How American Christians can stop being bullies and start winning converts

[Yitzi]

I think the crux of this point about treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union is that to what ever extent they were mistreated, that treatment was not Antisemitism, but merely the mistreatment that most ethnic minorities suffered under.

No, there was also anti-religious persecution.  Which also isn't Antisemitism, but is arguably worse.

Also I do not believe their is a single instance of organized religion failing to persecute minority religions, ethnicity etc once obtaining the political power to do so.

The "God-fearers" (gentiles who followed what Judaism demands of gentiles) in Second Temple Israel are a counterexample.

Unless you were specifically speaking of not persecuting people who deny the organized religion's core dogmas rather than simply not belonging...and the reason you won't find an exception to that is sort of obvious.

But political philosophies because they are based on reasoning how ever flawed are always going to be held to account for their failings by their internal populations.  Religion and any faith based doctrine can and always will retreat behind the impregnable walls of faith to resist change and deny culpability.

No it can't always, for the simple reason that even a faith-based religion can have faith only in a few specific things (and where there isn't rampant religious ignorance, such is probably the norm), so if those few things don't justify resisting change/denying culpability, then faith won't help to resist change and deny culpability.

Communist policies did reduce religious participation and membership- that was intended.

And that is what I hold against them.

And to be quite frank, while I don't hate religious faith, I don't agree to it and its not my heaviest concern. Considering the amount of oppression religious bodies make and the lack of accountability most religious organizations have (the Catholic church apologized for the crusades after... what, 800 years? What about the Spanish inquisition, the systematic rape and abuse of children in missionary schools in many European colonies?)

I hold that against them too (though somewhat less so in cases where it's not people belonging to my own group that were affected.)

What of all the Jihadist wars and Mujahideen groups that slaughtered innocent people in the name of their god? What of the invading Israelite who cleansed the entire city of Jericho and other places back in ancient times and then again the invasion of Israel in modern times by displaced Jews? What of the Palestinians who raided Jewish Kibbutz before that and other extremist groups?

The invading Israelites were (I believe) acting on God's orders (and He has the right to give His land as He wishes); were it not for that, you'd be right.  The modern time wasn't really an invasion, but rather a homecoming that turned violent when it was resisted violently.  Regarding the Muslim actions, I agree with you.

The thing is with non-profit charity groups is a lot of these groups aren't entirely as efficient as a government program would be.

A lot aren't, though some are more efficient.  (For example, I know of one charity group in my own hometown that provides direct aid but focuses on helping people get new jobs/get their lives back together, resulting in more people helped for longer per dollar spent.)  And what about non-profit non-charity groups, such as a non-profit house of worship (which collects dues only for things like expanding the building, paying the electric bill, etc.)?

I am a firm anti-philanthropist, in the sense I believe that it doesn't exist. When a system relies on philanthropy needs are not going to be met, charity is not going to provide for people sufficiently and I've seen real world cases where this is so commonly proved that its horrifying.

I think that depends a lot on the culture.

When religion becomes the government it barely provided these services, on the contrary. Bring me an example where it efficiently provided for people

The Jewish communities in the middle ages; the communities were essentially run by rabbis IIRC (so they were the closest thing those communities had to a government), and they took care of taking care of the poor etc.

I am not making an assumption. I am making an observation of how the vast majority of religious organizations behaved and still behave like, the magnitude of how bad they are may have lessened from the past to present, but many of these greedy traits persist and quite frankly, have worsened in some instances.

Ok, as long as you restrict it to "vast majority" and don't hold that against those outside that vast majority, that's enough.

[JarlWolf]

I am still going to treat all organized religions with distrust and keep in mind, distrust, not hatred, until they prove me otherwise. Given who I am, my background, all the pain and misery I suffered at the hands of religious extremists and the amount of good people I've seen killed by that nonsense, its surprising I am not entirely anti-religious and for crushing faith.


As for you grudging against the Soviet regime for minimizing religion- sure. As a religious person its fair you don't like that, its not a question there. Of course that's part of the ideology, and its why you aren't communist due to your strong connection with your faith.

My point of religious groups denying their responsibility was actually reinforced by this:

The invading Israelites were (I believe) acting on God's orders (and He has the right to give His land as He wishes); were it not for that, you'd be right.  The modern time wasn't really an invasion, but rather a homecoming that turned violent when it was resisted violently.  Regarding the Muslim actions, I agree with you.

Under whose god? What if that god was not theirs, was not mine? Whose to say this god was the proper god? This is why we have different religions, and systematically invading, killing people and committing genocide isn't an excuse for this I think. Sure this was in the ancient world, a time of relative barbarism- but the point still stands where I do not believe that religious faith should justify such actions. The thing about communism or other modern ideologies is that they are addressing issues that actively affect everyone- class disparity and conflict is an active real thing that affects society in a negative way. There is reason for communists to physically fight.

When someone proclaims they are fighting for a spiritual being that, realistically has no physical manifestation or influence on the group of people they are waging war on, I find that psychotic. Its an imaginary pretext- the crusades for instance and the invasion of Israel as well back in the ancient world were pretext's for militant Christian nobility and the pope to claim lucrative trade routes in the middle east, using their "god" as a justification. The pilgrims only started to get attacked AFTER the crusades.

As for the invasion of Israel, archeological evidence has pinpointed the Israelite were a nomadic tribe that was fairly warlike- they operated as a buffer tribe for the Egyptians, much like how Visigoths did for the Romans, to keep out invaders. Eventually the Israelite would get tired of this and they moved, and they go back to Israel, plunder, loot and pillage and secure the lands as their own to make a new home out of it and claim its riches for themselves. Throwing in their god was just a customary "were justifying our wants, desires and needs over yours because our god says so."

There is Muslim groups who do this today, violent sects- who says that they need to conquer the entire Middle East in the name of Allah and get everything ascribed under his higher rule to give people spiritual clarity and purpose.
And they do this by doing the exact same thing as your ancestors did- killing people and doing such things.


As for philanthropy- I've been to China, my own country (which is renowned for its hospitality), America, various nation of Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Cuba, Africa and I can say that in nearly all the places I have been any poverty there was was not solved by charity, but by government programs. If there wasn't any programs people remained in vast swathes of despicable poverty and it was only meagerly alleviated by churches and other religious organizations, and far from solved.

As for the non profit, non charity groups- they aren't an organization. They are an establishment or group, and thus not a concern or source of distrust to me.


I am not aiming at particular groups for the purpose of bigotry- I state these things to bring forth a point. The fact you believe it to be right (and im not scolding you for such beliefs, but this is where my distrust stems from) that its justified to invade somewhere based on the orders of one's faith and god, something that can not even be applicable to other people (unlike class disparity, EVERY society has class disparity) is unsettling, and its the reason why more manipulative power hungry leaders within religious organizations can manipulate their followers into terrifying acts.

Note- I state invasion. Defending one's faith is an entirely different matter, and I don't blame religious groups for trying to defend their faith. But invading and implicating it on others? That's where it gets scary.

[Impaler]

I am a firm anti-philanthropist, in the sense I believe that it doesn't exist. When a system relies on philanthropy needs are not going to be met, charity is not going to provide for people sufficiently and I've seen real world cases where this is so commonly proved that its horrifying.

I completely concur with this sentiment, charity has never and will never solve any of the problems it claims to be addressing, the resource base that charity can access via even the full collection of traditional tithes would not be sufficient even if nothing was spent on supporting the priests and providing for the services, but in fact the vast majority of church money is spent on these non-charity activities. 

Even non-religious charity is highly inefficient, not only must a large portion of every dollar donated be spent to continually solicit new donations (some so called charities are borderline scams in which the collectors of the money pay themselves 90%) but the use of volunteer labor is appallingly inefficient too.  Volunteer work is conducted for the self-gratification of he volunteers (and for the charity to elicit their monetary donations), a person who works in a soup-kitchen for a day feels him self to be morally righteous but his contribution of a few hours of unskilled labor amount to pittance in actual monetary value.  Any reasonably well paid professional would literally do more to help the poor by doing his regular job and paying his taxes on that income then to volunteer the same unit of time.

[JarlWolf]

That is not to say solidarity and volunteering is a bad thing- but if you really want to alleviate the pain and poverty of social systems, you have to take outright action to address the issues and provide proper programs to the populace.

[Yitzi]

Under whose god? What if that god was not theirs, was not mine?

A god who created everyone has claims on everyone, whether they believe in Him or not.

Whose to say this god was the proper god?

That's what I believe; I didn't claim I had a rational basis.

This is why we have different religions, and systematically invading, killing people and committing genocide isn't an excuse for this I think. Sure this was in the ancient world, a time of relative barbarism- but the point still stands where I do not believe that religious faith should justify such actions. The thing about communism or other modern ideologies is that they are addressing issues that actively affect everyone- class disparity and conflict is an active real thing that affects society in a negative way. There is reason for communists to physically fight.

There's also a reason for believers in a true religion (if one exists) to physically fight as well; the question is then simply whether there is a true religion, and if so which one it is.  (I, of course, believe that there is and it's Judaism.)

When someone proclaims they are fighting for a spiritual being that, realistically has no physical manifestation or influence on the group of people they are waging war on, I find that psychotic.

Creating them (or rather, their ancestors) and the land they live on doesn't count as a physical manifestation or influence?

Its an imaginary pretext- the crusades for instance and the invasion of Israel as well back in the ancient world were pretext's for militant Christian nobility and the pope to claim lucrative trade routes in the middle east, using their "god" as a justification. The pilgrims only started to get attacked AFTER the crusades.

I'd need to see a source for that.

As for the invasion of Israel, archeological evidence has pinpointed the Israelite were a nomadic tribe that was fairly warlike- they operated as a buffer tribe for the Egyptians, much like how Visigoths did for the Romans, to keep out invaders. Eventually the Israelite would get tired of this and they moved, and they go back to Israel, plunder, loot and pillage and secure the lands as their own to make a new home out of it and claim its riches for themselves. Throwing in their god was just a customary "were justifying our wants, desires and needs over yours because our god says so."

Source?

As for philanthropy- I've been to China, my own country (which is renowned for its hospitality), America, various nation of Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Cuba, Africa and I can say that in nearly all the places I have been any poverty there was was not solved by charity, but by government programs. If there wasn't any programs people remained in vast swathes of despicable poverty and it was only meagerly alleviated by churches and other religious organizations, and far from solved.

From what I've seen, government programs don't seem to do such a good job of solving it either; they make it bearable (sometimes), but don't really solve it.

As for the non profit, non charity groups- they aren't an organization. They are an establishment or group, and thus not a concern or source of distrust to me.

Maybe we're using different understandings of the same word; what do you mean when you say "organization"?

The fact you believe it to be right (and im not scolding you for such beliefs, but this is where my distrust stems from) that its justified to invade somewhere based on the orders of one's faith and god, something that can not even be applicable to other people

I see you misunderstand what I said.  In a polytheistic world, where one group's god would indeed not be applicable to other people, it would indeed be unjustified to invade somewhere based on that god's orders.  Religion can only justify invasion when the god in question is god over the people being invaded, with all the rights involved with that.  (It is not, however, necessary that they accept His divinity or even existence, though without such acceptance only a creator god would have the right to be god over them.)

[JarlWolf]

A god who created everyone has claims on everyone, whether they believe in Him or not.

And I believe we evolved naturally over a length of time, as did all other life without the need of a higher being. I don't believe in this god because in my eyes and the eyes of evidence thus far, he does not exist, at least in any way shape or form Abrahamic religions may imagine a higher deity.

That's what I believe; I didn't claim I had a rational basis.

And im not going to accept your reasoning if it isn't rational and universally acceptable, because I could very well say that I am reviving the Norse pantheon or old Slavic gods and I need your body ripped in half to appease them and to battle and raid your community because they told me to. Which I would not want to do, because I don't want to see that and I think that's psychotic.

There's also a reason for believers in a true religion (if one exists) to physically fight as well; the question is then simply whether there is a true religion, and if so which one it is.  (I, of course, believe that there is and it's Judaism.)

And that reason is psychotic in the modern world. If you want to expand your religion to other people, do it through legal channels, not kill over it. If a government bans worship altogether (which the Soviet Union did not permanently do) then there might be reason that you are defending a civic right/spiritual right of worship. Note: Defending.

Creating them (or rather, their ancestors) and the land they live on doesn't count as a physical manifestation or influence?

Give me proof this god created us. Please give me a source and evidence, because last I checked science has debunked most of the Torah/Bible's genesis sector and other claims it made. And if you are going to use faith as an argument, detail to me how other religious creation stories such as those of Hinduism are incorrect and why their gods aren't authentic?

I'd need to see a source for that.

http://history-world.org/crusades.htm

Keep in mind, the Seljuk Turks came from central Asia and settled in Asia minor due to draughts and famine (and warfare), then controlled by the Byzantine empire. The Byzantines were hostile to these newcomers and killed many clans of Turks without mercy- Byzantines were infamous for their cruelty and slaughter (in general) and of nomadic tribesmen, including Kurds and Arabs. The Seljuk Turks fought battles at Manzikert, and other locations and this scared the Byzantines (who was a rival of Rome, religiously/economically.) But when pressed they called for help- and Rome accepted the invitation to drive out the Turks and come to the Middle East to conquer and drive out the Muslims, using their god as a justification to push out the Muslims who weren't even part of the Seljuk's armies and threat. 'God wills it.'

And later historical records show fiefdoms and colonies were setup, and control over trade. I believe my point stands.

Source?

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/slaughter-at-jericho/

Look at the quotes of the siege of Jericho. Translate it into military tactics, combine it with archeological finds.

From what I've seen, government programs don't seem to do such a good job of solving it either; they make it bearable (sometimes), but don't really solve it.

I'd say the rise of literacy from roughly 40% of my country in 1918 to over 98% in the 1930's to be problem solved, as well as other, similar examples of government provided education and literacy programs. Ones no religious group did to that scale of improvement.
I'd consider people having houses from when they did not prior a problem solved or at least, drastically improved. I'd also consider a nation without industrial capacity, a agricultural feudal state run by serfs in all but name to an industrial workers state that ranked as a world power within a period of a decade far more improvement then the church ever did for my country.

Or if you want to use Cuba as an example, how they went from a plantation, corporatist slave state to an industrialized, self sufficient nation that despite an embargo survives to this day and even provides aid to other nations, having full healthcare and education to the populace when prior it was only limited to the elite who could afford it. When most of their heavily catholic, capitalist Latin American neighbours have trouble dealing with poverty and famine.

Or take Japan, where they went from a traditionalist, backward feudal state dominated by a religious based caste system and turned into an industrialized empire from the 1860's to the 1880's, a mere 20 years and their populace is largely literate, there is railroads and industry when prior they were a medieval state of serfs and caste dictated social settings ruled by feudal warlords of the Tokugawa regime.

Maybe we're using different understandings of the same word; what do you mean when you say "organization"?

First google popup of definition

1.
an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc.
"a research organization"
synonyms:   company, firm, corporation, institution, group, consortium, conglomerate, agency, association, society; More
dot-org;
informaloutfit
"a large international organization"
2.
the action of organizing something.
"the organization of conferences and seminars"
synonyms:   planning, arrangement, coordination, administration, organizing, running, management
"the organization of conferences"

    the structure or arrangement of related or connected items.
    "the spatial organization of the cells"
    synonyms:   structure, arrangement, plan, pattern, order, form, format, framework, composition, constitution
    "the overall organization of the book"
    an efficient and orderly approach to tasks.

Religious organizations I distrust because their purpose they say they are uniting for is to worship their religion. But it turns out they are more about expanding their power, increasing their wealth and profit, and increasing their control over their followers, as evidenced by history. And last I checked most religion's scriptures didn't state- go forth and convert everyone and dominate the world. Judaism at least is probably the least offender of this as they were more concerned with holding their "promised land." It's also why they are probably less numerous then everyone else.
To be fair as well, kings and monarchs often used religions as a tool to expand their own power as well, as most monarchies were based on divine rule. So once you get politics involved like that your religious organization is just a socio-economic business using religion as its marketing plan.

I see you misunderstand what I said.  In a polytheistic world, where one group's god would indeed not be applicable to other people, it would indeed be unjustified to invade somewhere based on that god's orders.  Religion can only justify invasion when the god in question is god over the people being invaded, with all the rights involved with that.  (It is not, however, necessary that they accept His divinity or even existence, though without such acceptance only a creator god would have the right to be god over them.)

We live in a multi-thiestic world, and atheism is included in that. Most nations are secular- with populations having MANY different faiths and spiritual alignments. Therefore, it is not valid for religion to be a cause of invasion because populations have more then just one religion or perspective of such. We live in an era of global communication- you want to convert people, do it through legal channels. If you're being oppressed where your nation is exterminating all the Jews, or killing all the Kurds or burning all the churches or imprisoning Muslims and executing them, then that's valid reason to fight because you are defending your faith. And if a nation is doing genocidal or persecution acts like that, that's less of a reason to fight religiously and more of just defending human rights.

What the Soviet Union did in its infancy? Yeah I don't blame Orthodox Christians and others fighting back- but then again the actions weren't unwarranted either and there was rational reasoning behind the Bolshevik's actions as well, even if they were bloody and painful. One can argue how justified it was but that's not my point- for me I don't think its right personally to fully deny someone's faith.

I don't want any governmental assistance or support to them or giving them an ear when it comes to politics, because that's a slippery slope to theocracy, but I don't mind if people practice their faith and worship there is nothing wrong with that. People use their spirituality to help with their identity and purpose and help keep themselves sane and happy, understandable.

[Yitzi]

And I believe we evolved naturally over a length of time, as did all other life without the need of a higher being. I don't believe in this god because in my eyes and the eyes of evidence thus far, he does not exist, at least in any way shape or form Abrahamic religions may imagine a higher deity.

So then our disagreement about the acceptability of what the Israelites did is basically an outgrowth of our different beliefs regarding theology, and (as with any unresolvable disagreement about physical or quasi-physical reality) is best dealt with by an agreement to disagree.

And im not going to accept your reasoning if it isn't rational and universally acceptable

I'm not asking you to accept my position about God's existence, only about its implications with regard to conquest that He commands.

And that reason is psychotic in the modern world. If you want to expand your religion to other people, do it through legal channels, not kill over it.

Can you justify why one should not kill over it without appealing to your belief that the god in question does not exist/did not create everyone?

Give me proof this god created us.

So I don't have a proof that God created everyone, and therefore don't have a proof that the Israelites were justified.

However, that doesn't make it not true; it simply means I can't prove my belief about theology, and the question of the justification of the Israelites' actions boils down to that unprovable issue.

http://history-world.org/crusades.htm

Looks to me like it refutes the claim that the motivations were purely economic.  So there were some economic motivations, but they weren't just an excuse.

Source?

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/slaughter-at-jericho/

Look at the quotes of the siege of Jericho. Translate it into military tactics, combine it with archeological finds.

What does that have to do with the Israelites being a buffer tribe for the Egyptians (or even being more warlike than other groups of the time), or your claim that religion was just an excuse?

From what I've seen, government programs don't seem to do such a good job of solving it either; they make it bearable (sometimes), but don't really solve it.

I'd say the rise of literacy from roughly 40% of my country in 1918 to over 98% in the 1930's to be problem solved, as well as other, similar examples of government provided education and literacy programs.

Promoting widespread literacy and other low-level education is very different than solving poverty.

Ones no religious group did to that scale of improvement.

Actually, there are a lot of sources that indicate that Jews had an extremely high rate of literacy in the middle ages, and that was clearly due to religion.  So yes, religion can result in widespread literacy and education in a situation where without it there would be widespread illiteracy.

I'd consider people having houses from when they did not prior a problem solved or at least, drastically improved.

Yes, it did help drastically...but I'm pretty sure that there are cases where religion did the same.  It's only solving the problem that neither did.

I'd also consider a nation without industrial capacity, a agricultural feudal state run by serfs in all but name to an industrial workers state that ranked as a world power within a period of a decade far more improvement then the church ever did for my country.

That isn't poverty-related at all...but yes, a government can push industrialization in a way that religions generally don't.  Of course, neither do democracies; going from agrarian to industrial over a short span requires a fairly strong government whose focus on the goal at least borders on the sociopathic.

Maybe we're using different understandings of the same word; what do you mean when you say "organization"?

First google popup of definition

1.
an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc.
"a research organization"
synonyms:   company, firm, corporation, institution, group, consortium, conglomerate, agency, association, society; More
dot-org;
informaloutfit
"a large international organization"
2.
the action of organizing something.
"the organization of conferences and seminars"
synonyms:   planning, arrangement, coordination, administration, organizing, running, management
"the organization of conferences"

    the structure or arrangement of related or connected items.
    "the spatial organization of the cells"
    synonyms:   structure, arrangement, plan, pattern, order, form, format, framework, composition, constitution
    "the overall organization of the book"
    an efficient and orderly approach to tasks.

So what in there means that houses of worship and other "establishments and groups" don't count?

Religious organizations I distrust because their purpose they say they are uniting for is to worship their religion. But it turns out they are more about expanding their power, increasing their wealth and profit, and increasing their control over their followers, as evidenced by history.

I think that there are some whose goal is just to worship, some whose goal is to expand their religion's power for the sake of their god, and some who are as you describe.  But the second and third categories are often difficult to tell apart, and the first tend not to be noticed unless you're a member of one of them.

So once you get politics involved like that your religious organization is just a socio-economic business using religion as its marketing plan.

Depends how pious the members are; some might very well be able to resist the temptation to go that route.

We live in a multi-thiestic world

No we don't (a Hindu would disagree.)  I believe we live in a monotheistic world, and you believe we live in an atheistic world, but we agree that there is at most one god.

To clarify, when I spoke of a polytheistic world when I said:

"I see you misunderstand what I said.  In a polytheistic world, where one group's god would indeed not be applicable to other people, it would indeed be unjustified to invade somewhere based on that god's orders.  Religion can only justify invasion when the god in question is god over the people being invaded, with all the rights involved with that.  (It is not, however, necessary that they accept His divinity or even existence, though without such acceptance only a creator god would have the right to be god over them.)"

I was not talking about how many religions there were, but rather how many gods there were.  If there's only one god, and He's the Creator, then He is god over everyone (with all that entails) even if they don't follow a religion that recognizes Him.

I don't want any governmental assistance or support to them or giving them an ear when it comes to politics, because that's a slippery slope to theocracy, but I don't mind if people practice their faith and worship there is nothing wrong with that. People use their spirituality to help with their identity and purpose and help keep themselves sane and happy, understandable.

What about if the government takes active steps to ensure that it does not interfere with, or cause undue harship to, people practicing their faith, and stays out of religious matters, while not giving them more than that?

[JarlWolf]

I'm old and lazy, so if I stop replying don't take it as an insult- its more so because im lacking energy 

With the Jews and their literacy- keep in mind these were SMALL isolated communities or groups of people within a community. Jews were fairly educated yes, but they were also generally a more wealthy minority in every European nation due to their spending habits and other cultural practices that had them have a built up family wealth. So they don't exactly count for nation wide education now, do they? It's not "widespread" its amongst their own enclaves.  Its not distributed amongst the majority of the population so saying its widespread is laughable.

As for the crusades- the motivations were purely economic. The Roman Catholic church did not care one bit of the Byzantines survival, it was all about political control of the region and controlling the lucrative trade and commerce the region presented. Its why they went deeper down south to crusade rather then just stave off the Seljuk Turks and leave it at that, but they went further- and what do they do? Pillage and profit. They just threw in the "God wills it" to get the masses on their side and have highly motivated levy troops to follow their lords into battle and conquest.

And as for the Israelites invading ancient Israel, they threw in their religious reasoning (of which the locals did not recognize and did not accept) to add salt to a wound, more or less. They came in to conquer, pillage and secure lands for themselves as they were a nomadic tribe leaving Egypt. I mentioned they were a buffer tribe with Egypt like the Visigoths were to Rome to draw a parallel- they were a hardened race of warriors and herdsmen who were used to warfare, and they got fed up with the pharaohs of Egypt and left. Being so warlike they went back to Israel and conquered it, that's why its relevant.

As for a government not interfering with spiritual practices of its people- that's PRECISELY what I want. I want governments to be completely cut off from religions, and its a double edged sword. While there is absolutely no support for religions, religious groups having to setup their own organization themselves, that also means governments won't impede a religion and its worship. Schools and public establishments won't have religion enforced on them, and any people who want religious education seek it through complimentary or different channels- its not prohibited, just not supported.

I state multi-thiestic in the sense of religions, we have many religions, I am aware polytheism means multi god religion. But we have many faiths in this world, and Abrahamic one's aren't the only one.  And many people aren't entirely even ascribed to one faith anymore, people change faiths and many people are agnostics. We live in a SECULAR world- completely atheist? I think not.

There is still many pagan religions about, and many polytheistic religions besides Hinduism. There is even a revival of things like Wiccans and pagan religions to boot- its not en masse comparable to catholics, protestants or jews, or islam for that matter but its notable.

As for poverty and literacy- actually they are very much interconnected. If you cannot read you are less likely to get a better paying job. Literacy improves your quality of life in society because it enables you to do much more, to get better jobs, to be a more educated person.

And I'd like a source where housing was provided by a church or religious group on the same scale of state programs did.
And industry does help raise potentials to solve poverty- if you industrialize you can create more food, jobs, better work environments, new tools, sanitation, many different improvements to society.

As for organization definitions, the houses of worship do in the literal sense of the word. In the way im treating it, typically not because I am taking it with the business definition- however the organization of a church or what have you like the Papacy? More or less a business with religion as its marketing plan as stated, amongst other religious organizations..

On the note of me accepting those who a "god" commands to attack and invade people who have nothing to do with their faith, I am not going to respect or take them seriously with what they tell me. I certainly did not with Muslim extremists and Mujahideen back in my service days- when I see men like that attacking and harming people or my colleagues as aggressors I shot them down without regret. I don't take kindly to that form of extremism and doubt you do either.

I have my reasons for distrusting organized religions, and I believe you know why now granted the evidence, my experiences and my reasoning with... im not stating its bad to be religious. I am not even stating it's bad to be part of a religious organization. All I am saying is im sure as hell not going to trust a religious organization and I am not really respecting of them granted what they did in the past and to this day- I am not a bigot who'll insult those who are religious of course but its not that hard to see why I don't trust the more extreme or business oriented ones...

[Yitzi]

I'm old and lazy, so if I stop replying don't take it as an insult- its more so because im lacking energy 

Ok.

With the Jews and their literacy- keep in mind these were SMALL isolated communities or groups of people within a community. Jews were fairly educated yes, but they were also generally a more wealthy minority in every European nation due to their spending habits and other cultural practices that had them have a built up family wealth.

Actually, a number of sources suggest that the high wealth was a result of the high literacy and education, not its cause.

So they don't exactly count for nation wide education now, do they? It's not "widespread" its amongst their own enclaves.  Its not distributed amongst the majority of the population so saying its widespread is laughable.

It was widespread in the group affected by the religion in question.  Obviously a religion that is followed by a minority group won't cause high literacy in those who don't follow it, but its effects on its followers can be extrapolated to what it would cause if it were followed by the majority.

As for the crusades- the motivations were purely economic.

The site you linked says otherwise, that there were religious feelings involving the Holy Land involved too (plus the issue with the Byzantines).  To quote that site: "These various factors were genuine causes, and at the same time, useful justifications for the pope’s call for a Crusade."

And as for the Israelites invading ancient Israel, they threw in their religious reasoning (of which the locals did not recognize and did not accept) to add salt to a wound, more or less.

You have a source for that claim?

I mentioned they were a buffer tribe with Egypt like the Visigoths were to Rome to draw a parallel- they were a hardened race of warriors and herdsmen who were used to warfare, and they got fed up with the pharaohs of Egypt and left.

And I asked for a source for that claim, and you have yet to provide it.

As for a government not interfering with spiritual practices of its people- that's PRECISELY what I want. I want governments to be completely cut off from religions

Those two goals are mutually incompatible; any time two major life-affecting matters (such as religion and government both are) completely ignore each other, they will probably interfere with each other to some extent simply by accident.  To truly avoid interference requires active care that takes into account that which you are avoiding interference with.

and its a double edged sword. While there is absolutely no support for religions, religious groups having to setup their own organization themselves, that also means governments won't impede a religion and its worship. Schools and public establishments won't have religion enforced on them, and any people who want religious education seek it through complimentary or different channels- its not prohibited, just not supported.

You'd have to make sure that the complimentary channels are feasible or the different channels (if they cover secular education too) do not amount to paying double secular tuition...but other than that, it sounds reasonable.

I state multi-thiestic in the sense of religions, we have many religions, I am aware polytheism means multi god religion. But we have many faiths in this world, and Abrahamic one's aren't the only one.  And many people aren't entirely even ascribed to one faith anymore, people change faiths and many people are agnostics. We live in a SECULAR world- completely atheist? I think not.

There is still many pagan religions about, and many polytheistic religions besides Hinduism. There is even a revival of things like Wiccans and pagan religions to boot- its not en masse comparable to catholics, protestants or jews, or islam for that matter but its notable.

Again, when I say you believe we live in an atheistic world, I mean that you believe we live in a world with no god.

Let's rephrase my original statement slightly and add a bit:

In a world where polytheism is correct, and therefore one group's god would indeed not be applicable to other people, it would indeed be unjustified to invade somewhere based on that god's orders.  Religion can only justify invasion when the god in question is god over the people being invaded, with all the rights involved with that.  (It is not, however, necessary that they accept His divinity or even existence, though without such acceptance only a creator god would have the right to be god over them.)  However, in a world where monotheism is correct, and furthermore that god is a creator god, that god is god over all people and therefore can justify such an invasion.  The actual beliefs of the people involved are completely irrelevant here.

As for poverty and literacy- actually they are very much interconnected. If you cannot read you are less likely to get a better paying job. Literacy improves your quality of life in society because it enables you to do much more, to get better jobs, to be a more educated person.

On an individual level, this is true.  However, on a societal level, it is not true, since that 60% illiteracy rate not only means you're probably illiterate, but the people you're competing with are also probably illiterate.

When literacy rates are high, illiteracy causes poverty.  When literacy rates are low, illiteracy does not cause poverty, though the low literacy rate reduces the standard of living across the board (which is not the same thing as a high poverty rate.)

And I'd like a source where housing was provided by a church or religious group on the same scale of state programs did.

I do not have one; my suspicion that it happened is based purely on other similar needs that were provided.

And industry does help raise potentials to solve poverty- if you industrialize you can create more food, jobs, better work environments, new tools, sanitation, many different improvements to society.

That's increasing the standard of living; solving poverty would mean ensuring that everyone gets what is, by the standards of their own society, a decent standard of living.

As for organization definitions, the houses of worship do in the literal sense of the word. In the way im treating it, typically not because I am taking it with the business definition

Please provide that definition, then.

however the organization of a church or what have you like the Papacy? More or less a business with religion as its marketing plan as stated, amongst other religious organizations..

I think that depends on the church or the Pope.  (The current Pope actually seems fairly good.)

On the note of me accepting those who a "god" commands to attack and invade people who have nothing to do with their faith, I am not going to respect or take them seriously with what they tell me.

Understandable.  Will you, however, at least accept that if they were in fact acting on orders from a god who is god over the people they're attacking, they would be justified?

And will you also accept that a god (theoretically speaking) can be god over people said god created even if those people do not adhere to a religion that recognizes said god?

but its not that hard to see why I don't trust the more extreme or business oriented ones...

Indeed.  I don't either; even a true religion should have roughly the same extremism-to-moderation ratio that other ideologies should have, and should be just business-oriented enough to not waste money.

[JarlWolf]

In response to these-

When the Kingdom of Israel existed, not many people were literate back then. Jews became literate in the Middle Ages because they were forced to by economic conditions- Christians didn't allow Jews to operate normal jobs like Christians were allowed to- they had to take to book keeping, money lending and other practices because many were so shunned they had to. And thus they became wealthy because of this practice, it was their means of survival.

The site I linked says there was genuine feelings over the Holy Land, yes. But those were backing the majority objective- economic colonization and political control. And you helped back up my point with what you said, and for the pope, they were useful justifications.
 
The organization itself used those genuine feelings to their advantage. And those justifications helped get those genuine feelings.

Justifications to invade and conquer when the original purpose was just to reinforce the Byzantines, and nothing more.

As for the evidence that Israeli's were a buffer tribe- Look to your own Torah/Old Testament- it explicitly states the Israeli's settled on border regions granted by the Pharaoh of Egypt, and in order to conquer a walled city like Jericho and the whole of Canaan and Israel you HAVE to be a well structured military force. The fact they evaded the Pharaoh's armies for years in the desert also speaks of a highly skilled commander (Moses) who was smart in evasion and escape. Whether or not the more biblical events happened (like the parting of the sea of reeds) is a matter of faith- but regardless of which way you cut it historically and with historical finds from the Kingdom of Israel and other digs and finds it pinpoints the Israeli tribes were fairly tough, disciplined warriors who knew what they were doing.

Similar records of this time from Egypt also depict a tribe called the Habiru- which is a collective term for people who were nomads, but MOSTLY attributed to Semitic Hebrews and related groups of nomads. And they were detailed as mercenaries, laborers and other sorts of workers- the Jews did help in building the pyramids, but the pyramids have also been proven to, for the most part not been built by slaves but rather peasants without work after the Nile floods. And it was a labor tax the pharaoh's enacted on their people, and the Hebrews likely also were taxed in this manner. Obviously the records of the Hebrews are going to demonize their enemies as any culture did- the mentions of Assyrians paint them almost demonic, for example.

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

I state that in admiration, as a note- I may not agree to their cause but I can respect prowess.

As for accepting that this world is one of a monotheistic god- my answer is flatly no. I do not believe in a god, I do not believe this world was made by a god, or if it was, not by one we truly understand and should even worship, its unwise to worship or believe in something you don't fully comprehend or know.

I'll respect anyone who does and acknowledge their decision- but I myself don't believe any of it and I have my reasons, and do not believe them to be my master or have command over me, or others for that matter.

As for the people who believe they have command over their own religious group and thinks its fair to commit atrocities even if its under the name of their god? I don't for one second believe in that because who says these people, from a spiritual point, are truly receiving orders from their holy one, are following the creeds and scriptures faithfully of their religion and are even doing their acts for religion, but rather instead power or psychosis?

If there is a Mujahideen firing his gun at my muslim friend, I am going to shoot that Mujahideen and wipe his arrogant, self righteous opinion and living body off the face of the planet. Plain and simple. People who are going to commit atrocities on each other, regardless if its their own kind and faith, is monstrous and barbaric. I do not accept that at all, if we want to progress as a civilization were going to have to put such things aside. If the god they follow is truly wise and benevolent they'll realize this and should actually be happy that their followers aren't mindlessly following his/her orders, if this god you cherish so much loves its followers and creations-

Wouldn't it want true love, compassion and intelligent behavior in return? If it wanted mindless pawns it would have made us so, would it have not? I don't believe in a god for many reasons. The fact a god depicted by other people, for instance, wants them to follow it's orders without question is one of those reasons and I quite frankly think said god is psychotic for it.

But that's my opinion. I'm a communist, an authoritarian on some levels and a militarist- so im a little crazy too.

[Yitzi]

In response to these-

When the Kingdom of Israel existed, not many people were literate back then.

Source?

The site I linked says there was genuine feelings over the Holy Land, yes. But those were backing the majority objective- economic colonization and political control. And you helped back up my point with what you said, and for the pope, they were useful justifications.

As well as real reasons; that doesn't sound like they were primarily just an excuse, or that the pope didn't also have those feelings.
 

As for the evidence that Israeli's were a buffer tribe- Look to your own Torah/Old Testament- it explicitly states the Israeli's settled on border regions granted by the Pharaoh of Egypt

Doesn't mean they served as a buffer tribe, though.

and in order to conquer a walled city like Jericho and the whole of Canaan and Israel you HAVE to be a well structured military force.

Not if you have help.

The fact they evaded the Pharaoh's armies for years in the desert also speaks of a highly skilled commander (Moses) who was smart in evasion and escape.

They didn't evade the Pharaoh's armies for years; they evaded them for a few days, and then got them drowned in the sea.

but regardless of which way you cut it historically and with historical finds from the Kingdom of Israel and other digs and finds it pinpoints the Israeli tribes were fairly tough, disciplined warriors who knew what they were doing.

And other groups of that time weren't?

Similar records of this time from Egypt also depict a tribe called the Habiru- which is a collective term for people who were nomads, but MOSTLY attributed to Semitic Hebrews and related groups of nomads. And they were detailed as mercenaries, laborers and other sorts of workers- the Jews did help in building the pyramids, but the pyramids have also been proven to, for the most part not been built by slaves but rather peasants without work after the Nile floods.

Yeah; the main thing the Jews built were "storehouse cities", not pyramids.

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

Your own source indicates that it's not clear if these were the same as the עברים.

As for accepting that this world is one of a monotheistic god- my answer is flatly no. I do not believe in a god, I do not believe this world was made by a god, or if it was, not by one we truly understand and should even worship, its unwise to worship or believe in something you don't fully comprehend or know.

I understand that.  But do you at least accept my statements about what the consequences would be if it were?

As for the people who believe they have command over their own religious group and thinks its fair to commit atrocities even if its under the name of their god? I don't for one second believe in that because who says these people, from a spiritual point, are truly receiving orders from their holy one, are following the creeds and scriptures faithfully of their religion and are even doing their acts for religion, but rather instead power or psychosis?

I respect your belief that they're not actually recieving orders from God, but not your belief that they're generally doing it for power or psychosis instead of religion.

If there is a Mujahideen firing his gun at my muslim friend, I am going to shoot that Mujahideen and wipe his arrogant, self righteous opinion and living body off the face of the planet.

It doesn't matter if his friend is Muslim, as if the Muslim god exists at all, it is god over even non-Muslims.

If the god they follow is truly wise and benevolent they'll realize this and should actually be happy that their followers aren't mindlessly following his/her orders, if this god you cherish so much loves its followers and creations-

Wouldn't it want true love, compassion and intelligent behavior in return?

Generally yes, though exceptions do exist, and presumably a god (if one exists) would be able to judge that better than we can, due to having more information.

But that's my opinion. I'm a communist, an authoritarian on some levels and a militarist

All reasons to be have more favorable opinions toward an authoritarian and often militaristic god who favors some amount of communism.   

[Impaler]

Understandable.  Will you, however, at least accept that if they were in fact acting on orders from a god who is god over the people they're attacking, they would be justified?

And will you also accept that a god (theoretically speaking) can be god over people said god created even if those people do not adhere to a religion that recognizes said god?

That is a definitive NO, Gods creation of or being 'over' a group can not make an action that would otherwise be immoral moral.  Just as I can not morally kill my child just because I created it or have authority over it.

[JarlWolf]

Exactly my point- when it comes to religion being an excuse to hurt and kill people, im more inclined to support a state that BANS the worship of religion then tolerate that. If your faith is going to be the cause of suffering and needless destruction in society then society, in pure natural response, will crush and remove your religion.

I killed extremists with that line of thought without question- I've fought and bled to curb that sort of mentality and I am utterly disgusted with the people who do think that way. My previous point stand, but to be frank killing for something that for all intents and purposes is a matter of faith- or to be a lot more crude and brash, imaginary/existent only in the eyes of their believers, is psychotic in my eyes.

[Yitzi]

Understandable.  Will you, however, at least accept that if they were in fact acting on orders from a god who is god over the people they're attacking, they would be justified?

And will you also accept that a god (theoretically speaking) can be god over people said god created even if those people do not adhere to a religion that recognizes said god?

That is a definitive NO, Gods creation of or being 'over' a group can not make an action that would otherwise be immoral moral.  Just as I can not morally kill my child just because I created it or have authority over it.

Parent-child is a much weaker relationship, though.  A better analogy is: Can one make a sapient robot while still reserving for oneself the right to destroy it?

My previous point stand, but to be frank killing for something that for all intents and purposes is a matter of faith- or to be a lot more crude and brash, imaginary/existent only in the eyes of their believers, is psychotic in my eyes.

How dependent is that position on said god actually being imaginary?

[Buster's Uncle]

Atheist must swear to God -- or leave US Air Force
AFP
6 hours ago



Air Force Academy Cadets walk onto the field at the start of the graduation ceremony for the US Air Force Academy at Falcon Stadium on May 23, 2012 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. (AFP Photo/Chris Schneider)



Washington (AFP) - The US Air Force has told a sergeant he will have to leave the military unless he agrees to take an oath with the phrase "so help me God," officials said Tuesday.

In the latest religious controversy to roil the air force, the atheist airman last month was denied his request to re-enlist because of his refusal to swear to God -- and he is now poised to take the military to court, his lawyer said.

"We have not received word from the Air Force regarding our letter. It has not indicated a willingness to settle out of court," said Monica Miller, an attorney for the American Humanist Association, which has taken up the service member's case.

With the deadline for re-enlisting expiring in November, the technical sergeant at Creech Air Force base in Nevada -- whose name has not been released -- will be forced to sue the government in a federal court, Miller told AFP.

In the past, an airman could opt for an alternative phrase and omit the words "so help me God," but the US Air Force changed its policy in October 2013.

The other branches of the American military do not require the reference to God and make the phrase optional.

"This is the only branch to my knowledge that's actually requiring everyone in all instances to use the religious language," Miller said.

The requirement violates the US Constitution, which bars religious tests to hold office or other positions, Miller said of the case, which was first reported by the Air Force Times.

"The government cannot compel a nonbeliever to take an oath that affirms the existence of a supreme being," she said.

The sergeant's service expires in November and he has until then to re-enlist and take the oath, said US Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek.

In the meantime, "a written legal opinion is being requested" from the Pentagon's top lawyer, she said.

The air force has been plagued by controversy for years over religion and the role of Christian evangelists.

The US Air Force Academy in Colorado faced accusations several years ago that evangelical Christians exerted a dominating influence over the institution.

But attempts to counter the perceived bias in the service have sparked criticism from Christian activist groups, who allege a new rule stifles the religious expression of troops.

The disputed rule bars commanders from promoting their religious convictions to their subordinates.

Advocates of the policy say it protects troops who worry their careers could be jeopardized if they do not take part in their superior's Christian activities.

http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-must-swear-god-leave-us-air-force-232153866.html

---

I don't see how this could be legal...