BF2S Forums See message.

Both in current events and history we often see extreme acts of terror and cruelty in the name of religion. Whether it's the Muslim terrorists we face today, or the crusades 1000 years ago, it seems that a major motive (at least on the surface) was religion.

I would argue that religion is the main tool used to commit the crimes, by that i mean it serves as a legitimization to the ruling elites. While, for example, you see a lot of elites through out the Middle East attempt to use it as a way of justifying their style of rule, but this may not be always the case.

When we look at the perpetrators of these actions, we see religions that make it the followers' duty to convert others; the two main religions that have created suffering for others in the name of religion that I can think of are Christianity and Islam. Both of these make it the duty of the followers to convert "heathens", and preach that nonbelievers will go to Hell (Islam itself means 'submission' in Arabic).

Well if you look up the term heathen you will be surprised to find out that it refers to someone that is not part of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. So are the main problems arising due to conflict between "heathens" or that of those who follow the Biblical teachings?

Oh, and as for the meaning of Islam being submission you must understand that it means submission to God not to man, so that does not always directly relate to submission to their beliefs. That comes out of the desire of the individual and should not be forced.

Poll: But is it because of this desire to convert and to propagate their own version of "God's word" that they are ready to kill and injure?

To say its their own version is rather difficult since they are all "people of the book" meaning the history is pretty close to the same, only difference would be that Muslims don't view Jesus as the Messiah. So as to conflicting views on life you will not find that many, but I'm sure culturally you will find traditions of the people that originally converted to Islam that were carried on into the religion and simply became part of it, but one should not confuse this with religious beliefs.

It is true that Christianity and Islam are the two most followed religions on the planet, but consider religions such as Hinduism. With over 1 billion followers, they consist of 1/6 the world's population. Yet we never hear about Hindu fanatics and terrorists in the news, nor have I in history class (please enlighten me if you have). The difference seems to be that Hinduism teaches tolerance of other religions, whereas the other two I mentioned teach the opposite.

Well it doesn't take that long to find that there are religiously motivated killings through out South East Asia. For example in India they are basically trying to ban other religions that are not Hinduism, consequently this will lead to problems down the road. I would argue that most religions preach tolerance, but once you get in the fanatic side of any type of religion that's where you begin to lose it.

But on the other hand, is this an example of correlation but not causation? Is there some other reason we think of Muslims and Christians when we think of religious fanaticism and terrorism? I'd like your views on this, as it seems a fundamental question in determining what exactly is making people like Osama bin Laden dedicate their life to killing others.

Well if you want a correlation between killings and fanaticism i would say that a connection can be drawn out there, but for the majority of the practitioners of a particular faith, violence would violate another aspect of their religion which would defeat the purpose of killing for the sake of conversion. So to argue that religion and violence go hand in hand is a far stretch.

Some other Reason we view Christians and Muslims as fanatics is well, they are two of the most prominent world religions so odds are that you will find someone following these particular faiths and causing problems.'


As for why Osama Bin Laden is of the style of Islam you must simply take a look at the previous strict scholars that influenced the style he uses. Wahabism should be looked at and understood since it lays down a particular strict frame of mind with regards to interpretations of the Quran, consequently leading to fanaticism. But this strict style is no new concept its simply being reincarnated in modern times with its modern applications... IE cars weren't around back when the Prophet was around so how could they force women not to drive....that's just one example of a interpretation that fits the need of men in one region.

Good thread OP.  I voted no, it’s not caused by a desire to convert.  The current Islamic extremism we see does not truly desire to convert the heathen, only eliminate them to an Islamic state can be established.  Establish their version of “God’s Word” yes, in the form of an Islamic state, but I see no true desire to convert others, only a desire to see them die.

I disagree true religion is the motive for any extreme acts of cruelty or terror.  Instead, twisted versions of religion have been used for the selfish purposes of certain groups.  As you said, the surface reason was religion, but I believe that was and is a smokescreen for the true agenda.  I know true Christianity does not advocate forced conversion, instead we share our faith with whoever will listen.  It is, in a sense, a duty, but I do it out of genuine concern for other people.  It’s not about winning points with God by doing good things, it’s about wanting others to have what I have found to be good.  I am not a Muslim so I cannot say what their religion truly advocates.

Stingray24 wrote:

It’s not about winning points with God by doing good things, it’s about wanting others to have what I have found to be good.

Some Christian factions hold faith in Jesus and his self-sacrifice to be sufficient for having all their sins excused and erased. Many members of these factions use it as a moral gateway to sin to their hearts content, under the 'certainty' that Jesus makes it all 'OK.' I go by a different sort of Christian belief, holding that faith without works is useless. I know, it's sort of like a 'Warhammer 40K' philosophy, but that's a cool game.

Stingray24 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

It’s not about winning points with God by doing good things, it’s about wanting others to have what I have found to be good.

Some Christian factions hold faith in Jesus and his self-sacrifice to be sufficient for having all their sins excused and erased. Many members of these factions use it as a moral gateway to sin to their hearts content, under the 'certainty' that Jesus makes it all 'OK.' I go by a different sort of Christian belief, holding that faith without works is useless. I know, it's sort of like a 'Warhammer 40K' philosophy, but that's a cool game.

Agreed.  Faith is not a license to sin my head off.  True faith should result in good works to show it's real, however the works do not accomplish our salvation.  As the verse says (loosely quoted) salvation is by faith, not works, or else we'd brag we worked our way into Heaven.  As I've said before, we humans are selfish little wankers.  Agreed?

Agreed, to an extent. I'm of the opinion that doing good in the world solely for the purpose of staying off of God's 'naughty list' nullifies the works themselves, by virtue of rendering them into simple acts of self-indulgence. As for faith, I don't consider a non-Christian who is a good person as being doomed to Hell. As a matter of fact, I reject the human concept of Hell altogether, which gets me into endless heaps of trouble with some of the Christians I discuss religion with.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Some Christian factions hold faith in Jesus and his self-sacrifice to be sufficient for having all their sins excused and erased. Many members of these factions use it as a moral gateway to sin to their hearts content, under the 'certainty' that Jesus makes it all 'OK.' I go by a different sort of Christian belief, holding that faith without works is useless. I know, it's sort of like a 'Warhammer 40K' philosophy, but that's a cool game.

Agreed.  Faith is not a license to sin my head off.  True faith should result in good works to show it's real, however the works do not accomplish our salvation.  As the verse says (loosely quoted) salvation is by faith, not works, or else we'd brag we worked our way into Heaven.  As I've said before, we humans are selfish little wankers.  Agreed?

Agreed, to an extent. I'm of the opinion that doing good in the world solely for the purpose of staying off of God's 'naughty list' nullifies the works themselves, by virtue of rendering them into simple acts of self-indulgence. As for faith, I don't consider a non-Christian who is a good person as being doomed to Hell. As a matter of fact, I reject the human concept of Hell altogether, which gets me into endless heaps of trouble with some of the Christians I discuss religion with.

We should probably start our own thread if we get into that.   I would like to hear your thoughts on why you believe there is no Hell.  I enjoy civil discussion with thoughtful people.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-11-27 13:58:52)

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

I dont really feel like reading all that, so in short..

Are you trying to tell me that moslem terrorists wants be become christians?

No.

I would like to point out the role of the media in pointing out fanaticisms of the muslim "terrorists". Remember, its the media portraying their view. Im sure that on the Arabic news network they believe that the USA is a fanatic "terrorist" trying to impose various beliefs on the people in Iraq. Whether these are true or not are not for this thread, so please dont flame.

In short, fanaticism has much to do with the point of view of the person determining whether it is or isnt and the type of society the person grew/grows up in and the media the person is exposed to.

To again say it again in a short way:
The very definition of Fanaticism differs from person to person. To some, human sacrifice of innocent people is not fanaticism.

---OK---
As for the conversion goes, i don't believe that muslim terrorists, in particular, use violence to convert people. Rather, I believe they see it as a way to scare non-believers away so they can get what they want.



EDIT: Fixed some stupid spelling errors

Last edited by Last1Standing (2006-11-27 19:04:56)