Religion has caused more

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

IWe are who we are as nature intended. You cannot take that away from any Hopi Indian, try as you might.

say that to the missionaries ... i am not trying to change them.

NMyTree

I think it's sad that any human being needs a religion to define themselves.

I find it archaic.

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

Right, so as I thought,you are saying they are not being true to themselves.

Because we all know that if they were true to themselves, they would follow along with your ideas of what their "organic" history "should" mean to them.

no wrong. grosly wrong. please get rid of your preassumed ideas about me.


if they were true to themselves, they would follow along with your ideas of what their "organic" history "should" mean to them.

^^^ thats just innane.
a person cant be organically related to any culture apart from the one h is indeed organically related to (ie. the one he was born with the one that flows in his veins etc).

angelica wrote:

Isn't the truth, rather, that they ARE true to themselves by making their decisions as per their inner voice, they are just not following your belief system?

no the truth is that most of my posts were misunderstood, at least by you.

they are indeed being true to themselvs if they choose to swithc to X or Y religion, ON THEIR OWN.

i dont want them to follow my belief system - i am not a missionary.

final word - i am not opposed to peopel converting or changing their religion. i am opposed to peopel TRYING TO CONVERT others into their own religion. like hippiemom said, if the poselytiser's religion was that good, it would ned no hard selling and people would queu up to change into that religion on their own.

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

no wrong. grosly wrong. please get rid of your preassumed ideas about me.

I assume my ideas based on what you are telling me. When you indicate respect for all peoples, their freedom of will, choice of worship and the validity of that, I will so acknowledge that you are not expecting others to live according to your values.

if they were true to themselves, they would follow along with your ideas of what their "organic" history "should" mean to them.

^^^ thats just innane.
a person cant be organically related to any culture apart from the one h is indeed organically related to (ie. the one he was born with the one that flows in his veins etc).

A person's spirit is beyond their organism. We are talking about spiritual beliefs, here. As I say, we are dramatically influenced by our ancestry, culture, etc, in what path we choose to accept as our spiritual path. We are the ones who choose, Native, or not, whether influenced by parents, religion or missionaries.

A person defines who they are with each choice in each moment, based on their humanity and their spirit.

no the truth is that most of my posts were misunderstood, at least by you.

I have read the derogatory nature of your remarks, assuming people have been brainwashed and that they are not acting based on choice when face with missionaries. Please let me know how I am misunderstanding you.

they are indeed being true to themselvs if they choose to swithc to X or Y religion, ON THEIR OWN.

The individual chooses from among their own choices. You might not like the influences under which they choose sometimes, much like someone like hippiemom might not like "inherited", unquestioned religion. You're entitled to your value system, like hippiemom.

i dont want them to follow my belief system - i am not a missionary.

It is quite clear that you do not want anyone to choose a missionary-introduced view--therefore you do have expectations that such valid choice, given the circumstances, is incorrect. That is your value system.

final word - i am not opposed to peopel converting or changing their religion. i am opposed to peopel TRYING TO CONVERT others into their own religion. like hippiemom said, if the poselytiser's religion was that good, it would ned no hard selling and people would queu up to change into that religion on their own.

I know--You accept the free choice that is aligned with your values about religion-inheritance, you do not accept free choice that is not aligned with your values re: inheriting religion.

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

I know--You accept the free choice that is aligned with your values about religion-inheritance, you do not accept free choice that is not aligned with your values re: inheriting religion.

i do.

what i dont agree with is the PEOPLE WHO TRY TO CHANGE OTHER PEOPLE to their religion.

ie. i am not opposed to conversion. i am opposed to proselytising.

i couldnt have made it any clearer.

baraka

IndianSummer wrote:

er,,, "bolld of cyrus" dont refer to a particular blood line, but to an ethnicity. ie the iranian ethnicity.

btw just how did i prove ur point?? waffen ss killing jews and almost exterminating them = natural evolution??

You proved my point by giving an example of a faith system that was horribly persecuted yet is still going strong today. The same case can be made about Christians & Muslims & possibly others. The point is, if you look at history, you will find that people of different faiths have faced many hardships when it comes to their particular faith, yet said faiths have survived, no different than your example of those that practice Zoroastrianism that had to relocate to India to preserve their faith. No one is condoning persecution in this thread, we are simply disagreeing with your premise that one must blindly follow the religion that happens to be tied into their ethnicity. One must follow their heart. For some, that might mean not following any faith at all, for others it might mean converting to a faith different than the one their parents practiced.

hippiemom

IndianSummer wrote:

i do.

what i dont agree with is the PEOPLE WHO TRY TO CHANGE OTHER PEOPLE to their religion.

ie. i am not opposed to conversion. i am opposed to proselytising.

i couldnt have made it any clearer.

Then what was all the elephant and giraffe business about? It certainly sounded as though you were saying that what you are born as is what you ARE, and any attempt to change that is being untrue to yourself. After all, if an elephant starts acting like a giraffe, it doesn't make much difference if he's doing so because someone talked him into it, or if he just saw a giraffe somewhere and wanted to be like it. Either way, an elephant behaving like a giraffe is ridiculous. When you use that analogy, it certainly sounds as though you think an African choosing Christianity, or an Eskimo choosing Islam, is being ridiculous.

ajbaker9905

religion is only a small cause of death and destruction. greed, power and addiction are bigger causes for that type of nonsense. let us not forget that religious freedom is what brought about America. Which is, regardless of the problems that exist here, the best place to live in this world..

IndianSummer

hippiemom wrote:

Then what was all the elephant and giraffe business about? It certainly sounded as though you were saying that what you are born as is what you ARE, and any attempt to change that is being untrue to yourself.

yes. it goes against what was refferd to in this thread as "narural evolution".
the change that missionaries, proselytisers, inquisitioners, jehadis etc try to bring about is an ARTIFICIALLY induced not-natural change.

where as if the person himself decides to change his faith, then thats natural enough. and i have no problems. though i maintain that the new faith/way of life wont come as naturally to him/her as the one of his/her ethnicity.

(here i have to clarify that, for example, a christian in iceland doesnt have christianity for his/her ethnicity, but has a germanic ethnicity. the way of life that comes most naturally to him is the germanic way of life - the one which he inherited, which is in his blood, not the "christian" way of life)

hippiemom wrote:

After all, if an elephant starts acting like a giraffe, it doesn't make much difference if he's doing so because someone talked him into it, or if he just saw a giraffe somewhere and wanted to be like it. Either way, an elephant behaving like a giraffe is ridiculous.

precisely. thats is why its ridiculous when hopi indians, whether by their own accord or whether induced by missionaries, suddenly start worshipping the germanic dawn godess Oestera on the day of spring equinox.


the reason solstice was turned by the romans into christmas and fertility festival of Oestra into celebration of christ's ressurection is precisely that - to ensure that the pagans got converted to "christianity", without actually forcing them to act like anything different from what they were used to.

hippiemom wrote:

When you use that analogy, it certainly sounds as though you think an African choosing Christianity, or an Eskimo choosing Islam, is being ridiculous.

yes. the increase of the duration of the daytime (celebrated in cold north europe as the "feast of the invincible sun") is not something that africans have any logical/natural reason to celebrate.

IndianSummer

ajbaker9905 wrote:

religion is only a small cause of death and destruction. greed, power and addiction are bigger causes for that type of nonsense.

if you ignore the 20th century, then religion was the biggest killer in all the years before that.

the biggest killers in the 20th century were communism and nazism - 2 ways to exert political control (ie. control over people's political beliefs) over people.

the biggest killers in the past were islam and christianity - two ways to exert religious control (control over people's religious beliefs) over people.

ajbaker9905 wrote:

let us not forget that religious freedom is what brought about America.

how so??

ajbaker9905 wrote:

Which is, regardless of the problems that exist here, the best place to live in this world..

by some yardsticks, that may be true indeed.

Binaural

angelica wrote:

It sounds like you disagree with the post you quoted. Could you please elaborate?

The speaker used a tone that insinuated both that people don't attack nationalism and they religion is unfairly attacked. Both insinuations are grossly wrong.
Religion and nationalism are intertwined, in many cases one lends support to the other so to see them as two seperate issues is shortsighted in my opinion.
Also the arguement of religion never ordering one to kill is wrong, plain and simple, it is simply incorrect.


PEACE

El_Kabong

decides2dream wrote:

btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such.

yes, you said "i hardly think religion corners the market is all." which is the part that was directed towards you...i didn't see anyone claim or imply this was the case.

decides2dream

El_Kabong wrote:

yes, you said "i hardly think religion corners the market is all." which is the part that was directed towards you...i didn't see anyone claim or imply this was the case.

funny that's all you got out of this post:

decides2dream wrote:

well i do believe the thread starter's initial premise was that religion has caused more death than any other human concept. so yes, while that leaves room for other reasons for killing...to me, that implies 'religion corners the market'...and i simply disagree. people have been killing people over land and borders forever....probably even longer than recorded history, and sure, definitely many have killed in the name of religion too. imho i do not believe more blood has been shed over religion than any other 'cause'...in fact i would think taking over other lands has probably caused more bloodshed, so pure outright greed would corner the market. either way, religion or not...humans always seem to find reasons to kill each other. it's a shame, but true.

btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such. i am not a religious person, but i do not lay 'blame' for the bulk of the world's ills at the feet of religion. is it devisie? sadly so...but that is the fault of humanity and not religion...b/c somehow most of the world's religions are against killing, so i never quite understood how so many chose to kill in God's name anyway.

think that illustrates my opinion on it. if something is being called the main cause, to me that implies they think it corners the market. still means there are other players in the game, but that one thing trumps them all. that was all.

cornnifer

Binaural wrote:

Also the arguement of religion never ordering one to kill is wrong, plain and simple, it is simply incorrect.

You're going to have to give me an example. ONE example of ONE core teaching of ANY religion. Please. SOMEBODY. Or let this thread die a quiet death.

ryan198

cornnifer wrote:

You're going to have to give me an example. ONE example of ONE core teaching of ANY religion. Please. SOMEBODY. Or let this thread die a quiet death.

what about the religion of capital whereby it's ok to do anything as long as you can make another dollar off of it?

cornnifer

ryan198 wrote:

what about the religion of capital whereby it's ok to do anything as long as you can make another dollar off of it?

I would seriously hope you're kidding. Capitalism is not a religion. You are kidding, right?

Byrnzie

IndianSummer wrote:

i dunno when Aten emerged, but zorastrianism emerged a lot before the date you came up with.

What so 550bc came before 2,600bc did it? Weird! :eek:

El_Kabong

decides2dream wrote:

funny that's all you got out of this post:




think that illustrates my opinion on it. if something is being called the main cause, to me that implies they think it corners the market. still means there are other players in the game, but that one thing trumps them all. that was all.

<sigh> that's not all i got out of your post, just all i took issue with...hence the reason i only discussed that small part of it. the post of yours you copied and pasted wasn't even the one i replied to...i replied to this


Originally Posted by decides2dream
well, 'killing in the name of...'...and actually that being the true issue, not the same thing. didn't reagan's attempted assasssin do so to somehow impress jodie foster or some twisted shite like that? seriously, one can go out on a limb and choose just about anything they want to grasp at as a 'reason' for killing..and i hardly think religion corners the market is all.

which was on the 3rd page...the one you quoted above was on the 9th page ...which was actually your reply to my reply to you (from the 3rd page)

so...i am supposed to take things out of a futuristic post of yours?

decides2dream

El_Kabong wrote:

<sigh> that's not all i got out of your post, just all i took issue with...hence the reason i only discussed that small part of it. the post of yours you copied and pasted wasn't even the one i replied to...i replied to this


Originally Posted by decides2dream
well, 'killing in the name of...'...and actually that being the true issue, not the same thing. didn't reagan's attempted assasssin do so to somehow impress jodie foster or some twisted shite like that? seriously, one can go out on a limb and choose just about anything they want to grasp at as a 'reason' for killing..and i hardly think religion corners the market is all.

which was on the 3rd page...the one you quoted above was on the 9th page ...which was actually your reply to my reply to you (from the 3rd page)

so...i am supposed to take things out of a futuristic post of yours?

yes, true. my apologies then. since you actually addressed my first post and i had already responded - with the above quoted post - and then you addressed the first post, again...i thought actually you had seen/read my response to your response...so just surprising that 2x you addressed the exact same post...and completely ignored it's further answer to your query, that was all. so not the 'future' at all.......you simply responded to the same post on page 1 (for me as i have my settings at 40 posts/page- twice, which i thought rather odd....i mean, you DID actually quote my Q to you - in regards to why you brought up the 'true believer's when you quoted me...which means you DID see my response, thus i was kinda curious why you brought up the same thing twice is all. oh well.

my post - page 1:

decides2dream wrote:

Originally Posted by decides2dream
well, 'killing in the name of...'...and actually that being the true issue, not the same thing. didn't reagan's attempted assasssin do so to somehow impress jodie foster or some twisted shite like that? seriously, one can go out on a limb and choose just about anything they want to grasp at as a 'reason' for killing..and i hardly think religion corners the market is all.

your response - page 1:

El Kabong wrote:

ppl can say 'it wasn't TRUE believers...' all they want, did very many stand up to them? no one implied religion had the market cornered.

my response - page 4:

decides2dream wrote:

well i do believe the thread starter's initial premise was that religion has caused more death than any other human concept. so yes, while that leaves room for other reasons for killing...to me, that implies 'religion corners the market'...and i simply disagree. people have been killing people over land and borders forever....probably even longer than recorded history, and sure, definitely many have killed in the name of religion too. imho i do not believe more blood has been shed over religion than any other 'cause'...in faqct i would think taking over other lands has probably caused more bloodshed, so pure outright greed would corner the market. either way, religion or not...humans always seem to find reasons to kill each other. it's a shame, but true.

btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such. i am not a religious person, but i do not lay 'blame' for the bulk of the world's ills at the feet of religion. is it devisie? sadly so...but that is the fault of humanity and not religion...b/c somehow most of the world's religions are against killing, so i never quite understood how so many chose to kill in God's name anyway.

then your response - page 6:

El_Kabong wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

Originally Posted by decides2dream
btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such.

yes, you said "i hardly think religion corners the market is all." which is the part that was directed towards you...i didn't see anyone claim or imply this was the case.

and then finally me again - page 6:

decides2dream wrote:

El_Kabong wrote:

yes, you said "i hardly think religion corners the market is all." which is the part that was directed towards you...i didn't see anyone claim or imply this was the case.

funny that's all you got out of this post:

decides2dream wrote:

well i do believe the thread starter's initial premise was that religion has caused more death than any other human concept. so yes, while that leaves room for other reasons for killing...to me, that implies 'religion corners the market'...and i simply disagree. people have been killing people over land and borders forever....probably even longer than recorded history, and sure, definitely many have killed in the name of religion too. imho i do not believe more blood has been shed over religion than any other 'cause'...in fact i would think taking over other lands has probably caused more bloodshed, so pure outright greed would corner the market. either way, religion or not...humans always seem to find reasons to kill each other. it's a shame, but true.

btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such. i am not a religious person, but i do not lay 'blame' for the bulk of the world's ills at the feet of religion. is it devisie? sadly so...but that is the fault of humanity and not religion...b/c somehow most of the world's religions are against killing, so i never quite understood how so many chose to kill in God's name anyway.




think that illustrates my opinion on it. if something is being called the main cause, to me that implies they think it corners the market. still means there are other players in the game, but that one thing trumps them all. that was all.

so while yes, i see you were referencing, again, my first post....and then actually saw/read my response to you...thought it perhaps odd? that you chose to ignore? my explanation for my line of thinking, why i thought thew thread starter was indeed implying such since you obviously quoted part of my response to you. thus i knew you saw it...and i just didn't get why address the same point, 2x, when i already explained why i would 'get' such an implication. i don't really 'get' why you take issue with my use of the term cornering the market. disagree sure....but otherwise, it definitely was implied imho. so yea, no 'future' post..you actually read and quoted part of the second post...and then chose to readdress the first one. that was all. id' think there are far more interesting things here in this thread to debate than just my use/opinion of corbering the market.

El_Kabong

decides2dream wrote:

yes, true. my apologies then. since you actually addressed my first post and i had already responded - with the above quoted post - and then you addressed the first post, again...i thought actually you had seen/read my response to your response...so just surprising that 2x you addressed the exact same post...and completely ignored it's further answer to your query, that was all. so not the 'future' at all.......you simply responded to the same post on page 1 (for me as i have my settings at 40 posts/page- twice, which i thought rather odd....i mean, you DID actually quote my Q to you - in regards to why you brought up the 'true believer's when you quoted me...which means you DID see my response, thus i was kinda curious why you brought up the same thing twice is all. oh well.

my post - page 1:



your response - page 1:





my response - page 4:



then your response - page 6:



and then finally me again - page 6:





so while yes, i see you were referencing, again, my first post....and then actually saw/read my response to you...thought it perhaps odd? that you chose to ignore? my explanation for my line of thinking, why i thought thew thread starter was indeed implying such since you obviously quoted part of my response to you. thus i knew you saw it...and i just didn't get why address the same point, 2x, when i already explained why i would 'get' such an implication. i don't really 'get' why you take issue with my use of the term cornering the market. disagree sure....but otherwise, it definitely was implied imho. so yea, no 'future' post..you actually read and quoted part of the second post...and then chose to readdress the first one. that was all. id' think there are far more interesting things here in this thread to debate than just my use/opinion of corbering the market.

i didn't choose to ignore it perse...my last reply was on the 4th page...then i came back and it was at around 10 pages and i didn't feel like going thru 6 whole pages...