Religion - A Choice, or a Forced Requisition?

[CSolarstorm]

Hey cool, Ace Attorney, it doesn't help the argument though

First of all, I never said I was against war. I believe war can be justified in some contexts. But it matters who is going to war, who they are fighting, and what else the combatants claim to believe. (Just to be fully clear, the Bible doesn't forbid...say, Christians working as police officers and killing desperate criminals.)

And yet,

But no abdulmuhsee, no SunnyC, violence is not an inherent part of every religion.

If you're going to kill, it requires "violence". If the Bible does not condemn killing, as you have demonstrated, then it condones violence. If a Protestant is going to be a police officer, they will have to commit violence.

Now, you could make the argument to observe a different definition of "violence" to make our arguments invalid, and offer up the same distinction between fighting and violence and you did between killing and murdering, because, and I'd agree with this, at some point violence was solely associated with "violation", of justice or whatnot. So you could say that it's not violence if it's approved by God.

3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.

And this does not describe the police officer because he is fighting in the name of justice, therefore he is not "violent" in that defintion.

But if you believed this definition, you'd have to acknowledge that as a prophet of God, even though he killed, Muhammed never did any violence.

However, the argument doesn't hold water, because the first two listed (read: primary, most agreed upon) definitions of violent are:

1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.

And say nothing about justice. When people describe a violent storm, a storm is technically an act of God, and an act of God can't be unjust, so, the contradiction is evident. Parents censor shows on TV that are violent, even, or especially even a superhero or police themselves are the ones fighting, because they consider the fighting to be "violent".

So, this argument is massively flawed. If you find a way to fix it up and explain it though, you can have it.

 

[Devastator2000]

That is a massive hole in that argument you poked there, Sunny D.

 

[GhostAnime]

You want sources for the Spanish Inquisition? Crusades? British Empire takeovers? Give me a break.

Book burning is practically the Christian TRADITION.

Constantine and Charlemagne are well-known rulers who forced religion on weaker groups of societies.

http://www.themiddleages.net/people/charlemagne.html

Acts 19:18-20
Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. And a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily.

How can you not think Christianity was not spread by force? How else do you force people to give up religions they already had?

 

[ShinySandshrew]

You seriously aren't trying to claim that Israel never raped or pillaged under their god's command? And said ancient wicked groups of people? What proof do you have of wickedness? Because they were said to be morally corrupt? That can easily boil down to having different spiritual beliefs. I believe in magic, yet unless provoked I am a pacifist (excluding certain bedroom activities). Does this make me morally bankrupt? Fundies would say I deserve hell for any association with magic, yet I have never used it maliciously. I am also into several things sexually that definitely put me in the heterodoxy. Yet I adhere to the rule of Safe, Sane, and Consensual. Just because my activities may be considered strange or even downright disgusting to an outsider, does that mean that I'm not a good, moral person? Do my religion and sexual interests make me wicked?

And your proof that they raped is...? And as for morally corrupt, there were people that the Israelites conquered that worshipped Moloch. Part of the worship of this god involved a particularly heinous form of sacrfice: burning infants alive. Now is that not morally corrupt?

But as to what you said about deserving hell, the thing is, the only thing that determines where you go is this: personal acceptance of Jesus for the penalty of your sins. John 3:18 says, "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Acts 19:18-20
Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. And a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily.

How can you not think Christianity was not spread by force? How else do you force people to give up religions they already had?

The problem with you statement is that there is no violence mentioned on the part of the Christians in that entire chapter! GA, reading fail. The most important thing to note is that the verse you quoted said, "Many of those who were now believers came..." Now that they had converted to Christianity, they were convicted about doing magic.

 

[GhostAnime]

The problem with you statement is that there is no violence mentioned on the part of the Christians in that entire chapter! GA, reading fail.

That wasn't the point of the verse.

It was to show that book burning was a staple. Imagine how much easier it is to spread a message if you burn all the documents of other lesser known religions or practices; especially if you force people to change who they are.

edit: in fact, why am I even looking in the Bible? Wikipedia has interesting book instances of all religions.

 

[natie]

No source? That's just great. You know, you never sourced any of your historical claims. That's not really debating. You should have provided some sources to make your claims into arguments. As it is, they stay unsupported claims, not arguments.

Yeah, because sourcing every single word he says will help the argument in any way...

Damn, dude, can't you just accept some stuff without sources? And if you so desperately want a source, why don't you just go looking for it yourself? In the search for it, you may even stumble across some other things you did not yet know.

Also, sort of ontopic (and sourced because your constant whining is getting annoying as fuck): atheists and agnostics know more about religion than religious people themselves. We win.

 

[CSolarstorm]

American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.

And that proves that religion is not something that is forced as a whole, but that there are actually a large number of people who grow up in a religious climate and convert to being athiest or agnostic. Being a forced requisition is one thing (it's educational, according to this article!) but whenever you can escape you're free to pursue what belief you want, and you still have that knowledge of the religion that you grew up with, which is useful.

Also, you're doing it again. Being annoying while calling people annoying.

 

[natie]

I love my hypocrite self.

 

[ShinySandshrew]

Damn, dude, can't you just accept some stuff without sources? And if you so desperately want a source, why don't you just go looking for it yourself? In the search for it, you may even stumble across some other things you did not yet know.

No. 10characters. Well...I'll say more than that.

The reason is that if your making a claim, you should back it up with evidence. If you provide factual evidence to back up a claim, that makes your arguments stronger.

It was to show that book burning was a staple. Imagine how much easier it is to spread a message if you burn all the documents of other lesser known religions or practices; especially if you force people to change who they are.

And...where is the force in that verse? There is no indication of forced burnings in that verse or the rest of the chapter, for that matter. Thus, your example is not actually an example. Once again, if there is no force your example does not prove anything.

 

[CSolarstorm]

It was to show that book burning was a staple. Imagine how much easier it is to spread a message if you burn all the documents of other lesser known religions or practices; especially if you force people to change who they are.

I agree, but the biblical verse doesn't really apply to what you're saying; it says the the people who actually owned those books came forth and burned them. The people who practiced witchcraft burned their own books, nobody stole them and tried to burn them to make them convert.

 

[Afr0 M0th]

Religion = Control
Control = Power
Power = Corruption

 

[Murky_Night]

ShinySandshrew- i agree with natie, why should i look up something i know off the top of my head, i know my facts can be more accurate but i still know them.

originally posted by SunnyC

I agree, but the biblical verse doesn't really apply to what you're saying; it says the the people who actually owned those books came forth and burned them. The people who practiced witchcraft burned their own books, nobody stole them and tried to burn them to make them convert

WHAT! really! i'm not saying your wrong, but why would Wicans bring their books to be burned? i stick up for Wicans and i don't like calling it "witch craft"

 

[ShinySandshrew]

ShinySandshrew- i agree with natie, why should i look up something i know off the top of my head, i know my facts can be more accurate but i still know them.

But if you provide a evidence (like a link to where we can verify the info) it reinforces your claim, thus (possibly, depends on the claim) making it stronger. If you say, "the moon is made of cheese" people will think you nuts. If you provide evidence with data that tends to indicate that the moon is, indeed, made of cheese, while people may still think your nuts, it does give credibility to your argument.

WHAT! really! i'm not saying your wrong, but why would Wicans bring their books to be burned? i stick up for Wicans and i don't like calling it "witch craft"

First of all, the verse does not say that they were Wiccans, just that they had books of magic. The reason the people brought their books to be burned is that they were convicted that what they were doing was wrong. But about Wicca..."Wicca is a Neopagan religion and a form of modern witchcraft." (Source. Just read the first sentence.)

 

[GhostAnime]

And...where is the force in that verse? There is no indication of forced burnings in that verse or the rest of the chapter, for that matter. Thus, your example is not actually an example. Once again, if there is no force your example does not prove anything.

Well, I acknowledge that much, but what about my edit?

 

[evolutionrex]

No. 10characters. Well...I'll say more than that.

The reason is that if your making a claim, you should back it up with evidence. If you provide factual evidence to back up a claim, that makes your arguments stronger.

Unlike you, we do not go searching desperately for evidence and resort to very weak sources like a dictionary. We actually know these things and it is not our fualt when someone can't take actual information without a source, which is funny becuase you believe in the bible which only has one source.

 

[CSolarstorm]

WHAT! really! i'm not saying your wrong, but why would Wicans bring their books to be burned? i stick up for Wicans and i don't like calling it "witch craft"

In the Bible verse GhostAnime gave, it said that the people burned their own books. I stick up for people of other beliefs too, including Wiccans, but I was just pointing out his mistake.

Acts 19:18-20
Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. And a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily.

Unlike you, we do not go searching desperately for evidence and resort to very weak sources like a dictionary. We actually know these things and it is not our fualt when someone can't take actual information without a source, which is funny becuase you believe in the bible which only has one source.

What exactly is wrong with using the dictionary as a source? Many people have misconceptions about what certain words mean, and those misconceptions can snowball into a bad argument.

When people use the bible in an argument, they do so in the context of their beliefs, everyone knowing full well they're debating about their faith.

 

[GhostAnime]

You have to admit, the only sources Sandshrew ever really gives anymore is wiki and dictionary. I think he was referring to more of the constant practice than the occasional look or two.

 

[ShinySandshrew]

Well, I acknowledge that much, but what about my edit?

Frankly, I'm not entirely sure what your getting at with your edit. Would you mind elaborating?

Unlike you, we do not go searching desperately for evidence and resort to very weak sources like a dictionary. We actually know these things and it is not our fualt when someone can't take actual information without a source, which is funny becuase you believe in the bible which only has one source.

evolutionrex, do you want to know what the ruling Ethan, the moderator, has given on using dictionaries in debate?

Stop *****ing about members using the dictionary. Its as valid a source as the member using it. Got a problem with the definition they used? Then actually use some brain power and argue that their definition is wrong, or the one you have in mind is better. But to just sit their and whine that someone linked to a dictionary without even bothering or attempting make headway is ridiculous.

If you don't like me doing it, talk to Ethan.

And if the Bible has one source, that is a source!

You have to admit, the only sources Sandshrew ever really gives anymore is wiki and dictionary. I think he was referring to more of the constant practice than the occasional look or two.

And your problem is...? If they suffice, (which you have not disproven) then there is no reason not to use them. But what, exactly are you reffering to with your second sentence?

 

[GhostAnime]

which you have not disproven)

Oh, like I haven't argued about the dictionary constantly being bad to point to every single time in the other debate?

You certainly didn't continue that one.

All I'm saying is that it just sounds downright lazy to have to go to simple first result sources. It tells me you haven't done as much research as you potentially could.

Frankly, I'm not entirely sure what your getting at with your edit. Would you mind elaborating?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning

Ironically enough, it's a wikipedia entry. It lists all the religions (mostly Christianity and maybe Jews/Muslims) that have burned books for the sake of control.

 

[CSolarstorm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning

Ironically enough, it's a wikipedia entry. It lists all the religions (mostly Christianity and maybe Jews/Muslims) that have burned books for the sake of control.

It's difficult to attribute the burn burning to Protestants, though. Many of the book burnings here are Catholics burning Protestant works. So in order to say ShinySandshrew's religion burned books to force others to convert, you'd have to identify that Protestants actually stole the books (otherwise, how is it forced?) and then burned them.