Liverpool FC Forum

JoeTerp wrote:

Emerald Red wrote:

JoeTerp wrote:

Emerald Red wrote:

Reg wrote:The Spanish inquest down central and south america that destroyed ancient civilisations was done in the name of the church. The same church being good and holy, split south america down the middle between Spain and Portugal, hence Brazil speaks Portuguese. Rome threw the Jesuits out of Paraguay because they were becoming too powerful and upsetting the Franciscans. The church was actively involve in trying to convert China to christianity.  I´m not upset what they did, just illustrating that religion and nationalism are very closely linked.

You can draw similarities to all major ideologies through the course of history. The fact is that none can exist without the other, and society as we know it just wouldn't exist without any.

your right, everything would be a lot better.

Don't be so naive, Joe. People will always find an argument somewhere and a brutal method of which to solve it. If no ideologies existed, we wouldn't. It'd be just chaos.

sorry you have such a pessimistic view of human nature. Without any countries or religions there would have certainly been a lot less violence in the history of the world, and I am not really sure we need either of the two anymore, despite their attempts to make it seem like we are dependent on them and to make everything shi.ttier so that we "need" them even more.

dawson99 wrote:

Judge wrote:

dawson99 wrote:I love it, Judge went to Sri Lanka for a week and is suddenly an expert in Buddhism... of course buddhism is a religion!!!

The teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct, wisdom, and meditation releases one from desire, suffering, and rebirth.

One who has achieved a state of perfect spiritual enlightenment in accordance with the teachings of Buddha.

Spiritual enlightenment through a greater power or being

buddha is not a god, and secondly i didnt say i was an expert. i listened to the locals. you know the ones who are actually buddist !!

that fell on deaf ears with you daws

so religion has to involve a God?

How many lengthy chats did you have mate?

 

Reg wrote:

Sabre wrote:The purpose of religion shouldn't be used in a past tense, as the religion had, have, and will have the same purpose. It's important we distinguis between religion and politics.

When Jesus says to love your enemies, or to forgive, that's religion. It provides spiritual nourishment. When a Spaniard was beheading heads with his swords in the name of God, that was not religion, that was an empire conquering, and that was against his own religion.

Similarly we should clarify what's "church". When I hear the word "church" I think of all the church, and especially those priests that teach poor people how to read in africa. But when I talk with people about church, the Vatican comes first. I don't like the Vatican. It's an state, with all it's politics. I don't like the richness in it. I didn't like Vatican's position during WWII. I didn't like Spanish church position in the Spanish Civil War.

So, if you want to discuss atrocities done in the name of religion, then I'll be seeing things eye to eye. What I'm defending is religion, the core of it, the kind of thing that can give a man peace or guidance.

I hope I've made clear what I'm defending here. Now we can discuss Spanish conquering of America, although you overrate the power of 3 caravels, the Spanish conquered and killed, also plundered, but also did so in empires that were in demise or almost in the verge of falling down. I'm not making a justification, I'm saying those old empires were fascinating but like most empires were in decay. Had they not been in decay, that is, civilization would have conquered sooner or later, but Hernan Cortes couldn't have conquered with only a few men and convicing some local tribes.

The Spanish Inquisition gathered the worst of Spain. Spain has a noble and good part, but also has an evil and bad part in it's heart, and the Inquisition simply gathered the worst of the soul of Spain. I could talk about how we are the Spaniards for 4 pages (I think that if you love a country you have to know criticizing it), yet, let me say that what the nazis did against the jews has no comparison in history.

I equally hate those catholic pedos, and I'd send them to prison so that they're bummed by guys bigger than Misty Red. But I won't label the whole church at pedo, just for the respect I have to some priests and nans who have helped in Africa and other places more than many organisations.

So the purpose of religion? dogmas about divinity (not very important for me, and Buddism has no god), and spiritual guidance. Ultimately the salvation of the people

The purpose of nationalism? Nationalism is the exaltation of the country, everything for the country, and the well being of the people is behind the country.

Sometimes, when nationalism and bad use of religion gathered, we had the worst of humanity working. But religion per se, is not a bad think. Believing in a God, doesn't make me less scientific than Bob nor less analytical.

Blimey Sabes, your post is longer than Big Mick´s ! you need a holiday mate.

Talking historically when religion was at its height, religion IMHO wasnt  infintiely about the subject, but was more a unifier of people, societies and common laws and beliefs. The church controlled the local population through the pulpit. Its role today is totally different, the church has lost its leadership role and focuses on ideology and spirituality. Its evolved out of the power business.

"When Jesus says to love your enemies, or to forgive, that's religion. It provides spiritual nourishment. When a Spaniard was beheading heads with his swords in the name of God, that was not religion, that was an empire conquering, and that was against his own religion."

I agree. 'Love your enemies' is phase 2, killing people - before you could love them, was phase 1.  Love your enemies existed in the bible but was it EVER practised?

"I don't like the Vatican. It's an state, with all it's politics. I don't like the richness in it. I didn't like Vatican's position during WWII. I didn't like Spanish church position in the Spanish Civil War."

As a catholic I agree with you, its an organisation and I dont know how it serves me. Its refusal to prosecute pedorasts, to refuse to condone birth control etc... is totally wrong.

"What I'm defending is religion, the core of it, the kind of thing that can give a man peace or guidance."

That is a noble concept and I completely agree with the comfort it gives millions of people worldwide but it wasnt the subject of the thread which was about the Mad Mullahs killing children and allowing jailers to rape them beforehand so they wouldnt die virgins.


To move the subject on ref religion, I have a serious gripe with RELIGIONS in general. They - christian churches, the muslim faith, buddism whatever are there to serve the people, protect the poor, defend the weak and comfort the sick. Right?

Then WHY has the role of the churches been taken over and done more professionally, more effectively, efficiently and more in line with religious ideals by major charities such as Oxfam, Save The Children and UNICEF?  The different churches have failed to evolve and are declining into a spent force, the world needs a unified and strong churches to defend the poor, feed the hungry and protect human rights. All the faiths preach one message and ignore reality. OXFAM today performs the role the churches are unwilling to perform, Unicef administer to the flock, Save the Children protect the innocent. The church sits back incapable of responding. Unwilling to respond. Those young girls killed in Iran, those little african lads who strave to death, the 9 year old african child soldiers must all go to heaven and say to god  'Where were you when I needed you?'. And what does god reply I wonder...........

blimet reg, your post is bigger than big micks and sabres

you need a holiday mate 

LFC2007 wrote:

SouthCoastShankly wrote:It is true that Religion is the predominant cause of the majority of war and civil unrest but the above story is more than that.

I don't think there's much you can take from that comment because it's also true that throughout history the majority of peoples have been religious. It's still the case today.

The fact that the vast majority of people who practice religion are peaceful is enough to suggest that the causes of conflicts aren't anything like as clear-cut as statements such as those seem to suggest.

It's human nature - those in power believe the rules apply to everyone but themselves.

Reg wrote:To move the subject on ref religion, I have a serious gripe with RELIGIONS in general. They - christian churches, the muslim faith, buddism whatever are there to serve the people, protect the poor, defend the weak and comfort the sick. Right?

Then WHY has the role of the churches been taken over and done more professionally, more effectively, efficiently and more in line with religious ideals by major charities such as Oxfam, Save The Children and UNICEF?  The different churches have failed to evolve and are declining into a spent force, the world needs a unified and strong churches to defend the poor, feed the hungry and protect human rights. All the faiths preach one message and ignore reality. OXFAM today performs the role the churches are unwilling to perform, Unicef administer to the flock, Save the Children protect the innocent. The church sits back incapable of responding. Unwilling to respond. Those young girls killed in Iran, those little african lads who strave to death, the 9 year old african child soldiers must all go to heaven and say to god  'Where were you when I needed you?'. And what does god reply I wonder...........

dawson99 wrote:So in actuality it's not religion at all that you have a problem with, it's the powers of humanity that control religion?

religion in it's purest form can be nothing but good

Judge wrote:

dawson99 wrote:So in actuality it's not religion at all that you have a problem with, it's the powers of humanity that control religion?

religion in it's purest form can be nothing but good

religion in britain was seen as pure some 500-700yrs ago dawson.
folk were burned or murdered by these purists

relgion in essence is meant to be good, its man who perverts it to his own cause

dawson99 wrote:Judge went to Sri Lanka for a week and is suddenly an expert in Buddhism...

i went for 2 weeks not 1   

Emerald Red wrote:

JoeTerp wrote:your right, everything would be a lot better.

Don't be so naive, Joe. People will always find an argument somewhere and a brutal method of which to solve it. If no ideologies existed, we wouldn't. It'd be just chaos.

LFC2007 wrote:

Emerald Red wrote:

JoeTerp wrote:your right, everything would be a lot better.

Don't be so naive, Joe. People will always find an argument somewhere and a brutal method of which to solve it. If no ideologies existed, we wouldn't. It'd be just chaos.

From a human perspective, it's impossible to be ideology-less (in the broadest sense).