Floods are a judgement on society, say bishops

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris T

If you know the Bible well enough to pick a verse out of the air like that, I'm surprised you're unable to distinguish between passages devoted to instructing disciples for daily life, and passages that talk about a final punishment that is, incidentally, to be meted out by God, not by his followers.

Unless you are very well aware of that distinction and are trying to make mischief? Shurley not ...

I'm not attempting to "make mischief" as you put it.

I was merely using this as an analogy as to how violence on the part of fundamentalists can be arrived at, and indeed encouraged, by religious teachings.

Let's just assume I don't know the bible at all and I'm asking you, notwithstanding the fact that the instruction itself is clear - irrespective of the frequency of the act or the party on whose behalf any such actions are instructed to be carried out on - what part of Jesus's "non-violent" preachings that particular instruction fits.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Thank you .... however on your point about where extremism can come from, Karl Marx, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao and the Maoist rebels of Nepal and many other countries all say you might be wrong.

Ah yes, the argument that you are attempting now is the same one smokers use when they say "what about the fumes from cars then?".
The point is that we are discussing religious extremism arising from religious fundamentalism in this thread......
...and don't even get me started on communism and extremism....

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Ah yes, the argument that you are attempting now is the same one smokers use when they say "what about the fumes from cars then?".
The point is that we are discussing religious extremism arising from religious fundamentalism in this thread......
...and don't even get me started on communism and extremism....

I'm not gonna deny it...... the progression on the ist scale would go from fundamentalist to extremist. I think there are certain followers of all religions who feel that they need to go a bit further to attain that higher level in their relationship with God.

Unfortunately with some muslims it has resorted to acts of terrorism in the UK. But taking terrorism aside, I have many friends who spend hours every night reciting prayers, in some meditation hypnotic trait (they are sufis). I find this level of devotion/prayer a bit extreme, but they believe it brings them closer to God. It is also not a fundamental part of the religion according to the majority of muslims I know. What I am trying to say is that extreme behaviour does manifest from a fundamental believe of your religion, but extreme behaviour does not have to resort in violence, and it definately does not mean its right.

If you are trying to say that without religion we wouldn't have religious terrorists then I have no argument against that. All I am trying to say is that you cannot blame the principles/teachings of the religion for the violence, but you could blame the interpretation of it.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I'm not attempting to "make mischief" as you put it.

I was merely using this as an analogy as to how violence on the part of fundamentalists can be arrived at, and indeed encouraged, by religious teachings.

Let's just assume I don't know the bible at all and I'm asking you, notwithstanding the fact that the instruction itself is clear - irrespective of the frequency of the act or the party on whose behalf any such actions are instructed to be carried out on - what part of Jesus's "non-violent" preachings that particular instruction fits.

Jesus instructed his disciples at all times to act in a non-violent manner. He used sayings such as 'turn the other cheek' to show that far from taking revenge on someone who wrongs you, you should be quite prepared to allow them to wrong you again.

Jesus assures his disciples that anybody who treats them in such a way, and who goes to their death without having sought forgiveness from God for his deeds, will indeed face vengeance - but from God, not from any person.

A common device used by Jesus when teaching was the parable - a simple story in which familiar situations and character types are used in order to illustrate a greater point. The verse you quoted was from a parable, in fact it was from the end of a parable, where Jesus is teaching about the final punishment suffered by those who have never asked God's forgiveness. The character vowing to put someone to death represents God sitting on his throne of judgement. The actions of the character are not offered as a pattern for disciples to follow in their earthly life. For it to be taken as an instruction of how disciples are to behave, it would have to be taken out of its context to such an outrageous extent that I doubt even the most fervently deluded cult would try it.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Ah yes, the argument that you are attempting now is the same one smokers use when they say "what about the fumes from cars then?".
The point is that we are discussing religious extremism arising from religious fundamentalism in this thread......
...and don't even get me started on communism and extremism....

Yes, we are discussing religious extremism, but the fact that that's what we're discussing doesn't give you the right to assert that extremism can only come from religious fundamentalism. Unless what you actually meant was, religious extremism can only come from religious fundamentalism, and I'd have said that was a truism - subject, of course, to the understanding I believe we've reached on the meaning and application of the word 'fundamentalism'.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris T

J
Yes, we are discussing religious extremism, but the fact that that's what we're discussing doesn't give you the right to assert that extremism can only come from religious fundamentalism. Unless what you actually meant was, religious extremism can only come from religious fundamentalism, and I'd have said that was a truism - subject, of course, to the understanding I believe we've reached on the meaning and application of the word 'fundamentalism'.

I didn't assert that religion is the only way to extremism. I have been careful to speak of religious fundamentalism leading to religious extremism....If I have given any other impression then I apologise
I am simply trying to make the point that the further one immerses him/herself into religion, the closer one follows the scriptures, the more likely one is to become extreme in ones beliefs and actions.....

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Jesus instructed his disciples at all times to act in a non-violent manner. He used sayings such as 'turn the other cheek' to show that far from taking revenge on someone who wrongs you, you should be quite prepared to allow them to wrong you again.

Jesus assures his disciples that anybody who treats them in such a way, and who goes to their death without having sought forgiveness from God for his deeds, will indeed face vengeance - but from God, not from any person.

A common device used by Jesus when teaching was the parable - a simple story in which familiar situations and character types are used in order to illustrate a greater point. The verse you quoted was from a parable, in fact it was from the end of a parable, where Jesus is teaching about the final punishment suffered by those who have never asked God's forgiveness. The character vowing to put someone to death represents God sitting on his throne of judgement. The actions of the character are not offered as a pattern for disciples to follow in their earthly life. For it to be taken as an instruction of how disciples are to behave, it would have to be taken out of its context to such an outrageous extent that I doubt even the most fervently deluded cult would try it.

Chris, if it's a parable and God is omnipotent then why the specific reference to "bring hither"?

Surely God could just smite his vengance on them all at will, irrespective of their location (be that in this or the next world)?

It, and likeminded ideologies, have been taken outrageously out of context many times in history. It does not, however, excuse the instigator - irrespective of his / her intentions.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

If you are trying to say that without religion we wouldn't have religious terrorists then I have no argument against that. All I am trying to say is that you cannot blame the principles/teachings of the religion for the violence, but you could blame the interpretation of it.

Of course you can blame the principles/teachings, because the interpretations stem directly from those principles and teachings.
And thus by extension, you can (in some cases) blame the religion itself....because that is where the teachings, principles and interpretations ultimately spring from......

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Chris, if it's a parable and God is omnipotent then why the specific reference to "bring hither"?

Surely God could just smite his vengance on them all at will, irrespective of their location (be that in this or the next world)?

It, and likeminded ideologies, have been taken outrageously out of context many times in history. It does not, however, excuse the instigator - irrespective of his / her intentions.

Because it's a parable. Parables reduce big, profound theology to relatively simple stories. That's their purpose. The characters and situations in them represent other things to whatever extent is necessary to make the point. They are not, however, intended to be taken as complex allegory. That would defeat the point.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris T

They are not, however, intended to be taken as complex allegory. That would defeat the point.

So say you.....others probably disagree and put a different slant on them.....who is to say who is correct?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Because it's a parable. Parables reduce big, profound theology to relatively simple stories. That's their purpose. The characters and situations in them represent other things to whatever extent is necessary to make the point. They are not, however, intended to be taken as complex allegory. That would defeat the point.

Does that make it acceptable then?

Also, would an extremist realise that god is supposed to do the slaying personally, rather than use his followers to do his bidding as he has reportedly used them to do so before?

I really must start to do what my grandfather always told me to do..stay out of religious argu...discussions because they go nowhere very very fast.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I really must start to do what my grandfather always told me to do..stay out of religious argu...discussions because they go nowhere very very fast.

they usually turn into a war

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

they usually turn into a war

Very droll

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Very droll

well its true then both gods get to mightily smitily millions of people and every ones happy

Originally Posted by papa smurf

they usually turn into a war

Exactly!

Time to unsubscribe on that note.