Are Middle Eastern Religions Harmful to Society?

[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.

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 believe 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]

Wrong concept of religion

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 separated 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

 

[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]

Another justification

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)

Razi

 

[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 doesn't 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 into 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.

Razi

 

[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]

Pardon me.

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 doesn't 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 into 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.

Razi

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.