A religion called "Empathy"

Aqua wrote: ,,Religion at root of violence''
A Christian terrorist would live the Christian religion not as intended, a Christian terrorist would live it as a ideology. Then how can violence and religion be linked? :ohmy:

Yea its a good point. I guess it depends if the religion has politics integral to it?

Empathy and critical thinking seem a good match, and since I tend to view the highest manifestation of the Force's in human experience as almost akin to 'love', partially, I like the OP a lot in regards to my Jedi path. I say at least partially because I do tend to fall into a dualism in perceiving it, which fits my interest in Buddhism... in deriving practical wisdom from bliss and emptiness; with love associating to bliss and emptiness associating the the flexibility to comprehend causal constructs for higher awareness. Making the 'ground' that nondual state which I might try and call the Force
:S :lol:

Jestor wrote: Part of 'paying attention to the NOW', should be the 'thinking before acting'...

Slight derail perhaps, but that reminds me of something I read yesterday, thoughtful courage;

"There is a very fine line between stopping progress and being reckless. That the necessary ingredient in this situation of solving a sticky problem is attitude and approach. The answer, in my opinion, is what I refer to as ‘thoughtful courage.' If you don't have that, you will very easily fall into the habit of ‘fearful safety' and end up with a very long and tedious-type solution at the hands of some committee."
~ Harrison 'Stormy' Storms

Adder wrote:

Aqua wrote: ,,Religion at root of violence''
A Christian terrorist would live the Christian religion not as intended, a Christian terrorist would live it as a ideology. Then how can violence and religion be linked? :ohmy:

Yea its a good point. I guess it depends if the religion has politics integral to it?

Mm.. politics can be a source indeed. But I also believe that there are so many religious documents, with so many different stories, that the chance of creating conflict between and within the stories are a big possibility. A small example below, two different Christian texts. Both telling a different story.
I find this very difficult to understand, how should one understand the different stories within the bible without creating contradictions with other parts of the bible? Are some only written to explain a situation, do they serve for a specific goal?
Could it be that people misunderstand the maze of words. And doing things the books and documents did not intend?

~ Aqua


(Old Testament) in Genesis 9:25-27:
"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem'."

Mark 12, 31:
,,Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm
http://biblehub.com/niv/mark/12.htm

We don't know what the book intended. Seeing how the majority of it is the oh-so-dreaded Old Testament where the parts it isn't bloodthirsty are the parts it lists genealogies and seeing how the New Testament, too, had its share of at least objectionable but often enough rather aggressive undertones of its own, and seeing how for the majority of its history those in power used its messages for mostly destructive means and those without took its advice to do nothing about it, I submit that it is a greater stretch to say it "intended" peaceful and loving coexistence than would be to say it "intended" an atmosphere of suppression and subjugation and a quest for world domination, especially if we are not willing to extend the same courtesy in judgement to more vial prominent books of holy text such as the Qur'an.
On the other hand, after the age of reason broke through, less and less professing Christians are either submissive or brutal the way they were in the dark ages. Incidentally, less and less professing Christians have problems eating pork anymore and overall they take the text less and less literally or seriously. So, on the surface, there appears to be a negative correlation between devotion and harmlessness, if any. I'm sure this is not the case if the religion was replaced with another ideology similarly bloodthirsty, but in modern days most of the time cultural, moderate Christians think in their morals and politics among humanist and secular lines.

And lest I be too inoffensive myself here, let me say that Jesus was in a way right when he listed the two commandments (only the second of which was about neighbors) to say that there are none (of any list of the main 10 of which the second wasn't even one at that) greater than it. Morality commanded from on high is, while not useless, still worthless. It is exactly what Schopenhauer criticized as "Sklavenmoral" and in all ways inferior to any system that is actually a system rather than... well, a commandment. So there is nothing great about any of them even in principle. But it goes even deeper than that, for both of these "greatest" two command us how we must feel about persons which serves nothing but make us feel sorry for the perfectly natural ways human feelings function and thus injecting into us an artificial disease for which bowing down in yet more submissive slave-like pleas for forgiveness is their version of a cure.

But it is a secondary matter what the text says and none of us have a way of knowing what it "intends" as though texts had a mind of their own. Every ideology can be taken to horrific ends and all it takes is a poor critical treatment of it. No idea deserves a privilege of unabridged and uncritical devotion, and so far giving any of them such power over us has never affected the world in an overall positive way.

I've heard this "Christian Terrorist" line several times now. It is like saying Jediism is violent because Anikin slaughter a bunch of children or all Germans, past and present, want to commit genocide because Hitler was a German. I guess some people just like to through out the baby with the bath water when it suits them to do so.

I can call myself the prime minister of Australia but that doesn't mean I am. Can you utterly break the most fundamental principles of a religion and really be a practitioner of that religion? Can I commit acts of terror and be a Jedi?

The old testament is where you will find the 10 commandments. These are the most fundamental and core laws of the bible ("Thou shalt not murder", "Thou shalt not steal", etc). Jesus even backs them up in the new testament by explaining the core principle of the first couple as "Love thy neighbour".

The bible is not all roses and followers as a lot of naïve church goers believe. It is a collection of stories about different people and they are warts and all. They are not perfect people. There is sex, violence, hatred and all manner of evil committed. When someone like Noah is cursing his son for some wrong doing then yes you get "Cursed be Canaan ....". Big surprise Noah isn't some perfect being and just because he did it doesn't mean it is an example that all Christians should follow. It is just the story of Noah and should be treated as such.

SeventhSL wrote: I've heard this "Christian Terrorist" line several times now. It is like saying Jediism is violent because Anikin slaughter a bunch of children or all Germans, past and present, want to commit genocide because Hitler was a German. I guess some people just like to through out the baby with the bath water when it suits them to do so.

Well, no...

Anakin was a fictional charater...

More like if one of us did something like that... :pinch:

However, I understood your point...

How do you feel about the phrase "Islamic Terrorists"?

Jestor wrote: However, I understood your point...

Thanks. I don't always articulate myself well.

Jestor wrote: How do you feel about the phrase "Islamic Terrorists"?

I don't hold the many responsible for the acts of a few period. What religion, organisation or grouping it applies to makes no difference to me.

Empathy is one of several virtues that might constitute the moral foundation of a religious practice but empathy alone is not enough. Most religions value a variety of virtues. Some form of the Golden Rule can be found in most religions.

Terror is a tactic used in asymmetrical warfare (smaller military against larger). It is also a tactic used to instill terror in the general public in order to influence policy (San Bernardino). The man who shot up the health care clinic was not a terrorist. True, I think he did it to influence policy but it seems to me that his act falls under the crime category of murder. Even mass murder events are not always terrorist acts. Even if the perpetrator acted according to his or her religious beliefs I know of no religion that sanctions violence against non-combatants. This last point, the concept of takfir, is consistently prohibited and condemned in Islam.

SeventhSL wrote: I've heard this "Christian Terrorist" line several times now. It is like saying Jediism is violent because Anikin slaughter a bunch of children or all Germans, past and present, want to commit genocide because Hitler was a German. I guess some people just like to through out the baby with the bath water when it suits them to do so.

No. If religion motivates or enables a person to their terrorism, there is nothing wrong in identifying their terrorism as religious in full or in part. Nothing about that recognition condemns the rest of the followers or the ideology underneath. There are good reason to condemn them outside of that, but calling religious extremists by what they are is in no way unfair to either them or their brothers in faith.

Can you utterly break the most fundamental principles of a religion and really be a practitioner of that religion? Can I commit acts of terror and be a Jedi?

Well, I don't think there is a definition of Jedi that even two people fully agree on, so there's your answer. But then who are you to declare what does or does not constitute breaking any given fundamental principles of a religion anyway? And what makes you think that what religious terrorists are breaking are fundamental principles in the first place?

The old testament is where you will find the 10 commandments. These are the most fundamental and core laws of the bible ("Thou shalt not murder", "Thou shalt not steal", etc). Jesus even backs them up in the new testament by explaining the core principle of the first couple as "Love thy neighbour".

There are two sets of the ten commandments, only one of them lists a prohibition against killing and stealing and it is the other one that is explicitly referred to by that name, neither of them list to love one's neighbor as oneself and if it would, it would not summarize the first couple commandments, because in one case they are about how one ought worship no god more than their god and also do no illustrative art, and in the other case it is about how one ought not befriend but instead disrespect the people of the land you are invading and not worshipping any other god but the one and only, respectively.

When someone like Noah is cursing his son for some wrong doing then yes you get "Cursed be Canaan ....". Big surprise Noah isn't some perfect being and just because he did it doesn't mean it is an example that all Christians should follow. It is just the story of Noah and should be treated as such.

Except he is considered somewhat of a prophet, if you will. Not only that, but with all his faults, he seems to be identified by God himself as the only righteous man on the entire face of the earth prior to the flood and nowhere does an angel descend to him and say "Hey, mate, I know you're kinda angry with that son of yours, and he's done some really bad stuff, but seriously, you're like some 800 years old now, just forgive him already". No, instead Canaan is made an enemy of God and His chosen people for the rest of time. Just because it is a story doesn't mean that it has no bearing on either a specific or an overall moral message. Whether it does must be seen in every case individually and that the entire thing is a fable doesn't mean that nobody should or does take it to be more than just that. If we could just dismiss any message that was told through a story for that reason alone, why would we need myths to begin with and would there remain anything of weight at all to Campbell?

Gisteron wrote: No. If religion motivates or enables a person to their terrorism, there is nothing wrong in identifying their terrorism as religious in full or in part.

Yes I agree but my point was don’t judge the many by the actions of a few when those actions are in contrast to the many and to the principles of the religion.

Gisteron wrote: “But then who are you to declare what does or does not constitute breaking any given fundamental principles of a religion anyway?

Well I am no one and nothing but if I break one of the laws of this country the judge will tell me that ignorance is no excuse. That I am expected to understand the fundamental principles of the law and know what constitutes breaking it. How can someone practice a religion unless they understand its fundamental principles and know what constitutes breaking it?

Gisteron wrote: There are two sets of the ten commandments, only one of them lists a prohibition against killing and stealing

The ten commandments are listed first in Exodus.
Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder”, Exodus 20:15 “You shall not steal”
They are then listed a second time in Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy 5:17 “You shall not murder”, Deuteronomy 5:19 “You shall not steal”
The second mention in Deuteronomy is Moses recounting the first event in Exodus.

Gisteron wrote: Except he is considered somewhat of a prophet, if you will. Not only that, but with all his faults, he seems to be identified by God himself as the only righteous man on the entire face of the earth prior to the flood

Being righteous doesn’t make you perfect. Being considered to be a law abiding citizen don’t mean you haven’t broken laws in the past or won’t break them in the future. I think you missed the point of my statement. The point is that the people of the bible, even those considered prophets, are not perfect beings. Their stories are warts and all examples from which to learn. They are not laws or instructions by which you are to live.