“Motivated by”? That’s too easy. I’d argue that Islam is neither necessary nor sufficient for ISIS to arise. So Islam has no causal role in that sense (but see below).
I can imagine that a certain religious belief could form a necessary condition for certain crimes. For example, John Lennon’s assassin was motivated by Christian beliefs: the murderer was perturbed by Lennon’s (hyperbolic and not meant to be taken seriously) claim that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus. You would need to have some sort of Christian belief for such a passing remark to incite one to murder. Of course Christianity isn’t a sufficient condition for that.
There’s also the concept of contributing cause. If you want to be serious about that, you would have to sketch out the different sets of conditions that could lead to a certain outcome.
I don’t see how it pre-supposes this. Buddhism maintains that the gods won’t help you attain enlightenment for example. I would think that a utilitarian treatment would say that religions promote both good and bad and they are virtuous to the extent that the former outweighs the latter, relative to the alternative. (A religious institution could do more evil than good, but if the alternative is even worse then that religious could be said to play a positive role.)
In 1099 an army of Christians laid siege to Jerusalem in June, and scaled the walls in July. A massacre followed, bad even by standards of the day. Almost one hundred years later, a campaign led by Saladin would retake the Holy City. At that point Saladin could have demanded and eye for an eye.
But he didn’t. He didn’t think that sort of behavior was Islamic. He showed mercy to enemies who had extended none. This was something of a moral innovation at the time. His grace didn’t stop the Crusades, but it did impress a number of European lords.
The one that entered my mind today was the witch hunts. Some people think these were a product of the Dark Ages, but the reality is that they only got going in early modern times from around 1450. Not in the age of mass illiteracy but rather coinciding with the invention of the printing press. When literacy experienced a comparative explosion, people might have coordinated their beliefs and actions based on the most commonly printed work: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
There were maybe a hundred thousand executions before a different set of moral standards evolved culturally over time. Strip that passage and how many lives do you save? Obviously that’s impossible to say for sure. But damn, an evocative example. The apparent cause and effect relationship is extremely plausible. It’s easy to believe lives would have been saved here with some morally superior scriptural editing.
At the same time, such an example also makes clear that even if we assume the pernicious influence from the passage is important in this case, broader cultural forces are much more important overall. Nobody was hanging witches when almost nobody could read. The few who were literate relied on Augustine’s notion that witchcraft was necessarily impossible since changing the rules of the world was a power that could only belong to god. Nobody was hanging witches afterward, either, when moral progress had progressed into the Enlightenment.
If this effect actually exists, it will necessarily be small.
I would say it’s an absolute certainty. But if you plant two of the same seed, you also get two different plants. The same set of holy books led to both this, and this. Likewise, this and this were both inspired by the same scriptures. As was this and this.
The obvious conclusion, then, is that the quality of the seed has very little bearing on the quality of the plant.
No. The God of the Old Testament may have been arguing against marital infidelity, not against homosexuality. That is what I believe, from the context of the bible. Married men thought that if they had sex with other men, they were not being unfaithful to their wives. This is what God said was wrong. You screw your ewe, that’s wrong too. Be faithful to your spouse.
This applies to the OP’s NT quotes too. And if during Jesus’ time there were socially outcasted openly gay men & women, Jesus would have loved them too. Openly.
Jesus loves LGBTs.
Faith, hope, and love abide, these three. But the greatest of these is love.
Ofter there’s no way to know the nature of a religion even if you are a member of it. Fo expample, the Catholic Church shielding pedopiles for decades and often blaming the victims.
Many millions of Catholics learned about it the same time as everyone else did.
Boyo Jim: Good point. Take the Scientologists, who struggled as hard as they could to keep the definitions, dogmas, and premises of their faith secret from the world. They concealed their True Character as a central part of their True Character.
I attribute that to human nature coupled with an organization / religion growing to such a size that the (human) powers that be let that power corrupt them. It’s much easier to be altruistic when you’re alone and standing for a cause, but once your religion grows to more than a few people, the people in charge get distracted by money and fame and power.
Many viewpoints, ideologies, and philosophies are much more attractive when underdogs than when in power.
There were good reasons for overthrowing the King of France…but not for the Terror. When communism was about increasing the rights of the workers, it had some value; when it became a single-party system that brooked no dissent, it lost most of that value.
When Christianity was about fellowship and love, it was a lot more endearing than when it burned people alive.
(The same applies, at least roughly, to divisions within Christianity. At almost any given point in time during the English Civil War or the Thirty Years War, “our” viewpoint, in hindsight, would generally be with the side that was losing. Victory turned the various factions ugly.)
[QUOTE=
On the other hand, God clearly does (forgive my bluntness) actually “hate fags”. He really does. God has a beef with gay people and there’s no two ways about it. Leviticus 18:22, Deuteronomy 23:17, Kings 14:24, Romans 1:26-28, and Timothy 1:10 to name but a few. all condemn homosexuality. It can therefore be fairly argued that Jesus didn’t have gay people in mind when he was going about preaching love and forgiveness and QED, a “true” Christian ought to be homophobic.
.[/QUOTE]
God does not hate homosexuals. God hates the practice of homosexuality. Big difference. I hate thievery, but if my son stole something I would hate that he did it but I wouldn’t hate him.
I suggest a potential metric is how determinedly divorced from reality the religion is, for example two posts back with the declaration that God hates homosexuality.
A religion that said “behold the wonders of man’s ingenuity” or something, reveling in accomplishments rather than fretting about arbitrarily defined sins would be more rational, to the extent religion can be so, and have a better “character”, to the extent such can be defined.
On a similar note my metric to determine their character is based on what are the basic things a religion does to support society.
In the past I mentioned that IMHO any faith that tells their members to shun their family and friends is a cult and not a mainstream religion. As Joseph Campbell could tell us, every religion has grown up within a certain social order and also helps to keep that order. We are finding out that on several subjects mainstream religion is forgetting what task it has, as society changes a religion should too if it wants to be part of that society.
So on occasion mainstream religion can become like a cult regarding what it happens in practice and not in theory as Oddball_92 thinks it is, in practice the shunning and condemnation of gays among the faithful is what happens. Mainstream religion then becomes part of the problem rather than the solution that should be. Fortunately there are other religions (and groups among the mainstream religions too) and ideologies that are more tolerant of change and more willing to live in and support an evolving society.
Any religion that says suffering is a virtue (e.g., Christianity), commands its followers to make other people suffer (e.g., Christianity), or promises eternal suffering in the afterlife as a punishment for being a completely normal person (e.g., Christianity), can only be described as immoral.
I do not support the practice of shunning gays at all. I would rather try to convince them that homosexuality, as a practice, is adultry and therefore wrong. This is not to say that a homosexual person cannot be saved. I believe they can, but only if they confess their sins (to God, not to me) and then repent of those sins.
So do you expect God’s word and God’s law to change to accommodate an “evolving society”? What God has established as right and wrong for us has never changed.
I don’t see how it pre-supposes this. Buddhism maintains that the gods won’t help you attain enlightenment for example. I would think that a utilitarian treatment would say that religions promote both good and bad and they are virtuous to the extent that the former outweighs the latter, relative to the alternative. (A religious institution could do more evil than good, but if the alternative is even worse then that religious could be said to play a positive role.)