I was watching a debate between a couple of athiests and a couple of christians and the athiests posed an interesting point (which the christians didn't even bother to address it). So, I thought I'd pose the point here and see what people think of it and have to respond.

So, here is the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of terrorism:



Now, the interesting part of that definition is that you don't actually need to be use violence to be a terrorist. Just the threat of violence constitutes as terrorism. So, when there are religions that say, if you don't believe in our god, you will go to hell. Isn't that technically terrorism? The bible says if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and saviour you will not be saved.

So, despite being the best person in the world, if you don't believe in Jesus and give yourself over to him then you will spend an eternity in violence.

Isn't that terrorism?

If a dictator said "If you don't believe in me, then you will be tortured", that is technically terrorism. So when god says that, isn't that also terrorism?

Now, I understand some people will say they don't believe in hell and that's fine. A god that doesn't judge people and forces them to live their life a certain way doesn't fall under this category. But a god that does use the threat of agony as a way to be followed, isn't it a terrorist?

One arguement against athiests is: Well, if there is even the slightest chance that god is real and that if you don't believe in it then you will spend eternity in hell, so why don't you just not take that chance. This too, seems to be the same threat. While it may not be a threat about your current life, it's certainly, in their perspective, a threat against your eternal life.

Just an interesting point. I want to give credit to the original people who brought it up, because I don't want to take away from other people, so the group that I saw originally post this was the Rational Response Squad.

Thank you!

Hmmm, good point I never thought of it that way. I have heard numerous arguements between people about hell and whatnot. A common thing I hear in these arguements is that the religious person will say something like, "well if you don't believe in a hell, I guess you have nothing to worry about". The fact still remains though that the religious person BELIEVES in this hell of theirs and thinks that since you don't follow them, then you are going there. To me, that kind of thinking is disgusting, even if the person doesn't believe in hell.

It seems that that is all what religious teachers are teaching today, turn or burn, save yourself now before it's too late, blah blah blah. The more I think about it, the more it does seem to be terrorism when religious leaders/people say this, because they are trying to make you feel scared and fear this "hell".

Again, good post

I hadn't really thought of it like that before, but the key word in the definition of terrorism (that I see) is "unlawful". If God is lawfully allowed to Judge, then it cannot be terrorism. If, however, God is being "unlawful" in casting Judgement, then I can see how you would see him as a terrorist.

Of course, as God is the creator of all that is, I acknowledge his right to hold the power over its own creation. Therefore I do not see it as terrorism.

thoughts?

I understand completely where you are coming from and I thought of that too. I'm thinking about religion, less then god, using this threat against people. Is it religious leaders, i.e. priests, popes, evangelicals, place to tell a person that? To put the fear in people?

And christianity isn't the only religion to condemn non-believers. So, if that's the case, what dictates which is the correct religion, thus which is the god that can lawfully say you are going to have reprocussions not believing in me?

If there is no way to prove, definitaly, that one religion is the right one, then how can one god's condemning be considered lawful?

Now I through it back to you for your thoughts.

I also fear that I probably should have named this thread differently, because it's not just the threat of hell per see, just the threat that if you don't believe in this one religion then you will have reprocussions. So I apologize for seeming like I'm poking on just christianity, but it's the most prevelant where I live.

Valuable distinctions are lost when words are stretched for rhetorical effect.

Terrorism is a despicable human behavior, whether undertaken for religious, political, or criminal advantage. "People of faith" who cannot renounce such behavior, or who fail to denounce those among them who practice it, are moral lepers.

But if someone voices their opinion of what consequences they believe follow from some course of action or belief, then that is their opinion. In a free society, the kind where terrorism is a wrong thing, people get to hold and express their beliefs.

As with any right or privilige, this can be abused. Some people do cross the line, such as when they try to cripple the minds of children. People are like that, unfortunately.

Between adults, the "threat" of hell is peculiarly self-limiting. In order for it to have any coercive effect, then the listener must believe that there is a hell. The threat can gain partial traction by latching onto any doubt on the listener's part that the fairy tale might be true.

Threaten away, my religious friends. Just don't call me fat or over-the-hill - now those are words that have some coercive impact on me... which is my fault, not yours, that they do.

And I think that's the most important part of this. Someone casually saying they believe in a god that says if you don't believe in it you will burn in hell isn't the same as bringing up a child with the fear that if they don't believe in something, they will spend all of eternity in agony. That goes way beyond an opinion into what you said is brainwashing and what I add, controlling with fear.

I disagree PA. Being the creator of something does not give you power over it (at least in an absolute sense), nor should it, especially when what you are creating is "free thinking, independent beings".

I think the OP is a very good point, people often forget terrorism is not a small group of guys living in caves in the middle east. It has many forms. I have to agree with you Buddha. Intimidating your ideology onto someone else is terrorism. Especially considering the vast number of religions throughout the years that promised some form of punishment, means the odds yours is correct is not all that good.

It is my understanding that the judiciaries of the UK, the US and Australia - in fact all secular countries - do not recognise a divine law above the laws of that country. In this case your point would only be valid in those countries where non-secularism is the basis for government and law. However, it is also my understanding that secular judiciaries do not recognise the soul, therefore the point about religious condemnation of the soul cannot be held as being 'unlawful terrorism' unless it can be shown the threat was made bodily against those who did not believe. Is there a case for saying that the biblical passages in Revelations do make such a claim?

As another point, many of those who commit terrorist acts believe they do so under a divine law. If you recognise your own God as having this authority then it is logical to accept all other religions have the same authority so you have just apologised for all those terrorists who committed despicable acts in the name of their religion.

Buddharat,

While I do not think you can claim that threats against your soul are terrorism, there may be a case for these threats being persecution or discrimination. I did debate this against a religious person and the arguments thrown back at me were a straw man that my questioning whether this 'divine authority' had any rights over me was an indication of the insecurity of my own belief, and that my case for stating it was my right for self-determination as to who I allowed to hold authority over me was denying the rights of the believer to exert that authority through their religion.

While I dismissed the first argument as a logical fallacy, the second raises an interesting point as to whether we do have this right to self-determination of belief. In my view, if it can be proved there is a deity and this deity does exercise authority over our eternal souls then I would have to concede. As that has not, and is likely to never, been proved I can't see how a plea that one individuals belief can have authority over another is justified. When that belief comprises an absolute divine authority though, I can see the issue is a little clouded.

I agree with PA. The Abrahamic god's hell is that of justice - just like putting someone in prison or on the death sentence. Saying "You'll die tomorrow" to a prisoner on deathrow, is the same as the abrahamic god saying "You'll spend your sins in hell" - doesn't the bible say you don't spend all of time in hell, but have the chance to redeem yourself?

It's the biblical gods call on justice. If you're bad you go to hell, if you're good you go to heaven.

Same as our justice courts - although more up to date than that of 2000 years ago - if you're convicted you spent time in jail and after you serve your time you're let free. Even murderers who get 140year in prison, are allowed out after 140 years - even though they'll be dead before then, but the prospect of freedom is still there.

Although like many fanatics/fundlementalists, who use hell as threats/force/fear to convert/keep control of a small populace. Would contribute to terrorism, seeing as they like the fear and keep drilling it into those they want to persecute.

Not many christians believe in free will. As it contradicts the abrahamic gods 'Omniscience'.

It doesn't fit in the definition you mentioned. Because a Christian can't send you to hell, so he is not threating, he is warning

And besides, nobody ever goes to hell unwillingly

Read carefully my friend...


The or means we can take away everything before the or, and the statement willl still be true.



Now...your response?

I totally blows my mind how non-believers (in Hell) get so worked up from people telling them they are going to Hell. Terrorism? Good grief.

If I told you that if you don't believe in purple fairies, you are going to Big Bad Oogie Oogie Land when you die, are you going to get offended and feel persecuted?

If you think Hell is not real, why should you care if someone says you are going there?

For the same reason that any discrimination should be spoken out against.

Hell might not exist, but those who believe in it do and they use the example of their belief to try to exert authority over the individual (non-believer AND believer) by threat. It doesn't matter that the consequence may not be real, the threat is. If you do not care to speak out against discrimination or oppression that is your right. There are, however, those that do and they should be free to have their voices heard.

This is a very interesting topic. I can't say I've ever considered such a thing, yet, the threat of Hell or any other condemnation by religious establishments really is a text book example of the definition of terrorism.

It seems to really put a finger on why religion has such a history/reputation for persecution and violence.

If I was the creator- of ants & their ant farm- Then yes, I would acknowledge my right to hold power over them.

Would i destroy or torture them ? No. Except for murdering, psychotic ants -kill yes-torture no (which i wouldn't create anyways -unless I need that kind of sick entertainment) . Because morally i know this would be wrong.

Otherwise I would consider myself a "terrorist"-inflicting "terror" on my aunts.

Too bad god can't be "more human" (the nice kind) or humane, huh ?

How can I love someone that i feel is not as kind and considerate as some human beings/myself ?

It's difficult to give a hard and fast answer to this (at least from the Christian point of view). From one viewpoint, we are commanded to not Judge (condemn) others. From this, you could take it as a statement that you should not preach of hell at all - by telling people if they do not submit to Christ they are headed for hell might seem to be a Judgement. On the other hand, the Bible also makes clear that there are consequences for our actions, and that heaven is not guaranteed. From this, you could say that the preacher is simply relaying the words of God on to others, and therefore they are not condemning a person, but rather warning them of what God has said.

I think if there were two people who both preached on hell, you could very well have one who is simply retelling the words of God, out of Love for their fellow man, and the other could be preaching to make themselves or their congregation "feel better", by condemning everyone not of their own. It depends on the state of ones heart, and only God knows what is in a person's heart.

So, in some instances a person might be guilty of biblical terrorism, while in other instances it could be quite alright - even though the words may be very similar. God will Judge the person's heart when the time comes.

Personally, I've never been big on heaven's alternative as a preaching tool. I think there are two ways you can go about preaching Christianity - you could try focusing on hell and scare people into joining, or you could focus on heaven and the joys that come with it. I know which approach Jesus used, and it wasn't negative. Jesus preached of the Kingdom of God, not the lack thereof. He preached the joy of submitting to God's will, not the recriminations if you didn't. But at the same time, he did not shy away from the fact that there is an alternative to heaven (though as a little aside, I don't believe the Bible supports the concept of Hell as a place of eternal torment and anguish - but that's another discussion for another time).

~ Regards, PA

I guess this is the day for disagreements - I disagree with you on this. Being the creator endows ownership. A couple of years ago now, I made a clay-model boat during the Christmas break when I was at my auntie's farm. It took me over 30 hours of continuous work to get it done. It's not an amazing work, and it won't win any awards, but I made it and it's mine. Now, if for some reason the boat no longer suited my purpose, I could remould it into something else and no one could object. But if my brother walks in and decides to remould my boat, then I would rightly be upset, angry and hurt.

The only way that something I create is no longer mine is if I sell it or give it away - then it becomes the property of the one who I have allowed to own it. But, as far as I am aware, God has never sold us to other beings, therefore God is still the owner.

I do understand what you mean here though. No matter how much time and effort I put into that model boat, it is still just a lump of clay. It does not "live". I have no answer that will satisfy you. I only have an answer that has satisfied me. To me, not only did God create everything, but he controls everything. There is nothing that doesn't happen unless God be behind it. God is the the proverbial conductor leading the equally proverbial symphony. We will all meet the conductor at the end of the performance though....

As I said, this answer satisfies me, but considering that you do not acknowledge the authority of the God of the Bible, then this answer cannot and will not satisfy you. I guess we part ways here in mutual disagreement

That is exactly why the maniac mediaeval religious freak leaders in Iran don't consider their activities "terrorism". They make the law, therfefore they can murder whoever they want. Very convenient.

Do we own our children?

And by that I mean do we have the right to kill them if they disobey us? Remould them, if you will (you can have another child?)

Do God's laws apply to God, or are they just for Mankind and He is free to do what He wants...kind of a permanent 'Get Out of Jail Free' card?

Where does scripture imply we are owned by God? Or are you translating the human concept of ownership onto God because he is our 'creator'?

Creation need not imply ownership. This is in our laws in that it applies to parents who 'create' a child (a far better analogy than a clay boat). They are responsible for that child, yes, but they do not 'own' him/her.

If God's ownership of Mankind is in doubt, then our laws must be applied exclusively (assuming you believe in God and His laws) unless that ownership issue can be resolved.

We are responsible for our children, but we do not own them. But then, we never "created" our children, only "procreated" to bring them into being. Procreation and creation are two different ideas.

Methinks I spots a Red Herring.......

I'll find the passages some other time for you. I haven't slept yet, and it's 7:30am (yeah, went out last night ).

As I said earlier - procreation is not creation. No matter how much we would like to, we cannot create a baby from absolutely nothing. We use pre-existing materials which we call "DNA" to bring about the birth of a new baby.

The Bible does state that we should obey the governing authorities, and so we do live by the laws of the land - EXCEPTING circumstances where the laws of the governing authorities directly contravene God's law. But that said, I don't see God's ownership of us as "in doubt". You do, of course - and you are free to apply man's laws to your hearts content. Preaching is not illegal (at least not in the majority of the Western World), and that is what this topic is about, after all.

~ Good night

What laws a people should erect for the well-being of a society will be oppressive for some, liberating for others. Laws are one thing, they can be related to day to day life. If an individual breaks a law, he/she must "pay the price" for opposing society's rule. As such, these laws carry penalties, should they be broken, to punish the guilty and coerce the population into obedience. Those penalties range in severity from warning to fine, imprisonment to death.

"God's" commandments, on the other hand, offer no leniency. One either submits or perishes, often times in a Lake of Fire. It isn't as easy or forgiving as a "my way or the highway" scenario where one can choose to live outside God's dominion. No, it comes down to a more "cake or death" ultimatum in which an individual either becomes subservient to "God's" will or receives eternal suffering. Quite the option, isn't it?

Mercy isn't something that one shows to a friend, it's something given to an adversary. If an all powerful, all knowing, all caring God will show mercy only to those who would bow before "Him", "He" is not merciful. If "He" would create life only to send it to misery, "He" is a sadist. If God is truly "long suffering", then "He" knows agony and would not let those "He" loves face the same.

All this time I thought you were one of those {interesting} people that claimed god was "loving" LOL. I apologize. I see you are on our side.



Exactly! He is NOT merciful. I agree 100%. As you said "cake or DEATH!".



TRUE THAT!!!!! And we all know hell is misery! He is a sadist (well, he would be if it actually existed LOL)


I agree with all of this! Because we all know that if it (that god thing) existed and it is all powerful then HOW COULD IT EVER SUFFER? LOL!!! Therefore he does not know agony and has no problem burning "sinners" in hell forever.

You have made our point perfectly and I thank you.

If, by "our side", you mean the side that wishes peace and understanding among the people of this Earth, then yes, I most certainly am.


Actually, Eddie Izzard said it. Credit where credit's due, and all.


I haven't seen her on this topic yet, but who knows? Hell could be lollipops and sunshine, for all we know.


I think you've misunderstood...


You're welcome? Who is this "our" you keep mentioning?

Now would be a good time to clear up a misconception you seem to be having, Repo. As you know, I'm not a Christian. Why? Because the Christian faith relies on a little book called the Bible as a basis of its beliefs. I don't believe in the Bible. I do, however, believe in God...or a reasonable facsimile...and since I don't wish to derail this thread from it's intent and purpose anymore than what I already have, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have in PM. Now then, every issue I pointed out in my post was, in my belief, a misrepresentation the Bible and Church has made about God. So, you see, I wasn't making "our" point, I was making mine. Sorry if it came across wrong. Take care!

First thing, how can anything not living suffer?

Secondly, god stated he was both good AND evil. He is both these things.

The abrahamic god has - like of those living 2000 years ago in the middle east - laws that punish in terrible ways, but hell wasn't one of them. At first, hell never existed - the Jews don't have a hell - hell came from the Greek afterlife of Hades. So hell isn't really a christian place, it was probably added later on to use it to aid fear and convert people. The word hell as it is known today comes from the Hebrew word - Sheol.

Sheol is Hebrew for grave or pit, where each person waits to be judged and forgiven - appariently. All rightous men of god go to Sheol at death (remember job) - the grave or pit - and there they are unconscious until judgment. So they feel no pain or torment.

This is all in the OT mind you, Sheol does not mean fiery pit of hell or what have you, it means grave. The early church were not the best translaters, and they did have an agenda to control its people. Ever wonder why it was a 'sin' to translate the latin bible to english?

King of Zion, I think I see where you're going. I thought that to (that you might not even need the unlawful, according the proper grammer), but I put it in there so anyone who checked my source wouldn't think I just left it out. But thank you for pointing it out.



Leonardo, I understand what you're saying completely. I've thought a lot about what religion means to people both inside and out. While right now in the US, we are free to worship whatever we want, or not at all (thankfully). So, for people who don't believe in religion, threats against the soul don't have much merit. But for a good majority of people who do believe in god and religion, the afterlife is just as real as the present life. So while their current life isn't being threatened with violence, their afterlife is and to them, it's extremely real (I should know, for the first half of my life I lived in a world like this).

Let me digress for just a moment, but it will lead back into my point. One of the biggest fears/wonders/thoughts of the human race is death. What happens after we die. People have wondered since probably the dawn of time.

So, when a group gets tells of everlasting life after death and people subscribe to it, they are happy. They finally feel safe and don't have to worry. But when there is a threat introduced that if you do not live your life in a certain way then you will be in agony for the rest of eternity, then that seems to fall under this catagory because, as I said above, the afterlife is just as real.

Now, one last thing to this, and I know I've meantioned it before. When someone is born into a family that subscribes to this belief, then the child is indoctrined that this will happen to them. It's one thing if you decide to enter into this religion on your own free will as an adult, but a child doesn't get that choice. They just get fear.

and to DeVol .....church of england, tea and cake or death.....

Wait, if God is omniscient.
Then he would have knew that there'll be people who don't believe in him.
And therefore go to hell for that.
So if he knows what is going to happen and that there'll be people who will go to hell, so whats his motive in wanting us to believe in him ? So that we can be his puppet and, thus he can eventually be the puppet master. Then why give us free will ?
Lets say God is not omniscient, then how can he be God ?

What, then, was/is Gehenna? When did they throw that in?


Yes, Eddie Izzard; the greatest executive tranvestite to ever walk the Earth! I gave credit, it just didn't fit well to quote in the middle of my rant. Imagine in the middle of a sentenence. It just wouldn't work!

Don't believe everything that you read.

That's the point of my posts here. I could write pages on how the government of the United States is honest, hard working and not in the least bit corrupt, but that wouldn't make it so. The same pricinple applies to God, folks. God's gone through one anthropomorphosis after another to combat mankind's frailties, but that doesn't mean "He's" actually changed. Belief in Divinity is a personal choice for a personal relationship. As such, there can be no standard for belief. What "He" may be for one, "He" may not necessarily be for another. Believe that!

Probably after the early cultures clashed and took the idea of Hades from the Greeks.

Double posting? Christ!

*shrugs* Could be. Judaic faith is odd.

I remember a movie called The Seige.....Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis. Now in this flick terrorism in the streets of NYC, had reached such a high level that the Army was brought into the city and marshall law was declared.

The reason why I'm resorting to celluloid for a comparison, is because of a very valid point that was made in the movie. The question was posed on whether or not the terrorists had won. Denzel stated that the terrorists had won because they had forced a free society to alter their lifestyle to combat the threat of terrorism. Here's the exact quote :


The threat of Hell has the same outgrowth of reactionary conversion from what once was to a precautionary path that is maintained out of fear.

Since terrorism is so closely amalgamated with religious belief it would seem that once the threat of eternal damnation loses its coercive pizzazz.......bombs are used.....bloodshed occurs as a means of assimilation.

OK, so, if warning someone they are on a path to eternal death is terrorism, then what would we call someone who sees you about to walk off a cliff and stands by watching without saying anything?

Son, except there is no such thing as hell, its like saying the tooth fairy is coming to git ya...LOL...

When there is no cliff actually there, you would call that person delusional.

Gross negligence.

To those who would say otherwise, there is a Hell, but there are slightly different reasons one would find him/herself there than what we're told in the KJV. Just my belief.

Yes, it most certainly is terrorism to frighten people out of their wits, make them go against everything they actually believe in, and thereby even turn them into absolute hypocrites. Bush and the likes of him has done that to people on several occasions in order to stay in power.

Everything is terrorism these days in US, I guess you could call Jesus a terrorist too by some loose definition.
But what more do you want, he was arrested and killed.
You want to clone him and kill him again?

Better luck next time baby

See ya, mate

The Romans considered him the equivalent of a terrorist


fullywired

I know, and he was given appropriate (at that time) punishment, yes many people on this forum are not satisfied with that

Any one who speaks out against the rulers is a terrorist according to the rulers

Did he speak out against the rulers ??I thought he said " Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's "




fullywired

The threat of hell is not terrorism according to that definition you quoted. God's threat of punishment in hell is not an unlawful use. If you follow God's laws in the King James version New Testament, you will avoid hell and have happiness in heaven. The bible's threat of hell is very lawful, as God has provided laws and rules to allow you to escape hell.

Yes, I believe I read that somewhere.
Remember what happened to John the Baptist? You need to do some more Bible reading my friend, and you should start with Genesis. Maybe you don't like the idea, so I think you should start with "Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis" by Robert Graves & Raphael Patai. You'll have a good laugh, and won't be turned into a Christian or Jew by it. If you decide to take my advice then don't forget to read the notes.

Take care, lad

Maybe you do to... John wasn't beheaded for terrorism. He was beheaded for telling King Herod on what to do - Herod was marrying his brothers wife, if I'm not mistaken, and John spoke out against it.

You can't have a measly baptist tell a king how to conduct his business

Although, I'm not sure if this is correct, Josephus wrote about this. Josephus was born 30 years+ after jesus, so it is all hear-say of which he writes. A third person account.

But John spoke out against Herod, not Rome.

My mistake, then? Na, I don't think so