Why all those burial atrocities, by thy holy cause, were performed?

[melcollanero]

By introducting myself in the forum I want to start a debate probably carried on in early times on this actual forum. But giving the oportunity to new readers to try to answer can always be a good thing. As I do not have an expertise managing forum mechanics either.

What I want to know is the reason of the bad thing most of religions have move humans to do in order to accomplish the different manuscripts. As you may know, religions tend to teach humans some objectives, but as every religion has been conformed by human writers, is as humans were/are teaching others humans. To simplify, masters teaching learners, sending objectives of behavior (act) and thinking. Similar as a peasant moves his cattle.

But the point of the title is about what we, humans, have done to ourselves taking guidance of most dispersed religions. How can these, by any mean, be an example of how we have to think and, in consequence, act?. Has these, by chance, caused conciliation, unity, satisfaction.. or maybe these has ended our pain, hate, greed..?

Why do we possibly need religions after all those deaths caused by this name? Something I can conceive is that has bring to us tribal grinding, more cultural differences, causes for a group of people defy other group, to justify their immense ego, to excuse such brutal acts..

All this have done to humankind is end the vast multicultural this world once was, when in a remote past various tales of imaginations sprouted from locations to explicit his origin and the origin of things they could perceive.

I would say most religions are not a good men invention, we would have skipped deaths "from above".

If there is something in humans conept that differentiates is believing and knowing, and believe without knowing is one of the most incurrent mistakes by a vast majority, committed since long ago.

Let me know what do you think of this mess most dominant religions has bring to this world.

 

[Sir Doom]

Humans are responsible for atrocity. Nothing else. Religion was born of humanity, as you say. You seem to want to add the human factor to show the illegitimacy of religion and then remove the human factor for responsibility of the results.

 

[melcollanero]

But If we did make religions then this has born from the human factor necessarily.
Now If we have driven certain objectives to be done under this premise of religion,
then it doesn't mean this is legit. Why after all we know has been done under the excuse of
some religion, we couldn't realize If this is legit or not. Do we really need more proof?

 

[Sir Doom]

But If we did make religions then this has born from the human factor necessarily.
Now If we have driven certain objectives to be done under this premise of religion,
then it doesn't mean this is legit. Why after all we know has been done under the excuse of
some religion, we couldn't realize If this is legit or not. Do we really need more proof?

But, it can easily be shown that those who do horrible acts in the name of religion are not following the religion as it is prescribed.

Because Richard the Lionheart kills Muslims in the name of Jesus, does this mean you should not, "Love thy neighbor." As Jesus says?

No. It just means Richard was a liar. The religion is not to blame. Richard is.

 

[melcollanero]

Then there is no god meant to save us or something. If there is a god, he awards the most cruel, the one capable of bring more deaths to his hated opponents. Unity never was what some superior force wanted for our race.

Historical heroes are just sinners and suffer a life after this one If there was one, yet they are still honored by citizens who feel represented as a tribe. Then we doesn't believe in nothing called god. We believe in ourselves and our own survival.

 

[Sir Doom]

Then there is no god meant to save us or something. If there is a god, he awards the most cruel, the one capable of bring more deaths to his hated opponents. Unity never was what some superior force wanted for our race.

There is no reason to bring god into the equation. We are both operating under the assumption that religion is human made. Lets leave it there.

Historical heroes are just sinners and suffer a life after this one If there was one, yet they are still honored by citizens who feel represented as a tribe. Then we doesn't believe in nothing called god. We believe in ourselves and our own survival.

This is how it's always been. The reality is, humans created religion. They also created war. They also created atrocity. To blame war and atrocity on religion is just as ignorant as excusing war and atrocity with religion.

It is part of the human animal, and can't simply be discarded.

 

[kjw47]

But, it can easily be shown that those who do horrible acts in the name of religion are not following the religion as it is prescribed.

Because Richard the Lionheart kills Muslims in the name of Jesus, does this mean you should not, "Love thy neighbor." As Jesus says?

No. It just means Richard was a liar. The religion is not to blame. Richard is.

Actually the clergy ordered the crusades. Along the way to kill muslims they stopped in Jewish settlements and murdered all of the jews living, including the children, for supplies. Then later the clergy ordered the aztecs or incas( i forgot which one) wiped off of the earth because they practiced fornication, meanwhile those same clergymen were the #1 attendees of the brothels in europe. Then during the inquisition ordered by the clergy, they burned any human alive that disagreed with their religious beliefs. Then they had the witchhunts-- then in the rev war, the civil war, ww1,ww2, they stood on both sides of these wars and blew each others heads off. while the clergymen prayed to the same God supposedly for the quick destruction of their own supposed brothers in Christ-- how sick to drag Jesus through the mud like that. i didnt seem to read that Jesus in Gods word. quite the opposite. the only result one can conclude--false religions.

 

[Sir Doom]

Actually the clergy ordered the crusades. Along the way to kill muslims they stopped in Jewish settlements and murdered all of the jews living, including the children, for supplies. Then later the clergy ordered the aztecs or incas( i forgot which one) wiped off of the earth because they practiced fornication, meanwhile those same clergymen were the #1 attendees of the brothels in europe. Then during the inquisition ordered by the clergy, they burned any human alive that disagreed with their religious beliefs. Then they had the witchhunts-- then in the rev war, the civil war, ww1,ww2, they stood on both sides of these wars and blew each others heads off. while the clergymen prayed to the same God supposedly for the quick destruction of their own supposed brothers in Christ-- how sick to drag Jesus through the mud like that. i didnt seem to read that Jesus in Gods word. quite the opposite. the only result one can conclude--false religions.

Its really not that important who ordered what, is it? The point is that war is war is war is war. The Crusades are often used as examples of atrocity caused by religion, but compared to some conflicts that have graced this bloody planet of ours its actually not that horrible.

Here is a comparable example:

The Warring States period of China (completely devoid of religious tensions) lasted from ~475 BC-~221 BC. Roughly 250 years. The death toll is estimated to top out around 20 million dead.

The Crusades (all of them combined) lasted from ~1095 AD - ~1291 AD. Roughly 200 years. The death toll is estimated to top out around 1 million deaths.

Comparable land masses involved, comparable time lines involved. Astronomical differences in loss of life.

When you start stacking these things up next to each other I think you'll find religion (while it has plenty of blood on its hands) is not the real problem here. It's just human beings.

 

[melcollanero]

There's no reason to use gods in nohting, everything can be explained from other methods, If so.

Maybe that quantity of deaths in wars involving or not some religion, have distinct reasons, but the most unreasonable is the one involving religion, which can be and should be discarded, when coming to a conflict. It has just been used as excuse to achieve some goal, nothing more.

Religion is under no way a necessary thing to take into account when you see things like this, or maybe could you tell some reason why take some religion into our lives? I don't see any. Why would some religion be useful If it has not been never proved and has resolved nothing (on the contrary) in past and present days.

 

[Sir Doom]

There's no reason to use gods in nohting, everything can be explained from other methods, If so.

Maybe that quantity of deaths in wars involving or not some religion, have distinct reasons, but the most unreasonable is the one involving religion, which can be and should be discarded, when coming to a conflict. It has just been used as excuse to achieve some goal, nothing more.

Religion is under no way a necessary thing to take into account when you see things like this, or maybe could you tell some reason why take some religion into our lives? I don't see any. Why would some religion be useful If it has not been never proved and has resolved nothing (on the contrary) in past and present days.

I would have to say religion has done plenty of good things as well. You may be right that it is unnecessary, but that's a hard sell anyway. Necessity is not the measure of all worth. Its rarely the measure of any worth, to be honest. We are fueled by want and desire not need. People want and desire to be closer to god (even if it doesn't exist). Who can blame them?

 

[melcollanero]

And I would like to read such good things on religion. Why would be necessary, too. What valor has. Why desire for.

I can only blame fact over past. And i can't also rescue a valuable thing about it.

 

[Sir Doom]

There is a ton of humanitarian aid given globally by many large religions. Here are a couple of examples:

Catholic Relief Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LDS Humanitarian Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are lots more.

 

[melcollanero]

No need to be "religious" to be cooperative, besides, are those intermediaries?

Such institutions can be easily heard as commercial, when there is a lot of people who rely on institutions when they act under "religious" names. May be that attract more people to donate? Do that move more moeny?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I would say most religions are not a good men invention, we would have skipped deaths "from above".

The 20th century has clearly shown us with the likes of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Hitler. That we don't need religion to kill each other.

 

[melcollanero]

You have pointed another facet, the possibility to profit from religions. And that is neither good, when it's supposed money is aparted from "spirituallity". There are cases which just doesn't starting conflicts would be better, not causing trouble in a place and later going there to take advantage of the situation. That has happenned after a war tithed a country, i.e.

The vatican should show more humility instead of more ostentatious. It's going at reverse.

 

[melcollanero]

The 20th century has clearly shown us with the likes of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Hitler. That we don't need religion to kill each other.

Absolutely, but why would kill for something that suppossedly meant just the opposite. The religion has been involved in conquest and submission. Tell me why so much people rely on this as it were good. And we are talking about religion here.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Absolutely, but why would kill for something that suppossedly meant just the opposite. The religion has been involved in conquest and submission. Tell me why so much people rely on this as it were good. And we are talking about religion here.

Not true of all religions. I know of no forced submissions by the Jain's.

To answer you question. Hindus have a saying. If a water buffalo had a God it would be a great big Buffalo. We have the types of religion we desire and were raised to to believe in.

 

[kjw47]

Its really not that important who ordered what, is it? The point is that war is war is war is war. The Crusades are often used as examples of atrocity caused by religion, but compared to some conflicts that have graced this bloody planet of ours its actually not that horrible.

Here is a comparable example:

The Warring States period of China (completely devoid of religious tensions) lasted from ~475 BC-~221 BC. Roughly 250 years. The death toll is estimated to top out around 20 million dead.

The Crusades (all of them combined) lasted from ~1095 AD - ~1291 AD. Roughly 200 years. The death toll is estimated to top out around 1 million deaths.

Comparable land masses involved, comparable time lines involved. Astronomical differences in loss of life.

When you start stacking these things up next to each other I think you'll find religion (while it has plenty of blood on its hands) is not the real problem here. It's just human beings.

Yes humans are at fault because as Jesus said--Satan is the ruler of this world. But religion claiming to be servants of Jesus Christ bloodguilt has amassed to the heavens. ( the rev war,, the war of 1812, the civil war, ww1,ww2) God would never let his people stand on both sides of a war and kill each other, he never has or ever will-- its the false religions that would throw away Jesus,s teachings to do such a thing on the orders of men, they even went as far to do it and kill the members of their own religions for Adolf Hitler. Thus God warned all--GET OUT OF HER.

 

[arthra]

I'm having some difficulty really understanding the language of the opening post...but from what I gather the concern is likely attrocities committed in the name of religion and this has occurred for centuries. What occurs in my view is that attrocities are committed largely because of the exploitation of religion by unscrupulous people ...this can occur because of the way some of the religions were organized over time and the original impetus or elan of the revelation became lost or forgotten.

 

[melcollanero]

Not true of all religions. I know of no forced submissions by the Jain's.

To answer you question. Hindus have a saying. If a water buffalo had a God it would be a great big Buffalo. We have the types of religion we desire and were raised to to believe in.

I know Hindus have more than 2 million gods in todays India. They have shown clearly more imagination than western civilizations as to made all kind of religions and gods. Doesn't surprise me they have had and still have religions like you has mentioned. The way the view religions varies from the other civilizations, especially the one adopted now by many countries. But sympathize the case If another civilization would had imposed one big religion and forced to dissappear all the others.

The fact is that this (India's scenario) hasn't occurred in Europe, Middle East or America. The cultural clash was a big flattening when coming to religions such as the predominant Islamic or Judaic, and the well known branches that begun from this latter, which had special magnitude in all Europe and America. Not leaving place to ancient traditions because of the less dominance and not being to aggresive in comparison with the religions coming from the outside.

As religion served as way of conquest, hence dominant cultural imposing method. It wasn't pacific to leave traditions of a majority of the civilizations behind and take one obligatorily by force, when they did not even ask for it.