, down on religion, especially where and when it comes to variations in faith. Imho, each person should be allowed to believe what they will, and not worry about the beliefs of others.

To politicize those beliefs into a religion is just asking for trouble.
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
Had the Bible, in its entirety and in God's own handwriting, been delivered unto Moses, then there would be no room for mis-interpretation.
Click to expand...

While I like the rest of your post I'm afraid that I must take exception with this statement. With language there is always room for mis- and re-interpretation.

If there is an all-knowing God, He would certainly know that. Perhaps that is why we don't have any direct writings?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Perhaps that is why we don't have any direct writings?
Click to expand...

It's impossible for me to second-guess someone who is beyond my understanding -- its' easier to answer the question "What do women really want?".

;)
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
GEN 19:30-38 tells the story of two incestuous daughters who got their father drunk and took advantage of him to become pregnant.
Click to expand...
The two incestuous daughters were not punished by god or man- in fact, their offspring became kings and fathers of nations just like Abraham. That's a pretty strong tacit endorsement there.

ZEC 14:2, when taken in context with previous chapters and the remainder of the 14th chapter, details how God punished the people of Jerusalem for their crimes against His authority (a.k.a., "sins"). Back then, rape (or "forced marriage") was an approved way of obtaining wives, even under pagan (non-Judaic/non-Mosaic) law.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what the pagans do, the bible endorses rape, as punishiment and as a mating strategy. It even outlines rules for when, where, and with whom you can and cannot.

JDG 21:10-21 is summed up in verse 21, which says "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." A clear case of using religion to justify violence, and not one of religion itself justifying violence.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the question. the question was "Please cite the relevant Bible passages [supporting the assertion that Christianity and Judaism teaches that rape and incest are ok]

The men who raped the women to take them as wives were not punished, by god or man. Indeed, they are acting under orders of the lord and are still called his chosen people.
 
joobz said:
You agree that Articulett's with me??
Click to expand...

That wasn't where I was aiming. Rather to her initial statement, ". . . to me people go out of their way to divert the blame from the thing they want to believe is blameless."

I think any adherent, whether it's political, religious, patriotic, etc., will go out of their way to divert blame. Fnord is proving that right now. The Bible is full of all kinds of violence, and endorses it if you're on the the "right side". I don't see the point of trying to dispute that. Instead, we should be discussing how the Judeo-Christian ethic has changed, and no longer adheres to the concept of "my god can beat up your god so violence is ok".

Instead, some of us are going "out of their way to divert blame from the thing they want to believe is blameless."

sorry, I'm sick right now and am feeling highly medicated.
Click to expand...

Feel better, so you can duel up a storm.
 
Last edited:
I've given this a lot of thought as of late, and here is my take on the matter:

This is a case of a person in a position of authority abusing his power. People in positions of authority often abuse this authority.

Now, religions create positions of authority that would not otherwise exist. This gives more opportunity for abuse of this authority. For that reason religion (and yes, I mean all religion) is a bad thing.

However, since this was a father-daughter relationship, I have a very hard time blaming religion for this instance. The position of authority was already in place.
 
Last edited:
Zygar said:
I have a very hard time blaming religion for this instance. The position of authority was already in place.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that in this case the offender used his position of authority as a religious leader to circumvent the usual limitations of his position of authority as a father- i.e. don't f[rule X] your daughter. If that's the case, we're back to square one.
 
Piscivore said:
It seems to me that in this case the offender used his position of authority as a religious leader to circumvent the usual limitations of his position of authority as a father- i.e. don't f[rule X] your daughter. If that's the case, we're back to square one.
Click to expand...

You could argue that. In which case, I will be forced back to
Zygar said:
Now, religions create positions of authority that would not otherwise exist. This gives more opportunity for abuse of this authority. For that reason religion (and yes, I mean all religion) is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
 
cloudshipsrule said:
Columbine?
Click to expand...

I thought they killed because they hated jocks and the upper class, clique students. Am I wrong?

According to wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre )

The god reference was only rumored to have happened. And even then they just asked her if she "believed in god."

The only wittness to the event only said that the gunmen ridiculed the victims belief in god. Not that they proclaimed to have perpetrated the act in the name of atheisim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom