From wiki (halal meat ) for those that don't know.
The food must come from a supplier that uses halal practices. Specifically, the slaughter must be performed by a Muslim, who must precede the slaughter by invoking the name of Allah, most commonly by saying "Bismillah" ("In the name of God") and then three times "Allahu akbar" (God is the greatest). Then, the animal must be slaughtered with a sharp knife by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck, causing the animal’s death without cutting the spinal cord. Lastly, the blood from the veins must be drained.
You see, Muslims cannot eat animal blood this way they ensure there is none, the pray is like Christians with holy water the pray makes it sacred, what is so terrible about it? Live and let live. You don't have to eat halal meat just like they don't have to eat mistreated cattle reared in crates. It again is a life choice.
Muslims can eat animal blood. They would digest it in the exact same way that I would. What is so terrible about it? The point I made above. Animals suffer a horrific and undignified death for the sake of a God who is fictional. I don't eat halal Sadie but unfortunately that doesn't stop everyone else from doing so.
All those debating the subject on this thread are not stopping on anyone from speaking and the term ''liberals" attacking religion is an unfortunate way of putting things.
Does someone with a religious belief have the 'right' to discriminate against or attack someone because their belief or religious belief says so. Where does it stop ? There is always a careful balance to be struck. Someones right to a belief should not activately make someone else's life miserable or worse. Usually a careful balance can be struck if all parties are sensible and don't try to impose their belief. It doesn't always happen though unfortunately.
Yes precisely, the good thing about discussions like this, when kept civil, is that we can learn of other peoples beliefs, values and opinions and ask questions about it without being judgemental. The most important thing when living in a diverse society is understanding each other. We don't have to agree with each other to understand or appreciate their point of view.
Imagine how boring being a football fan would be if we supported the same team, we can't all be the same, we are always going to think our way is best but we have to respect the other persons choices.
All those debating the subject on this thread are not stopping on anyone from speaking and the term ''liberals" attacking religion is an unfortunate way of putting things.
Does someone with a religious belief have the 'right' to discriminate against or attack someone because their belief or religious belief says so. Where does it stop ? There is always a careful balance to be struck. Someones right to a belief should not activately make someone else's life miserable or worse. Usually a careful balance can be struck if all parties are sensible and don't try to impose their belief. It doesn't always happen though unfortunately.
The phrase was in part response to this:
....."Because religion is protected from criticism and anyone who dares question it is "narrow-minded", "disrespectful" or a "bigot". The only bigotted people are the liberal bigots who do the accusing."......
In retrospect the word I use "attack" may have been too strong. "Question" might have been better.
Andrew Wilson has good intellectual arguments - in saying that, faith is more than just an academic subject. I started believing about the same time I started supporting Charlton in the mid-eighties.
I'm not. All football teams are on an even footing and all the reasons for supporting them are as legitimate as each other. Me living a life without dictatorship from made up entities based on evidence versus you basing your life on exactly that is obviously not the same.
Well I, for one, don't think that the pracitising of halal meat has any place in the 21st century and that is practised by 100% of muslims.
FGM is also commonly practised in the faith and is a horrendous act.
Your entitled to your opinion on Halal meat, though it's hardly any more horrendous than what many animals go through before their chopped up and turned in to McBurgerDonaldKing's processed crap.
FGM I agree is despicable - though I'd like to see some statistics before I am convinced it's 'common practice' and not amongst smaller offsets rather than being the accepted way. There's honour killings too, which I despise, but the fact remains people of all beliefs and all views have committed terrible acts on other human beings - religion is not the root cause of all the horror mankind likes to inflict on itself.
In any case, I certainly would not ever agree that because you don't like the concept and practice of halal meat, Islam has no place at all. That's reductive and small-minded, frankly, and doesn't help anyone.
How is that reductive and small minded? The mass slaughter of animals in the most painful way possible is now mainstream, almost entirely thanks to islam.
As opposed to the perfectly legitimate practice of growing and force-feeding chickens in tiny cages not even big enough for them to move around in before slaughtering them? Organised religion has many shortcomings, and can be blamed for many ills in the world. Singling out one religion because you don't agree with the way it's teachings suggest to kill animals to eat is absurd
I'm not. All football teams are on an even footing and all the reasons for supporting them are as legitimate as each other. Me living a life without dictatorship from made up entities based on evidence versus you basing your life on exactly that is obviously not the same.
You are missing the point, in your opinion God is fictional, I and millions of others beg to differ.
My point was about making your own choices, I chose to support Charlton, I chose to, move to sittingbourne, I chose to get married, I chose to have my kids I chose to be a Christian. Regardless of others having opinions on everyone of those things I went my own way. You no doubt have gone yours. Just because I believe different things to you or anyone else doesn't make me wrong or less intelligent, I haven't told you your way is wrong and I haven't tried to belittle you or ridicule you as I respect the difference in opinions, beliefs and values. Get it now?
(And I am not living my life under a dictatorship, that was a very ignorant comment, although I'm sure you didn't mean to come across as such. )
Ahhhh polytheism. I can't help thinking life was so much cooler when you had a whole bunch of Gods to believe in.
That Zeus fella was a proper God. A shame his immortality was so short-lived. Every time his wife turned her back he was out getting some gorgeous nymph up the duff. And the lengths he went to to get his end away - turning himself into a bull or a golden shower. And the others were all at it as well, even Hades. There's not enough sex in the Bible.
This remains an interesting discussion - one to which I feel unable to contribute much of worth , sadly apart from stating which "side " I'm on.
However, since my last post, I have read the Sunday papers & watched the BBC news ...
Once again, it's no surprise that the headlines highlight the heart wrenching situations in both Syria/Iraq and Israel/Palestine. The loss of hundreds, maybe thousands of lives, the barbarity of one "sect" against another, the overwhelming inhumanity of one human being against another .....and yet some will deny that this has nothing to do with religion. That those guilty of such evil deeds do not act in the name of their God. Does the very term" Islamic State" not spell out the connection?
Extremists, yes. But extremists in which context & of what ? No prizes for guessing that one correctly....religious extremists.
Call me naïve, and maybe I am guilty of over simplification in this instance.
But I stand firm in my belief as stated in an earlier post. "If there was no religion, there would be no wars ".
Some may argue fanny, that bad people will go bad things regardless, we have religious extremeists, we have racist extremists, we have criminal activists and we also have football hooligans. Sometimes people make excuses for their extreme terrible behaviour and religion is one of those outlets. If there were no religion it would be because they were a different colour or belonged to the wrong political party, because they had the wrong hairstyle, you name it they would use it. Religion doesn't make bad people bad anymore than it makes good people good, it just gives them an excuse.
This remains an interesting discussion - one to which I feel unable to contribute much of worth , sadly apart from stating which "side " I'm on.
However, since my last post, I have read the Sunday papers & watched the BBC news ...
Once again, it's no surprise that the headlines highlight the heart wrenching situations in both Syria/Iraq and Israel/Palestine. The loss of hundreds, maybe thousands of lives, the barbarity of one "sect" against another, the overwhelming inhumanity of one human being against another .....and yet some will deny that this has nothing to do with religion. That those guilty of such evil deeds do not act in the name of their God. Does the very term" Islamic State" not spell out the connection?
Extremists, yes. But extremists in which context & of what ? No prizes for guessing that one correctly....religious extremists.
Call me naïve, and maybe I am guilty of over simplification in this instance.
But I stand firm in my belief as stated in an earlier post. "If there was no religion, there would be no wars ".
( Flak jacket already donned...)
I must respectfully disagree - the Napoleonic wars, both World War One and Two, the Vietnam War, the action in Iraq/Afghanistan (a war in all but name), none of these were caused by religion at all and that's by no means an exhaustive list. There may have been those who felt their God was on their side during the fighting, but it wasn't any religion that actually prompted the fighting in any of these cases.
No religion would not equal no wars. Less wars? Possibly, though I myself am sceptical on that. But humans have been fighting other humans from the minute we finally got rid of the last Neanderthals, and it's beyond me as to why they'll ever stop.
1st World War 2nd World War Boer War Falklands War Iraq war 1 and 2 Stalin Pol Pot American Civil War British civil war
In fact out of 348 wars since the seventeen century only 16 have religion as a root cause. Its a fact that often gets bandied about but has no basis in fact. Interestingly people who hold a faith - live longer , have longer marriages / relationships , are more likely to volunteer, are healthier. Again I make no comment on whether God is real or not. Its unprovable - but the data suggests have a faith is good for you
As an Anglican Church goer Christian we follow the gospels more so than the bible, we don't completely disregard the Old Testament but take it with a pinch of salt as it is very dated, times have moved on and so should us. I won't deny that there are some very good bible stories each with their own meaningful teachings, but they are that teachings for that purpose. The New Testament is writing around the word and teachings of Christ himself. Some Christians believe in the entire bible and the traditions and values it holds, we call them Catholics (sorry church humour) that is one of the main differences between the 2. I am not denying genesis or the beginning but these are symbolically written stories and are there to give us an idea not to hang on every word.
And the loaves and fishes story ? Did it or not happen. New Testament. Lazarus ? Walking on water ? Wedding feast ? All New Testament.
Absolutely of course it did! Asking a Christian if these things really happened is like asking a scientist if the earth really orbits the sun. To us it is fact, it is what we're taught it's what we know and it is what we believe.
But they are parables Sadiej, aren't they? A parable is something which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. And whether one believes in God and Jesus or not does not diminish the value of the lessons.
So, the thing about the loaves and fishes for example. All the fans had brought there own food with them (even humble illiterate village people 2000 odd years ago would not have been stupid enough to travel to a remote area for a few days in a hot climate without provisions). It is not feasible that people entirely aware of the issues of travelling in a dry and hot environment would have pitched up in the middle of nowhere without some bread, dried fish and a bottle of Evian or two. (Even the twonks turning up for the V Festival understand that they need to raid my local Tesco first!) These ancients were just not keen on sharing what they had brought and some people didn't have enough. The point about what Jesus (actual name Yeshua - Christians don't even get that right - we weren't rude enough to call Kermogant John instead of Yann were we?) achieved was making people understand that everyone would be better off if they all got out all their supplies and shared it amongst themselves. There was no miracle per se. Just a lesson that communism can work in the right circumstances.
If you don't believe me, this is what the current Bishop of Rome, Francis, has to say on the matter: "This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity."
1st World War 2nd World War Boer War Falklands War Iraq war 1 and 2 Stalin Pol Pot American Civil War British civil war
In fact out of 348 wars since the seventeen century only 16 have religion as a root cause. Its a fact that often gets bandied about but has no basis in fact. Interestingly people who hold a faith - live longer , have longer marriages / relationships , are more likely to volunteer, are healthier. Again I make no comment on whether God is real or not. Its unprovable - but the data suggests have a faith is good for you
The underlining Shia / Sunni disagreement exacerbated and complicated the Iraq war, like at whats going on now, and you could argue that the Iraq war 2 never really ended.
As an Anglican Church goer Christian we follow the gospels more so than the bible, we don't completely disregard the Old Testament but take it with a pinch of salt as it is very dated, times have moved on and so should us. I won't deny that there are some very good bible stories each with their own meaningful teachings, but they are that teachings for that purpose. The New Testament is writing around the word and teachings of Christ himself. Some Christians believe in the entire bible and the traditions and values it holds, we call them Catholics (sorry church humour) that is one of the main differences between the 2. I am not denying genesis or the beginning but these are symbolically written stories and are there to give us an idea not to hang on every word.
And the loaves and fishes story ? Did it or not happen. New Testament. Lazarus ? Walking on water ? Wedding feast ? All New Testament.
Absolutely of course it did! Asking a Christian if these things really happened is like asking a scientist if the earth really orbits the sun. To us it is fact, it is what we're taught it's what we know and it is what we believe.
But they are parables Sadiej, aren't they? A parable is something which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. And whether one believes in God and Jesus or not does not diminish the value of the lessons.
So, the thing about the loaves and fishes for example. All the fans had brought there own food with them (even humble illiterate village people 2000 odd years ago would not have been stupid enough to travel to a remote area for a few days in a hot climate without provisions). It is not feasible that people entirely aware of the issues of travelling in a dry and hot environment would have pitched up in the middle of nowhere without some bread, dried fish and a bottle of Evian or two. (Even the twonks turning up for the V Festival understand that they need to raid my local Tesco first!) These ancients were just not keen on sharing what they had brought and some people didn't have enough. The point about what Jesus (actual name Yeshua - Christians don't even get that right - we weren't rude enough to call Kermogant John instead of Yann were we?) achieved was making people understand that everyone would be better off if they all got out all their supplies and shared it amongst themselves. There was no miracle per se. Just a lesson that communism can work in the right circumstances.
If you don't believe me, this is what the current Bishop of Rome, Francis, has to say on the matter: "This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity."
As an Anglican Church goer Christian we follow the gospels more so than the bible, we don't completely disregard the Old Testament but take it with a pinch of salt as it is very dated, times have moved on and so should us. I won't deny that there are some very good bible stories each with their own meaningful teachings, but they are that teachings for that purpose. The New Testament is writing around the word and teachings of Christ himself. Some Christians believe in the entire bible and the traditions and values it holds, we call them Catholics (sorry church humour) that is one of the main differences between the 2. I am not denying genesis or the beginning but these are symbolically written stories and are there to give us an idea not to hang on every word.
And the loaves and fishes story ? Did it or not happen. New Testament. Lazarus ? Walking on water ? Wedding feast ? All New Testament.
Absolutely of course it did! Asking a Christian if these things really happened is like asking a scientist if the earth really orbits the sun. To us it is fact, it is what we're taught it's what we know and it is what we believe.
But they are parables Sadiej, aren't they? A parable is something which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. And whether one believes in God and Jesus or not does not diminish the value of the lessons.
So, the thing about the loaves and fishes for example. All the fans had brought there own food with them (even humble illiterate village people 2000 odd years ago would not have been stupid enough to travel to a remote area for a few days in a hot climate without provisions). It is not feasible that people entirely aware of the issues of travelling in a dry and hot environment would have pitched up in the middle of nowhere without some bread, dried fish and a bottle of Evian or two. (Even the twonks turning up for the V Festival understand that they need to raid my local Tesco first!) These ancients were just not keen on sharing what they had brought and some people didn't have enough. The point about what Jesus (actual name Yeshua - Christians don't even get that right - we weren't rude enough to call Kermogant John instead of Yann were we?) achieved was making people understand that everyone would be better off if they all got out all their supplies and shared it amongst themselves. There was no miracle per se. Just a lesson that communism can work in the right circumstances.
If you don't believe me, this is what the current Bishop of Rome, Francis, has to say on the matter: "This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity."
What if you don't like fish?
Palm dates or a Mars Bar for you then!
BTW, there were quite a few miracle workers wandering around Judea all those years ago. Hanina ben Dosa is a good one and seemingly achieved much as a faith healer. He also produced loaves in his oven despite having no flour it seems. But I guess he didn't have disciples (or a PR team as they'd be known today), so isn't quite so well known.
As an Anglican Church goer Christian we follow the gospels more so than the bible, we don't completely disregard the Old Testament but take it with a pinch of salt as it is very dated, times have moved on and so should us. I won't deny that there are some very good bible stories each with their own meaningful teachings, but they are that teachings for that purpose. The New Testament is writing around the word and teachings of Christ himself. Some Christians believe in the entire bible and the traditions and values it holds, we call them Catholics (sorry church humour) that is one of the main differences between the 2. I am not denying genesis or the beginning but these are symbolically written stories and are there to give us an idea not to hang on every word.
And the loaves and fishes story ? Did it or not happen. New Testament. Lazarus ? Walking on water ? Wedding feast ? All New Testament.
Absolutely of course it did! Asking a Christian if these things really happened is like asking a scientist if the earth really orbits the sun. To us it is fact, it is what we're taught it's what we know and it is what we believe.
But they are parables Sadiej, aren't they? A parable is something which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. And whether one believes in God and Jesus or not does not diminish the value of the lessons.
So, the thing about the loaves and fishes for example. All the fans had brought there own food with them (even humble illiterate village people 2000 odd years ago would not have been stupid enough to travel to a remote area for a few days in a hot climate without provisions). It is not feasible that people entirely aware of the issues of travelling in a dry and hot environment would have pitched up in the middle of nowhere without some bread, dried fish and a bottle of Evian or two. (Even the twonks turning up for the V Festival understand that they need to raid my local Tesco first!) These ancients were just not keen on sharing what they had brought and some people didn't have enough. The point about what Jesus (actual name Yeshua - Christians don't even get that right - we weren't rude enough to call Kermogant John instead of Yann were we?) achieved was making people understand that everyone would be better off if they all got out all their supplies and shared it amongst themselves. There was no miracle per se. Just a lesson that communism can work in the right circumstances.
If you don't believe me, this is what the current Bishop of Rome, Francis, has to say on the matter: "This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity."
What if you don't like fish?
Palm dates or a Mars Bar for you then!
BTW, there were quite a few miracle workers wandering around Judea all those years ago. Hanina ben Dosa is a good one and seemingly achieved much as a faith healer. He also produced loaves in his oven despite having no flour it seems. But I guess he didn't have disciples (or a PR team as they'd be known today), so isn't quite so well known.
A Mars Bar brings us neatly back to the Faithfull.
As an Anglican Church goer Christian we follow the gospels more so than the bible, we don't completely disregard the Old Testament but take it with a pinch of salt as it is very dated, times have moved on and so should us. I won't deny that there are some very good bible stories each with their own meaningful teachings, but they are that teachings for that purpose. The New Testament is writing around the word and teachings of Christ himself. Some Christians believe in the entire bible and the traditions and values it holds, we call them Catholics (sorry church humour) that is one of the main differences between the 2. I am not denying genesis or the beginning but these are symbolically written stories and are there to give us an idea not to hang on every word.
And the loaves and fishes story ? Did it or not happen. New Testament. Lazarus ? Walking on water ? Wedding feast ? All New Testament.
Absolutely of course it did! Asking a Christian if these things really happened is like asking a scientist if the earth really orbits the sun. To us it is fact, it is what we're taught it's what we know and it is what we believe.
But they are parables Sadiej, aren't they? A parable is something which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. And whether one believes in God and Jesus or not does not diminish the value of the lessons.
So, the thing about the loaves and fishes for example. All the fans had brought there own food with them (even humble illiterate village people 2000 odd years ago would not have been stupid enough to travel to a remote area for a few days in a hot climate without provisions). It is not feasible that people entirely aware of the issues of travelling in a dry and hot environment would have pitched up in the middle of nowhere without some bread, dried fish and a bottle of Evian or two. (Even the twonks turning up for the V Festival understand that they need to raid my local Tesco first!) These ancients were just not keen on sharing what they had brought and some people didn't have enough. The point about what Jesus (actual name Yeshua - Christians don't even get that right - we weren't rude enough to call Kermogant John instead of Yann were we?) achieved was making people understand that everyone would be better off if they all got out all their supplies and shared it amongst themselves. There was no miracle per se. Just a lesson that communism can work in the right circumstances.
If you don't believe me, this is what the current Bishop of Rome, Francis, has to say on the matter: "This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity."
Unlike the other parables such as the Samaritan and the parable of the lost sheep. The loaves and fishes appear in all 4 gospels, why? Well most say it's because it is more than a parable it is one of lives truths, even if the literal story isn't true the re telling of it is all 4 gospels retold the story as Christ had intended as a valuable life lesson of sharing and humanity. The teachings and the lessons are what we have faith in. You asked me if I believed them I said I did, I believe in the loaves and fishes, the Samaritan, the olive branch, as symbols and teachings of how we should live our lives. If we take out of it (Christs teachings) what we should then we will never value ourselves over others, we will always share everything we can, we will help fellow man even if they are considered the enemy we will be there to guide the weak and helpless and stand up and be strong and fearless when we need to. What is so terribly wrong with believing and having faith in these teachings. I of course believe if everyone took his teachings on board be they parables or otherwise we'd all be happier.
As you believe in nothing, you believe that when you die you die, etc. how do you find comfort when a loved one dies? How do you go about life happily if that is all? Just a question, be nice, lol.
People live, people die, I remember them, I think of them. I get over it.
If people need to believe there's something after they die to keep them sane that's fine (odd, but fine), but why they need to do it in a way that someone else tells them to, that's the bit I have a real problem with.
I am very much of a mind that there is great wisdom and lessons for today in all religions - speaking of 'logic' I find it completely illogical to think anything else when this is the primary subject that the greatest minds of the past however many thousand years have tended to be obsessive about.
I am a Christian because this was the culture I was brought up in, but would hope that I see the value (and sometimes problems) in them all.
I do understand that it can be rather frustrating for those without faith that religious people seem to keep changing the goalposts because faith is so personal: no two people, even in the same church, are likely to believe in exactly the same thing.
I, for example, do not necessarily believe that many miracles were actually 'supernatural' in nature, but were based on the miraculous intelligence and ingenuity of people in their everyday lives. I don't think that it is any less miraculous that someone is cured from cancer because it was carried out by a doctor than is the hand of God came down and tapped the patient on the shoulder and several Biblical miracles seem to be most likely to have a rather mundane explanation.
But I think that is the point: religion is very personal, it about how move through your life, trying to understand that you are part of a wider humanity with a responsibility to everyone out there. Certainly many agnostics would say exactly the same, and would do more and better than me, but, as i say, I do think that religions include wisdom and structures that make it easier to achieve this.
But then again, to quote Mr Carlin, "What's the point in praying if it's already all been decided in God's 'Divine Plan?' What's the point of being a Supreme Being with a 'Divine Plan' if it can get screwed up by any schmuck with a $2 Prayer Book?"
Sometimes I really wish that people such as the guy you're quoting would either read the bible, ask questions, simply state why they don't believe or not say anything. How can you pull something apart and make arguments against it if you don't know about it? How can you argue against the theology of Christianity or any faith if you haven't read the book and understood it's context? Anyone who has read the bible will know of examples when God has heard the cries of his people and responded. For example, Hannah desperately pleaded and wrestled with God for him to bless her with a child and God responded. The Bible is clear about the power of prayer to change circumstances within his will. He says he longs to give us the desires of our hearts.
So why did "he" stop doing it 2000 odd years ago then? One televised, bone fide miracle, it would be so simple wouldn't it? Ah - but no, you see you need to have faith, even though 2000 odd years ago miracles were flying in like holiday jets in August, "he's" decided that to prove "his" existence today is unnecessary, faith must be enough. How very convenient...
Comments
Imagine how boring being a football fan would be if we supported the same team, we can't all be the same, we are always going to think our way is best but we have to respect the other persons choices.
....."Because religion is protected from criticism and anyone who dares question it is "narrow-minded", "disrespectful" or a "bigot". The only bigotted people are the liberal bigots who do the accusing."......
In retrospect the word I use "attack" may have been too strong. "Question" might have been better.
http://www.kingschurch.eu/bigobjections/index.php#media
Andrew Wilson has good intellectual arguments - in saying that, faith is more than just an academic subject. I started believing about the same time I started supporting Charlton in the mid-eighties.
My point was about making your own choices, I chose to support Charlton, I chose to, move to sittingbourne, I chose to get married, I chose to have my kids I chose to be a Christian. Regardless of others having opinions on everyone of those things I went my own way. You no doubt have gone yours. Just because I believe different things to you or anyone else doesn't make me wrong or less intelligent, I haven't told you your way is wrong and I haven't tried to belittle you or ridicule you as I respect the difference in opinions, beliefs and values. Get it now?
(And I am not living my life under a dictatorship, that was a very ignorant comment, although I'm sure you didn't mean to come across as such. )
However, since my last post, I have read the Sunday papers & watched the BBC news ...
Once again, it's no surprise that the headlines highlight the heart wrenching situations in both Syria/Iraq and Israel/Palestine. The loss of hundreds, maybe thousands of lives, the barbarity of one "sect" against another, the overwhelming inhumanity of one human being against another .....and yet some will deny that this has nothing to do with religion. That those guilty of such evil deeds do not act in the name of their God. Does the very term" Islamic State" not spell out the connection?
Extremists, yes. But extremists in which context & of what ? No prizes for guessing that one correctly....religious extremists.
Call me naïve, and maybe I am guilty of over simplification in this instance.
But I stand firm in my belief as stated in an earlier post. "If there was no religion, there would be no wars ".
( Flak jacket already donned...)
No religion would not equal no wars. Less wars? Possibly, though I myself am sceptical on that. But humans have been fighting other humans from the minute we finally got rid of the last Neanderthals, and it's beyond me as to why they'll ever stop.
1st World War
2nd World War
Boer War
Falklands War
Iraq war 1 and 2
Stalin
Pol Pot
American Civil War
British civil war
In fact out of 348 wars since the seventeen century only 16 have religion as a root cause. Its a fact that often gets bandied about but has no basis in fact. Interestingly people who hold a faith - live longer , have longer marriages / relationships , are more likely to volunteer, are healthier. Again I make no comment on whether God is real or not. Its unprovable - but the data suggests have a faith is good for you
http://www.psmag.com/culture/myth-of-the-modern-religious-war-34617/
So, the thing about the loaves and fishes for example. All the fans had brought there own food with them (even humble illiterate village people 2000 odd years ago would not have been stupid enough to travel to a remote area for a few days in a hot climate without provisions). It is not feasible that people entirely aware of the issues of travelling in a dry and hot environment would have pitched up in the middle of nowhere without some bread, dried fish and a bottle of Evian or two. (Even the twonks turning up for the V Festival understand that they need to raid my local Tesco first!)
These ancients were just not keen on sharing what they had brought and some people didn't have enough. The point about what Jesus (actual name Yeshua - Christians don't even get that right - we weren't rude enough to call Kermogant John instead of Yann were we?) achieved was making people understand that everyone would be better off if they all got out all their supplies and shared it amongst themselves. There was no miracle per se. Just a lesson that communism can work in the right circumstances.
If you don't believe me, this is what the current Bishop of Rome, Francis, has to say on the matter: "This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity."
BTW, there were quite a few miracle workers wandering around Judea all those years ago. Hanina ben Dosa is a good one and seemingly achieved much as a faith healer. He also produced loaves in his oven despite having no flour it seems. But I guess he didn't have disciples (or a PR team as they'd be known today), so isn't quite so well known.
Sorry....
What if you don't like fish?
you mean you don't believe in cod?
If people need to believe there's something after they die to keep them sane that's fine (odd, but fine), but why they need to do it in a way that someone else tells them to, that's the bit I have a real problem with.
I am a Christian because this was the culture I was brought up in, but would hope that I see the value (and sometimes problems) in them all.
I do understand that it can be rather frustrating for those without faith that religious people seem to keep changing the goalposts because faith is so personal: no two people, even in the same church, are likely to believe in exactly the same thing.
I, for example, do not necessarily believe that many miracles were actually 'supernatural' in nature, but were based on the miraculous intelligence and ingenuity of people in their everyday lives. I don't think that it is any less miraculous that someone is cured from cancer because it was carried out by a doctor than is the hand of God came down and tapped the patient on the shoulder and several Biblical miracles seem to be most likely to have a rather mundane explanation.
But I think that is the point: religion is very personal, it about how move through your life, trying to understand that you are part of a wider humanity with a responsibility to everyone out there. Certainly many agnostics would say exactly the same, and would do more and better than me, but, as i say, I do think that religions include wisdom and structures that make it easier to achieve this.