• 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.

Ed Please tell me why you kill

baron said:
........Resolution of a religious war would clearly involve some religious solution.......
Click to expand...

Really? I can't think of any war ever which has been resolved in this way. Perhaps this poster is trying to dismiss the notion of religious war by defining it away, once again revealing an agenda-driven argument rather than attempt at a neutral examination of history.
 
baron said:
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.
Click to expand...
It may be that you misunderstand what I have been saying, in order to compose such an inappropriate reply. You are saying that there was no "religious solution" to the Troubles? That therefore religion was not an issue? I am saying, religion was "an issue". Very much so. But religious doctrine wasn't. Nobody was required to renounce, change or adopt any religious doctrine. Therefore adherence to these is not mentioned in the Agreement. But that "religion" basically defined the social castes who had waged the conflict is beyond question.

This was said in the Parliament of NI on 24 April 1934.
George Leeke then retorted: "What about your Protestant Parliament?", to which Craigavon replied: "The hon. Member must remember that in the South they boasted of a Catholic State. They still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State. It would be rather interesting for historians of the future to compare a Catholic State launched in the South with a Protestant State launched in the North and to see which gets on the better and prospers the more. It is most interesting for me at the moment to watch how they are progressing. I am doing my best always to top the bill and to be ahead of the South."​
The Troubles represented the effective (and belated!) dismantling of the political entity defined by Craigavon. The "Southern" version is likewise - more peacefully - on the road to being defunct.
 
Craig B said:
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.​
Click to expand...


A yes of course, Roman Emperors were gods weren't they?

This guy wasn't so bad though, just a tad on the licentious side. Mind you that is worse than killing to some with a religious bent.
 
Thor 2 said:
A yes of course, Roman Emperors were gods weren't they?

This guy wasn't so bad though, just a tad on the licentious side. Mind you that is worse than killing to some with a religious bent.
Click to expand...
He also invented the whoopee cushion which is a point in his favour. I wonder if Trump could invent something as smart as that.
 
baron said:
It has already been established that Leopold was not motivated by Christianity, he only claimed to be motivated by Christianity. His actual motivation was greed. In view of that, what relevance does he have to this thread?
Click to expand...

So there is a difference between being motivated by, and using religion as an excuse? It's a fine line probably not appreciated fully by the people massacred.
 
I kill for the same reasons as anyone else - because the voices from the coffee machine tell me to.
 
jaydeehess said:
So there is a difference between being motivated by, and using religion as an excuse? It's a fine line probably not appreciated fully by the people massacred.
Click to expand...

The line is not fine at all. It's difficult to imagine a more clear and telling distinction between related concepts.
 
baron said:
abaddon said:
Sure, I am only Irish and I only lived through all of that nonsense. What would I know about it?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
False history, sure. It deserves to be overturned. It is a matter of living memory including mine that religion was a huge part of the Irish situation. Pretending otherwise is delusional. It may well be the case that you are incapable of figuring it out, but the facts on the ground remain despite your incomprehension.

I am certain that you really did not expect to encounter actual Irish people here, probably because you have propounded this nonsense elsewhere on other fora, but tough luck. And I am not the only active Irish member here. Your ignorance of the actual facts is offensive as is your insistence that you know better because reasons.
 
Orion said:
Religion is meant to bring love and peace, so I believe. How could anyone justify killing fellow human beings in the name of his god? I don’t know the answer. Would someone, preferably a person involved in or close to this practice, please inform me?
Click to expand...

Well, for Christians it could be justified if it prevented some people from burning in hell for eternity.

Christians have also justified killing abortion doctors to prevent them from murdering fetuses.
 
applecorped said:
"Religion is meant to bring love and peace"


Facts not in evidence
Click to expand...

It also assumes that religion was created for a purpose and not just given to us by a divine being.

Which I suppose is only ironic if it comes from a religious person.
 
RESPONSE TO POSTS

1.“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”

Response: Direct quote from my post…“Religion is supposed to bring love and peace to mankind… so I feel. These are my feelings… my believes and my perceptions.”
I would never suggest that my perceptions are true to EVERYONE and that EVERYONE shares them… I believe I am entitled to my beliefs.

2.From my post “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?”

Response: Seriously… I don’t hear “Muslims themselves” speaking out against killings. To which “SOURCES OF NEWS” should I tune? Am I the only person tuning to the “WRONG SOURCES”?
My news sources have however, more than once, reported that youngsters are recruited for ISIS at their “local mosques”. Is this merely propaganda? What role does local mosques play in promoting/deterring terrorism?

3.“Why your oddly specific concentration on Islamic terrorism?”

Response:
Because of its magnitude…
“Islamic Terrorists ...killed twice as many people in one month (5000) in November, 2014 than were killed in in 350 years of Inquisition (2000-3000)”. TheReligionofPeace.com

4. Politics

Response: Some posts suggest politics to be the reason behind Islamic Terrorism. I believe that Islamic Terrorism is not a political issue, but a religion problem.
What political change or solution will keep Muslims from killing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom