Every religion that ever came out of the middle east has been a cancer on society.

[eNtRopY]

I truly believe this. Judaism, Christianity (in its many forms) and the Islamic religion have brought more pain and suffering than benefit to humanity.

These religions all share a common design. They are all structured so as to control the masses by the fear punishment and the promise of reward. Seriously, let's look at their common elements.

- They all use the tactic of monotheism. They all say that there is only one God, and it is a sin to even think about questioning the ways of God.

- They all employ the use of sin. They control the behavior of the people by asserting that certain actions are inherently bad, and if one commits such actions the omnicient God will know about it.

- They all say that their dogma is the solemn word of God, and it is to be followed without question.

- They all use the concept of eternal damnation for the infidels.

- They all justify transgression against the infidels.

- They all employ the tactic of sexual sin. This tactic is used so as to ensure that every act of sex leads to a pregnancy in a controlled environment (aka a marriage). This is inadvertenty done so as to strengthen the numbers of those practicing the religion. Seriously, most of the long-running successful religions have employed this tactic. It is a mechanism of self-sustainment.

As you can clearly see, nothing in this design will help one find absolute truth. Like I said before, it's all about controlling the masses.

Sometimes, I think that we (of the western society) would have been much better off had the Romans never invaded the northern parts of Europe and brought with them their civilized religion of Christianity. It might be true that paganism would have kept civilization under a more tribal way of life, but who is to say that this is indeed true?

Sometimes, I wonder if it would be more tradtional for us of European descent, to respect the pantheistic gods of our distant ancestors on holidays rather than the younger, middle eastern God that we still honor today.

eNtRopY

[kat]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
I truly believe this. Judaism, Christianity (in its many forms) and the Islamic religion have brought more pain and suffering than benefit to humanity.


- They all use the concept of eternal damnation for the infidels.


I wasn't aware that Judaism used the concept of eternal damnation..are you sure about this?

[Zero]

I always blamed it on heat and limited water...drives people nutty!

[quartodeciman]

Originally posted by kat
I wasn't aware that Judaism used the concept of eternal damnation..are you sure about this?

Mostly NOT. At most a term in Sheol. But there are exceptions: the highly "fundamentalist" school of Rabbi Shammai was reputed to hold with eternal rewards and punishments. Also, apocalyptic judaism believed a final judgement and disposition. Both of these flourished in the 1st century CE, the same time as Jesus Christ and his apostles.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

(KJV)

[Gale]

As you can clearly see, nothing in this design will help one find absolute truth. Like I said before, it's all about controlling the masses.

i agree, although i see judaism as a little bit of an exception. but islam and christianity preach ideas so similiar and are usually backed by some hidden political agenda. i think politics corrupted these religions. politics and the importance of being "civilized."

[eNtRopY]

It is my understanding that, like Allah, Jehovah of the Old Testament is a very wrathful and jealous deity. I believe that hell is mentioned several times throughout the Old Testament.

If you are a Christian and you take the Bible literally, you will quickly come to the conclusion that before the time of Jesus, the only people who were saved from eternal damnation were God's chosen ones--the Jews.

Now I realize that modern Judaism has been greatly modified since the early days; however, originally Judaism was used to build strength amongst its people. Messages like we God's chosen ones... all others are inherently evil... we are the descendents of Able the good... all others are descendents of Cain the bad are just devices to coerce the individuals of the masses to follow the group.

Now admittedly, We can't deny that people like following a group either. Look at the level of enthusiasm which ensues the gathering of hundreds of fans with a common interest during a concert or sporting event. This type of behavior can only be attributed to the fact that people naturally want to be part of something bigger and stronger than themselves. However, if there is one thing that religion loves to do, it is exploit human nature.

eNtRopY

[FZ+]

Erm... why restrict yourself to these religions? Might the fact they had lots of atrocities etc be related to the fact they have dominated the world, and hence is all the more visible.

Religious equality while criticising religions please! [;)]

[kat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Erm... why restrict yourself to these religions? Might the fact they had lots of atrocities etc be related to the fact they have dominated the world, and hence is all the more visible.

Religious equality while criticising religions please! [;)]
yes, let's not forget the others..you know..like communism, socialsim..etc. etc.

[LURCH]

Originally posted by kat
yes, let's not forget the others..you know..like communism, socialsim..etc. etc.

I think those would both fall under atheism.

[TENYEARS]

The foundation of all religions are the same, american indian, christian, buddist, hindu, islam, voodo, etc.... One central experience/god that is all things. No founder of any relgion would ever disagree to any degree because their experience is pure and common altough the cultures may very the core of the experience would be the same to them all.

The things which are looked upon as bad which are commited in the name of relgion have nothing to do with religion. It has to do with power and material things not the experiences which initiated the so called religions.

What of science? Lets put thousands of service men in the desert and blow up an atomic bomb 1 1/2 mile away and give them sun glasses and see the effect. Lets do it again and again maybe in the ocean on destroyers and aircraft carriers. Lets cut the heads off of monkeys and reatach them and see how long they live. Let us do it a couple of dozen times. Let us create nuclear power plants and dump the waste all over the planet. What ever uncouncious acts in the name of religion, I can counter with the misuse of science 10 fold and that would be on a bad day. Some nuclear waste was even found in wells and not in trace amounts large chunks which proceed to wipe out whole families. Nice. What of all the ships at the bottom of oceans nuclear and other wise, the oil, the toxic chemicals. All created in the name of science. The unconcious spewing of humanity in a continious stream.

As to sex and religion, that may have been part of the context and then maybe not. There was rampant sexually transmitted disease, over population and starvation in some areas. This was a method of controlling that from a socialistic perspective. In the old testament there was a thing about eating bottom fish crustations I think. This was because that type of fish spoils more readily than regular fish and with worse effects. Ever get sick on clams or shell fish? Sometimes things relative to a culture were incorporated as beliefs and a way to live by but had nothing to do with a realization of an absolute reality. The new testament made reference to clean and unclean food of the previous jewish era. I belive and in this case I do say I believe it was also culturally created by the environment but as time went on there were ways to cope with the food and new methods of storage which made the resasons for doing obsolete, but they were many times placed in the religion and most likey because back then there were not a lot of books and the religious book was about a whole way of life.

Hello, wake up at the count of three you will be rested and your mind will no longer exist in the haze of your thoughts and frustrations. Your mind will be clear and placid. You will see a blue sky clouds and feel the wind on your skin and the sun on your face. You will expereince these things instead of living in what you believe to be yourself. 1 2 3. You are refreshed, awake and feel good. You will be responsible for what you say and do and experience life for what it is. Tao Taaao daylight come daylight go......

[Laser Eyes]

Originally posted by Gale17
i agree, although i see judaism as a little bit of an exception. but islam and christianity preach ideas so similiar and are usually backed by some hidden political agenda. i think politics corrupted these religions. politics and the importance of being "civilized." It's interesting that you say Christianity has been corrupted by politics and the importance of being "civilised". So when people criticise Christianity, (like in this thread), is the religion they are criticising real Christianity according to Bible teachings, or is it a corrupted version? If it's a corrupted version, as you say, then they aren't really criticising Christianity, they're just observing that the mainstream so called Christian religions have fallen away from the true Bible teachings and are not really Christian at all.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
yes, let's not forget the others..you know..like communism, socialsim..etc. etc. Confused about what counts as religion, along with LURCH, huh? I can lend you a dictionary, but someone else will have to read it to you...

Seriously though, Kat, I expect better from you.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Confused about what counts as religion, along with LURCH, huh? I can lend you a dictionary, but someone else will have to read it to you...

Seriously though, Kat, I expect better from you.


Lol, please don't ground me, mom![:((]

I'm not confused at all, Idealogies such as communism
certainly can be religions.

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

From www.dictionary.com

I'd also like to point out that Idealogies without God have led to, at the very least equal, and I believe in actuality far greater destruction and some of the most horrid and wide spread killing of the past century. (Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao etc.)

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Lol, please don't ground me, mom![:((]

I'm not confused at all, Idealogies such as communism
certainly can be religions.

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

From www.dictionary.com

I'd also like to point out that Idealogies without God have led to, at the very least equal, and I believe in actuality far greater destruction and some of the most horrid and wide spread killing of the past century. (Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao etc.)

Well, let's not play that 'your atrocities are worse than mine' game. Your examples, in my mind, simply don't count, because being 'without God' isn't the reason for those atrocities, in the same way that Nazi Germany's Christian ideology was only a small facet of a larger political movement.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, let's not play that 'your atrocities are worse than mine' game.

Oh, please! Stop speaking to me as if I were a 7 year old school girl. [s(]

IF both God and Godless idealogies have a common destructive denominator it would be good to recognize that and IF in fact a Godless idealogy has a greater propensinity for destruction then a Godful one it would be good to recognize what it is within that Ideology that holds that destructive fervor in check. If it is the opposite way around the same interest should hold either way. If there is no difference then..it obviously has nothing to do with God but with Ideologies in general.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Oh, please! Stop speaking to me as if I were a 7 year old school girl. [s(]

IF both God and Godless idealogies have a common destructive denominator it would be good to recognize that and IF in fact a Godless idealogy has a greater propensinity for destruction then a Godful one it would be good to recognize what it is within that Ideology that holds that destructive fervor in check. If it is the opposite way around the same interest should hold either way. If there is no difference then..it obviously has nothing to do with God but with Ideologies in general.

Read my edit. [g)]

BTW, I was sure you were at least 12...

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Your examples, in my mind, simply don't count, because being 'without God' isn't the reason for those atrocities, in the same way that Nazi Germany's Christian ideology was only a small facet of a larger political movement.

I'm not sure that Nazi Germany is the best example to use as many facets of how and to what measure Christianity was involved, particularly in the leadership is still debated in both Atheist and Christian circles. You'll note I left it out of my short list.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
I'm not sure that Nazi Germany is the best example to use as many facets of how and to what measure Christianity was involved, particularly in the leadership is still debated in both Atheist and Christian circles. You'll note I left it out of my short list.

My point is your point, I think. You can't necessarily blame Christianity for Nazism, and I don't think you can blame Atheism for Communist dictatorships, because Atheism wasn't the point of Communism. I feel that the only groups that fit into this specific discussion would be groups whose main reason for existance is or was religion.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Read my edit. [g)]

BTW, I was sure you were at least 12...

I think should leave the personal attacks out of your posts.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
I think should leave the personal attacks out of your posts. I think you should lighten up a bit...[g)] Would I have said I expected better of you if I didn't generally respect the intelligence behind your posting(even when I think you are completely wrong)?

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
My point is your point, I think. You can't necessarily blame Christianity for Nazism, and I don't think you can blame Atheism for Communist dictatorships, because Atheism wasn't the point of Communism. I feel that the only groups that fit into this specific discussion would be groups whose main reason for existance is or was religion.

Well, my point is that there is something greater going on then a belief in god, or a lack of belief in god..there is a common denominator in all idealogies. Nor is it about blame..for me. The masses, IMO, are the victims whether they are the destroyed or the destroyers. What are the common denominators in a Godless leadership with an ideology and a Godful leadership with an idealogy that stirs the masses into hatefilled slaughter and destruction?

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
I think you should lighten up a bit...[g)] Would I have said I expected better of you if I didn't generally respect the intelligence behind your posting(even when I think you are completely wrong)?

I'ts condescending and suggests that you know greater then I do prior to even entering into dialogue with me to discover why I have made the statements I have.

*shrug* I won't hold it against you.[;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Well, my point is that there is something greater going on then a belief in god, or a lack of belief in god..there is a common denominator in all idealogies. Nor is it about blame..for me. The masses, IMO, are the victims whether they are the destroyed or the destroyers. What are the common denominators in a Godless leadership with an ideology and a Godful leadership with an idealogy that stirs the masses into hatefilled slaughter and destruction? Well, me being me, I would say that the 'godless' dictatorships learned from religion how to control the masses, and create mass atrocities and war. I feel that it is something intrinsic to monotheistic religions.

[quartodeciman]

I think it is erroneous to treat religion as if it comes from outside. Rather than religion coming to "exploit human nature", it arises out of human nature. Our animal brains, reinforced with a complex (and often contradictive) cerebrum, lead to whole new dimensions of fear, loyalty, high purpose, etc. Politics (acquisition and maintenance of gross power) and Culture (sense of identity, ritual and collective destiny) mix richly with proto-religious ideas. Sometimes even Science (independent and scrupulous acquisition of reality) gets mixed into the pot.

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist author, once came up with the concept of the même, idea units that spread interpersonally, just as viruses spread between organisms and commandeer their resources to reproduce themselves. Some thinkers are taking the même concept seriously.

Michael Shermer, who writes for the Skeptic and Scientific American magazines, discussed a hypothetical belief switch in his book "How We Believe", indicating a possible selective advantage for early hominids living in dangerous environments. This switch might in fact be a bank of switches, sez I.

But, back to the top. I say it all arises out of human nature.

[megashawn]

Well, even godless nazi were basically a religion. They believed in a superior race on earth, and planned on eliminating all that were different.

So while they may be defined as atheists, they did infact hold a false belief that they themselves were the superior beings.

No different really then believing you have the ultimate, complete word of God, and go on crusades.

Tenyears, what does American Indian religion have in common with christianity? I know of a few different indain beliefs, and none of them center around a single god. Perhaps you could explain this a little more?

And to your rant about all the evils science has done, hah. How about all the good? If you truly look at it, you will see that in the short time science has been mainstream, it has improved life of countrys practicing it 10 fold, if not more so. Life spans are longer, we've developed methods to store and cook our food, automobile, harnessed electricity, gone to the moon, fly half way around the world in a few hours, and do a 360 on a motorcycle (that was awesome, must watch X-Games).

My point here is, that the good outweighs the bad. And sure, we've spilled oil, nuke waste, ink die, chemicals, etc. We've just recently become aware of the impact we are having on the enviroment, and guess what, something will get done about it.

How many people have died from nucleur related incidents (bomds, leaks, radiation, etc)?

How many people have died being forced to convert to christianity?

How many people have died because of ignorance due to stifled learning practices as a result of religions like christianity?

How long ago would earth have become modernized if it weren't for silly beliefs in unprovable mythologys that have stood in the way of our progress?

Hey, we don't even need to bring islam in this equation. They seem to be victims more then anything, looking at the big picture.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by kat
IF both God and Godless idealogies have a common destructive denominator it would be good to recognize that and IF in fact a Godless idealogy has a greater propensinity for destruction then a Godful one it would be good to recognize what it is within that Ideology that holds that destructive fervor in check. If it is the opposite way around the same interest should hold either way. If there is no difference then..it obviously has nothing to do with God but with Ideologies in general.

This sounds to me more like the pathway of required knowledge, leading to good judgment, in this threads initial question.

Are there studies available?

[kat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

Are there studies available?

I haven't found anything comprehensive, only subjective analysis from close minded perspectives condemning the 'other' side...

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by kat
I haven't found anything comprehensive, only subjective analysis from close minded perspectives condemning the 'other' side...
Why is it that that does not surprise me?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

To the statement that originates this thread, the idea that religions have been 'cancers upon society', the simple question, "What better way to separate the wheat from the chaff" then what is asserted in the beginnings of this thread?

(The purpose of religion, or, religion's purpose!)

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
I haven't found anything comprehensive, only subjective analysis from close minded perspectives condemning the 'other' side... Kat, no offense, but claiming the other side is 'close minded' is usually(not always) a sign that your own view has no legs to stand on.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Kat, no offense, but claiming the other side is 'close minded' is usually(not always) a sign that your own view has no legs to stand on.

erm, perhaps I didn't make myself clear...I've only found analysis from both/either/all sides damning the other side. I've yet to find a comprehensive study looking at the whoooole picture objecively.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
erm, perhaps I didn't make myself clear...I've only found analysis from both/either/all sides damning the other side. I've yet to find a comprehensive study looking at the whoooole picture objecively.

Well, what say we start analyzing the problem right now, ok? Let us look at non-religious massacres throughout history, and see how much or little they resemble religious slaughters.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, what say we start analyzing the problem right now, ok? Let us look at non-religious massacres throughout history, and see how much or little they resemble religious slaughters.

Sounds like a plan [;)] I'll be back later today, when I have more time to contribute.

[ray b]

the big three all are about the same in evil laws and the willingness to inflict the laws on others

I think the tali-ban and fundie christians share more weird ideas with the orthodox jews then they differ. and I would hate to live in any state under compleat control of any of them.

all have laws againts sex and drugs and rock&roll !!!!

[FZ+]

Though this problem would be solved by my (new) definition of religion, which has nothing to do with God.

Religion: Any belief system that claims ownership of Absolute Truth.

Nazism, Nationalism, Communism et al are covered, I believe.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Sounds like a plan [;)] I'll be back later today, when I have more time to contribute. Ready to play yet?

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Ready to play yet?

I've been considering where or rather when would be a good place to start..I've also started reading this http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rummel/note5.htm

I'm a little busy and haven't had a ton of time to really lay out an analysis.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
I've been considering where or rather when would be a good place to start..I've also started reading this http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rummel/note5.htm

I'm a little busy and haven't had a ton of time to really lay out an analysis.

Well, I'm not going anywhere, and neither is PF...take your time, and if I don't respond when you get your research together, PM me, ok?

[radagast]

In this thread there has been much debate concerning religion and what is and isn't.

Though a good question, one needs be careful in how you use a dictionary definition.

For instance, Worm: it can mean an invertibrate that all of us recognize as a worm, it can mean a type of gear, or a type of computer virus.

Obviously they refer to different entities.

The reference referred to anything entered into with great zeal (poor paraphrasing) obviously wasn't the same thing people were talking about as religion. Ideologies can be 'religions' in one sense, but not the one we are speaking of here. The one that was being discussed here was one that would be characterized as 'a spiritual, trancendental pursuit, often involving established ceremonys, usually having clery (spiritual leaders such as priests/pastors/Imams/Rabbis/etc), and regular spiritual practices'. A poor definition, but one that, in general, encompasses the 'religion' spoken of here.

As such, Kat, your argument falls into the category of "Straw man" and perhaps a few other argument flaws.

I think the argument's intent is good, but that specific tact of the argument is flawed. Perhaps this is a better what to put it: Any endeavor engaged in by humans is fraught with potential abuse and misuse, no matter how noble the desire of the founders/practitioners. Or that any endeavor engendering strong emotions a large group can result in potentially life threatening behaviour, by that group.

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
Kat, no offense, but claiming the other side is 'close minded' is usually(not always) a sign that your own view has no legs to stand on.

Odd! I always thought it was frustration due to the other side's refusal to accept my brilliance and irrefutable logic. Any way, Zero, when one has brilliance, genius an there own form of logic on ones side one does not need legs to stand on as you well know. As both a participant and mentor if PF I'm sure that youve noticed the scarcity of legs here including, need I say your own, at times.[:))] [;)]

As to the topic, I think it is more human nature than religion. Religion is just an excuse or rational. No religion that I know of in the world is immune from this criticism. Need I remind you of Gingus Khan whose are is said to have killed one million people in one day. He was from the East and had nothing to do with religion.
The Romans were one a rampage long before they became Christian.
Then of course the noble northern european pagans - uh, did some one mention Vikings. No one mentioned Persians of Babalonians (sp?) or Zulus or Tartars or Huns or Japanese or Cheyannes or Soix or Turks or......
I think I am begining to see a pattern here. Its people and not religion or dogma or ideology but human greed and lust for power and domination over others. Some may call it the need for survival gone mad in the most universally successfull advanced species developed so far.

[BoulderHead]

This tread was supposed to, in particular, be dealing with religions that came out of the Middle East.

[BiologyForums]

My question for the main poster is:

Why are you limiting this to Middle Eastern religions?

I ask this because your claim is very much null and a harsh generalization.

It's not the religions that are cancer - because people who are operating under those particular religions in other areas of the world do not stand out.

And people who DO NOT operate under those particular religions and DO LIVE in the middle east do not stand out.

It's people who DO operate under those religions and DO LIVE in the middle east - that are this "cancer".

At least that's your claim, said better. I'm not saying I agree or disagree....but that you made a bit of a generalization.......

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by BiologyForums
My question for the main poster is:
Why are you limiting this to Middle Eastern religions?
Probably because most of the religions come from there, no! not all, of then, but most.

[Zero]

Originally posted by BiologyForums
My question for the main poster is:

Why are you limiting this to Middle Eastern religions?

I ask this because your claim is very much null and a harsh generalization.

It's not the religions that are cancer - because people who are operating under those particular religions in other areas of the world do not stand out.

And people who DO NOT operate under those particular religions and DO LIVE in the middle east do not stand out.

It's people who DO operate under those religions and DO LIVE in the middle east - that are this "cancer".

At least that's your claim, said better. I'm not saying I agree or disagree....but that you made a bit of a generalization.......

I think historically, he has a point, even though right now it is Arab fanatics, if you look at the last few thousand years, it has been Christians in Europe, and Jews in teh Middle East as well.

[eNtRopY]

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Why are you limiting this to Middle Eastern religions?


Because those are the religions that suck the most.

eNtRopY

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
Because those are the religions that suck the most.
eNtRopY
Don't know that that is true, but I do know that it IS Churches (their soup kitchens, et al) that are keeping me (and quite a few others) Fed!! and alive!

[megashawn]

Need I remind you of Gingus Khan whose are is said to have killed one million people in one day. He was from the East and had nothing to do with religion.

He was said to have killed 1 million people in one day huh? Hmm. Seems a statement like that would require some kind of proof, like, maybe 1 million dead bodies in a close area.

That, and I don't think a single person could do that. Even an army would have a hard time pulling that off with limited technology of the time.

Maybe a week.

Don't know that that is true, but I do know that it IS Churches (their soup kitchens, et al) that are keeping me (and quite a few others) Fed!! and alive!

Its nice that churches will provide for those less fortunate. Its a shame they can't do more stuff like this. Perhaps if the preachers weren't driving $50,000 cars, living in 200K dollar houses, then maybe they could reach more.

Of course there going to do some charity work, its propaganda, to get ppl to go "Oh that so nice that there doing this stuff for free, maybe we should go to church".

Reminds me of the old thread, i think PF2, "Christianity is Wrong and Evil" in response to good ole Futurists thread "Atheism is wrong and evil". Let me pick out a few evil traits of christiainity:

1) Support for slavery
2) Bigotry, racism, etc
3) Claims of absolute knowledge
4) Stifling of true education (as a result of #3)
5) Countless wars, crusades, conversions, etc
6) Telling overpopulated countrys that using birth control is wrong (that may have been catholic, but same difference)
7) Putting ourselves (humanity) at the top of the food chain, bested only by God himself
8) Brainwashed populace('s)
9) Murder
10) Greed

Of course these are vague, but they clearly show the cancer at work on humanity.

I can find biblical support for most of this, if needed.

[Sunfist]

I think that you guys are seeing results instead of motivations.

Please bear me out and I'll try to keep this short.

Religion doesn't cause wrongs. Science doesn't cause wrongs. Humans cause wrongs. Humans cause evils. Religion isn't a force. In itself, it doesn't exist. It's only what humans make of it.

If all the religions that you have mentioned were followed to the letter, there would be no harm caused by them. "Thou shall not kill" There is no ifs, ands, or buts about that statement. "Treat thy neighbor as yourself". It's clear. That last statement can be found in all major religions of the world.

In the same vein, science is not evil either. Nuclear technology and knowhow isn't evil. Building a nuclear bomb to kill people is evil, but look at the act: It's simply killing people. Take it to the root, the base, and that's what you have: Humans killing humans. If it's a religious crusade or a "necessary" nuclear bomb attack, it's still humans killing humans.

Christianity did not "create" the Nazi party. The Nazi party used Christianity because they knew that it would work. They knew the people would listen to their religious leaders. Recently, America has done the same thing. In churches all across America, preachers were telling their "flocks" that America was doing the right thing in Iraq. (It doesn't matter if you believe what America did was good or bad, it's the principle of the religious leaders backing political movement.)

On the subject of religions from the Middle East, whoever mentioned that those aren't the only ones that have caused pain is correct. If you recall your history, the Japanese were essentially "tricked" by their religious leaders in World War II. They were told what they were doing was Holy.

People are evil, not ideals. Rituals to worship God are not evil. People using religious ferver to garner support for a Holy War is evil. Keep in mind, though, that most of the time, even people like priests aren't the ones causing the pain, it comes from higher up. They just preach what they are told. That's what happened in Nazi Germany, and that's what happened with the Crusades.

Relgion, science, etc. is just the methodology, not the motivation.

[megashawn]

Agreed to a point, but it can also be the motivating factor. You must believe that there are people who are litterally brainwashed from birth to believe in one method or another.

So you have a nation of brainwashed people who believe not only anything there preacher tells them, but nothing they learn elsewhere, then it would be quite easy for that preacher to say "Go to war with xxxx, and you will be saved a special seat in heaven". I have no doubt in my mind that religion has been used as a tool to control the masses since there has been enough people to call a group a mass.

My main point, is while on the large scale it is a method, on the individual scale, it can be a reason for motivation.

edit: For instance, a promise of 50 virgins for crashing a plain into a building.

[Sunfist]

And I agree with you. I'm saying that you have to realize the "why" of it. Religion didn't make those people want to kill. Their priest told them they would get 50 virgins. Someone taught him. It's just higher up than the personal level where the evil seeps in.

Look, if you were walking along and you went into a bookstore and said, "What is this Bible thing, I think I'll buy it and read it". Then, you took it home and read it cover to cover, I can promise you that you wouldn't go out gunning down people the next day or slaughtering "non-Christians" in Christ's name. Another human has to convince you to do that.

[Zero]

Lest we forget, folks...Hinduism is the logical conclusion of as much violence as any of the Judeo-Christian sects. It is also striking to realize that all the controls and frustration inherent in most religions leads to the rage and single-mindedness that makes for perfect soldiers.

[Sunfist]

Well, it makes sense. Some guy tells you to kill other humans because your country leader wants you to: Yeah, some guys are definitely going to do it out of "honor" and "duty". But, tell them that the higher power that will give them eternal salvation wants them to kill someone: That's how you move empires.

[quartodeciman]

Their priest told them they would get 50 virgins.
It seems to me that the problem is that of fomenting continuous frustrated latent horniness.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The problem is exactly what religion addresses, the Truth V lies.
That breaks down into the control factors, over others, based upon the lies told in the name of religion, rather then the admonishment(s) to practise the truth(s) of religions, hence peacefullness.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Sunfist
Well, it makes sense. Some guy tells you to kill other humans because your country leader wants you to: Yeah, some guys are definitely going to do it out of "honor" and "duty". But, tell them that the higher power that will give them eternal salvation wants them to kill someone: That's how you move empires. Especially with teh dietary and sexual restrictions, the fasting and whatnot...all serves to build a fury which is then unleashed upon the infidel.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by sunfist
Originally posted by Sunfist
Well, it makes sense. Some guy tells you to kill other humans because your country leader wants you to: Yeah, some guys are definitely going to do it out of "honor" and "duty". But, tell them that the higher power that will give them eternal salvation wants them to kill someone: That's how you move empires.

Originally posted by Zero
Especially with teh dietary and sexual restrictions, the fasting and whatnot...all serves to build a fury which is then unleashed upon the infidel.
Hummm, the emboldened is exactly what is ascribed as "The Right by/of Authority" to act, on all sides, as the US, too, acts under "The Authority of God" meaning the 'Rights of Law(s)'.
("One nation, under God...........")

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
Especially with the dietary and sexual restrictions, the fasting and whatnot...all serves to build a fury which is then unleashed upon the infidel.

Funny, but I think you're leaving out one of the main reasons, a reason that doesn't make sense to us, but is their primary motivator all the same.

Muslims of the middle east feel like their way of life is under attack. There are strong technical changes and strong cultural changes that are affecting their traditional culture and values. These changes have only been strongly affecting them since the seventies. Thirty years isn't very long for a people to become comfortably enculturated to the new ideas and ways. They feel most intimidated by the exposure to western culture. It is as if they are under a cultural attack. One that is undermining the values and traditions that they hold dear. Most insidiously, they are afraid that their people cannot resist the temptations of the western culture, so they have feelings of fear, resentment, and the desire to lash out at those who they feel are 'attacking' them. Few of them realize this overtly, but it drives most of the hatred of the west. Their hatred and lashing out would exist without their religion, it is just used to help rationalize and justify their own reactions.

It is not logical, but how often does logic alter peoples' behavior.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by megashawn
Its nice that churches will provide for those less fortunate. Its a shame they can't do more stuff like this. Perhaps if the preachers weren't driving $50,000 cars, living in 200K dollar houses, then maybe they could reach more.
Of course there going to do some charity work, its propaganda, to get ppl to go "Oh that so nice that there doing this stuff for free, maybe we should go to church".
WOW, such cynicism!
How many 'preachers' do you know who drive $50K cars and live in $200k houses?
Never mind the simplicity that even if they live in $200K houses they personally do NOT own them, nor do they own any $50K cars, all church properties.

[megashawn]

Another problem with religion, especially the M.E. ones, is that they all preach about the doom of humanity.

And each elder generation believes that Jesus will return before they die, and therefore do not really care about how they may effect the world.

I know of one person in particular, who believes it is not possible for humans to destroy this planet, either by turning it into wasteland, or blowing it up with a nuke.

Of course his reasoning for the nuke lies in what he considers the fact that hell is in the center of the earth and is an alternate dimension, which could never be reached by human means.

Anyhow, on to my point, if I can remember it.

Ah yes. Almost any religion, especially monotheistic, predicts an end time and a judgement, in which all of humanity will be destroyed. Christianity for instance uses revelations to tell us something like "And he'll come in a cloud with power, and great glory" (not 100%). This book implies that a being not of this earth will come to destroy life as we know it.

In the movie Independance Day, humanity joined together to fight against the threat of total annilation. In real life, people pray for that day to come. It scares me to think that some aliens could study us, our religions, and use them against us.

Also, on this note, what kind of motivation is it for a person to take care of the enviroment, dedicate a life to education and hard work, etc, when at some point in time all your troubles will be pointless, since God is coming back and gonna destroy humanity.

Why isn't there any religions that preach about improvement, of oneself, friends family and land? To learn as much about reality as is possible and to do your best to make sure life continues, with and without you.

And then, it gets worse. We have the majority of the population believing that at some point in time, God will come back to destroy us, judge us, whatever. We have a president, in charge of one of the greatest nations on earth, that subcribes to this same rediculous belief. Personally, as Commander and Cheif I'd like a person who will fight against any threat to life. Instead, we've got a person who thinks he plays a part in the final book of the bible.

Bunch of bla bla, but I truly think that this destructive belief will probably lead to either complete exticntion, or at the least plunge us back into the dark ages.

"Escape from LA" is a good example.

WOW, such cynicism!
How many 'preachers' do you know who drive $50K cars and live in $200k houses?
Never mind the simplicity that even if they live in $200K houses they personally do NOT own them, nor do they own any $50K cars, all church properties.

Why does a Church need a 200K dollar home? Or a $50,000 car? Why can't a preacher, whom I'd assume should be very lightly attached to the material world need such possessions, even if its a loaner per church there preaching at. And just what is the average salary of a preacher? I know of one here in greensboro making $250,000 a year for it.

Now how about if that church, being a place of god, obviously trustworthy, cut the pastors pay, and finance your project?

And what is the purpose in making a technological advancement such as you claim to possess if god is coming to set things right?

[Les Sleeth]

What we have here are people looking for ways to condemn religion without benefit of logic. Kat and Sunfist have been the objective champions in this thread . . . . but why yield to reason when having so much fun religion bashing (and I am no fan of religion).

Stalin, a communist, murdered 5+ million citizens . . . so we should conclude communists are mass murderers.

New Guinea tribes were headhunters . . . so we should conclude Pacific Island tribes tend toward headhunting.

Danny white murdered Harvey Milk . . . so we should conclude SF straight supervisors tend to murder gay supervisors.

Come on. If religion is the evil, then how do we explain all those pre-religion atrocities? Pre-monoreligion tribal and civilized life was incredibly brutal, particularly to other tribes/civilizations. It was not religion that caused it, it was just the influences of raw biological dominance and material gain at work.

Slowly consciousness is taking charge, but until it fully does, our biology continues to translate into some pretty animalistic behaviors. Religion . . . well, that has just one of many ways people bent on dominance and material gain have tried (and still continue) to justify their actions.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by megashawn
Why does a Church need a 200K dollar home? Or a $50,000 car? Why can't a preacher, whom I'd assume should be very lightly attached to the material world need such possessions, even if its a loaner per church there preaching at. And just what is the average salary of a preacher? I know of one here in greensboro making $250,000 a year for it.

There is a Pentecostal woman I asked this of, she told me;
“Pentecostals don’t mind this; in fact, they believe that the Lord will reward his servants…”

So in her eyes the minister’s Rolls-Royce and ½-million dollar castle (built to resemble a castle, large estate, man’s initials fixed to oversized electronically operated front gate) was all merely proof that God was rewarding him for his good deeds.

That, is real power, imo.

Thing is, I can see it from her perspective, but thinking that way would sure make it difficult for a believer to know if they’re being hoodwinked or not. I’ve also seen smaller churches struggle to afford for the minister a house and salary.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
There is a Pentecostal woman I asked this of, she told me;
“Pentecostals don’t mind this; in fact, they believe that the Lord will reward his servants…”

So in her eyes the minister’s Rolls-Royce and 1/2-million dollar castle (built to resemble a castle, large estate, man’s initials fixed to oversized electronically operated front gate) was all merely proof that God was rewarding him for his good deeds.

That, is real power, imo.

Thing is, I can see it from her perspective, but thinking that way would sure make it difficult for a believer to know if they’re being hoodwinked or not. I’ve also seen smaller churches struggle to afford for the minister a house and salary.

So, having money is evil? But really, since wealth is a relative thing, the question should be: Is having more money than someone else evil? Whomever is ready to criticize others, religious or not, for having more money than the poorest person on Earth better be ready to share all he has to avoid the label of hypocrite.

You guys are off the mark on this one. Religion may be delusional, but so far everything you are citing as particular to religion is also part of ordinary human behavior.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
So, having money is evil? But really, since wealth is a relative thing, the question should be: Is having more money than someone else evil? Whomever is ready to criticize others, religious or not, for having more money than the poorest person on Earth better be ready to share all he has to avoid the label of hypocrite.
I don’t think you even have to ask if it is evil, whatever that means. I’m more curious to know if it is wise. Think about it; 8,000+ members with a median income of $30K make their pastor fabulously wealthy, and he flaunts it all over town !
That is the reason I asked the woman what she thought about it. The heart can grow envious with little difficulty. I wanted to determine if she was in the least way resentful as she lives on $8K disability yet gives faithfully and generously each month.

That minister has real power, whether he is a crook or a saint. Believing as the woman did she would only be able to see him as a saint, with his wealth being a sign from heaven that he is righteous in the eyes of God, yet for all she really knows he might be another Jimmy Swaggart.

I view it as a fact that merely living your life means making concessions disagreeable with strict ascetic principles. The Church, or that minister, if they ever championed the cause of the poor open themselves to be asked the question; “just how many gold vases should be hoarded?”

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I don’t think you even have to ask if it is evil, whatever that means. I’m more curious to know if it is wise. Think about it; 8,000+ members with a median income of $30K make their pastor fabulously wealthy, and he flaunts it all over town !
That is the reason I asked the woman what she thought about it. The heart can grow envious with little difficulty. I wanted to determine if she was in the least way resentful as she lives on $8K disability yet gives faithfully and generously each month.

That minister has real power, whether he is a crook or a saint. Believing as the woman did she would only be able to see him as a saint, with his wealth being a sign from heaven that he is righteous in the eyes of God, yet for all she really knows he might be another Jimmy Swaggart.

I view it as a fact that merely living your life means making concessions disagreeable with strict ascetic principles. The Church, or that minister, if they ever championed the cause of the poor open themselves to be asked the question; “just how many gold vases should be hoarded?”

But see BH, you can't judge by the externals. Someone buys a product you make and sell for $10. A billion people buy your product, and you get rich. Of the people who buy your product, 5% of them live below the poverty line, while you luxuriate in some Earthly paradise. If your product is something that genuinely benefits that 5%, should you feel guilty that you are filthy rich and they are filthy poor?

I say the issue isn't unequal incomes . . . that has and always will be the case. The issue is whether someone is sincere or not. You cannot judge someone by how much wealth they have, nor can you judge by any other superficial standard. If you do, then you have to judge everyone that way, not just the religious.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But see BH, you can't judge by the externals. Someone buys a product you make and sell for $10. A billion people buy your product, and you get rich. Of the people who buy your product, 5% of them live below the poverty line, while you luxuriate in some Earthly paradise. If your product is something that genuinely benefits that 5%, should you feel guilty that you are filthy rich and they are filthy poor?
I don’t question the man’s right to the money at all, nor his right to spend it as he sees fit. If people give him their money then he ought to take it. It is something else that interests me here. Things like; what do members actually think about such a living style, what he thinks about it, what connection it has with their religious views, etc.

How to feel about being in his position is something each individual would have to ponder according to their own conscious. I can only pretend to be his position, in which case I know that I’d wonder what others, most especially the contributing members, might think about my living so ostentatiously. But whatever I might conclude could still be different than if I actually were in his place. I’d like to know what thoughts, if any, pass through his mind while driving his Silver Seraph past the hordes of homeless people gathered on the sidewalk 8-miles from the castle. Perhaps he sees those unfortunates and is given inspiration for yet another sermon on the need to give…
Maybe I am the real villain, not he, because I wouldn’t want to risk offending my membership and suffer any reduction in contributions. [:D]

At any rate, what I was interested in how the members viewed all of this. I only got to ask one of them and I posted her response. I would have asked all the individual members what they thought of his extravagant lifestyle if I’d been able to ‘cause that’s just the kinda guy I am.

I say the issue isn't unequal incomes. . . that has and always will be the case. The issue is whether someone is sincere or not. You cannot judge someone by how much wealth they have, nor can you judge by any other superficial standard. If you do, then you have to judge everyone that way, not just the religious.
Really, it wouldn’t matter to me even if he were not sincere. In a lot of instances, this being one them, I feel that people deserve to be taken if they are so foolish, that is how you learn…hopefully. Nevertheless, the woman judged him by his wealth to be in the good graces of the Lord.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
WOW, such cynicism!
How many 'preachers' do you know who drive $50K cars and live in $200k houses?
Never mind the simplicity that even if they live in $200K houses they personally do NOT own them, nor do they own any $50K cars, all church properties. Any time you see a bunch ofcars worth more than $30,000 in a Christian church parking lot, you know that church is full of hypocrits...there's an interesting assignment for you folks on Sunday. Let me know the results at your church, ok?

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But see BH, you can't judge by the externals. Someone buys a product you make and sell for $10. A billion people buy your product, and you get rich. Of the people who buy your product, 5% of them live below the poverty line, while you luxuriate in some Earthly paradise. If your product is something that genuinely benefits that 5%, should you feel guilty that you are filthy rich and they are filthy poor?

I say the issue isn't unequal incomes . . . that has and always will be the case. The issue is whether someone is sincere or not. You cannot judge someone by how much wealth they have, nor can you judge by any other superficial standard. If you do, then you have to judge everyone that way, not just the religious. You can judge someone alright...by the principles they claim for themselves. Any 'Christian' who is also a billionaire isn't a Christian, by the laws spelled out by their own Bible.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
Any time you see a bunch ofcars worth more than $30,000 in a Christian church parking lot, you know that church is full of hypocrits...there's an interesting assignment for you folks on Sunday. Let me know the results at your church, ok?

Argumentum ad lazarum

In other words, if you were using the above as part of an argument, you would be committing the above argument flaw. The logic is the same, argument or not. It assumes that for a person to be rightious and virtuous, they cannot be wealthy. This is no more correct than assuming a person is more virtuous, because they are poor.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
You can judge someone alright...by the principles they claim for themselves. Any 'Christian' who is also a billionaire isn't a Christian, by the laws spelled out by their own Bible.

Considering that the bible has more than one interpretation, then by many you are incorrect. Solomen was rich, yet considered a favored of god.

[Zero]

Originally posted by radagast
Considering that the bible has more than one interpretation, then by many you are incorrect. Solomen was rich, yet considered a favored of god. Uh huh...but you hear how the word of Jesus is absolute...ah, bugger it, it is religion, and never made sense to me anyways.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
You can judge someone alright...by the principles they claim for themselves. Any 'Christian' who is also a billionaire isn't a Christian, by the laws spelled out by their own Bible.

I agree you can judge someone by how closely they stand to their professed principles. I think I know what turns you off about religion, and I feel exactly the same way. I almost despise religion in fact because I think religion has created most of the world's atheists.

The problem is, you and many others think Christianity or Buddhism or Islam . . . actually represents Jesus, the Buddha, Mohammed, etc. I strongly disagree.

Take this instance of poverty we are discussing . . . well, I believe Jesus' words were directed specifically at people he was inviting to follow him full time . . . to join him practicing inwardness every day and all day. This is the same way the Buddha set things up with his Sangha (by the way, many believe Jesus was taught inwardness in India). One didn't have to join the Sangha's monastic life of poverty and celebacy in order to be taught by the Buddha, one could still be what is called a "householder." So to translate Jesus' poverty standard into a rule for householders is a misinterpretation of what Jesus was doing.

I have studied Jesus and other such "enlightened" people for many years, and I am convinced religion does NOT represent them very well (especially Christianity). I am just as convinced we don't understand this human consciousness potential we call "enlightenment" that's been going on for the last 3000 years or so. I think a more fitting context for enlightenment than religion might be to see it as evolution, in this case self-evolution.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
How to feel about being in his position is something each individual would have to ponder according to their own conscious. I can only pretend to be his position, in which case I know that I’d wonder what others, most especially the contributing members, might think about my living so ostentatiously. But whatever I might conclude could still be different than if I actually were in his place. I’d like to know what thoughts, if any, pass through his mind while driving his Silver Seraph past the hordes of homeless people gathered on the sidewalk 8-miles from the castle. Perhaps he sees those unfortunates and is given inspiration for yet another sermon on the need to give…

Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with you about the hypocracy, and the blind following by congregations.

But the hypocracy at least isn't so different from what goes on in all other walks of life. There are plenty of politicians who tell people what they want to hear, and then do whatever they can to stuff their own pockets. American Airline executives preach to employees the need for sacrifices while granting themselves raises and huge bonuses. And so on . . .

I just challenged the logic that I thought I saw in this thread of attributing deceit and greed to religion. It is done in the name of religion, just as some political ripoffs are done in the name of patriotism or some other worthy cause. I don't think religion is the problem, it is the ethics of the people involved.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with you about the hypocracy, and the blind following by congregations.

But the hypocracy at least isn't so different from what goes on in all other walks of life. There are plenty of politicians who tell people what they want to hear, and then do whatever they can to stuff their own pockets. American Airline executives preach to employees the need for sacrifices while granting themselves raises and huge bonuses. And so on . . .

I just challenged the logic that I thought I saw in this thread of attributing deceit and greed to religion. It is done in the name of religion, just as some political ripoffs are done in the name of patriotism or some other worthy cause. I don't think religion is the problem, it is the ethics of the people involved.
Seeing such an extravagant display of wealth made me curious how people contributing to it felt. What the woman thought and what I think are opposite one another. She viewed his wealth as a sign from god he was a righteous man. But I on the other hand would have been more inclined to view him favorably if he were less flashy. To me, the only thing religion had to do with any of this was to determine how people directly involved with the church viewed it in light of their religious convictions.

I belive that ultimately the root cause of problems is with people themselves. I do believe that religion is an opiate, however. That said, I would add I have nothing against the right of people to take whatever drug they please.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
(SNIP) I don't think religion is the problem, it is the ethics of the people involved. (SNoP)
Best answer I have heard in a looooong time, most accurate!

[Royce]

Ever hear the Ray Stevens song "Would Jesus wear a Rollex" if he came back and was On TV like these evangelist today. Goes on to say they say to send your money to Jesus but the alway give their own address.

[drag]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
I truly believe this. Judaism, Christianity (in its many forms) and the Islamic religion have brought more pain and suffering than benefit to humanity.

These religions all share a common design. They are all structured so as to control the masses by the fear punishment and the promise of reward. Seriously, let's look at their common elements.

- They all use the tactic of monotheism. They all say that there is only one God, and it is a sin to even think about questioning the ways of God.

- They all employ the use of sin. They control the behavior of the people by asserting that certain actions are inherently bad, and if one commits such actions the omnicient God will know about it.

- They all say that their dogma is the solemn word of God, and it is to be followed without question.

- They all use the concept of eternal damnation for the infidels.

- They all justify transgression against the infidels.

- They all employ the tactic of sexual sin. This tactic is used so as to ensure that every act of sex leads to a pregnancy in a controlled environment (aka a marriage). This is inadvertenty done so as to strengthen the numbers of those practicing the religion. Seriously, most of the long-running successful religions have employed this tactic. It is a mechanism of self-sustainment.

As you can clearly see, nothing in this design will help one find absolute truth. Like I said before, it's all about controlling the masses.

Sometimes, I think that we (of the western society) would have been much better off had the Romans never invaded the northern parts of Europe and brought with them their civilized religion of Christianity. It might be true that paganism would have kept civilization under a more tribal way of life, but who is to say that this is indeed true?

Sometimes, I wonder if it would be more tradtional for us of European descent, to respect the pantheistic gods of our distant ancestors on holidays rather than the younger, middle eastern God that we still honor today.
Maybe you're right, but the range of other possibilities
is also great so we'll never know, I guess.

Anyway, these religions caused many other things including
construction of new world orders and advanced civilizations
throughout history. Abviously, historical issues aspecialy
something as huge and as fundumental an issue as this one can not
be oversimplified into such a singular point of view.

Live long and prosper.

[Razi Abid]

Hello,
I think that you all have a wrong concept of religion. The worlds finest religions were revealed in the middle east. According to the followers of the middle eastern religions, God specified his prophets to this area as these areas were the ones which were filled with numerous sinns. Religion is a social term. The religion keeps one man away from sinns and makes his/her social life more civilized. But i agree that the modern society has changed the meaning of religion, which is that 'Religion is a thing which keeps one self in restrictions and limitations'. This concept of religion is totally wrong. I say that the middle-eastern religions are not seperated or different, as they teach the same philosophy, 'The oneness of God'. The difference is (with repect to the three main middle-eastern religion) that Judaism is old, christianity is a bit old, and Islam is modern. All the three religion teach the same thing and regard peace as there core (I agree that the modern muslims have changed this concept, but Islam is a religion of peace too). But by giving this logic, i don't mean that one should follow any of the three religions. One must follow the most modern religion, as it gives laws and logics to modern problem. Thus today, all those religions which teach monotheism must follow Islam, and still i have a logic behind this. God Almighty would have made all the inhabitants of the world believe in himself if he had willed, but he did't as he wanted the human beings to know the philosophy of God by themselves. But to explain why one God did'nt do such things, one must go back to the history, that why God sent man to Earth, which is clearly written in the Bible and the Quran (thats why i don't have to explain such things). According to the major monotheist religions, God sent about 1,24,000 prophets to promote the concept of God. Every Prophet came to this planet and preached the same thing. Adam was the first prophet of God, and indeed the first man, he guided the early man to this concept, but people slowly began to go in darkness, and forget about the previous teachings of the prophets, thus God sent more prophets to revive the teachings. But this series was just the slow expansion of the principles of the New Religion. Thus then came Moses, in the Middle East, and revived the teachings of the previous prophets, and helped the Jews.At that time half the religion of God was completed, but the sole followers of Moses, who did'nt believe in any other prophet started to believe in the incomplete religion of God. Then came Jesus who did'nt just revive the teachings of the previous prophets but also promoted the teachings. Jesus Had told in his lifetime that there will be another prophet after him, who will complete the religion of God.Jesus was a totally spiritual person who taught the basics of spirituality. But still the religion of God was incomplete as there were no modern teachings in them but there were just spiritual teachings. The sole followers of Jesus started believing in the incomplete spiritual religion. Then came the last prophet, whose name is believed to be Muhammed. Muhammed was the man who wasn't just spiritual, but he was also leant towards the world too. He introduced the name to the religion of God which was followed by the teachings of previous prophets, which he named Islam. Thus this was and is the religion which is the the most modern of all, and this is the reason that it justifies solutions to all modern problems which arise. It is not that the muslims do not believe in the previous prophets e.g Jesus, Moses. They believe in them, but they do not believe them as the only prophets, but they believe Muhammed as the last prophet. They also believe in the previous books for example the bible, but they believe the previous books to be old, and the Quran to be the modern book. They respect all the other prophets and the other books. Ok, now i have cleared the universality of the religion of God. Now to explain that the middle eastern religions were not so called a 'cancer' to the society. They teach the right thing. The concept of heaven or hell is the concept which restricts a believer to do sinnful activities, as one will have the fear of going to hell. I agree that islam taught the concept of fighting against those who fight against you, but the muslims have totally corrupted this concept, by acting in terrorist activities. But Islam preaches peace. Thus to conclude, i must say that the middle-eastern religions are blessing to the society or else the whole world would hae been indulged in sinns and other activities, and secondly one must follow the modern religion Islam, as it is not a new religion but just the completion of the reliion preached by the previous prophets.
Still if any question arises contact me and i will answer them with logics
best regards, Razi :smile:

[12345]

^ good point about religion. but does not mean Islam amd Judaism teach the 'right thing'. it depends on the person, and what beliefs they have. i am a Hindu and respect every single religion on this earth. But I hate when people always think every muslim is a terrorist. Since religion has started, people have tarnished the message 'God' is giving. Our undersatnding of the modern definition of religion has led us to rage war against each other than rather living in peace.
But I have to agree Chirstianity, Islam, Sikhism, and Judaism all are very strict, and very religious compared to the rest of the others.

[Razi Abid]

Hello 12345,
I like your response. Sorry, that i didn't refer to Hinduism in my article.
In my opinion Hinduism is too, a religion of God. I referred the old religions as only Judaism and Christianity, but Hinduism is also in the category of Christianity and Judaism. But to justify that Hinduism is in this category, i must have to explain a lot. So just visit the following link, which is infact written by a muslim scholar of India, But he wrote it in favour of Hinduism, infact it is the comparison between Hinduism and Islam. Please check it out, it is quiet logical.
http://www.irf.net/irf/comparativereligion/index.htm
(just click Hinduism on the right panel)
Best regards,
Razi :smile:

[12345]

^ thank you very much,
though Hinduism is not a creed. From your username, you seem the follow Islam. I have a question about the Islamic people. Are they anti-hindus? And if you don't mind me asking what nationality you are?
Thanks.

[Razi Abid]

referring to you again Mr.12345,
Well you are right, i am a muslim and a sole follower of Islam. But i believe in peace and tranquality, and our religions core is peace and tranquality. You asked for my origin, well my nationality is pakistani, but nowadays i am living in Russia, for some atomic energy works. You also asked that whether Muslims are anti-Hindu or not. I say 'NO'. Look there are many kinds of muslims living in the society. Some of the muslims (whom i regard as terrorists) mistakenly understood the Holy Quran. The holy Quran is a universal book, which asks us to ' Kill any non-muslim present', but this phrase in the Quran does'nt mean to kill all the non-muslims, but the following verse was infact specifying itself to a particular time, ok let me explain this particular time. During when Our Prophet Muhammed announced that he was the last prophet of God, he faced a lot of opposition. Due to the opposition he migrated to a city called 'Madineh'. In this city there were many hypocrites and oppositions were also present in that city, so GOD specified this verse for that situation, not the present. So i say, those muslims who take this phrase in todays situation are anti-hindus, but in my opinion these people are just about 5% of the whole muslim community. Islam teaches great concepts of humanity, which is that all religions and its followers must be respected (although, yes it asks muslims to try to convert the non-muslims in to muslims). Yes one thing is clear. If you have read the link which i sent you, then i just want to say about Hinduism, that they must UPGRADE their religion.
Now i have justified your answers, but there are confusions in my mind too. 1.WHY DO HINDUS PRACTICE POLYTHEISM (i.e.belief in many God).
2.(I have an Hindu friend here in Russia he narrated me a story in which your gods were fighting)WHY DO HINDUS BELIEVE IN THOSE GODS WHICH FIGHT BETWEEN THEMSELVES (as in my opinion a GOD is a totally spiritual being)?
Please relief me from these confusions.
Best regards,
Razi :smile:

[StonedPanda]

I will discuss Judaism, as this is what I know best of the three.

- They all use the concept of eternal damnation for the infidels.

Completely wrong. In fact, (a) non-Jews have an easier time living than Jews -- they need to follow less laws (b) Prosletyzing is STRICTLY forbidden in the Jewish religion.

- They all justify transgression against the infidels.

No. Every person must be treated respectfully.

Entropy: you take a very cynical view of religion and you also assume that it was created by humans. Here, allow me to show you the contributions of the Jews: http://www.arc-hq.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=228075#228075

Please please look at what the user Munch wrote.

the highly "fundamentalist" school of Rabbi Shammai was reputed to hold with eternal rewards and punishments.

No Jew knows what happens in the world to come. Shammai was not "fundamentalist." He was more conservative than the other major school at the time -- the school of Hillel. But that's like calling Libertarians fundamentalists!

I believe that hell is mentioned several times throughout the Old Testament.

Hell is something that Christians made up. It is not found in the Old Testament.

[Janitor]

Interesting link, StonedPanda.

You say, "Hell is something that Christians made up. It is not found in the Old Testament."

I am no religion scholar, but I thought I had heard that the concept of hell was developed by Jewish people in the centuries between the writing of the last Old Testament book and the time of Jesus. In fact, the original name for hell supposedly comes from the Hebrew word for the burning trash dump in or near Jerusalem. Hell was conceived as a hot place filled with noxious fumes, just like the smoky trash heap. Later on, Christians who had seen the active volcanoes in Italy or Sicily (or at least had heard about them from travelers) turned up the heat by making hell a lake of fire belching sulfur fumes.

[Janitor]

It looks like StonedPanda and I were both wrong in thinking hell does not show up in the Old Testament.

http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/hell.html

This website says the word 'Sheol' occurs 65 times in the Hebrew Bible, and means a place in the depths of the earth.

[olde drunk]

quickie: all religions are flawed because they honor the institution above the individual.

it just happens that man has his roots in the middle east and brung his religions with him as he migrated through the world.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[StonedPanda]

Almost all of the references are in the latter parts of the Old Testament -- specifically those outside of the Torah (the first 5 books of the OT). Whatever the case, that concept of hell is COMPLETELY difference from the eternal damnation lucifer ruled hell that Christians hold by.

Let me look to the hebrew to see exactly what that link talks about:
Ok, after reviewing the Vernacular (and the Stone Edition translation, which is much more accurate than any of the Christian translations) the word that it uses to describe hell described a pit or something low -- not necesarily hell. In fact, some of the references are plainly untrue.

And, for further clarification, NO JEW can claim definitively what happens exactly when we die.

Great discussion guys! =]

[12345]

referring to you again Mr.12345,
Well you are right, i am a muslim and a sole follower of Islam. But i believe in peace and tranquality, and our religions core is peace and tranquality. You asked for my origin, well my nationality is pakistani, but nowadays i am living in Russia, for some atomic energy works. You also asked that whether Muslims are anti-Hindu or not. I say 'NO'. Look there are many kinds of muslims living in the society. Some of the muslims (whom i regard as terrorists) mistakenly understood the Holy Quran. The holy Quran is a universal book, which asks us to ' Kill any non-muslim present', but this phrase in the Quran does'nt mean to kill all the non-muslims, but the following verse was infact specifying itself to a particular time, ok let me explain this particular time. During when Our Prophet Muhammed announced that he was the last prophet of God, he faced a lot of opposition. Due to the opposition he migrated to a city called 'Madineh'. In this city there were many hypocrites and oppositions were also present in that city, so GOD specified this verse for that situation, not the present. So i say, those muslims who take this phrase in todays situation are anti-hindus, but in my opinion these people are just about 5% of the whole muslim community. Islam teaches great concepts of humanity, which is that all religions and its followers must be respected (although, yes it asks muslims to try to convert the non-muslims in to muslims). Yes one thing is clear. If you have read the link which i sent you, then i just want to say about Hinduism, that they must UPGRADE their religion.
Now i have justified your answers, but there are confusions in my mind too. 1.WHY DO HINDUS PRACTICE POLYTHEISM (i.e.belief in many God).
2.(I have an Hindu friend here in Russia he narrated me a story in which your gods were fighting)WHY DO HINDUS BELIEVE IN THOSE GODS WHICH FIGHT BETWEEN THEMSELVES (as in my opinion a GOD is a totally spiritual being)?
Please relief me from these confusions.
Best regards,
Razi :smile:

1.Every God in Hinduism has a power. A good example are the three ultimate gods which are Bramha, Vishnu, and Shiv. We believe That each one has a special power.
2. I have no clue what story he told you. If you can tell me the name then all will be cleared up on this subject. It depends.

I also have a question about Islam. What rules do Islam have for women?
No one sould say Islam is horrible to women.....even though I heard many people saying that. That is a total insult to your religion.

P.S. I think terrorists have done Islam harm, not muslims in general.

[olde drunk]

quickie:
all of the above religions have at their base a teaching of peace and love thy neighbor. what i can not fathom, in this day and age, is how any religion condones violence, terrorism or war.

if we all want to love and be loved, how do these religions justify killing?

i'd rather be an independent believer of our spiritual heritage and not accept violence. there can be NO justification, from a religious standpoint.

it is like censorship, once started where does it end. once you allow violence, for whatever reason, where do you draw a line?

love&peace,
olde drunk

[12345]

ok........now i am confused.

if god is a superpower and does everything 'right' then why do all the religions have violence in their holy texts? The only religion I know that has no violence in it's history is Buddism. correct me if I am wrong.

[dschouten]

12345: "correct me if I am wrong."

its 'buddhism'. you are wrong.

[StonedPanda]

12345, Just because a higher power does violence doesn't make that higher power wrong. In fact, byt almost the definition of a higher power, you can't understand everything that it does.

[Ian]

I thought religious discussion was barred from this forum. In any case the seven pages I have just read through are entertaining. There is one crucial point that no one has touched on;
Religion is man's idea on the word of God, in the same vein as science so called is man's idea on the works of God.
Now, just as there are so many different theories (man's ideas) of physics which all hope to unite as one grand TOE but are yet hostile with respect to each other, the religions (man's ideas again) that men have created all hope to unite in a grand TOE but yet are also hostile toward one another.
However, just as we know that there is a grand design to the universe and its creation there is also the true comprehension of the word of God.

[12345]

In fact, byt almost the definition of a higher power,

exactly how is it the 'definition' of a higher power? :uhh: :confused:

[Smurf]

I don't. Althought your reasoning of upgrades has historical merit, I wouldn't call either an 'upgrade' because both upgrades have caused more violence than the former.
I havn't read the whole thread, but I don't think Judaism has not caused nearly as much suffering as Christianity, or even Islam. If any, in fact, hasn't it been the jews that were on the receiving end of most of this?

[Smurf]

Higher power is a being (aka, something that exists) of a higher or larger awareness and/or existance than humanity.


The details depend on the religion.

[BoulderHead]

The difference is that Judaism is an old religion, its upgrade is Christianity, and Christianity's upgrade is Islam.
WHO AGREES WITH ME
Razi :smile:
The next upgrade involves a waste bin... :devil:

[Entropy]

- They all use the tactic of monotheism. They all say that there is only one God, and it is a sin to even think about questioning the ways of God.

- They all employ the use of sin. They control the behavior of the people by asserting that certain actions are inherently bad, and if one commits such actions the omnicient God will know about it.

- They all say that their dogma is the solemn word of God, and it is to be followed without question.

- They all use the concept of eternal damnation for the infidels.

- They all justify transgression against the infidels.

- They all employ the tactic of sexual sin. This tactic is used so as to ensure that every act of sex leads to a pregnancy in a controlled environment (aka a marriage). This is inadvertenty done so as to strengthen the numbers of those practicing the religion. Seriously, most of the long-running successful religions have employed this tactic. It is a mechanism of self-sustainment.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

- They all employ the use of sin. They control the behavior of the people by asserting that certain actions are inherently bad, and if one commits such actions the omnicient God will know about it.

What is exactly bad about this? Are you saying that any religion or structure of believes with rules are wrong? And establishing the believe in an omnicient being is bad too?

- They all say that their dogma is the solemn word of God, and it is to be followed without question.

This is absolutely untrue. Jesus and his disciples not only thought it was okay to be questioned, they encouraged it! After preaching Jesus often asked people "What do you think of this?"

- They all use the concept of eternal damnation for the infidels.

In Judisms there is no concept of "Hell" and there is no biblical support for eternal pain and suffering for sinners in the Christian Bible.

- They all justify transgression against the infidels.

Not all transgressions are justified in Judism or Islam. According to the Christian Bible (despite what the Church tells you), you are not even suppost to participate in any type of warfare, you are suppost to be a pacifist.

- They all employ the tactic of sexual sin. This tactic is used so as to ensure that every act of sex leads to a pregnancy in a controlled environment (aka a marriage). This is inadvertenty done so as to strengthen the numbers of those practicing the religion. Seriously, most of the long-running successful religions have employed this tactic. It is a mechanism of self-sustainment.

So teaching your children your believes is wrong? What you are saying is that children should be shielded from all opinions until they are old enough to make their own decision? Sorry but this is flat out ridiculous.

[bd1976]

Hello!
I am back religion guys.
But first let me introduce myself, i am Syed Razi Abid Naqvi, a sole muslim. And one from the offsprings of our prophet Muhammed(pbuh), you may identify me by the name 'Syed'. I have actually joined the forum just to make all of you correct. Middle-Eastern religions are the only religions which are correct. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the correct religions.
The difference is that Judaism is an old religion, its upgrade is Christianity, and Christianity's upgrade is Islam.
WHO AGREES WITH ME
Razi

I'll save this forum by being filled with yes/no posts.

The answer to your question is that....

1) There are quite a few muslims who agree with you
2) No one else agrees with you.

I suggest you go to a muslim forum. The people on such a forum might think you are clever at the very least they will agree with you. Continuing to post this sort of opinion will neither make the people in this forum think you are clever nor will they (in the main) agree with you.