If the world is predominantly religious, why is it such a mess?

[Robert.Evans]

I live in the U.S. And I'm well aware of the atrocities that go on throughout the middle east. But, before I can pull the weeds out of my overseas neighbors' yards, shouldn't I figure out what is wrong in my own?

I think if we cleaned our own doorstep instead of worrying about someone else's the world would be a better place. But I must add that the atrocities in the ME are not just by them but also by us, and it was our foreign policies that started the whole process of plus a pile of history to boot.

And it is because of secularism, that we are seeing the tides turning away from allowing Christianity to shape the laws in the U.S., not religion. I don't berate American Christians, I'm stating that for a predominantly Christian country, it has done a lot of screwed up things.

Sometime that can help, sometime not. You seem to agree with same gender marraige. I don't. We shall all answer to God at some point. Anyway, it seems fairly obvious that it is not normal, not that I want to change the thread, whatever it is about, I forget... haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

Wow.
Imagine if it worked that way now a days.
All you would have to do is the be the first to rape an unmarriage celebrity and woo hoo!, you gotta pay some chump change and marry them!

Where does it say rape in OT?
and that was thousands of years ago... what would be do when we were animals evolving I ask?

 

[Spiderman]

Where? Or is that your interpretation or bad translation?

Rape is discouraged in the Bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Huh? Since when? When did my religion start rejecting reason and revolve around fear and superstition that exploits emotions?

Do you even have a religion (i.e. a community of shared belief, as opposed to individual beliefs and practices)?

In what decade did doubt stop people from being "evil" and going to war? Did I miss the memo?

Personally, I think it's more that religious certainty has been key in some wars, and doubt about God implies doubt about the idea that God will be on your side in some battle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is silly!

If all people followed and obeyed the teachings of Christ there would be no rape.

To say otherwise is ignorant and asinine

Please tell us where and when Jesus said not to rape.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I volunteer my time in women's abuse/homeless shelters, and volunteer at other homeless shelters. Give money, etc. Do what I can, when I can.

I was a Christian my whole life up until 4 years ago, and my reason for leaving the faith had to do with not believing the Bible to be based on objective truths. If people wish to help others, they don't need to be religious to do so. That is the point of the thread.

Speaking for myself, I think that being religious would give me less reason to help others. If I expected some god to swoop in and make everyone better, I would be less motivated to help other people myself.

It's like how if I read about a big fire in progress, I don't rush over - I trust that the fire department has the situation in hand and is already doing everything I could do. But if I didn't think the fire department existed, I'd probably be there volunteering to be part of a bucket line or something.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rape is discouraged in the Bible.

Only as a sort of theft from the father or husband. The Old Testament treats rape as the damage of property of a man, not as a crime against the woman. The New Testament never changes this approach.

The only discouragement of rape in the Bible falls apart if we reject the idea that women are property.

Also, you seem to forget the battlefield rape that the OT says God directly commanded.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Please tell us where and when Jesus said not to rape.

Love your neighbour.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Only as a sort of theft from the father or husband. The Old Testament treats rape as the damage of property of a man, not as a crime against the woman. The New Testament never changes this approach.

The only discouragement of rape in the Bible falls apart if we reject the idea that women are property.

Also, you seem to forget the battlefield rape that the OT says God directly commanded.

If you are speaking of women that were taken as a sort of spoil of war, what are you suggesting they do then instead of that in such harsh times? Leave them to starve? I think it unlikely that the women would want to be left. We are speaking of thousands of years ago. And that, my friend, is the evolution of the divine through us!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Love your neighbour.

If you are speaking of women that were taken as a sort of spoil of war, what are you suggesting they do then instead of that in such harsh times?

I'm suggesting they NOT RAPE THEM.

Leave them to starve?

I'm unfamiliar with the rule that says you can't feed a person unless you have sex with them.

I'm also not clear why God couldn't just make food for them. Too bad Jesus wasn't there to do his "loaves and fishes" trick for them, eh? It would have come in handy. Apparently, God hadn't figure that out yet.

I think it unlikely that the women would want to be left.

You suggest that these women were forced to choose between rape and death. Choosing rape in this circumstance does nothing to excuse their rapists... or those who commanded the rapes.

We are speaking of thousands of years ago.

... and a god whose wisdom supposedly stands throughout the ages.

And that, my friend, is the evolution of the divine through us!

If your "divine" is a misogynistic genocidal rape-god, you can keep it.

 

[Deidre]

I thought so. Hard to imagine how he would go down now with feminist eh. Would you follow him, or owuld you push him out of the way claiming equality ?

Going with the story, Jesus seemed to treat both genders, equitably. But, also believed in both genders living authentically...(not women becoming like men, etc)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I wish the hell bound would just shut up.

Perhaps the hell-bound feel they have nothing to lose by saying what's on their mind.

 

[Thief]

Perhaps the hell-bound feel they have nothing to lose by saying what's on their mind.

Nah....they just hope no one will ever post an argument beyond denial.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't forget the atheist atrocities.

You do realize that dogmatic communism has more in common with religion than with secular freethought, right?

The only atrocities that even come close to "freethought run amok" were in the French Revolution... and even then, very few of the perpetrators were atheists.

 

[Thief]

You do realize that dogmatic communism has more in common with religion than with secular freethought, right?

The only atrocities that even come close to "freethought run amok" were in the French Revolution... and even then, very few of the perpetrators were atheists.

Well said....except I thought the French revolution moved to socialism.

In any case....the guillotine was cruel.

and I'm not blaming religion for the uprising.
That separation of class will play just so far.

Still no excuse for the cruelty.

 

[Koldo]

Jealousy, greed, anger, lust; are they not, at some point, learned from within the soul whilst living in a world engulfed by it? Chicken or the egg? Clearly, it was the egg. A unique individual once told me that he believed 'Evil' is best described as being strictly our human nature. We are born this way, are we not? It is sewn into our genetics. It is our nature. It is... our nature as a species. To make a really long explanation short, and believe me I have a really valid argument here, religion has lead us this far. We cannot live without it, atleast without entirely destroying ourselves first. Religion, though seemingly tearing us apart, is the only thing holding us together.

It is true that religion was relevant on the walk to reach this far. It is a mere speculation to say it is the only thing holding us together though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is true that religion was relevant on the walk to reach this far. It is a mere speculation to say it is the only thing holding us together though.

I remember a (Buddhist?) saying that I'm probably butchering that goes something like "a rowboat is useful to get from one place to another, but it makes an uncomfortable home."

 

[Quintessence]

Do you even have a religion (i.e. a community of shared belief, as opposed to individual beliefs and practices)?

Firstly, that shouldn't matter. Primarily because the idea that all religions somehow revolve around creeds that are predominantly superstitions or fear-mongering, or that they require rejection of reason, is patently and obviously wrong to anyone who studies religions. But yes. Yes I do. And none of the religious communities I belong to or have belonged to - including Catholicism during the short time I was raised in it as a kid - hinged on suspension of reason, fear-mongering and superstition.

Personally, I think it's more that religious certainty has been key in some wars, and doubt about God implies doubt about the idea that God will be on your side in some battle.

That's fair. Though, from my point of view as a polytheist, kind of an absurd idea on their part. There's always gods both "for" and "against" your side, though most of them frankly don't give a damn about humans. *shrug*

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm suggesting they NOT RAPE THEM.


I'm unfamiliar with the rule that says you can't feed a person unless you have sex with them.

I'm also not clear why God couldn't just make food for them. Too bad Jesus wasn't there to do his "loaves and fishes" trick for them, eh? It would have come in handy. Apparently, God hadn't figure that out yet.

You suggest that these women were forced to choose between rape and death. Choosing rape in this circumstance does nothing to excuse their rapists... or those who commanded the rapes.


... and a god whose wisdom supposedly stands throughout the ages.


If your "divine" is a misogynistic genocidal rape-god, you can keep it.

Okay, let us try it your way. We live thousands of years ago. There is a war, and most of the men are dead or fled. The women are left. You now leave back to your own land. What are you suggesting we do with the women and children? Leaven them or take them? If they stay they will probably die of starvation. So what are you going to do? So perhaps you have said take them. Now you next say that we should not allow any of them to become friends with anyone and have kids with them, as you call that rape; a rape, I might add, that was not allowed by law. So tell me, what do we do with them?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Firstly, that shouldn't matter. Primarily because the idea that all religions somehow revolve around creeds that are predominantly superstitions or fear-mongering, or that they require rejection of reason, is patently and obviously wrong to anyone who studies religions. But yes. Yes I do. And none of the religious communities I belong to or have belonged to - including Catholicism during the short time I was raised in it as a kid - hinged on suspension of reason, fear-mongering and superstition.

You must've lucked out, then. I attended several Catholic churches over the years and saw these sorts of problem with all of them. In fact, the only reason I was attending Catholic churches was "suspension of reason, fear-mongering and superstition": my ex, who was Catholic, would end up crying uncontrollably on a regular basis at the thought that I was going to Hell. I told her I'd give the Church a chance because I didn't like to see my wife suffer... and it really was making her suffer.

That's fair. Though, from my point of view as a polytheist, kind of an absurd idea on their part. There's always gods both "for" and "against" your side, though most of them frankly don't give a damn about humans. *shrug*

Absurd or not, there are many records of generals and kings in polytheistic societies consulting oracles or "sacred chickens" (really - it was a thing in ancient Rome) to confirm that whatever gods they worshipped agreed that their enemy was the right one, or that it was a good time for war. If anything, with more gods, it was easier for a war or battle to be "god-endorsed".