• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Row Over Religious War Games

Xàbia Shrimper

Co-founder of ShrimperZone
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
13,804
Location
Xàbia, España
religious.gif
 
One observation - that comment's not really applicable for the 20th century where the majority of war dead were the victims of extreme secular ideologies such as fascism and communism.

I've read that Mao had the blood of 80 million on his hands, with Stalin and Hitler following up with around 40 - 50 million each.

Makes the efforts of the religious zealots seem pretty insignificant when you compare them against the above numbers.

Also if you're going to go down that road then how many millions of lives have been snuffed out by abortion? You won't find many religions that approve of that practise.
 
Whooaaa.....

I can't speak for Mao but...

1) There was no evidence that Hitler was an athiest. The Nazi belt buckles had "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us.
2) Stalin trained as a monk.

And as for abortion - this should remain the very right of a woman - aborting a collection of cells that MAY turn into a human life is not murder. Who's to say if the pregnancy would of gone full term?
 
Oh well. Anything that highlights just how pathetic religion is will always be a favourite of mine.

"Holy books are works of fiction" certainly strikes a chord with me!

;)
 
Hoozar , the numpteys !!! Complaining about a virtual version tsk

Anyway's Relgion , Theologey Philosphey, Sceinces etc Never actualy killed anyone (unless you droppped a book on them ).

That would be the people reading,writing etc them .

If your shot you dont blame Newton for being a ******* and defining the laws of motion and aerodynamics now ! (yes Balstics were around before this but you get the point)
 
"Holy books are works of fiction" certainly strikes a chord with me!

Although our history knowledge would be pretty stumped without them though. The Bible is one of the greatest and most accurate history books ever written!! It has also been available for a lot longer than many other texts (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls). Just look at the creation story.... forget the 7 days part of it (those Creationists scare me!), look at it as 7 eras which is a possible translation and you have a bloody accurate vision of how the world came into existence. Very advanced for the time it was written certianly [Edit - around 9th century BC ie 3000 years ago]. The hermeneutics are complex but I am a great fan of historical study through the Bible.
As for the Vedas in Hinduism - Disney get in there - there are some amazing stories of the Hindu gods - students have always been fascinated by them!
As moral guidelines, they are pretty sound too. You don't have to beleive the Jesus was the son of God or the Muhammed (PBUH) was the greatest prophet but they still had a lot of good things. Teachings of love, compassion, care....
Religious wars and conflict are a difficult one to digest (as a Catholic, I still find it hard to look at the Crusades as morally justifiable!) but ideologies will never see eye to eye. That's the beauty of the human race - we're not like animals all essentially thinking and acting in the exact same way!
Religion bashing is an easy shot, especially in our culture. Don't dismiss it as childs play though as there is a fair few billion against you! ;)
 
Last edited:
quite a funny joke article though -even if it was just to provoke arguement, i mean discussion, on here ;) :cool:
 
Whooaaa.....

I can't speak for Mao but...

1) There was no evidence that Hitler was an athiest. The Nazi belt buckles had "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us.
2) Stalin trained as a monk.

And as for abortion - this should remain the very right of a woman - aborting a collection of cells that MAY turn into a human life is not murder. Who's to say if the pregnancy would of gone full term?

Whooaaa, indeed!

Stalin may have been educated at a seminary under a scholarship, but this was for educational rather than religious reasons and he ended up quitting the seminary. As a committed Marxist (and like Mao) he was certainly not religious.

As for Hitler, you say there was no evidence that Hitler was an atheist. This may well be true, but you could as easily say that there was no evidence that Hitler was religious. The lack of religion in Mein Kampf, the closest thing we have to an ideological statement by Hitler, would suggest that he was probably atheist. Certainly Hitler's political philosphy, although rambling and incoherent at the best of times, would be philosophically difficult to reconcile with religious beliefs. Hitler believed in laws of nature rather than laws of God. If he was religious, I would suggest it was a vague, and not fully explored, form of paganism/mysticism.

I would certainly dispute Nazi belt buckles as evidence to suggest Hitler was religious. First, what do you mean by 'Nazi belt buckles'? The Nazi movement was a sprawling mess of ideas, an umbrella under which various strands sheltered. Whilst Hitler was clearly the central figure in the Nazi movement, beneath him was this myriad of competing power bases and organisations. These competing organisations tended to reflect their particular leader than their ultimate leader. If by Nazi belts you mean SA this would have reflected more Rohm; the SS would have reflected more Himmler, or maybe Heydrich depending on when this was; the Luftwaffe, Goring etc.
 
Whooaaa.....

I can't speak for Mao but...

1) There was no evidence that Hitler was an athiest. The Nazi belt buckles had "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us.
2) Stalin trained as a monk.

And as for abortion - this should remain the very right of a woman - aborting a collection of cells that MAY turn into a human life is not murder. Who's to say if the pregnancy would of gone full term?

Think you will find that "Gott Mit Uns" was a reference to the woolly gloves issued to German soldiers who fought on Russian front.

On a more serious note, the phrase "Gott Mit Uns" used on German uniforms in WW2 was not a Nazi innovation. It had been used by German and previously Prussian armies for a long time before then
 
Last edited:
Whooaaa, indeed!

Stalin may have been educated at a seminary under a scholarship, but this was for educational rather than religious reasons and he ended up quitting the seminary. As a committed Marxist (and like Mao) he was certainly not religious.

As for Hitler, you say there was no evidence that Hitler was an atheist. This may well be true, but you could as easily say that there was no evidence that Hitler was religious. The lack of religion in Mein Kampf, the closest thing we have to an ideological statement by Hitler, would suggest that he was probably atheist. Certainly Hitler's political philosphy, although rambling and incoherent at the best of times, would be philosophically difficult to reconcile with religious beliefs. Hitler believed in laws of nature rather than laws of God. If he was religious, I would suggest it was a vague, and not fully explored, form of paganism/mysticism.

I would certainly dispute Nazi belt buckles as evidence to suggest Hitler was religious. First, what do you mean by 'Nazi belt buckles'? The Nazi movement was a sprawling mess of ideas, an umbrella under which various strands sheltered. Whilst Hitler was clearly the central figure in the Nazi movement, beneath him was this myriad of competing power bases and organisations. These competing organisations tended to reflect their particular leader than their ultimate leader. If by Nazi belts you mean SA this would have reflected more Rohm; the SS would have reflected more Himmler, or maybe Heydrich depending on when this was; the Luftwaffe, Goring etc.

Theres many a story on the "relgious" and Occult symbol used by
Nazis (SS being the Nordic runes for lighting for instance teh Swastika the solar phalic symbol of fortune power luck (can be seen on Ganehsa's left hand and Buddhas))

Like many "intellegent" or educated leaders he devised his on ideology and added his own mix to a rather unpleast mix (a down tordden coutry given a visable enemy to blame for their woes !! And made to believe they we're devine or insipred (Arians actually come from the Veda traditions of India))

Pickledseal . I cant really agree on the Bible aspect you point out ,which part do you refer too ? Old teastament is entirly a different creature to the New (most Biblical scholars often point out the massive differneces in YHWH alone !).

A lot of stories fables etc are very similar reworks of Bablonian (Gilgamesh /Samson for instance) or Greek tales which predate the Torah (which is teh first 5 books of what we call the old testament).

I do agree on the bashing part mind . Investigation of anything is always best . (Look at YHWH ,wife for instace or the similarites of Horus/Mithras and YHShinWH)
 
For a spoof on a current news story you certainly provoked some debate Mike !

As for the debate, primarily Wars have been about power and peoples thirst for more. Be it about converting "savages" to the ways of a particular religion or for the sheer hell of "owning" more territory (or the resources held in it) War in the name of religion is really more of an aggressor hiding behind the name of religion because surely killing others is contrary to most religions.
 
Are you suggesting that religion is merely a well told fairy story, a means to control and indoctrinate (and subsequently divide) a whole planet? A ridiculous implausible impossibility that continues to spawn murder upon murder and tragedy upon tragedy while the pious and self-righteous detach themselves from their folly in their belief that the atrocities they inflict on others are in God's name (or Allah's)?

How very dare you!
 
Hang on a minute... so, because I have faith does that mean I must be
pious and self-righteous

...and I must also be
detaching myself from my folly

...and that I have almost certainly committed
atrocities which I have inflicted on others in God's name

I just need to know quite how evil and deluded I am for believing in God, that's all.

Matt
 
I just need to know quite how evil and deluded I am for believing in God, that's all.

Matt

You are not alone Matt I believe in God and as for proof as Mike requested. Many times during my life I had moments of doubt and anxiety and have always found a way through God to get back on the road.
 
I was talking about organised religion itself and those leaders who have sought to use it as a tool to divide and inspire wars and killings. Having faith that there is a creator to this complex world doesn't make anyone a bad person in my eyes and my post was not intended to offend...but surely you must see how organised religion has been hijacked? The different faiths divide us with ancient doctrines that no longer hold relevance or stand up to scrutiny and in some cases are hateful.
 
I was talking about organised religion itself and those leaders who have sought to use it as a tool to divide and inspire wars and killings. Having faith that there is a creator to this complex world doesn't make anyone a bad person in my eyes and my post was not intended to offend...but surely you must see how organised religion has been hijacked? The different faiths divide us with ancient doctrines that no longer hold relevance or stand up to scrutiny and in some cases are hateful.

Whilst not doubting for a moment that organised religion has been hi-jacked on more than one occasion, it has also on occasions been a force for good. The Church played a huge part in the civil rights movement in America in the 1950s and 60s for example. Historically the Church has played a huge role in supporting the poor and disadvantaged. Many charities (and indeed football teams!) were set up through the Church. For every leader hell-bent on religious wars, there have been many more Mother Teresas.
 
but surely you must see how organised religion has been hijacked? The different faiths divide us with ancient doctrines that no longer hold relevance or stand up to scrutiny and in some cases are hateful.
Of course I can see that men (and it is always men) hijack religion for their own ends. One should never underestimate the greed, the over-arching ambition, the selfishness of mankind - and in particular the ends to which certain individuals will go in order to fulfil their cravings for power and their need for self-aggrandisement.

That doesn't mean that religion itself is wrong - merely that a determined man will stop at nothing, and will use every means possible, to achieve his goal.

That's certainly the case with individuals, especially fundamentalist terrorists of any hue. As for the organisations... well, like any large body, inertia becomes a truly terrible thing. The Catholic Church is seized by inertia - and that's why they find it difficult to modernise, to be relevant... not least when you have a traditionalist like the current Pope at the helm.

But just because people do bad things in the name of something, it doesn't mean we should write that thing off. George W. Bush has done some terrible things in the name of democracy... but it doesn't mean that democracy itself is a bankrupt concept.

Matt
 
Pickledseal . I cant really agree on the Bible aspect you point out ,which part do you refer too ? Old teastament is entirly a different creature to the New (most Biblical scholars often point out the massive differneces in YHWH alone !).

A lot of stories fables etc are very similar reworks of Bablonian (Gilgamesh /Samson for instance) or Greek tales which predate the Torah (which is teh first 5 books of what we call the old testament).

I do agree on the bashing part mind . Investigation of anything is always best . (Look at YHWH ,wife for instace or the similarites of Horus/Mithras and YHShinWH)

I am talking about the Old Testament being a good document of history. Not by any means in its entirity and that would dangerous think of all the stories contained in it being factually accruate. As you say the story of Samson is a generic tale found in Bablonian and at least one other ancient religion - can't remember which off the top of my head. The Deutro-Isiah secitons as well have many roots in pre-yhwhistic religion. The nature and understanding of what this monotheisitic God was like underwent a series of changes - and hence we have a very different OT and NT God! The OT God certainly had characteristics of several early traditions. However, I am not looking at things from a thological point of view, more a historical. The sotry of David is likely to have been written from court records and the like for example. Past the pentateuch there is lots of rich and detailed history - the rise of the Assyrians etc all the way to the Maccabean Revolution just a hundred a fifty or so years before ol' JC arrived. Yes it is written from a faith perspective addressed to those who have faith - but this is written against the background of many significant historical developements in the Middle East in a period of approx 2000 years before CE began. It helps historians as well as theologians understand the events in Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Assyria and Greece

The NT is a far less historical it seems. Some historical facts appear to have been altered in order to fit stories (such as the census) - however the over riding element of truth pervades. Archeology has confirmed many of the key aspects of stories such as the size of the boat that Jesus went fishing on was a regular size (I can't remember all the details - please forgive me!). In many instances though, and certainly until we found the DSS, it was one of the few detailed records in existence. The work of Josephus also helps qualify many of the stories in the NT too.
 
Back
Top