Biblical matters

[rumncoke]

DAVE

FFS AS YOU abbreviate PWRM is of the opinion that All wars are religious -- which is a denial of human nature all wars are tribal territorial -- even in this small province -- the first move was to burn housing . Think Chicago and Capone then go tribal-- Global its the same thing on a larger scale -- envy, greed ,and territory,

I would recommend for you reading a Book called Prisoners of Geography .

Faith and Religion are not one and the same thing while Faith is common to all religions many define it differently.

' if they do not listen to MOSES and the Prophets ,they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead '

[pwrmoore]

DAVE

FFS AS YOU abbreviate PWRM is of the opinion that All wars are religious -- which is a denial of human nature all wars are tribal territorial -- even in this small province -- the first move was to burn housing . Think Chicago and Capone then go tribal-- Global its the same thing on a larger scale -- envy, greed ,and territory,

I would recommend for you reading a Book called Prisoners of Geography .

Faith and Religion are not one and the same thing while Faith is common to all religions many define it differently.

' if they do not listen to MOSES and the Prophets ,they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead '

Don't put words in my mouth to justify your assertions. I did not say ALL wars are religious. I said that many people have used their faith/religion as the justification for numerous wars, genocides, pogroms and purges. And I stand by that.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

... faith and logic are mutually exclusive.

Faith and logic are not mutually exclusive. A person can have faith and still apply logic. They are not necessarily applicable to the same parts of a person's life. One part may be driven by a deeply held faith, while in other parts of the same person's life, they may apply considered logic. People are more complex than being defined by one characteristic.

I read a report of a research study recently but unfortunately cannot remember where and thus cannot cite the article, but it had looked in great depth at wars through history and determined that those caused by religious differences between warring sides were in the minority and had caused significantly fewer deaths. The authors themselves were surprised by the outcome.

Of course anyone will know that some wars and some casualties are caused by those using different religious beliefs to justify violence just as some are caused simply by man's greed and selfish interests. Personally i don't feel it is helpful to try to generalise and attempt to blame either on religious fanatics or other.

In individual conflicts the cause will generally be visible, but even then the lines my be blurred by some using others to do their dirty work. God (or any other deity/non deity that you may or may not believe in) knows in our own wee country it is claimed that the "troubles" were a religious /sectarian war, and in many aspects that is true, but in the main, the conflict was continued by those who hadn't seen the inside of a church or chapel perhaps since the man with a funny collar threw water over them and called them names. They may have had religious or sectarian labels attached, but in my opinion the majority could not have been called religious but were engaged in pursuing their own tribal power grabs. They certainly did not conform to any peaceful Christian denomination that I recognised.

[pwrmoore]

... faith and logic are mutually exclusive.

Faith and logic are not mutually exclusive. A person can have faith and still apply logic. They are not necessarily applicable to the same parts of a person's life. One part may be driven by a deeply held faith, while in other parts of the same person's life, they may apply considered logic. People are more complex than being defined by one characteristic.

Yes. But if they recognize logic then the must recognize that by having "Faith" in their god or gods they are acting contrary to logic. The very act of faith in itself prohibits logic. You are expected to believe without proof and many theologians will tell you that to seek proof is to deny faith.

I read a report of a research study recently but unfortunately cannot remember where and thus cannot cite the article, but it had looked in great depth at wars through history and determined that those caused by religious differences between warring sides were in the minority and had caused significantly fewer deaths. The authors themselves were surprised by the outcome.

Of course anyone will know that some wars and some casualties are caused by those using different religious beliefs to justify violence just as some are caused simply by man's greed and selfish interests. Personally i don't feel it is helpful to try to generalise and attempt to blame either on religious fanatics or other.

In individual conflicts the cause will generally be visible, but even then the lines my be blurred by some using others to do their dirty work. God (or any other deity/non deity that you may or may not believe in) knows in our own wee country it is claimed that the "troubles" were a religious /sectarian war, and in many aspects that is true, but in the main, the conflict was continued by those who hadn't seen the inside of a church or chapel perhaps since the man with a funny collar threw water over them and called them names. They may have had religious or sectarian labels attached, but in my opinion the majority could not have been called religious but were engaged in pursuing their own tribal power grabs. They certainly did not conform to any peaceful Christian denomination that I recognised.

Of course conflicts have many varied contributing factors. But there is no denying that in the past few centuries religion has been claimed as the reason for a significant number of them. Whether these people are truly religious and whether religion was the real motivation is almost immaterial. I've yet to hear of a war started because the perpetrator recognized that we are all equal and our ambitions equally valid.

[Dave]

... faith and logic are mutually exclusive.

Faith and logic are not mutually exclusive. A person can have faith and still apply logic. They are not necessarily applicable to the same parts of a person's life. One part may be driven by a deeply held faith, while in other parts of the same person's life, they may apply considered logic. People are more complex than being defined by one characteristic.

I read a report of a research study recently but unfortunately cannot remember where and thus cannot cite the article, but it had looked in great depth at wars through history and determined that those caused by religious differences between warring sides were in the minority and had caused significantly fewer deaths. The authors themselves were surprised by the outcome.

Of course anyone will know that some wars and some casualties are caused by those using different religious beliefs to justify violence just as some are caused simply by man's greed and selfish interests. Personally i don't feel it is helpful to try to generalise and attempt to blame either on religious fanatics or other.

In individual conflicts the cause will generally be visible, but even then the lines my be blurred by some using others to do their dirty work. God (or any other deity/non deity that you may or may not believe in) knows in our own wee country it is claimed that the "troubles" were a religious /sectarian war, and in many aspects that is true, but in the main, the conflict was continued by those who hadn't seen the inside of a church or chapel perhaps since the man with a funny collar threw water over them and called them names. They may have had religious or sectarian labels attached, but in my opinion the majority could not have been called religious but were engaged in pursuing their own tribal power grabs. They certainly did not conform to any peaceful Christian denomination that I recognised.

Faith and logic are mutually exclusive when you are seeking to use both to answer the same question. As Cap says, if you can keep them separate and understand their role/place then they are compatible. I know of several excellent scientists who are also practicing of a faith. They don't use faith as a means to understand the natural world.

Faith is ultimately illogical but that is the premise that you have to accept and acknowledge when communicating your beliefs. Particularly when telling others about your beliefs. You can say that you 'believe' in God to others, but if you state that you 'know' there is a God then, logic and faith are in conflict. Belief without proof does not constitute knowledge.

Belief without proof is acceptable under the premise of faith. You have to understand that faith has a time and place. I know others will think I do not understand the mechanism of how their faith works and they are utterly convinced that they have knowledge of God. This is likely based upon cognitive biases and a misinterpretation of bodily sensations/experiences. The use of emotional reasoning and magical thinking and other such flawed thinking.

[pwrmoore]

... faith and logic are mutually exclusive.

Faith and logic are not mutually exclusive. A person can have faith and still apply logic. They are not necessarily applicable to the same parts of a person's life. One part may be driven by a deeply held faith, while in other parts of the same person's life, they may apply considered logic. People are more complex than being defined by one characteristic.

I read a report of a research study recently but unfortunately cannot remember where and thus cannot cite the article, but it had looked in great depth at wars through history and determined that those caused by religious differences between warring sides were in the minority and had caused significantly fewer deaths. The authors themselves were surprised by the outcome.

Of course anyone will know that some wars and some casualties are caused by those using different religious beliefs to justify violence just as some are caused simply by man's greed and selfish interests. Personally i don't feel it is helpful to try to generalise and attempt to blame either on religious fanatics or other.

In individual conflicts the cause will generally be visible, but even then the lines my be blurred by some using others to do their dirty work. God (or any other deity/non deity that you may or may not believe in) knows in our own wee country it is claimed that the "troubles" were a religious /sectarian war, and in many aspects that is true, but in the main, the conflict was continued by those who hadn't seen the inside of a church or chapel perhaps since the man with a funny collar threw water over them and called them names. They may have had religious or sectarian labels attached, but in my opinion the majority could not have been called religious but were engaged in pursuing their own tribal power grabs. They certainly did not conform to any peaceful Christian denomination that I recognised.

Faith and logic are mutually exclusive when you are seeking to use both to answer the same question. As Cap says, if you can keep them separate and understand their role/place then they are compatible. I know of several excellent scientists who are also practicing of a faith. They don't use faith as a means to understand the natural world.

Faith is ultimately illogical but that is the premise that you have to accept and acknowledge when communicating your beliefs. Particularly when telling others about your beliefs. You can say that you 'believe' in God to others, but if you state that you 'know' there is a God then, logic and faith are in conflict. Belief without proof does not constitute knowledge.

Belief without proof is acceptable under the premise of faith. You have to understand that faith has a time and place. I know others will think I do not understand the mechanism of how their faith works and they are utterly convinced that they have knowledge of God. This is likely based upon cognitive biases and a misinterpretation of bodily sensations/experiences. The use of emotional reasoning and magical thinking and other such flawed thinking.

Dave said it better.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Of course conflicts have many varied contributing factors. But there is no denying that in the past few centuries religion has been claimed as the reason for a significant number of them. Whether these people are truly religious and whether religion was the real motivation is almost immaterial. I've yet to hear of a war started because the perpetrator recognized that we are all equal and our ambitions equally valid.

That's more or less wot I said. I was merely adding that (surprisingly to some) there were more wars and more casualties caused by reasons other than religion. I never claimed that religion (or pseudo religion) was never a factor - it clearly has been, and no doubt will be in future ... sadly.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Faith and logic are mutually exclusive when you are seeking to use both to answer the same question. As Cap says, if you can keep them separate and understand their role/place then they are compatible. I know of several excellent scientists who are also practicing of a faith. They don't use faith as a means to understand the natural world.

Faith is ultimately illogical but that is the premise that you have to accept and acknowledge when communicating your beliefs. Particularly when telling others about your beliefs. You can say that you 'believe' in God to others, but if you state that you 'know' there is a God then, logic and faith are in conflict. Belief without proof does not constitute knowledge.

Belief without proof is acceptable under the premise of faith. You have to understand that faith has a time and place. I know others will think I do not understand the mechanism of how their faith works and they are utterly convinced that they have knowledge of God. This is likely based upon cognitive biases and a misinterpretation of bodily sensations/experiences. The use of emotional reasoning and magical thinking and other such flawed thinking.

I was with you right up to the last bit.

[rumncoke]

Justifation and reason for wars are not one and the same .

If I say for God ,King and Country I can quickly disguise the truth which is Me , King , and Country. or Me, Flag and Country

( who in the right mind would fight for -- Donald Trump ( for want of a better example )

Even the Crusades were not about religion but for control of a country the war was impossible to win because it was impossible to maintain a garrison of sufficient size to keep control.

Middle East wars are not religious they are about the control of Oil --the economic catalyst and wealth creator of Western Society .

[rumncoke]

People believed in Black Holes long before one was seen -- was their belief illogical ?

[Cap'n Grumpy]

People believed in Black Holes long before one was seen -- was their belief illogical ?

When was that?

Black holes have been visible for much longer than recent news events would have you believe.

Just because you might not have seen a coal mine doesn't mean they didn't/don't exist.

[Dave]

Wot capn said.

Plus black holes were not 'believed' to be a concept it was theorised by Einstein that they existed. It was not as if someone read it in an ancient and declared it to be an absolute truth. The theory of black holes has been tested over the years. Theories only survive if they can be declared unfalsified by experimentation.

[big mervyn]

Esteemed Belfast news organ, The South Side Advertiser (aka the Belfast Bumwipe), reports that the Museum of Orange Heritage on the Cregagh Road is holding a "Teddy Bear Bible Festival" where "a number of well-known Bible stories will be illustrated using teddy bears, and made amenable to the wider public".

£5 Adults, £2 Children, Under 10s free, Fenians £1,690 + vat

I swear I didn't make that up

… well, maybe the bit about Fenians.

[Shan]

The poor teddy bears have my sympathy.

[solidarity]

Some say that less than seven percent of wars are truly religious https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war . No doubt the figures are more complex than any simple analysis allows.