What is wrong with religion?

[joeboonda]

Was it their religion that 'told' them to do this or is it that they are using religion as an excuse to justify doing it?
The same can be said about the crusades: was it religion that told them to do it or is religion the excuse used to justify it?

If it was the religion that 'told' them then i agree it is the religion.
However if religion is merely the excuse to justify the action, then it is the follower, not the religion.

Which Crusades, the first or the second? Although the Crusades were bad and nominal christians comitted attrocities galore, remember, the first crusades were Muslims taking the Holy Land and the second crusades was the Europeans taking it back. But I agree, religion is used as an excuse to justify many wrong things God never asked us to do. I think it is leaders brainwashing followers in many cases. That is in religion or politics both. People think religion has killed more people than anything else but that is not so. Last century alone, Hitler had 6 million Jews killed, 11 to 16 million he had killed altogether, not to mention the millions who died in the war. Stalin had 42 million killed, Mao Tse-tung had killed 72 million, communism was responsible for 130 million murders in all, and about 170 million have been killed by other pagan states. (Compared to 12,000 in Spain in the Inquisition and about 30,000 in all)

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

The question which is begging to be answered now is, as we can see that religion "in general" is not the source of evil and human beings just used it in the wrong way, so then, what's wrong with religion?

Nothing it is people who arer the problem. whether they try to create one themselves or create problems within the truth given to man from Allah. It is mankind who is the problem everyone is born with a certain fitrah, a natural disposition. Unfortunately the corrupt minds and hearts of some people is what makes religion look bad.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Which Crusades, the first or the second? Although the Crusades were bad and nominal christians comitted attrocities galore, remember, the first crusades were Muslims taking the Holy Land and the second crusades was the Europeans taking it back.

How did Omar conquer Jerusalem did he do it in the manner in which the Christian commited their crusades. Besides the Crusades is a Europeon concept so the crusade's begin with them and not the muslims.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Say what??? You honestly don't believe the Twin Towers were brought down by those planes???

No one with any knowledge of simple physics, or knows someone who did demo's in the military or works in construction demolisions. Or anyone who works for a steel mill will believe it was brought down by the planes. meaning anyone who looks at scientific facts and analyzes the evidence could possibly believe it.

 

[wizanda]

Say what??? You honestly don't believe the Twin Towers were brought down by those planes??? (...I will love my enemies...I WILL love my enemies...sigh...) I would seriously NOT say that to anyone if you are ever in the public in the USA, just for your own safety, because they most assuredly won't take it well.
Peace,
Joeboonda

Go to Google type “video” to get Google videos...then just go to ‘popular’ documentaries, there are so many "American made videos" that 9/11 is political corruption videos.....
As always i just repeat....:angel2:....if you don't know the truth or can't see it please don't attack others....

 

[TashaN]

1) Too exclusive. This is true of only some religions but true of the Abrahamic religions in general. The idea behind membership is belief in a higher power, shared values and beliefs with no or little variation and the concept of special privileges of those of the same faith. In many faiths you are either with the program, believe in the right god or you are an outsider. If they do make friends with an outsider there is that constant pressure from many if not most of them to believe and "be part of the program."

Sometimes, it's just because they love for their friend what they love for themselves, and their friend can either accept or reject to be part of that program and that doesn't make the religion evil, but it means that a follower of that religion wants for his/her friends to be *lucky* and share the program and no evil is intended in here but good doing because they love their friend, unless that program itself was evil.

2) morality is painted as black and white as opposed to something shaped by the environment and context it is in and than amended by communications with the God of that faith. For instance in the "not murder clause" few religions actually qualify murder from killing (though holy men "Interpret" it from time to time), nor look at the context making the moral introspection of the idea of taking a life so abstract it is not examinable. However, it can be amended (for instance many Christians are pro death penalty) based on communications that religious leaders have with God. To a non-believer it presents the idea that significant moral questions that are needed in a society are glossed over, trivialized and pawned off to a higher power that doesn't qualify the moral idea to his subjects with anything other than the single word "faith" or the duel words of "God's will"

3) faith is elevated to a higher status that evidence in areas where they are mutually exclusive. Evolution vs theological theories on the birth of man being the largest example.

Not in all religions, that's why when you ask someone about "religion", so s/he will recall the bad experince s/he had with a certain religion and s/he will answer based on that, and that's definitely not fair at all to the other religions which might not agree with the things this person hates about the religion s/he encountred.

4) The two largest religions, Christianity and Islam are in a current and apparently a permanent power struggle all over the world killing each other on a whim based on which group they belong to. Not just killing combatants, but women, children and advocating genocide at times which is procured as just by their God according to the groups involved.

A large reason for # 4 is because 1,2,and 3 exist in those groups.

So, you are talking about *some* followers but not the religion itself, isn't it?

As a footnote, one cannot lump all religions into this category because, say findings a Pagan coven that falls into this paradigm or a UU would be somewhere between challenging and impossible but, somewhere between many and most of Christians and Muslims, who together, make up well over 50 % of the believers, are structured in this way.

I understand what you are talking about, but again, this might me about some Muslims and some Christians but not about Islam and Christianity in general, don't you agree with me?

Also, i don't think that the other religions are all the good guys, but it happened that Muslims and Christians were involved politically since long time a go which resulted in what you mentioned. That's a struggle of the followers but not the religion itself and what it do teach.

 

[TashaN]

I have to go with: It's followers.

This is like saying:

I hate Manchester United because i don't like it's supporters !!!

 

[daemonikus]

what's wrong with religion?

the problem with religion is not just that its followers too often take it to an extreme causing harm to others for reasons of little more than theological differences. its not just that it often advocates prejudice, intolerance and blind stereotyping. its not just that it requires following traditions (often) thousands of years old with little to no cultural alterations (which is strange since many of the traditions were developed based on the culture of the period).

its also that despite any good intentions from the religious to do good and love others, it creates a world where if things cant be explained they must be divine. a rather primitive way thinking. this in turn creates a mind that is far more willing to believe something without evidence. believing things without evidence can create paranoia, hysteria, unjustified hate, stereotyping and a host of other obstacles to the development of the human mind. just because we cannot currently explain something, doesnt mean we should attribute it to a god.

 

[daemonikus]

there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that the towers were not destroyed simply by a plane crashing into them. this is not to say that it wasn't organized by terrorists, only that its very possible that they had more help than just from their knives and 'allah' guiding the planes to exactly the right spot in both buildings. there are plenty of documentaries that will argue points for both sides. just dont blindly believe what you are told without observing evidnce from both sides and coming to a logical conclusion. that is how a religious mind is often decieved. a lack of questioning in religion will likely translate to a lack of questioning in other areas.

 

[Pariah]

Please stay on topic - this thread has nothing to do with September 11th conspiracy theories.

The problem with differentiating between violence justified by religion and violence caused by religion is that there really is no difference.

The majority determines morality.

The majority has morphed over several centuries to believe what we believe in our age of existence.

The terrorism which, society as a large, percieves as inhumane, caused by misinterpreations in any religious scripture, remains the same violence that others view as God's word.

Everything that one says about religious scripture is simply an interpretation unless context, history, and poetic license allow for constrictions on what can be allowed to be translated from the words printed.

If not religion, then something else, I say.

 

[joeboonda]

How did Omar conquer Jerusalem did he do it in the manner in which the Christian commited their crusades. Besides the Crusades is a Europeon concept so the crusade's begin with them and not the muslims.

Alrighty then. The First Crusade was undertaken by Muslims when they captured the Holy Land along with all of Christianity's sacred places. Jerusalem fell to the Muslim hordes under Caliph Omar in A.D. 637, exactly 15 years after the beginning of Islam. The Muslims traveled with the scimitar (sword) and in many cases, they gave people two choices: convert or die. They captured the Holy Land, Bethlehem, the place of Christ's birth, Galilee, where He ministered, Calvary, where He suffered and died, and the Holy Sepulchre, where He was buried and from which He rose. Over the years some thirty thousand Christian churches or other Christian buildings in that area were destroyed by the Muslims or were converted into mosques. When the order went out to destroy the church of the Holy Sepulchre, Christians in Europe reacted by organizing their own Crusade, the Second Crusade, really, to reclaim Chriostianity's holy places.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the Crusades. Many terrible things were done on both sides, but isn't it interesting that we never hear something like this:

"General Douglas MacArthur and the Allied Forces held a crusade against the Phillipines and invaded those islands, driving out the people. Many thousands of lives were lost, and much property was destroyed. Terrible, terrible, terrible. He even said he was going to do it when he announced, 'I shall return.' Remember that?"

The story about the Philippines makes a lot more sense when put into perspective. The Japanese, who were driven out of those islands, had themselves invaded and conquered that land some years before. The U.S. and other allies restored the Philippines to their proper owners.

Again, I do not defend the Crusades, but it is only intellectually honest to place them in their historical context. The Christian Crusade was, in historical fact, a response to the Muslim Crusade, but how many times do you ever hear anyone talking about the Muslim Crusades? A little balance is needed for clearer understanding.
Skeptics Answered, D. James Kennedy, p.115-116.

 

[joeboonda]

I will not respond to folks who want me to believe for an instant those planes did not take down the Twin Towers, I saw it over and over again. It is pure hogwash and I am done with that conversation.

 

[cardero]

So you think if we can group religions into ONE major movement so you would have no problem to adhere to it?

If that movement was entitled Patrickism, then no, I would have no trouble remaining true to it.

 

[wub51]

No one with any knowledge of simple physics, or knows someone who did demo's in the military or works in construction demolisions. Or anyone who works for a steel mill will believe it was brought down by the planes. meaning anyone who looks at scientific facts and analyzes the evidence could possibly believe it.

What a silly comment. If a group or government had the capabilities of pulling off such a conspiracy, what would stop them from just taking whatever it is driving their motives? The complexity of such a conspiracy and then the ability to pull it off and successfully put the blame on Islamic fascists is incalculable. Not to mention that all of those conspiracy theory videos and websites you’re reading contain more contradictions than the Bush Administration it self. (I’m not a Bush basher; I’m just slightly, disappointed with the way things have been going.)

 

[doppelganger]

This is like saying:

I hate Manchester United because i don't like it's supporters !!!

Not really. Manchester's fans don't play the game. The game of religion is played through and by the followers. In fact, having followers is sort of the point of having a "religion" in the first place.

 

[doppelganger]

If that movement was entitled Patrickism, then no, I would have no trouble remaining true to it.

Everybody gives the same answer to that question (and always will). Just substitute one's favorite creeds for "Patrickism" then rinse, lather and repeat.

Perhaps the future isn't one big religious movement, but 7 billion little ones, in which people come up with their own answers and swap stories - turning religion itself on its head by replacing evangelism and preaching with the even finer art of listening and learning.

 

[cardero]

Everybody gives the same answer to that question (and always will). Just substitute one's favorite creeds for "Patrickism" then rinse, lather and repeat.

Perhaps the future isn't one big religious movement, but 7 billion little ones, in which people come up with their own answers and swap stories - turning religion itself on its head by replacing evangelism and preaching with the even finer art of listening and learning.

The human element was the movement I was going after. If everyone could not adhere to Patrickism (which is a bit unrealistic for even Patrickism to expect) I would believe that we could all find it within our hearts to drop the pride and promote kindness and provide aid not because someone is a brother or sister of our assigned religion but because they are a fellow human in need of our help.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

******MOD POST*****

For those of you who wish to talk about 9/11 and all that, please start another thread. As for this thread, 9/11 is not the topic at hand. So please try to stay on point.

Thanx a bunch!!​

 

[McBell]

Which Crusades, the first or the second? Although the Crusades were bad and nominal christians comitted attrocities galore, remember, the first crusades were Muslims taking the Holy Land and the second crusades was the Europeans taking it back. But I agree, religion is used as an excuse to justify many wrong things God never asked us to do. I think it is leaders brainwashing followers in many cases. That is in religion or politics both. People think religion has killed more people than anything else but that is not so. Last century alone, Hitler had 6 million Jews killed, 11 to 16 million he had killed altogether, not to mention the millions who died in the war. Stalin had 42 million killed, Mao Tse-tung had killed 72 million, communism was responsible for 130 million murders in all, and about 170 million have been killed by other pagan states. (Compared to 12,000 in Spain in the Inquisition and about 30,000 in all)

Does not matter which one.
In fact, it does not matter which violent campaign which religion is blamed.

This is like saying:
I hate Manchester United because i don't like it's supporters !!!

Not really. Manchester's fans don't play the game. The game of religion is played through and by the followers. In fact, having followers is sort of the point of having a "religion" in the first place.

Interesting.
So one is not to judge a religion based upon the beliefs, attitudes, actions, etc of it's followers?

 

[Sunstone]

Skeptics Answered, D. James Kennedy, p.115-116.

Why quote a known wacko nutcase who believes the United States should become a Christian theocracy and then go on to dominate the world in order to bring about the Second Coming? Kennedy proposes a crusade the likes of which the world has never before seen.