Is Religion A Problem? The Superior's Evil War On Faith

[Xemmy]

Jesus NEVER advocated violence in any of his teachings. None of them. What Ive discussed, and stated repeatedly, is that when Jesus came, it was to abolish the horrific teachings of the Old Testament. He stopped the Pharisees from stoning a woman due to adultery by asking them to examine their own sins. Isn't that something we can agree on?

Um, yeah, did you not catch that part in what I was saying? Jesus was a great rolemodel. Doesn't mean the rest of the book is a shiny golden bit of virtue. If all Christians did was read the Gospels, I think that'd be great. But they don't. They still read the old testament and take from it. Even if they're not suppose to in your opinion.

As for the ten Commandments, can u explain to me what makes them so offensive? I think they would be wonderfully APPLICABLE to today's society. Some examples.

1. I said the laws given directly AFTER the ten commandments.

2. So not swearing and not making statues to other Gods should be put before Rape and Child abuse? Please. Out of the ten, only three of them are laws.

"Honor your father and mother. Do not steal. Don't covet your neighbor's wife or commit adultery. Do not commit murder. Do not make false statements against your neighbor."

Honoring your father and mother are questionable. There are plenty that don't deserve it. Might I add that God goes on to say that children that don't should be stoned to death later. Coveting thy neighbor's wife, while probably not a good idea, shouldn't be a sin. Got nothing against any of them though. Never said I did. I said WHAT GOD GIVES MOSES AFTER THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. God doesn't just stop at those, he give Moses a long list of practices. Try reading it sometime. It's halarious if you have a sick sense of humor.

I see NOTHING offensive whatsoever about those man, sorry. Can you explain to me how those are in any way downright offensive? I disagree with you man, sorry. What would be the problem of applying ANY of those aspects to our lives, religious or not? .

Never said the big Ten were offensive.

As I stated earlier, my beliefs reside within the practices of the New Testament, not the Q'Ran, or what the Muslims believe. Going back to your original question, I believe that religion is not the problem, people are. Who wrote the Q'Ran? People. People have faults, flaws, and misinterpet things all the time. Religion is NOT the problem in my mind man..

Um, so yeah people are bad. Bad people wrote the holy books. People follow them and use that as there moral guidline. Doesn't mean that the monsterousities inside get a free pass. I don't care what your personal belief is. BTW, one man wrote the Quran. One man created the religion. He wrote down specific laws and practices. When people think Holy Books It's not like the Bible, written by many men and full of vauge analogies that people can twist, and even then why is good for them to be there to twist. Religion is a problem because it makes a virtue out of not thinking. George Bush prayed alot about Iraq, but he didn't learn alot about it did he?

It's people. Flawed humans who make egregious mistakes and try to hide behind religion. Religion, and more importantly, a relationship with a higher being is not the probem. We ALL misinterpret and make mistakes. Some worse then others. Its what makes us human. Religion is not the problem.

Yes, flawed humans indeed. Which is why I find the analogy "Humans without Religion is kind of like a Serial Killer without the chainsaw. You act as if the holy books are perfect and that none of them give out commands that are vile like "Kill the Infedels" or "Though Shall Not Suffer A Witch To Live". Those aren't misinterpreted, and Jesus never washed away that command in the eyes of most Christians because he never brought it up. The reason people still have a problem with homosexual today in America is because Paul brought his opinion on it up, and since he decided they were still bad, people are still allowed to hate.

When a book calls itself the infallible word of God, people tend to obey it's commands. If it contains commands that are monsterous, even if only found in tiniest corners of the book people will use it to justify their hate because they are looking for something to hate. When they can justify it as the word of God, their is no real way to prove them wrong. In the end it gives people who are looking for a reason to hate the ULTIMATE reason to hate. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions, limitations and agendas. Yes, Mankind is a monster, but that doesn't give religion innocence.

 

[Xemmy]

I agree that circumcision is wrong and I personally shudder at the thought of it. But for whatever reason, its LEGAL in the United States. Im not talking about Israel, Iran, Iraq, or the United Arab Emarites. Its legal in the United States for some reason. How can you blame that on religion?

Um....Because Religious tradition is what supposedly makes it ok? Jewish tradition?

Theres nothing good about killing, or death in the NAME of religion. The fact that 1 person has lost their life in the name of religion appals me. I dont believe for one minute that is the way it was meant to be practiced. That God intended men to behave that way. That the way religion was meant to be practiced was in any way, indicative of killing. But it was men, flesh and blood, who committed those attrocities. Its even worse, and sadder, that it was done in the name of religion, because I dont believe thats the way it was meant to be. But religion, its only a tool. Its men, and women, that make choices, both good and evil.

Well this is where different World views come in. I don't think God exists at all. I know it was man that committed those attrocities. It's horrible. We know that. But religion is not just a tool. A tool is something man can create and manipulate. Very true with Religion. However this tool through the guise of God, manipulates more men than men have ever been able to manipulate it.

 

[Xemmy]

I know what your point is, and I refute it, or more accurately amend/edit it. A firearm is powerful, fear inducing, give a sense of protection etc. just by it's very nature. While ideology, media, and other people certainly have sway, the object and it's innate capability have influence all on it's own.

I respectfully disagree. I already stated why.

Nor would it be thought of as a negative. Which was my point, neutrality. Again, religion is a tool, and in that sense nothing more, nothing less. It can be used for good and evil.

Catalyst and tool. You're right, it can and IS used for both good and evil, but when so much of the justification for both is nonsense. When the good is so easy to do without, and the bad is so hard to justify without it's presence, you wonder why it should exist.

 

[Xemmy]

EVERYTHING you quoted was from the Old Testament man. I see where you'rre coming from, I really do. But the New Testament was a completely different story.

I've made my point on the rest, but.....Christianity isn't the only religion.
Orthadox Jews still exist.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I am not a particularily religious person but I do feel that religon is important. Without religon we might just all be savages. See each religon has laid down a set of rules for you to follow. If you check most of the books holy to the respective religons you will find that a lot of those books state the exact same thing. Most religons have the same ideals.

A man with a strong will power might be able to govern his life within a set of rules. But the average person will not be able to do so unless he has a rulebook to follow. His religon serves as his rulebook. Unless and until there is a commandment which tells him to lead his life in a particular way, he might just go astray and do whatever he feels like.

As for religious wars, I feel that these people have an agenda of their own. Religon is their catalyst to brainwash the weak-minded people who carry out their actions.

So in short I do believe religon does more good than bad. It helps the average person maintain his sanity

 

[It's Damn Real!]

This is precisely what I'm saying.

Well, we couldn't' possibly disagree more, then. Religion is the largest contributor to all of the above whether directly or indirectly — without it, we'd be much better off as far as I'm concerned.

All right, man, you are generalizing from one geographical region to the whole world.

Doesn't matter — the dominant religion in any region is the dominant religion in any region. Over 80% of the United States belongs to some sect of the Judeo-Christian denomination — is it any wonder that 60% of the nation also believes in the rapture, or that Noah's ark was a literal interpretation of events that transcribed thousands of years ago, or that a large percentage believe that all of mankind was actually descended from two single human beings?

If the answer to any of those is yes, how can the answer to how these folks (of a religiously dominant region) could commit atrocities their very religion commands they should be any different?

They call this a paradox.

This might be the case, but, where it's most prevalent, I seriously doubt this cultural tradition comes from one of the monotheistic religions you're condemning.

It's a direct result of it.

…why are we debating circumcision now? When did circumcision become evil? I am very, VERY confident that genital mutilation, that is, the type that intentionally makes sex extremely discomforting, is extremely rare in the US.

Because it's genital mutilation. I suppose the fact the vagina is sewn shut (with only a small hole left for menstrual passage) in the Middle East is purely cultural too, though, right? Sure couldn't' have anything to do with the fact that Islam views women as less than men and that it condones their rape and and social captivity, right?

Of course, your argument here could possibly work if you focused on all religions instead of just the Abrahamic ones (I'll give you female genital mutilation being something mandated by Islamic scripture, but that doesn't explain away FGM's prevalence in non-Islamic African nations).

I said earlier I would only focus on the Abrahamic ones, because they are the only ones that truly matter. They are the only ones consistently scrutinized, and with good reason — they are the only ones committing social and cultural atrocities. You show me the Buddhist who mutilates his child's genitals and we'll talk.

I won't get into the tribalistic religions and sub-religions of Africa here, though I will point to the fact that a number of them are heavily influenced by Christianity, which was brought to many of their nations/regions by force.

This is just flat-out wrong. As I said already, I took Xenmas's source on religious death tolls, added up all of the liberal estimates, and came up with a number that's less than the liberal estimates for the death tolls of both World Wars. I think it's also noteworthy that the religious estimate spanned over approximately 1000 years...the combined length of both World Wars was only 10 years.

You could be right, and I'd concede that to you in the case you were, but that still doesn't justify the intolerance, the hatred and the thousands of years worth of oppression that religion is still the largest reason for — all of which are mandated by their founding texts.

 

[LigerBomb]

I respectfully disagree. I already stated why.

Which is your right to do. However I just fail see how you could logically come to such a conclusion. Simply put, knowledge is power. Imagine walking around in this very unpredictable world with the knowledge that you have the power of a firearm by your side. That knowledge and power will change you –for better or worse. In fact, you yourself say "people under the guise of faith gain power, which they tend to abuse because that's what people with power tend to do". I therefore submit to you that if your replace faith in religion with faith in the stopping force and presumed protection of firearms—aka firepower—you will see that guns do indeed have the ability and power to perhaps influence and alter behaviour; and in turn that power can easily be abused because that's what people with power tend to do…

Catalyst and tool. You're right, it can and IS used for both good and evil, but when so much of the justification for both is nonsense. When the good is so easy to do without, and the bad is so hard to justify without it's presence, you wonder why it should exist.

You say that it is so easy to do without but human history isn't on your side. Culturally speaking humanity while still comparatively young in it's existence has almost always been spiritual and faithful to some degree. Call it faith, call it superstition, call it fear what have you, but it's practically impossible to say that humanity as a whole—and on a continued large scale basis—can do these good works w/o a faith in something. That, in fact, has been the plague of a few schools of thought with regards to the nature of man, his atavistic survival instinct—which more often than not goes against acts of moral "good". Instead favoring selfishness and greed—and the philosophy of morality in general. Understand that I'm not outright refuting your claim but rather saying there hasn't been enough time to prove it's merit either, and that only time will tell (but I am rooting for your theory). As for the bad done in religion's and faith's name, again it's a tenuous argument at best. Similar searching for justification is a fruitless effort if there ever was one. Religion has been a tool of influence to match human agenda. You can paint religion in the role of scape goat but again, one must realize that it's has been man's improper action in the name of religion that has lead to such bad.

 

[Xemmy]

Which is your right to do. However I just fail see how you could logically come to such a conclusion. Simply put, knowledge is power. Imagine walking around in this very unpredictable world with the knowledge that you have the power of a firearm by your side. That knowledge and power will change you –for better or worse. In fact, you yourself say "people under the guise of faith gain power, which they tend to abuse because that's what people with power tend to do". I therefore submit to you that if your replace faith in religion with faith in the stopping force and presumed protection of firearms—aka firepower—you will see that guns do indeed have the ability and power to perhaps influence and alter behaviour; and in turn that power can easily be abused because that's what people with power tend to do…

You say that it is so easy to do without but human history isn't on your side. Culturally speaking humanity while still comparatively young in it's existence has almost always been spiritual and faithful to some degree. Call it faith, call it superstition, call it fear what have you, but it's practically impossible to say that humanity as a whole—and on a continued large scale basis—can do these good works w/o a faith in something. That, in fact, has been the plague of a few schools of thought with regards to the nature of man, his atavistic survival instinct—which more often than not goes against acts of moral "good". Instead favoring selfishness and greed—and the philosophy of morality in general. Understand that I'm not outright refuting your claim but rather saying there hasn't been enough time to prove it's merit either, and that only time will tell (but I am rooting for your theory). As for the bad done in religion's and faith's name, again it's a tenuous argument at best. Similar searching for justification is a fruitless effort if there ever was one. Religion has been a tool of influence to match human agenda. You can paint religion in the role of scape goat but again, one must realize that it's has been man's improper action in the name of religion that has lead to such bad.

As much power as a gun gives you, it usually isn't something that you have placed in your hand. You know the power of a gun whether or not you have it. It's just simply not influencing you. It's a tool for you to manipulate. The knowledge that you have a powerful tool in your hand may alter your thinking I suppose. I'll submit that. However the difference between the gun and religion is that the gun doesn't command you. I said it before, the gun doesn't say "Shoot Me!". For example, having a gun in my hand doesn't make me want to shoot someone anymore or anyless. It just means I've got a little firepower. Religion via the holy books give out direct commands. "Kill the infidels." comes to mind. Or ""If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed." Religion demands death. A gun does not. With all it's power, a gun still isn't a match for the power of an almighty God.

Religion was created to answer the questions we at the time couldn't answer.
All myths start that way. Simply to explain a phenomenon. Now although humans are inheritly selfish for survival, that only means that they usually will favor singular survival. However the Selfish Gene isn't a one trick pony. It acts to keep the human genes alive itself. Even if it involves actions that don't benefit the individual. Why do people give to charity to others half-way around the world, knowing they will never see a smigen of thanks? It doesn't take religion for that. Which is why even in secular societies that have a majority of atheists and agnostics (Japan, U.K, Germany, Switzerland) still do just fine. If human beings ever needed religion, they no longer need it in this modern society.

Frankenstein created a monster. The monster took on a will of it's own, and imposed that will. Our monster may not be sewn from body parts. It may not be alive, but it does have will. That will is found on the pages of the best selling books in history. And people believe them because they're indoctrinated to do so. That sounds like a ridiculous analogy, but I'm going to go ahead and go with it.

 

[LSN80]

Originally posted by Xemnas
Um, yeah, did you not catch that part in what I was saying? Jesus was a great rolemodel. Doesn't mean the rest of the book is a shiny golden bit of virtue. If all Christians did was read the Gospels, I think that'd be great. But they don't. They still read the old testament and take from it. Even if they're not suppose to in your opinion.

I caught that part completely. But you point to specific passages and dont look at the ones around them as to WHY certain laws were set down IN THEIR TIME. I never said they were applicable to the here and now. Nor do I believe, as you seemingly do, that most Christians believe, let alone practice, the art of stoning to death those that are deemed out of control. Im pretty sure the courts handle that now. The reason God handed laws down to Moses the way he did was because the people were OUT OF CONTROL. They were killing each other over petty quarrels, stealing each others wifes, children, property. Might equals right ruled the day. So God, according to the Bible, set out a list of rules applicable to THAT CULTURE to follow.

Many of the Laws(such as Leviticus 19) set out laws about fairly paying your workers, not pimping out your daughter, not spreading slander, and not seeking personal revenge against those who wronged you, rather letting the courts handle it. All applicable. Some that aren't involve not wearing clothes of two types of material, waiting 3 years to eat from the fruit of a tree you planted, or not getting tattoos. Are you really saying that you believe people don't understand and apply the difference between the two?

Originally posted by Xemnas
1. I said the laws given directly AFTER the ten commandments.

Thats my bad. Again though, its about context. some of those laws were quite applicable to the chaotic society the Israelites lived in after breaking free from Egyptian control.

Originally posted by Xemnas
2. So not swearing and not making statues to other Gods should be put before Rape and Child abuse? Please. Out of the ten, only three of them are laws.

When did I say that? I said they were good things to be applied to today, not the basis for which we should all live our lives.

Originally posted by Xemnas
Honoring your father and mother are questionable. There are plenty that don't deserve it. Might I add that God goes on to say that children that don't should be stoned to death later. Coveting thy neighbor's wife, while probably not a good idea, shouldn't be a sin. Got nothing against any of them though. Never said I did. I said WHAT GOD GIVES MOSES AFTER THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. God doesn't just stop at those, he give Moses a long list of practices. Try reading it sometime. It's halarious if you have a sick sense of humor.

You said that once already. I got it. And as for honoring one's father and mother, as long as it's within the bounds of the law, why shouldnt you show respect to them? Have you read the promise that comes after honoring ones father and mother? It promises you a LONG PROSPEROUS LIFE. And Ive read the laws that follow them. I pointed them out as being Leviticus 19, and told you why they were put into practice. Some apply now, some absolutely do not.

Originally posted by Xemnas
Never said the big Ten were offensive.

I get that, youlve said it THREE times now.

Originally posted by Xemnas
Um, so yeah people are bad. Bad people wrote the holy books. People follow them and use that as there moral guidline. Doesn't mean that the monsterousities inside get a free pass.

But the point is, its not God, or religion, that choose to commit monstrous acts in the name of religion. I liked your earlier point about it being laughable. Your absolutely 100% correct. I believe most Christians, except for extremists, see that. And I wouldn't consider those people to be true Christians, or religious, because they would understand that their actions aren't condoned by God, or His Book.

Originally posted by Xemnas
I don't care what your personal belief is. BTW, one man wrote the Quran. One man created the religion. He wrote down specific laws and practices. When people think Holy Books It's not like the Bible, written by many men and full of vauge analogies that people can twist, and even then why is good for them to be there to twist. Religion is a problem because it makes a virtue out of not thinking. George Bush prayed alot about Iraq, but he didn't learn alot about it did he?

Im not as schooled in the Quran nor do i believe in the practices they advocate within it. I don't understand how you can say religion can make a virtue out of "not thinking", when thats exactly what most sermons Ive heard have left me doing: thinking, considering, deciding on what I believe. Again, men may teach a religion, and it may come from a book, but its still based upon personal choice, and free will.

Originally posted by Xemnas
Yes, flawed humans indeed. Which is why I find the analogy "Humans without Religion is kind of like a Serial Killer without the chainsaw. You act as if the holy books are perfect and that none of them give out commands that are vile like "Kill the Infedels" or "Though Shall Not Suffer A Witch To Live". Those aren't misinterpreted, and Jesus never washed away that command in the eyes of most Christians because he never brought it up. The reason people still have a problem with homosexual today in America is because Paul brought his opinion on it up, and since he decided they were still bad, people are still allowed to hate.

I NEVER said that I felt the Holy Books were infallable. The big whole I find in your logic on people still hating homosexuals because of Paul's take on it is that Paul said homosexuals wouldn't enter the Kingdom of Heaven.(1 Corinthians 6:9) He NEVER advocated people hating homosexuals, nor did he make a statement expressing hate toward homosexuals. It's people that have twisted this and in turn taken statements saying "homosexuality is wrong" and turned it into hatred toward homosexuality. Theres a huge difference between what was said and what people do. How is that the fault of Paul, The Bible, or religion? If you really think Paul was giving people a reason to hate, why did he write an entire chapter(1 Corinthians 13) on love, and it being the "most excellent way?"

Originally posted by Xemnas
When a book calls itself the infallible word of God, people tend to obey it's commands. If it contains commands that are monsterous, even if only found in tiniest corners of the book people will use it to justify their hate because they are looking for something to hate. When they can justify it as the word of God,
their is no real way to prove them wrong. In the end it gives people who are looking for a reason to hate the ULTIMATE reason to hate.

But its what you said in the end that is really the point. It's people LOOKING for a reason to hate. So they take things out of context, misinterpret time frames(which the Old Testament lays out WELL), and grossly exaggerating what they here. are there specific sects, churches, and groups that do this? Sure. Religion in and of itself is flawed in that PEOPLE are the ones who practice it. And you're absolutely right, there are people who are looking for reasons to hate, but put the blame where it belongs, on those people, not the OVERALL religion, or religion in general.

Originally posted by Xemnas
Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions, limitations and agendas. Yes, Mankind is a monster, but that doesn't give religion innocence.

People are the ones that are dangerous. Religion is only a tool, as are it's books. When people make the conscientious choice to take something and twist it, that's on them. And again, if those people believe that they are receving all the answers from religion, they're misguided, because Jesus specifically states that there are certain things that people will "never be able to understand". So, as you said, people do fill their voids with their own corruption, limitations, and agendas. Even if they do so IN THE NAME of religion, their mistaken, and blaming religion in converse is just as much of a mistake.

 

[Xemmy]

I caught that part completely. But you point to specific passages and dont look at the ones around them as to WHY certain laws were set down IN THEIR TIME. I never said they were applicable to the here and now. Nor do I believe, as you seemingly do, that most Christians believe, let alone practice, the art of stoning to death those that are deemed out of control. Im pretty sure the courts handle that now. The reason God handed laws down to Moses the way he did was because the people were OUT OF CONTROL. They were killing each other over petty quarrels, stealing each others wifes, children, property. Might equals right ruled the day. So God, according to the Bible, set out a list of rules applicable to THAT CULTURE to follow.

Um, you don't kill people for having sex. Just because someone is "out of control" doesn't mean your holy book should promote slavery, and execution for things like homosexuality, disobediant children, and adultery. Fuck culture. Those things aren't justification.

Many of the Laws(such as Leviticus 19) set out laws about fairly paying your workers, not pimping out your daughter, not spreading slander, and not seeking personal revenge against those who wronged you, rather letting the courts handle it. All applicable. Some that aren't involve not wearing clothes of two types of material, waiting 3 years to eat from the fruit of a tree you planted, or not getting tattoos. Are you really saying that you believe people don't understand and apply the difference between the two?

The old testament in that same are of the book promotes selling your daughter into slavery, slavery itself. My point is that yes, I apply the difference between the two. OTHERS DO NOT. Other people believe that is the INFALLIBLE LITERAL WORD OF GOD. Why? Because it says so, and they were raised to believe it.

Thats my bad. Again though, its about context. some of those laws were quite applicable to the chaotic society the Israelites lived in after breaking free from Egyptian control.

Context, Context, Context. I hate hearing that word because it's gotten stupid. ANYTHING BAD in the bible always seems to be taken out of context when I'm talking to christians. And I'm glad you pointed out that only SOME of those laws were applicable. Plenty of them weren't.

When did I say that? I said they were good things to be applied to today, not the basis for which we should all live our lives.

You didn't. I were praising the big ten, and I pointed out a big flaw.

You said that once already. I got it. And as for honoring one's father and mother, as long as it's within the bounds of the law, why shouldnt you show respect to them? Have you read the promise that comes after honoring ones father and mother? It promises you a LONG PROSPEROUS LIFE. And Ive read the laws that follow them. I pointed them out as being Leviticus 19, and told you why they were put into practice. Some apply now, some absolutely do not.

Well that's a broken promise isn't it? Plenty of those that respect mommy and daddy die early enough. Anyways, I made my point. Not every mom and dad deserve respect. We know why. And my argument is that many of those laws should Have NEVER been applicable with any society because they were monsterous. Respecting the sabbath was punishable by death until JC came along......that's fucked up, and in no way should have every been law. But it was, because people took a holy book seriously.

I get that, youlve said it THREE times now.

You kept bringing it up, and I had to address it repeatedly.

But the point is, its not God, or religion, that choose to commit monstrous acts in the name of religion. I liked your earlier point about it being laughable. Your absolutely 100% correct. I believe most Christians, except for extremists, see that.

Your right. God doesn't exist.
And your right religion doesn't make a choice to commit monstrous acts. It demands them to be done through direct commands. Like in the Old Testament and Quran. Whether or follow those holy books or not, others still do. Others still take there morals from them because they're presented as God's word. And they're such poor source of morals....it's a shame. I wish they didn't exist.

Im not as schooled in the Quran nor do i believe in the practices they advocate within it. I don't understand how you can say religion can make a virtue out of "not thinking", when thats exactly what most sermons Ive heard have left me doing: thinking, considering, deciding on what I believe. Again, men may teach a religion, and it may come from a book, but its still based upon personal choice, and free will.

You should check up on it sometimes. It's even more offensive that the old testament. And I've already said it once, but

Faith makes a virtue out of not thinking because that's what the word means. Faith means believing something for which there is no evidence for. I could tell you that I have faith that there is an invisible spaggetti monster in the sky. It's nothing to brag about, because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas.

If you belonged to a political party or any social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers.

Because religion is drilled in at such a young age, when you are so defensless, I'll go ahead and say that it's not free will. At least not completely If you are raised to believe that gays are an abomination (as many are) then chances are you'll believe that for the rest of your life if you're ignorant enough, or sheltered enough. Not everyone has the potential to be a skeptic. Not everyone is born with the genetic luck of being above average intelligence, and religion takes advantage of that glaring invulnerablity. When I say religion, I'm not talking about God. Perhaps I need to make that a little more clear. Religion is one giant club filled with about 5 billion people. Some of them extremists, Some of them mafia wifes.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Xemmy]

But the point is, its not God, or religion, that choose to commit monstrous acts in the name of religion. I liked your earlier point about it being laughable. Your absolutely 100% correct. I believe most Christians, except for extremists, see that. And I wouldn't consider those people to be true Christians, or religious, because they would understand that their actions aren't condoned by God, or His Book.

Um, Yeah. YOU wouldn't consider them to be true Christians. They wouldn't consider YOU a true Christian. That's one of those things about religious sects. They think that the book does condone their action.

I NEVER said that I felt the Holy Books were infallable. The big whole I find in your logic on people still hating homosexuals because of Paul's take on it is that Paul said homosexuals wouldn't enter the Kingdom of Heaven.(1 Corinthians 6:9) He NEVER advocated people hating homosexuals, nor did he make a statement expressing hate toward homosexuals. It's people that have twisted this and in turn taken statements saying "homosexuality is wrong" and turned it into hatred toward homosexuality. Theres a huge difference between what was said and what people do. How is that the fault of Paul, The Bible, or religion? If you really think Paul was giving people a reason to hate, why did he write an entire chapter(1 Corinthians 13) on love, and it being the "most excellent way?"

I NEVER said you did. Holy Books are holy books because people believe they are the word of an infallible God. If the God is perfect, so is the book. That's what many people believe in all religions.

As for the homosexuals. THAT is so fucked up. Please look into what your saying more. The earlier part of the book states that homosexuality is a sin, and that those that practice should be killed. Paul in the new testament says it's still wrong, and that they will burn in hell forever for it.

HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT NOT PROMOTE HATE?!
People can promote more than one thing Life...Just because someone advocates love in one moment doesn't mean they can't promote hate in another. Even if Paul didn't do it directly or say "kill them". Saying that a group of people won't get in to heaven is saying that they are inferior because of what they do.

But its what you said in the end that is really the point. It's people LOOKING for a reason to hate. So they take things out of context, misinterpret time frames(which the Old Testament lays out WELL), and grossly exaggerating what they here. are there specific sects, churches, and groups that do this? Sure. Religion in and of itself is flawed in that PEOPLE are the ones who practice it. And you're absolutely right, there are people who are looking for reasons to hate, but put the blame where it belongs, on those people, not the OVERALL religion, or religion in general.

I'd like you to tell me how "Kill the infidel" and "homosexuals will burn in hell" are taken out of context. People look for a reason to hate. DON'T GIVE THEM A REASON TO. Religion gives them the perfect reason to hate, because they don't have to be logical about. God is infallible right? Don't question him!

"God says so, I believe it. End of Story." that's an actual modo!

People are the ones that are dangerous. Religion is only a tool, as are it's books. When people make the conscientious choice to take something and twist it, that's on them. And again, if those people believe that they are receving all the answers from religion, they're misguided, because Jesus specifically states that there are certain things that people will "never be able to understand". So, as you said, people do fill their voids with their own corruption, limitations, and agendas. Even if they do so IN THE NAME of religion, their mistaken, and blaming religion in converse is just as much of a mistake.

People are dangerous. You don't put just a weapon in their hand with religion. You put them in control of a monster. A monster that converts other people to that way of thinking. A monster that indoctrinates children. A monster that promotes hate that is so difficult to promote without it. A hydra with many different heads. I propose to educate the masters, and just incase, cut off all the heads. People aren't simply misguided on their own. Religion is the one that guides them, binds them, and gives them the law of the land. Not everyone is smart enough. When people think something is the word of God, they often don't question it. They often take most or all of their morals from it.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Shoot. It's a shame that I've been busy and away from the forums. Until I can catch up with the conversation, thus far, here are my two cents:

1) Religion, and anything for that matter, is evil when viewed from a certain perspective.
2) Any text, religious or otherwise, can be interpreted as being evil when read from a particular perspective.
3) While there have been murders, rapes, enslavements, etc. in the name of God...the same have been done in the realm of secularity. Nor should the murders, rapes, enslavements, etc. in the name of God have any means of infringing my choice to believe in God or some higher entity, so long as I do not murder, rape, enslave, etc. in the name of God.

Edit: It's Damn Real!...you been reading the new atheists a lot lately? Particularly Sam Harris?

 

[Calderownz]

Is religion a problem? Yes.

I could go through the old argument that more men, women and children have died in the name of God than for anything else. Though it'd be accurate, I won't.

I could over the fact that it's a crutch for weak people who don't have the answers but want to believe they do, in hopes of calming their nerves over certain things. I won't.

I could use a number of arguments that could all be considered; true, accurate, what have you. However, there's only one argument that really matters; it's poisonous.

When you look at that statement, you could think several things. Maybe I'm saying it to be shocking, or different or "cool," but I'm not. I don't think the belief or theory that it's poisonous is shocking when you know the meaning of the word. It might be different, but cool is another story all together.

Definition of poison:

1.
full of or containing poison: poisonous air; a poisonous substance.
2.
harmful; destructive: poisonous to animals; poisonous rumors.
3.
deeply malicious; malevolent: poisonous efforts.

I'm not posting the above to "school" anyone on what the word means, that's why I highlighted important parts of what the word ACTUALLY means.

Now, let's look at religion. Even if you believe in God, or Jesus, or Allah, religion in general, let's look at it this way. Let's say that tomorrow, we all found out that all of it was a myth. Bullshit. Complete rubbish. While I'll be the first to admit that some of what some Bible's teach, is decent enough. The teachings of Jesus, for example, are -- for the most part -- decent enough. Love thy neighbor, be good to others, we're all equals, etc.

However, none of this information was revolutionary in the slightest. Most decent human beings could have pieced this stuff together themselves. Everything else in the Bible either falls into that category or is actually QUITE contradictory.

The Bible's stance of slavery, an eye for an eye, stoning those who do not believe in the same God as you to death, killing your wife for cheating on you. Most everything that the Bible is against, be it minor or major, is usually punishable by death.

You have to ask yourself; if you believe in the Bible the way you are "supposed to," then you have to take it all the same way. Would letting the the Bible run your life be a "problemless" thing to do if it was bullshit? Would the common sense of Jesus be worth everything I just listed? Would it be considered a good thing? Honestly?

The answer should be; no.

If it were fake (and we're still pretending it was proven to be fake), the Bible would be a book of common sense and POISONOUS material. Material set to make you a judgmental person, a murderer and an INdecent person. Of course, you could make the argument that the Bible isn't to be taken literally. But, I'd then have to ask you how you could metaphorically stone someone to death?

You stone then with nuggets of advice and inspirational teachings of the Lord?

Now, of course, we have not proven that the Bible is completely false. But, we pretty much have. Not through disproving methods, simply because there are no facts or legit theories to disprove. No Biblical information that can actually hold enough water to honestly disprove.

So, in my opinion, the Bible and all of it's variations, have been proven to be -- at the very least -- HIGHLY unlikely. Most likely, untrue. And if the Bible is untrue, the majority of it's teachings would have to be considered literal bullshit that is implanted in so many people, young people included, that it continues to spread through generations. And, as I've pointed out, most of it is incredibly harmful. Harmful, deceptive, malevolent information.

POISONOUS information.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

So, in my opinion, the Bible and all of it's variations, have been proven to be -- at the very least -- HIGHLY unlikely. Most likely, untrue. And if the Bible is untrue, the majority of it's teachings would have to be considered literal bullshit that is implanted in so many people, young people included, that it continues to spread through generations. And, as I've pointed out, most of it is incredibly harmful. Harmful, deceptive, malevolent information.

POISONOUS information.

And there are seemingly countless flaws with your argument in this post, but I will begin with the most obvious:

The Bible is NOT a history book, nor was it intended to be interpreted literally.

There are 92347839274 ways of interpreting Scripture, and each will give light to various meanings. Sure, some of these interpretations might be considered "evil" or as you would say "POISONOUS."

But what, I ask you, is poisonous about the text: "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light?" (Matthew 11:30)


Edit: Check that. The Bible isn't MERELY a history book. The Old Testament is clearly a book of history...whether it REALLY occurred is up for debate. It is at the very least a book of historical myth.

 

[Calderownz]

And there are seemingly countless flaws with your argument in this post, but I will begin with the most obvious:

The Bible is NOT a history book, nor was it intended to be interpreted literally.

There are 92347839274 ways of interpreting Scripture, and each will give light to various meanings. Sure, some of these interpretations might be considered "evil" or as you would say "POISONOUS."

But what, I ask you, is poisonous about the text: "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light?" (Matthew 11:30)

Clearly, you're missing the point. I'm not saying every single line in the Bible is poisonous. I clearly stated that Jesus had some very decent things to say. However, the Bible is a book that by it's nature, is a one-and-all. You can't pick and choose. You can't say, "this part is decent, so let's ignore the whole slavery thing."

Yes. I understand that you can interpret the book several different ways. My point is, none of those ways can be considered a good thing when the book has so many evils that it condones.

In what way could someone interpret the act of slavery as a good thing? Or stoning a sinner to death?

I also understand that the Bible is not a history book, however most of the people that live by it would tell you that it's an accurate depiction of the past.

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/18-congregations/92-most-americans-take

Most Americans, for example, take the Bible literally. Believing that the events actually happened. While I understand that it's not a history book, most American's don't.

And I find it odd that you can determine how the Bible was to be interpreted. I didn't know you had a hand in it's authoring.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

And I find it odd that you can determine how the Bible was to be interpreted. I didn't know you had a hand in it's authoring.

Admittedly, my error. The Bible should not be interpreted literally in most cases. It would be silly to think that God created the world twice.

 

[Navi]

I made this thread because I was told that my views on this subject make me the most ignorant person here on WrestleZone. I welcome your opinion.

With all this said- Why is Religion good? What great good has it done for humanity that justifies over 100 million people dying? Do you think Religion is a strong source of science denial and poor education?

I don't think your the most ignorant person here on Wrestlezone. You might not share the same views as other, but that's what makes usl different. Otherwise every thread would be everyone agreeing with everyone else.

My views on religion have changed dramatically over the years. I believe that there is a higher power. Is his name God, or is that just a name we have given him?

When I was little we went to church every Sunday and I attended Sunday School up until I was 12. Too tell you the truth I can't remember learning anything there I didn't already know. We learned about the life of Jesus Christ a man I'm not even sure existed.

People choose religion because they need something to believe in, sometimes it gives their lives meaning, but in saying that, they don't always make the right choice.

The Bible as it stands isn't a guide on how to commit mass murder, it's how people interpret the writing's within. The book itself isn't the problem it's the people who preach and twist the Bible to further their own agenda. Left alone the Bible wouldn't be anything, people give it's words power, and that's the problem today.

It's like anything, guns don't hurt people, people hurt people. A gun sitting on a table is harmless until someone picks it up and pulls the trigger. Now some will say that if they gun wasn't there to begin with then there wouldn't be a problem. But as we are humans and capable of making decisions that affect our lives and though around us, we should be capable of making the right ones. Those decisions should also affect the way we view religion. Most will be able to worship in peace, others will see it as an opportunity to create problems.

People should stop blaming others for what they do and look deep down inside themselves. We're all capable of doing evil acts but those that don't are the brave ones, those that do are the cowards who will blame anything or anyone they can, except themselves.

 

[LigerBomb]

As much power as a gun gives you, it usually isn't something that you have placed in your hand. You know the power of a gun whether or not you have it. It's just simply not influencing you.

Where to begin? That we know and fear a gun's destructive power is proof enough of its influence.

It's a tool for you to manipulate. The knowledge that you have a powerful tool in your hand may alter your thinking I suppose. I'll submit that.

Such operant conditioning again shows influence.

However the difference between the gun and religion is that the gun doesn't command you.

Neither does religion, at least not in the modern sense. The Bible for example is somewhat contradictory and would be an incongruous source of cues. However when a man chooses to follow some "rules", re/mis-interpret others, or ignore some outright, it's not religion that makes the "commandment" but rather the individual's agenda.

I said it before, the gun doesn't say "Shoot Me!".

Not literally, of course, but by it's very addition to a equation it brings with it a potential for an outcome 100% removed otherwise. What function does a gun serve beyond ejection of a bullet at fast enough speeds to render it a deadly force? None. It has but one function, that is clearly understood via conditioning by most if not all people.

For example, having a gun in my hand doesn't make me want to shoot someone anymore or anyless.

A. That's specific to you. B. I'll have to take your word on that.

It just means I've got a little firepower.

And the world of possible new outcomes to a scenario that come with it.

Religion via the holy books give out direct commands. "Kill the infidels." comes to mind. Or ""If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed." Religion demands death. A gun does not. With all it's power, a gun still isn't a match for the power of an almighty God.

Those "commands" can be followed or ignored. And again some fly in the face of others i.e. it's hard to stone someone to death when "thou shalt not kill".

Religion was created to answer the questions we at the time couldn't answer.
All myths start that way. Simply to explain a phenomenon. Now although humans are inheritly selfish for survival, that only means that they usually will favor singular survival. However the Selfish Gene isn't a one trick pony. It acts to keep the human genes alive itself. Even if it involves actions that don't benefit the individual. Why do people give to charity to others half-way around the world, knowing they will never see a smigen of thanks? It doesn't take religion for that. Which is why even in secular societies that have a majority of atheists and agnostics (Japan, U.K, Germany, Switzerland) still do just fine. If human beings ever needed religion, they no longer need it in this modern society.

Dawkins? Really? Ok, then. Why give to charity? Makes you feel good: Selfish. Makes you feel superior to those who don't: Selfish. Something to brag about to raise your standing in the community: Selfish. You feel it's your responsibility to help those less fortunate 3rd world masses: Selfish superiority a type of "white man's burden" if you will.
Also I said "faith in something". Japan for example while possibly considered secular, largely follows old beliefs in honor, and ancestral/familial pride and shame. Replace the religion of a deity with the religion of humanity, it's still a faith in something.

Frankenstein created a monster. The monster took on a will of it's own, and imposed that will. Our monster may not be sewn from body parts. It may not be alive, but it does have will. That will is found on the pages of the best selling books in history. And people believe them because they're indoctrinated to do so.

It's the will and agenda of man, and not an inanimate object like a sewn together multi-authored, edited, compilation sourced book. Clearly, the "monster" isn't sentient or free to do as it pleases, nor could it ever impose its "will" on man unless mankind itself allows such an occurrence.

That sounds like a ridiculous analogy, but I'm going to go ahead and go with it.

It's not ridiculous, it erroneous. Ok, you're right. It's also ridiculous.

 

[LSN80]

Originally Posted by Xemnas
Um, you don't kill people for having sex. Just because someone is "out of control" doesn't mean your holy book should promote slavery, and execution for things like homosexuality, disobediant children, and adultery. Fuck culture. Those things aren't justification.

I would agree with you, except for the fact that the Bible was written in a virtual timeline. As I said, if someone is truly interpreting that the Bible is sayng "Kill the infidels", then why does the 7th commandment instruct people NOT to kill? its a contradiction in and of itself.

Originally Posted by Xemnas
The old testament in that same are of the book promotes selling your daughter into slavery, slavery itself. My point is that yes, I apply the difference between the two. OTHERS DO NOT. Other people believe that is the INFALLIBLE LITERAL WORD OF GOD. Why? Because it says so, and they were raised to believe it.

Ill just refer back to my point on timeline. The erroneous application of these principles by so called Christians is a disgrace, if for no other reason then Jesus abolished those practices. Does it mean they were right at the time? Hell no.

Originally Posted by Xemnas
Context, Context, Context. I hate hearing that word because it's gotten stupid. ANYTHING BAD in the bible always seems to be taken out of context when I'm talking to christians. And I'm glad you pointed out that only SOME of those laws were applicable. Plenty of them weren't.

Context is extremely important in life. Id be much more likely to shoot you if you were charging at me with a knife, then I would if we were sitting having a drink and a spirited debate. Context is the basis on how we make most of our decisions in life. At the same time, i dont look at religion with rosed colored glasses and say "all is well" because someone or something tells me to.

Originally Posted by Xemnas
Well that's a broken promise isn't it? Plenty of those that respect mommy and daddy die early enough. Anyways, I made my point. Not every mom and dad deserve respect. We know why. And my argument is that many of those laws should Have NEVER been applicable with any society because they were monsterous. Respecting the sabbath was punishable by death until JC came along......that's fucked up, and in no way should have every been law. But it was, because people took a holy book seriously.

It was messed up. I can't find any justification for putting someone to death, selling their daughter into slavery, or even bannning tattoos. If the last one was applicable today, Id be screwed. The Old Testament said to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. But it was the upper class, mainly the Pharisees and Sanhedrein, that took it to an extreme level by conniving the people to believe that death should be the end result.

Originally Posted by Xemnas
Your right. God doesn't exist.

Thats your opinion, certainly not a fact.

Originally Posted by Xemnas
And your right religion doesn't make a choice to commit monstrous acts. It demands them to be done through direct commands. Like in the Old Testament and Quran. Whether you follow those holy books or not, others still do. Others still take there morals from them because they're presented as God's word. And they're such poor source of morals....it's a shame. I wish they didn't exist.

There are so many direct commands that utterly contradict one another. You obviously know a great deal more about the Quran then I do, so I won't pretend to debate you on those. But many of the commandments that were passed down were done so in different cultures, interpreted in different languages, and by fallable man. I would think the command of "Thou Showt Not Kill" would supercede any direct command otherwise, especially since its #7 in the Big Ten that you referred to. Id like to think that the reasonable person would know the difference. Sadly, alot of people dont.

Originally Posted by Xemnas
You should check up on it sometimes. It's even more offensive that the old testament.

I don't find the Old Testament, taken contextually, to be offensive. I know you hate the word, but its important. Its a storythat was written by man, supposedly inspired by God. I find offense that people have looked at it, without looking at the bigger picture of the Bible as a whole, and use it as the basis of how they live their lives.

Originally Posted by Xemnas
Faith makes a virtue out of not thinking because that's what the word means. Faith means believing something for which there is no evidence for. I could tell you that I have faith that there is an invisible spaggetti monster in the sky. It's nothing to brag about, because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. It doesnt necessarily apply to religion alone. Sometimes, it is a belief inside some people that God will provide for them, or get them through difficult situations. Why is that such a BAD thing?

Originally Posted by Xemnas
Because religion is drilled in at such a young age, when you are so defensless, I'll go ahead and say that it's not free will.

Sure it is. I know plenty of people born and raised in the church since the day they were born that want nothing to do with it. How is that not making a choice? That's what free will is, right? Choice?

Originally Posted by XemnasAt least not completely If you are raised to believe that gays are an abomination (as many are) then chances are you'll believe that for the rest of your life if you're ignorant enough, or sheltered enough. Not everyone has the potential to be a skeptic. Not everyone is born with the genetic luck of being above average intelligence, and religion takes advantage of that glaring invulnerablity.

Gay bashing takes place all over our great country and its not exclusive to religion. As for what you believe, you always have a choice. Just because I dont practice homosexuality myself doesnt mean I despise those that do. Religion doesn't take advantage of people, people take advantage of people. Even if something was ingrained in you from the day you were born, it was due to someone doing so. There are plenty of people who have the opposite engrained in them(that there is no God), yet choose religion at some point in their lives. It has little to do with intelligence.

]Originally Posted by XemnasWhen I say religion, I'm not talking about God. Perhaps I need to make that a little more clear.

I never thought you were. Youve made it quite clear that you dont believe in God.

 

[LSN80]

Originally Posted by Xemnas
Um, Yeah. YOU wouldn't consider them to be true Christians. They wouldn't consider YOU a true Christian. That's one of those things about religious sects. They think that the book does condone their action.

Ive never claimed to be a Christian, or religious. Again, I would point out the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment that would would certainly not condone their actions. If "Christians" believe The Bible condones monstrous actions, theyre wrong.

Originally Posted by Xemnas.
As for the homosexuals, that is so FUCKED UP. Please look into what youre saying more. The earlier part of the book states that homosexuality is a sin, and those who practice it should be killed. Paul later says that those who practice it will burn in hell forever. HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT NOT PROMOTE HATE?

I was the one who pointed that EXACT thing out to you, so Im quite aware of what Im saying. Later, in the book, Jesus came and did away with that "practice." He tore down the veil, so to speak, and claimed we should love those different from us, even if they are coming at us with opposing views, beliefs, and actions.

Paul began his life trying to kill Christians, and ended it by promoting everything Jesus said as being infallible. So if he were truly promoting hate, he would teaching the OPPOSITE of what Jesus was. In fact, he scolded Christians who pass judgment on one another in Romans 2:1. How is that promoting hate?

Originally Posted by Xemnas.
People can promote more than one thing in Life...Just because someone advocates love in one moment doesn't mean they can't promote hate in another. Even if Paul didn't do it directly or say "kill them". Saying that a group of people won't get in to heaven is saying that they are inferior because of what they do.

I agree with you in principle on the first part, we all promote more then one thing in life, and they're often opposites of one another. Where I disagree is that its saying that someone is inferior because of what they do. This would go into a choice versus nature argument.

Obviously, Paul taught that homosexuality was a choice, a sin, and against God's natural design. But he was saying it was an action, not lumping them aside as a group of people who are outcasts, as so many people do today. So much of his messawas encouraging people to CHANGE.

I'd like you to tell me how "Kill the infidel" and "homosexuals will burn in hell" are taken out of context.

They're not. The former is outdated and the latter is never stated in the Bible. The closest thing said about homosexuals is that "they will not inherit the kingdom of God, so they should turn from their ways."

People look for a reason to hate. DON'T GIVE THEM A REASON TO. Religion gives them the perfect reason to hate, because they don't have to be logical about. God is infallible right? Don't question him!

"

Yet Paul spent so much more of his time, like in 2 Corinthians 12 and 13, talking about showing love, and how to do so. He wasn't exclusive in who we should love, he said to love those who offend us, hurt us, and even persecute us. He called it the most excellent way. I dont see how thats promoting hate, my friend.

People are dangerous. You don't put just a weapon in their hand with religion. You put them in control of a monster. A monster that converts other people to that way of thinking. A monster that indoctrinates children. A monster that promotes hate that is so difficult to promote without it. A hydra with many different heads. I propose to educate the masters, and just incase, cut off all the heads. People aren't simply misguided on their own. Religion is the one that guides them, binds them, and gives them the law of the land. Not everyone is smart enough. When people think something is the word of God, they often don't question it. They often take most or all of their morals from it.

As with everything in life, or with any weapon, its a choice how you use it. I believe, like with a sidearm, or any other weapon, when used CORRECTLY, the benefits far outweigh the damages. Religion can give guidance, bring peace in times of crisis, and educate people on the proper ways to live if done so correctly.You want to place the blame on an inaninimate object. when its people that take things and twist them. Its not just religion that people do it with. We form opinions based upon what we hear on the news, what were taught in school, and what we learn through life lessons. Some of those things are misguided as well, but should we take aim at all of them, just in case? And if people take their morals from religion, apply them to their lives in a proper manner(like MOST do) why would that be such a bad thing? If I, morally speaking, believe homosexuality to be wrong(just an example), but never speak out against it, never act as if they are inferior, and have friends who are homosexuals, does that make me morally corrupt because I believe what the Word of God says about it?

 

[Xemmy]

I would agree with you, except for the fact that the Bible was written in a virtual timeline. As I said, if someone is truly interpreting that the Bible is sayng "Kill the infidels", then why does the 7th commandment instruct people NOT to kill? its a contradiction in and of itself.

"Kill the Infidels" is in the Quran and that's part of spreading Islam. Also you mean the 5th commandment- Thou shall not kill doesn't seem to apply to everone in God's eyes, or to himself. He commands that certain people be killed directly following those commandments. Why? Because the ten commandments only applied to God's people.

Ill just refer back to my point on timeline. The erroneous application of these principles by so called Christians is a disgrace, if for no other reason then Jesus abolished those practices. Does it mean they were right at the time? Hell no.

If the book is has all this, and you don't agree with those practices, why read or follow any of it?

Context is extremely important in life. Id be much more likely to shoot you if you were charging at me with a knife, then I would if we were sitting having a drink and a spirited debate. Context is the basis on how we make most of our decisions in life. At the same time, i dont look at religion with rosed colored glasses and say "all is well" because someone or something tells me to.

My point wasn't that context is bad. I'm just of sick of hearing it when it doesn't apply. I'm not simply quote-mining from the book. I've read it. The only thing you can say in defense of these things is the time they were constructed in, and it's poor exuse.

It was messed up. I can't find any justification for putting someone to death, selling their daughter into slavery, or even bannning tattoos. If the last one was applicable today, Id be screwed. The Old Testament said to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. But it was the upper class, mainly the Pharisees and Sanhedrein, that took it to an extreme level by conniving the people to believe that death should be the end result.

Exodus 31:14-
"Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people."

You were saying?

Thats your opinion, certainly not a fact.

Unicorns and Fairies Exist.

There are so many direct commands that utterly contradict one another. You obviously know a great deal more about the Quran then I do, so I won't pretend to debate you on those. But many of the commandments that were passed down were done so in different cultures, interpreted in different languages, and by fallable man. I would think the command of "Thou Showt Not Kill" would supercede any direct command otherwise, especially since its #7 in the Big Ten that you referred to. Id like to think that the reasonable person would know the difference. Sadly, alot of people dont.

I think it's # 5...well in the Lutheren version anyway. Anyways it's not 7 in any versions. That' adultery.

Sadly indeed. But that's my issue with it. The more Religous a country is, the more ignorant it tends to be. That's what happens when people are raised to believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and though not in this paticular example-ignorance has life and death consequences.

I don't find the Old Testament, taken contextually, to be offensive. I know you hate the word, but its important. Its a storythat was written by man, supposedly inspired by God. I find offense that people have looked at it, without looking at the bigger picture of the Bible as a whole, and use it as the basis of how they live their lives.

I do find it offensive because it was meant to be taken as the word of God.
Even if you're smart enough to no that it's not. It's morals and guidelines are still followed today. Not by Christians are alone. There are still Orthadox jews in the world that don't follow the New Testament.

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. It doesnt necessarily apply to religion alone. Sometimes, it is a belief inside some people that God will provide for them, or get them through difficult situations. Why is that such a BAD thing?

Faith in reference to God is belief/trust/loyalty without evidence.
It's bad because when you put your trust, loyalty- and in consequence - hopes and dreams into something that may or may not exist it can lead to problems. People have Faith that their God is the one true God and that every other creed on Earth is an abomination. People have faith that they'll other people deserve to burn. And some people even have faith God will God guide them. When you guide your life by the equivalent of palm reading. Having faith in these beliefs is damaging because it gives you answers that cannot be proven, and when real answers come around you ending up denying truth in favor of things that have either no bases or have been proven flat out WRONG. The fact that something is consoling doesn't make it true. It controls so much policy from abortion to stem cells all around the world because people see this intangible father figure who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago.....

I feel like I should be out of breath.

Sure it is. I know plenty of people born and raised in the church since the day they were born that want nothing to do with it. How is that not making a choice? That's what free will is, right? Choice?

Well one because not everyone is that lucky. If you make a choice in Islam is literally a crime punishable by death. Still enforced today. And it is wonderful that more and more people are leaving Religion, but it doesn't work that way for everyone for a number of reasons. Some people are raised and sheltered so heavily from the truth that they will never question it. In many evangelical churches they literally tell children that one day the non-believers will bring something called "evidence" and that they shouldn't listen.

Gay bashing takes place all over our great country and its not exclusive to religion. As for what you believe, you always have a choice. Just because I dont practice homosexuality myself doesnt mean I despise those that do. Religion doesn't take advantage of people, people take advantage of people. Even if something was ingrained in you from the day you were born, it was due to someone doing so. There are plenty of people who have the opposite engrained in them(that there is no God), yet choose religion at some point in their lives. It has little to do with intelligence.

Not exlusive to Religion? True. Dominant Reason for bashing Homosexuals? Hell Yes. I keep hearing that too. Religion is just a tool, it's really people vs people. Yes I get it. I've already had that argument with Liger.
So what your telling me is- that if Religion didn't exist. There would be just as many people wanting homosexuals dead? Even in our modern society?
The most Religious countries on earth are the ones with the fewest rights, and the harshest punishments homosexuals.

 

[LSN80]

Originally Posted by Calderownz Clearly, you're missing the point. I'm not saying every single line in the Bible is poisonous. I clearly stated that Jesus had some very decent things to say. However, the Bible is a book that by it's nature, is a one-and-all. You can't pick and choose. You can't say, "this part is decent, so let's ignore the whole slavery thing."

Im going to jump in here. The Bible, in and of itself, is a story. It tells of bad men who did bad things, and good men who did good things. It tells of one man who supposedly came to right the wrongs done by those bad men. So you don't ignore any of what is written, you understand its context.

Originally Posted by Calderownz I understand that you can interpret the book several different ways. My point is, none of those ways can be considered a good thing when the book has so many evils that it condones.

Which part? The part about loving one's neighbor? The part about "thou shalt not murder? The part about forgiveness, turning the other cheek, and self-sacrifice? These were the principles Jesus came to instill, and you see them throughout the New Testament being preached. If you're going to reference the Old Testament, save it, because the whole point of Jesus' coming to earth was to abolish the wicked practices condoned in the Old Testament, according to the Bible anyway.

Originally Posted by Calderownz
In what way could someone interpret the act of slavery as a good thing? Or stoning a sinner to death?

They're not good things. See above.

]Originally Posted by Calderownz I also understand that the Bible is not a history book, however most of the people that live by it would tell you that it's an accurate depiction of the past.

You can't have it both ways. In one sentence, you're talking about the horrid things it condones, the next, you're saying its not historically accurate. Well, if its not accurate, then who really gives a flying eff what it says? If its innacurate, then don't sweat any of the supposed evils it condones.

]Originally Posted by Calderownz

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/18-congregations/92-most-americans-take
Most Americans, for example, take the Bible literally. Believing that the events actually happened. While I understand that it's not a history book, most American's don't.

Again then, if you don't buy what its selling, then why sweat the details. I give you props for the research, it was an interesting article. But what the article is talking about are specific peices of the Bible, not itself as a whole. Its focus was mainly on the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. And apparantly alot of Americans do believe that it occurred. What does that say to you about most Americans?

 

[Xemmy]

Ive never claimed to be a Christian, or religious. Again, I would point out the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment that would would certainly not condone their actions. If "Christians" believe The Bible condones monstrous actions, theyre wrong.

The Christians that condone them don't believe them to be monstrous.
And they cannot be proven wrong since it is the word of God.

I was the one who pointed that EXACT thing out to you, so Im quite aware of what Im saying. Later, in the book, Jesus came and did away with that "practice." He tore down the veil, so to speak, and claimed we should love those different from us, even if they are coming at us with opposing views, beliefs, and actions.

Just because he did some good doesn't mean we can ignore the fact that it spreads hate against homosexuals.
Since Jesus never spoke on homosexality the only thing that we have to go by in the New Testament is what Paul said. Even if Paul was just a big ol' lovable bear spreading sunshine and love that doesn't change the fact that his opinion on homosexuals is reason enough to hate them in the eyes of followers. When you say something like that about homosexuals, and no one else in the holybook contridicts you, it becomes mandate.

Paul began his life trying to kill Christians, and ended it by promoting everything Jesus said as being infallible. So if he were truly promoting hate, he would teaching the OPPOSITE of what Jesus was. In fact, he scolded Christians who pass judgment on one another in Romans 2:1. How is that promoting hate?

That paticularly isn't. It's not hate on anyone.
But his passage on homosexuality sure is. Oh, and it also makes him a hypocrite.

I agree with you in principle on the first part, we all promote more then one thing in life, and they're often opposites of one another. Where I disagree is that its saying that someone is inferior because of what they do. This would go into a choice versus nature argument.

Obviously, Paul taught that homosexuality was a choice, a sin, and against God's natural design. But he was saying it was an action, not lumping them aside as a group of people who are outcasts, as so many people do today. So much of his messawas encouraging people to CHANGE.

If someone burns in hell for their actions that's called punishment. Punishment is given to people because what they were doing is wrong.
If what they were doing is wrong- that's bad (Don't lie). If it was their life style that's super bad.(Frequent Liar) "Homosexuals = Super Bad".
I wouldn't want to be around frequent liars, theives, or serial killers. Those are all sins too. XD Hell at least liars and theives aren't given the death penalty.

They're not. The former is outdated and the latter is never stated in the Bible. The closest thing said about homosexuals is that "they will not inherit the kingdom of God, so they should turn from their ways."

The former is not outdated, and is still practiced in several countries today. Meet Islam. They're really friendly people who keep their women in beekeeper suits, and kill homosexuals on a daily bases because their holy book says so.

Did you not catch that other bible verse from a couple posts ago about homosexuals being put to death? I didn't feel like typing two sentences so I put that instead. Jesus, does everything have to be an exact quote when we've already have half a dozen lying around?

Yet Paul spent so much more of his time, like in 2 Corinthians 12 and 13, talking about showing love, and how to do so. He wasn't exclusive in who we should love, he said to love those who offend us, hurt us, and even persecute us. He called it the most excellent way. I dont see how thats promoting hate, my friend.

Um. Homosexuality is a sin = hate. We associate sinning with dishonesty, murder, and anything evil in general in "good ol' bible country". Thats part of the reason why its a bad thing for homosexuals. He preached so much love and peace. That makes him credible to people, but then it starts to sound like everything this guy says is a good idea. Then he says homosexuality is a sin. That must be credible too!
I'm not saying Paul is a bad guy just going around and promoting hate. I'm saying that what he did have to say on the subject was bad, and that it promotes hate to all those that practice what he said was bad.

As with everything in life, or with any weapon, its a choice how you use it. I believe, like with a sidearm, or any other weapon, when used CORRECTLY, the benefits far outweigh the damages. Religion can give guidance, bring peace in times of crisis, and educate people on the proper ways to live if done so correctly.You want to place the blame on an inaninimate object. when its people that take things and twist them. Its not just religion that people do it with. We form opinions based upon what we hear on the news, what were taught in school, and what we learn through life lessons. Some of those things are misguided as well, but should we take aim at all of them, just in case? And if people take their morals from religion, apply them to their lives in a proper manner(like MOST do) why would that be such a bad thing? If I, morally speaking, believe homosexuality to be wrong(just an example), but never speak out against it, never act as if they are inferior, and have friends who are homosexuals, does that make me morally corrupt because I believe what the Word of God says about it?

Religion can give guidence. Good I get it. It's a tool, Good I get it.
The guidence claims to be infallible. BAD then it can be criticized because "It's what I believe." or "It's my faith!"

History has shown that when you do, you get killed. Why. It's God's will. Even today in Islamic countries. People shouldn't take their morals from religion because the good morals are just as easy to have without. I HATE religion, but I'm not going around killing. At least not lately....

While the bad stuff and the evil in the bible is presented as truth along with all the other morals. The only reason we don't follow all bad stuff is because the morals that society itself gives us, and because we don't take Religion seriously anymore. And those that do and elevate it are intellectual slave holders. When you take Religion for what it presents itself as then that religion becomes a Religion of the Sword. Why? Because all religions via their holy books demand to be spread, and demand to be followed as the word of God. There is no other ideology on Earth that does that.

Comparing a Gun to Religion as a tool. As has been done repeatedly since I started this thing.
The Gun is NEVER used as an exuse for why you would kill someone. It's simply HOW you killed them.
The Gun may influence thinking with the knowledge of it's presence, but it doesn't give out commands, and doesn't claim to be infallible. How you use a gun is up to you in the end. When you are indoctrinated with Religion it closer to the equivalent of going through the Army and being trained. You're given orders, your obediant to the authority of that system, and you follow what you are told to believe because you were trained to do so. Yeah, ever once in awhile you get exceptions. People how are disobediant, and discharged. OUTCASTED from the group.

In conclusion-
An ideology is more than just a tool, and it should be Criticized like one. The same way I would criticize Nazism, Communism, Capitalism, Secularism, Liberalism, Democracy, Dictatorship or any other. Some of those ideologies have done more harm that good. Those that survive are usually better for society. Unfortunately a Religion can be classified as an ideology, but doesn't follow the same rules. Why? Because it governs with emotion more than it does logic. If it followed the same rules, Buddhism would be the most dominant religion on the planet. If any at all remained.

 

[Calderownz]

Im going to jump in here. The Bible, in and of itself, is a story. It tells of bad men who did bad things, and good men who did good things. It tells of one man who supposedly came to right the wrongs done by those bad men. So you don't ignore any of what is written, you understand its context.

I understand this. In some respects, this thread has gotten off topic. Realistically, the question was, "Is religion a problem." Well, based upon the evidence, yes. It is.

Perhaps the book had solid points and decent views. However, it clearly wasn't thorough enough in what it meant. It didn't elaborate on what it meant, was often times contradictory and doesn't really have a clear basis for it's purpose. You can make the point that it's just about being someone who tries to be good amongst people that can be both good and/or evil. And you can clearly see that Jesus was a protagonist in the story. However, even Jesus isn't innocent of being considered a bad guy.

Jesus, people often times overlook considering he seems like a decent "man" in the book, is simply God on Earth. He's still the same guy who "wrote the book." (Through man, of course.) And the list of atrocities that God has either purposely forced upon innocent human beings or simply let happen, outweighs the fact that he said some nice things you should hope to do in life.

However, if being a good person through use of common sense is the only message in the book, then the book is pointless to begin with. Most decent human beings would be able to piece that together themselves. If that's all God felt he needed to get across in his defining book, I don't really know how important his work could be considered.

Why would a book be considered the greatest book ever written when you could get the same life sessions watching an episode of Sesame Street?

And because it wasn't thorough enough in it's explanation of it's point, most people who interpret the book, are statistically bound to get it wrong. Simply because there are so many different ways to interpret the book. Looking at it this way, it's not even their faults they get it wrong. This however, as seen with religious wars, God-crazy suicide bombers and hi-jackers, fundamental extremists and what have you, can often times lead to innocent lives being taken.

So, in the hands of the average believer across the world, can definitely be a problem. No matter how you look at it.

Which part? The part about loving one's neighbor? The part about "thou shalt not murder? The part about forgiveness, turning the other cheek, and self-sacrifice? These were the principles Jesus came to instill, and you see them throughout the New Testament being preached. If you're going to reference the Old Testament, save it, because the whole point of Jesus' coming to earth was to abolish the wicked practices condoned in the Old Testament, according to the Bible anyway.

I agree that the New Testament is a little less evil then the Old Testament. However, let's not forget one thing. It's LESS evil.

"So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (From the NIV Bible, Revelation 2:22-23)"

That's just one of the, shall we say, lesser-than-nice things that God said in the NEW Testament. The above statement is obviously ridiculous. The worst part about it is that it's horrible on three counts. Punishing someone for cheating. The men can repent, but the woman is doomed. The children must die. (Of course!)

Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that this is simply one of the Books that during this day and age defines religion. Let's not even get into the Koran. Lol. However, the Old Testament and the New Testament both help shape the minds of it's followers.

You can't have it both ways. In one sentence, you're talking about the horrid things it condones, the next, you're saying its not historically accurate. Well, if its not accurate, then who really gives a flying eff what it says? If its innacurate, then don't sweat any of the supposed evils it condones.

I'm not having it both ways. I'm not saying that I believe that any of the things it condones actually happened. If I told my son that I murdered a man and he should, too if the man wrongs him in the slightest way. It wouldn't really matter if my story was true or not. The point is that the information I am giving my son is still incredibly harmful.

Again then, if you don't buy what its selling, then why sweat the details. I give you props for the research, it was an interesting article. But what the article is talking about are specific peices of the Bible, not itself as a whole. Its focus was mainly on the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. And apparantly alot of Americans do believe that it occurred. What does that say to you about most Americans?

You have to sweat the details, as I said above, because true or false, it's still saying YOU should do the same or hope for the same. That can stil effect me or anyone else, for that matter.

What does it say about most Americans? In terms of this subject... they're delusional people that need no proof to believe in something to the point of looking insane.

Realistically, I could say that I have a golden robot typing for me right now. I have no proof. You're reading it. Maybe I could convince your parents that it's happening.

In all honesty, what is the difference between that lie and the lies in scripture? No proof. No evidence. You can say the whole blind faith thing requires no proof or faith, but it still doesn't create a valid argument. Or any difference between God and my golden robot.

NOTE: Most people, Americans included, believe in the God they believe in by accident/happenstance. They happened to be born into Christianity so they believe in Jesus/God. By that rationale, if your dad happened to move to the Middle East, and married a woman there, got her pregnant and a "different version" of you was created, you would have either Jewish or Islamic ties. Potentially, due to your surroundings, you'd fall into either of those belief systems.

Realistically, how can you feel positive about your beliefs if they would likely change with your geographical surroundings and influences?

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

I understand this. In some respects, this thread has gotten off topic. Realistically, the question was, "Is religion a problem." Well, based upon the evidence, yes. It is.

You've done nothing to prove that religion in and of itself is a problem. Perhaps certain religious people...but not religion itself.

Perhaps the book had solid points and decent views. However, it clearly wasn't thorough enough in what it meant. It didn't elaborate on what it meant, was often times contradictory and doesn't really have a clear basis for it's purpose.

That's the beauty of the Bible. It's a sort of "living" text in that it was not specific. There is nothing mystical and transcendent about a scientific equation about how to live.

Jesus, people often times overlook considering he seems like a decent "man" in the book, is simply God on Earth. He's still the same guy who "wrote the book." (Through man, of course.) And the list of atrocities that God has either purposely forced upon innocent human beings or simply let happen, outweighs the fact that he said some nice things you should hope to do in life.

1) God did those things according to the tales of the Hebrew people. Whether God LITERALLY did them is up for debate. Symbolism is a cool thing.

2) Would not the actions of Jesus lend one to think that maybe God did not perform those atrocities? Seems that there's a conflict in personalities there.

However, if being a good person through use of common sense is the only message in the book, then the book is pointless to begin with. Most decent human beings would be able to piece that together themselves. If that's all God felt he needed to get across in his defining book, I don't really know how important his work could be considered.

That is not the only message in the book. Surely, David would not be considered a "decent" man by our standards, yet he was a man after God's heart. So maybe it's a book about people's reflections about God.

Why would a book be considered the greatest book ever written when you could get the same life sessions watching an episode of Sesame Street?

Since when did Big Bird call on Grover to pick up his cross and follow him?

And because it wasn't thorough enough in it's explanation of it's point, most people who interpret the book, are statistically bound to get it wrong.

This implies that there is a solitary right way to read the Bible.

Simply because there are so many different ways to interpret the book. Looking at it this way, it's not even their faults they get it wrong. This however, as seen with religious wars, God-crazy suicide bombers and hi-jackers, fundamental extremists and what have you, can often times lead to innocent lives being taken.

Once again, violent, religious extremists seem to be the ones causing the "problems" in religion...not religion in and of itself.

Hopefully I can respond to the rest of the post tomorrow.