Religion... A positive, or negative thing?
Discussion
Well, as I got moaned at in another thread for actually talking about religion, I figured I'd try a new thread. Been done before, but ho-hum... I wrote this little piece a while ago, and figured I'd post it, and see what comes of it. Who agrees with what, and who disagrees. A bit long, but ho hum...
BM said:
Many, many people have talked about the church being a force for good, or evil in the world. Personally, I find it hard to answer that question purely because of the huge leap between the Church as an authority, and the church as a community. I hold no doubt that the vast majority of religious people are NOT evil, wicked, or demonic in any way. In fact I’d hazard a guess that 90% of the people on the earth have the same goals, and the same desires in life. I want a nice house, a good relationship, and enough wealth to make my life comfortable, and struggle-free. I don’t think it would be wicked for me to say that, and I think it is a very normal part of the human condition.
So, for the question “Is Religion Evil”, I feel a need to remove the religious community from this debate. Not only does it seem ingenuous to ‘berate’ the religious as individuals on this topic, but it would be wrong. Religion can seldom be judged on an individuals actions. Instead, my target will be the authority. The vatican, the Church of England, the Imams, the self-anointed spokespeople, and even some members of government.
So what is the argument? Well, ever since time immemorial religion has been a part of the human psyche, for reasons that some see as good, or bad. At this juncture it makes no odds as to why religion came about, only that it did. Would the world we live in today be better, or worse if religion had been expunged from the pages of human memory? Personally, I think yes, it would do, and by a considerable margin. There are many obvious, and not so obvious reason that bring to to this conclusion. Obviously I am an Atheist, so the initial notion of a God is utterly foreign to me, but I don't think that has a great deal to do with the issues I have with the Church, (when I say church, I refer to most modern religions, it's easier to write 'The Church', than list every single facet that I have in my mind. Most of my thoughts are about the Christian faith, and I apologise for that, but they are the ones most prevalent to me, apart from radical Islam). Believing in an essentially invisible being has no malicious intent, nor does it cause any harm. Children believe in Santa Claus, and the tooth fairy, and it doesn't bring about any evil, or malevolence. Instead, it is the institutions that cause the problems, and that comes down to man. I hope that explains to some degree where I am coming from in this prose? Anyway, onwards and downwards, and let us look at the pro side of the argument for religion. That pretty much boils dow to three categories that the religious rest their case upon.
The first of these is charity. In many arguments, debates, and discussions about how religion benefits the human race, this is often the first thing that crops up. It is wielded like a shining beacon as to the greatness of God, and yet, it is simply man doing the deed. There are billions of dollars/ pounds/ shekels given every year to needy people, and causes all over the world, under the banner of religion. However, as great as that is, does it really mean that the church is good? I'm not overly convinced that their argument shows that religion, and the Church makes people give money. I give money, and so do plenty of other people. I'm not convinced that giving charity is an entirely religious endeavor. 'Medicines San Frontiers', 'UNICEF', and countless other charities all contribute greatly to aid, and help for the needy without the need to try to recruit for a certain brand of faith. Let us also not forget that the existence of these charities go in no way to prove that God exists in any way. So why does the Church insist that the charity proves it is a good thing? Is it money? Is that really all it comes down to? Who has the most money? Well, by that token the USA is much better than Belgium, purely as they have more money. I am far superior to my neighbor, as I have the more lucrative employment. Is it really that shallow? Yes, folks, it is. mankind has shown over the years that we are generous, no matter what. Money will pour in year upon year for famine, drought, earthquakes, the homeless, the sick, etc. As for certain surveys saying the religious give, or certain party affiliations give more money.. Please. Don't insult us with your lies, lies, and damned statistics.
The second of the pro arguments is the same one rewrapped and packaged under a few different guises. Hope, comfort, (not Ray Comfort!), etc… What exactly are these, and is it a purely religious notion? Well, I have no issue at all with people wanting to feel better inside themselves, for whatever reason, however they can attain. If a loved one dies, and it makes you feel better to think that they have gone on to another life, I am happy for you, I really am. Life can suck, and frankly we need what we can get through it. Life is hard, and a struggle, and although we have the luxuries that our evolved intelligence has given us, we still suffer the same consequences that life throws at every other living creature on the planet. Death, suffering, disease, loss, and pain. We will cope with it how we will. Is this feeling of comfort, and hope real? Is it something that only a church, or divine being could provide? Of course not, that would be absurd.
I would hope that all of you will have heard of placebos, security blankets, superstition, touching wood (stop sniggering at the back!), and all the other things that you do irrationally, just to make yourself feel better, or because it is some sort of habit. I know that when i am at sea, some people are funny about whistling on deck, or some people are funny about opening umbrellas inside. I know my lovely nieces all have the things that they grip with them, and cannot be without, such as 'white bear' or 'rags'… Whilst is is easily passed dismissed in todays semi-literate scientific civilization as harmless, should that superstition become something more, then it gains power in the realm of pseudo-science. Is it rational for grown, intelligent adults to act like a two or three year old child until the day they die? Is it retinal for adults to believe these things above all others? No, it isn't. The hope and comfort that people feel in relation to religion IS real to them, but aren't we at the point where these medieval superstitions are put behind us? You do not turn into a blithering wreck, scared of your inevitable death once you begin to think for yourself, and see the world for how it really is. Religion, along with the tooth fairy, fairies, and hobgoblins belong in the mythical books, and not as something taking a front row in your life. Grow up, and see the superstition for what it truly is.
The third, and final argument on the pro side that I can think of, (without delving into the supernatural pseudo nonsense), is community. Now when I say community, I simply mean that the church, and the events there in are a good thing in the community. It is probably one of the things I see as a major positive thing for the church, (albeit a lot have a religious undertone to them). The village church hall often has fairs, and events that do bring the community together, and that is a good thing. The only downer I can see in that is that it is inevitably on its base level a recruitment drive, but ho-hum… What can you do!
Oppression of Knowledge, and the Pursuit of Science
So, what possible bad things can the church be responsible, or have a part in? Well, why not start at what I think is THE issue of the modern time, with relation to how the church is retarding human progress, and that is its ability to divert people from the logical, and the rational, to what is essentially Bronze Age superstition. The church has a vast history of trying desperately to oppress logical, and rational thought, with the likes of Copernicus and Galileo threatened with death if they did not recant their findings, and return to their 'religious' ways. Ever since the fall of the Roman Empire, knowledge is Christendom was oppressed, in favor of the Church and its teachings. Before the Dark ages we had the likes of Plato, Aristotle and Pythagorus, and after we had newton, Darwin, Kepler, etc. During the Dark ages, those speaking about their scientific thinking were severely punished, many losing their lives to the stake, and the fire. The church held Christendom on a very short leash, and anything that ventured outside their beliefs was very quickly quashed.
How much this held human progress up, I don't know, and no-one can really say, but for 500+ years, maybe more depending on what you read, science was at a near dead stop. Just imagine where we would be today if we had not had that? Imagine how much progress would have been made in that time, not to mention the amount of people killed, tortured, and died through lack of sensible scientific appliances? This is where the world owes a huge debt to the Muslim world, and the fact that they held onto this knowledge, and it did not die out, despite the churches attempts to do so.
Creationism
Following on from the blockade of science, creationism does have, I feel, it's own little area it needs to be in. It should be fenced off, and treated with great caution, not so much for what it says, but for what it makes people think. There are people in the world, and I'm sure you all know one, who's idea of logic is to have in their mind a place where they think that science is a load of of toss, and that the Bible is actually what happened. They don't see it as a religious text, rather they see it as a true account of what happened since God created the universe right at the beginning of Creation. Now I for one understand entirely why primitive man had these stories, and it has been shown the world over that man in his infancy had stories in which to explain all that was unexplained in his life. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Pagans, The Roman Gods, the Greek Gods, and so on, and so forth.
It was essentially a very early method to explain the world, and what was going on around them. In the modern world, with all the mounds, and mounds of scientific discoveries, how can we hold onto these beliefs? Surely this goes back to holding onto these ridiculous beliefs. The evangelical churches of the United States are the prime movers when it comes to Creationism, or as they have re-christened it, "Intelligent Design". Fortunately, there is absolutely nothing intelligent about it, and even the simplest high school student can easily pick apart the arguments… So why does it persist? I honestly think it is down to people being either completely stupid, or shatteringly indoctrinated, to the point where they have no more logical though capability. Watching 'Jesus Camp' or any of Ray Comforts videos will soon make you understand the level of ignorance that these people possess. They have no logical thought process that tells them that their ideas are utterly based on nonsense. The thought that the Earth is six thousand years old, and that the dinosaurs, and man once lived side by side is sheer and utter idiocy.
Thankfully, attempts to promote this subject in the classroom by religious organizations such as 'The Discovery Institute' has been swiftly dealt with in court, on the side of logic, rationality, and common sense. That will not stop them. The Dover case was merely a stop gap, and the rise of religion in modern day politics ensures that this will not go away like some berated child. It is going to come back, and rational humans must do everything in their power to stop it, because failure to do so will be the start of another slippery slope into a modern dark age, where superstition bests logic, and we know what happened last time that happened.
Heaven, the afterlife, and Paradise
I'm not sure when the notion of the afterlife first came into being, but it seems a fairly common idea throughout religion. Hades, Heaven, Valhalla, and all the other places where dead people can go in their spare time have been written, sang, and spoken about for generation, upon generation, as the paradise your soul is transported to after death. However, whilst the idea of this may he nice and fluffy, it has been used as a tool, especially in recent times. The promise of the afterlife is the prime tool in the use of Islamic suicide bombers. Would they happily blow themselves up if it wasn't for the promise of 72 virgins was not there? Would people be so willing to head off on foreign conquest if the promise of an eternal life was not there? Some people may think it is a side issue, but I feel it is one of the core reason why we have suicide bombers. It is different to the person sacrificing themselves on a grenade in war, or putting themselves in danger to protect people, as that act is far more altruistic. A suicide bomber is all about destruction with the aim of killing not only your perceived enemy, but yourself. Is this willful destruction simply a religious thing? Nope, it certainly isn't, but the suicide element is. It is as though the belief that they have an afterlife means that the life they have on earth is cheapened, and means nothing. I can't get my head around that.
It is not simply an Islamic thing either. The kamikaze ran suicide runs famously in the second world war. Some people think that this was not faith based, but it was for their Emperor, who was, to them, a God. remember that Kamikaze means 'Divine Wind'… Soldiers have for many centuries believed that God was on their side. This was unfortunate when both sides had God on their side, as it suggested that God was simply a s
t who thrives on destruction, and mayhem, (and the religious text tend to back that up). It is interesting to note that the notion of Hell in Christianity only came about after the creation of the new Testament. At no point does the Old Testament mention hell, and it shows by the fact that Jews do not have a notion of Hell, only of eternal life.
So we have religious wars throughout history, from the Crusades, to wars between England, and Catholic countries in Europe. Now, I hear you yell, that wasn't about religion… You are right, but religion is the tool used in these wars, and the excuse. Whatever the motive, the fact that the battle cry was accompanied with a cross of whichever flavour driving on the troops. The fact the churches were complicit in backing up this nonsense makes them as guilty as anyone. Then we have the ireland issue, where grown adults pelt each other, children, etc, with stones, bottles, and explosives because of what they perceive as religious hatred… This is not even back in history. This is all recent, and is a massive shame on the people of Northern Ireland.
The Church in Africa
It has been well documented about the churches stance on Condoms, so I won't dwell in this too much. However, I feel the need to point out the utter ridiculous nature of their doctrine, and dogma, and the effect in Africa. Aids… It's not exactly nice, and it's somewhat deadly so the figures show. So why, with everything we know today, does the church still insist on proclaiming condoms, and family planning a sin? Why? Anybody know? It is fking ridiculous, and something that proponents of it should feel utter shame that they will stand by it. Millions die in Arica due to these proclamations, and yet the church stand solid, and happily stand idly by whilst a very religious population die off, for no reason. I this compassion? Is it love? Nope, it's downright manslaughter.
The church should be ashamed.
Child Abuse
Again, not something that is rare in todays world. The church now has a reputation for abuse of children? Is it fair, or is it simply stereotype, and exaggeration? Well, a recent investigation would seem that no, it isn't. It is maybe not widespread, but it is certainly something the church knows about, and will happily cover it up if they can. This is the church we are talking about here… covering up child abuse, rape, and mental torture. This is supposed to be the beacon of hope for these people, and the people who SHOULD be the most trustworthy in these peoples eyes are the ones who they should be most wary of. A simple google search of 'Church child abuse' will find that this is not a single event. It is all over the place. Does the church think they are above mans law? Do they think that their dog collars, and self-invented titles will give them any protection? These people have preached for all their lives about God, the afterlife, and sin, and yet these people are the ones that are the worst offenders. As an addition, the letter that the current Pope Benedict sent out when he first became prefect of the whatsimacallit, informed the Archbishops, et al, to deal with cases of child abuse secretly, and to keep the information from the prying eyes of the police, and the press. This is the same Popiness that sentenced a Bishop that had committed such offenses to a lifetime of prayer, and penance... That is a sentence apparently.
The teachings in the Bible
The Bible… It's the guidelines that all Christians should work from, which is a shame, as there is so much in the Bible that has a place only in the realms of Hell. The God we know is all loving isn't he! Isn't he?
Hmm…
If you are a rape victim - Death
If you don't listen to a priest - Death
If you hit your father - Death
If you commit adultery - Death
If you worship another God - Death (For you, and the rest of your town)
If you have sex before marriage - Death
Now forgive me for being a little ignorant, but how exactly is this God an all loving, and compassionate God? That is by no means the lot either, (speaking of Lot, that's quite a story), there is genocide, murder, slavery, rape, sexism, sacrifice, etc… Hmmm… So how on earth did this little book of horror become the guide for a good and wholesome life? fk knows… All I know is that I'll take my atheistic ways, and morals over this crap.
This is by no means an ancient things either. People are stoned today for being a witch, or committing adultery, etc. Fine theocracies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc, all hold their religious teachings very seriously. So next time someone wants a Christian country, and not a secular one, just point out how great those other theocracies are, and do they want to head down that path of intolerance, and hatred. Does the bible only lead you down a path of hatred? Seemingly, as it leaves no scope for people who may be different to you, or hold different beliefs.
Granted, many people ignore these particular teachings, but what does that say about their faith? Either the bible is the word of God, or it is the collection of short stories available at all good bookshops. Which is it. I'm not sure picking and choosing the parts of your religious text gives you much credence, and certainly shows you to be a hypocrite.
Conclusion
So what IS the church good for? Raising funds, and being a security blanket? Is that is? It has no other use apart from negative things? It gives nothing to the world. There have been no advancements made because of religion. If religion was given free reign over the world, would mankind have progressed? I don't think so, and this suggests to me that it would only retard mankind, and his progression. That leaves only one conclusion…
The church, and religion, are retarded...
Originally posted here... http://web.mac.com/blue_meanie1976/atheism/Ponderi...So, for the question “Is Religion Evil”, I feel a need to remove the religious community from this debate. Not only does it seem ingenuous to ‘berate’ the religious as individuals on this topic, but it would be wrong. Religion can seldom be judged on an individuals actions. Instead, my target will be the authority. The vatican, the Church of England, the Imams, the self-anointed spokespeople, and even some members of government.
So what is the argument? Well, ever since time immemorial religion has been a part of the human psyche, for reasons that some see as good, or bad. At this juncture it makes no odds as to why religion came about, only that it did. Would the world we live in today be better, or worse if religion had been expunged from the pages of human memory? Personally, I think yes, it would do, and by a considerable margin. There are many obvious, and not so obvious reason that bring to to this conclusion. Obviously I am an Atheist, so the initial notion of a God is utterly foreign to me, but I don't think that has a great deal to do with the issues I have with the Church, (when I say church, I refer to most modern religions, it's easier to write 'The Church', than list every single facet that I have in my mind. Most of my thoughts are about the Christian faith, and I apologise for that, but they are the ones most prevalent to me, apart from radical Islam). Believing in an essentially invisible being has no malicious intent, nor does it cause any harm. Children believe in Santa Claus, and the tooth fairy, and it doesn't bring about any evil, or malevolence. Instead, it is the institutions that cause the problems, and that comes down to man. I hope that explains to some degree where I am coming from in this prose? Anyway, onwards and downwards, and let us look at the pro side of the argument for religion. That pretty much boils dow to three categories that the religious rest their case upon.
The first of these is charity. In many arguments, debates, and discussions about how religion benefits the human race, this is often the first thing that crops up. It is wielded like a shining beacon as to the greatness of God, and yet, it is simply man doing the deed. There are billions of dollars/ pounds/ shekels given every year to needy people, and causes all over the world, under the banner of religion. However, as great as that is, does it really mean that the church is good? I'm not overly convinced that their argument shows that religion, and the Church makes people give money. I give money, and so do plenty of other people. I'm not convinced that giving charity is an entirely religious endeavor. 'Medicines San Frontiers', 'UNICEF', and countless other charities all contribute greatly to aid, and help for the needy without the need to try to recruit for a certain brand of faith. Let us also not forget that the existence of these charities go in no way to prove that God exists in any way. So why does the Church insist that the charity proves it is a good thing? Is it money? Is that really all it comes down to? Who has the most money? Well, by that token the USA is much better than Belgium, purely as they have more money. I am far superior to my neighbor, as I have the more lucrative employment. Is it really that shallow? Yes, folks, it is. mankind has shown over the years that we are generous, no matter what. Money will pour in year upon year for famine, drought, earthquakes, the homeless, the sick, etc. As for certain surveys saying the religious give, or certain party affiliations give more money.. Please. Don't insult us with your lies, lies, and damned statistics.
The second of the pro arguments is the same one rewrapped and packaged under a few different guises. Hope, comfort, (not Ray Comfort!), etc… What exactly are these, and is it a purely religious notion? Well, I have no issue at all with people wanting to feel better inside themselves, for whatever reason, however they can attain. If a loved one dies, and it makes you feel better to think that they have gone on to another life, I am happy for you, I really am. Life can suck, and frankly we need what we can get through it. Life is hard, and a struggle, and although we have the luxuries that our evolved intelligence has given us, we still suffer the same consequences that life throws at every other living creature on the planet. Death, suffering, disease, loss, and pain. We will cope with it how we will. Is this feeling of comfort, and hope real? Is it something that only a church, or divine being could provide? Of course not, that would be absurd.
I would hope that all of you will have heard of placebos, security blankets, superstition, touching wood (stop sniggering at the back!), and all the other things that you do irrationally, just to make yourself feel better, or because it is some sort of habit. I know that when i am at sea, some people are funny about whistling on deck, or some people are funny about opening umbrellas inside. I know my lovely nieces all have the things that they grip with them, and cannot be without, such as 'white bear' or 'rags'… Whilst is is easily passed dismissed in todays semi-literate scientific civilization as harmless, should that superstition become something more, then it gains power in the realm of pseudo-science. Is it rational for grown, intelligent adults to act like a two or three year old child until the day they die? Is it retinal for adults to believe these things above all others? No, it isn't. The hope and comfort that people feel in relation to religion IS real to them, but aren't we at the point where these medieval superstitions are put behind us? You do not turn into a blithering wreck, scared of your inevitable death once you begin to think for yourself, and see the world for how it really is. Religion, along with the tooth fairy, fairies, and hobgoblins belong in the mythical books, and not as something taking a front row in your life. Grow up, and see the superstition for what it truly is.
The third, and final argument on the pro side that I can think of, (without delving into the supernatural pseudo nonsense), is community. Now when I say community, I simply mean that the church, and the events there in are a good thing in the community. It is probably one of the things I see as a major positive thing for the church, (albeit a lot have a religious undertone to them). The village church hall often has fairs, and events that do bring the community together, and that is a good thing. The only downer I can see in that is that it is inevitably on its base level a recruitment drive, but ho-hum… What can you do!
Oppression of Knowledge, and the Pursuit of Science
So, what possible bad things can the church be responsible, or have a part in? Well, why not start at what I think is THE issue of the modern time, with relation to how the church is retarding human progress, and that is its ability to divert people from the logical, and the rational, to what is essentially Bronze Age superstition. The church has a vast history of trying desperately to oppress logical, and rational thought, with the likes of Copernicus and Galileo threatened with death if they did not recant their findings, and return to their 'religious' ways. Ever since the fall of the Roman Empire, knowledge is Christendom was oppressed, in favor of the Church and its teachings. Before the Dark ages we had the likes of Plato, Aristotle and Pythagorus, and after we had newton, Darwin, Kepler, etc. During the Dark ages, those speaking about their scientific thinking were severely punished, many losing their lives to the stake, and the fire. The church held Christendom on a very short leash, and anything that ventured outside their beliefs was very quickly quashed.
How much this held human progress up, I don't know, and no-one can really say, but for 500+ years, maybe more depending on what you read, science was at a near dead stop. Just imagine where we would be today if we had not had that? Imagine how much progress would have been made in that time, not to mention the amount of people killed, tortured, and died through lack of sensible scientific appliances? This is where the world owes a huge debt to the Muslim world, and the fact that they held onto this knowledge, and it did not die out, despite the churches attempts to do so.
Creationism
Following on from the blockade of science, creationism does have, I feel, it's own little area it needs to be in. It should be fenced off, and treated with great caution, not so much for what it says, but for what it makes people think. There are people in the world, and I'm sure you all know one, who's idea of logic is to have in their mind a place where they think that science is a load of of toss, and that the Bible is actually what happened. They don't see it as a religious text, rather they see it as a true account of what happened since God created the universe right at the beginning of Creation. Now I for one understand entirely why primitive man had these stories, and it has been shown the world over that man in his infancy had stories in which to explain all that was unexplained in his life. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Pagans, The Roman Gods, the Greek Gods, and so on, and so forth.
It was essentially a very early method to explain the world, and what was going on around them. In the modern world, with all the mounds, and mounds of scientific discoveries, how can we hold onto these beliefs? Surely this goes back to holding onto these ridiculous beliefs. The evangelical churches of the United States are the prime movers when it comes to Creationism, or as they have re-christened it, "Intelligent Design". Fortunately, there is absolutely nothing intelligent about it, and even the simplest high school student can easily pick apart the arguments… So why does it persist? I honestly think it is down to people being either completely stupid, or shatteringly indoctrinated, to the point where they have no more logical though capability. Watching 'Jesus Camp' or any of Ray Comforts videos will soon make you understand the level of ignorance that these people possess. They have no logical thought process that tells them that their ideas are utterly based on nonsense. The thought that the Earth is six thousand years old, and that the dinosaurs, and man once lived side by side is sheer and utter idiocy.
Thankfully, attempts to promote this subject in the classroom by religious organizations such as 'The Discovery Institute' has been swiftly dealt with in court, on the side of logic, rationality, and common sense. That will not stop them. The Dover case was merely a stop gap, and the rise of religion in modern day politics ensures that this will not go away like some berated child. It is going to come back, and rational humans must do everything in their power to stop it, because failure to do so will be the start of another slippery slope into a modern dark age, where superstition bests logic, and we know what happened last time that happened.
Heaven, the afterlife, and Paradise
I'm not sure when the notion of the afterlife first came into being, but it seems a fairly common idea throughout religion. Hades, Heaven, Valhalla, and all the other places where dead people can go in their spare time have been written, sang, and spoken about for generation, upon generation, as the paradise your soul is transported to after death. However, whilst the idea of this may he nice and fluffy, it has been used as a tool, especially in recent times. The promise of the afterlife is the prime tool in the use of Islamic suicide bombers. Would they happily blow themselves up if it wasn't for the promise of 72 virgins was not there? Would people be so willing to head off on foreign conquest if the promise of an eternal life was not there? Some people may think it is a side issue, but I feel it is one of the core reason why we have suicide bombers. It is different to the person sacrificing themselves on a grenade in war, or putting themselves in danger to protect people, as that act is far more altruistic. A suicide bomber is all about destruction with the aim of killing not only your perceived enemy, but yourself. Is this willful destruction simply a religious thing? Nope, it certainly isn't, but the suicide element is. It is as though the belief that they have an afterlife means that the life they have on earth is cheapened, and means nothing. I can't get my head around that.
It is not simply an Islamic thing either. The kamikaze ran suicide runs famously in the second world war. Some people think that this was not faith based, but it was for their Emperor, who was, to them, a God. remember that Kamikaze means 'Divine Wind'… Soldiers have for many centuries believed that God was on their side. This was unfortunate when both sides had God on their side, as it suggested that God was simply a s
t who thrives on destruction, and mayhem, (and the religious text tend to back that up). It is interesting to note that the notion of Hell in Christianity only came about after the creation of the new Testament. At no point does the Old Testament mention hell, and it shows by the fact that Jews do not have a notion of Hell, only of eternal life. So we have religious wars throughout history, from the Crusades, to wars between England, and Catholic countries in Europe. Now, I hear you yell, that wasn't about religion… You are right, but religion is the tool used in these wars, and the excuse. Whatever the motive, the fact that the battle cry was accompanied with a cross of whichever flavour driving on the troops. The fact the churches were complicit in backing up this nonsense makes them as guilty as anyone. Then we have the ireland issue, where grown adults pelt each other, children, etc, with stones, bottles, and explosives because of what they perceive as religious hatred… This is not even back in history. This is all recent, and is a massive shame on the people of Northern Ireland.
The Church in Africa
It has been well documented about the churches stance on Condoms, so I won't dwell in this too much. However, I feel the need to point out the utter ridiculous nature of their doctrine, and dogma, and the effect in Africa. Aids… It's not exactly nice, and it's somewhat deadly so the figures show. So why, with everything we know today, does the church still insist on proclaiming condoms, and family planning a sin? Why? Anybody know? It is f
king ridiculous, and something that proponents of it should feel utter shame that they will stand by it. Millions die in Arica due to these proclamations, and yet the church stand solid, and happily stand idly by whilst a very religious population die off, for no reason. I this compassion? Is it love? Nope, it's downright manslaughter.The church should be ashamed.
Child Abuse
Again, not something that is rare in todays world. The church now has a reputation for abuse of children? Is it fair, or is it simply stereotype, and exaggeration? Well, a recent investigation would seem that no, it isn't. It is maybe not widespread, but it is certainly something the church knows about, and will happily cover it up if they can. This is the church we are talking about here… covering up child abuse, rape, and mental torture. This is supposed to be the beacon of hope for these people, and the people who SHOULD be the most trustworthy in these peoples eyes are the ones who they should be most wary of. A simple google search of 'Church child abuse' will find that this is not a single event. It is all over the place. Does the church think they are above mans law? Do they think that their dog collars, and self-invented titles will give them any protection? These people have preached for all their lives about God, the afterlife, and sin, and yet these people are the ones that are the worst offenders. As an addition, the letter that the current Pope Benedict sent out when he first became prefect of the whatsimacallit, informed the Archbishops, et al, to deal with cases of child abuse secretly, and to keep the information from the prying eyes of the police, and the press. This is the same Popiness that sentenced a Bishop that had committed such offenses to a lifetime of prayer, and penance... That is a sentence apparently.
The teachings in the Bible
The Bible… It's the guidelines that all Christians should work from, which is a shame, as there is so much in the Bible that has a place only in the realms of Hell. The God we know is all loving isn't he! Isn't he?
Hmm…
If you are a rape victim - Death
If you don't listen to a priest - Death
If you hit your father - Death
If you commit adultery - Death
If you worship another God - Death (For you, and the rest of your town)
If you have sex before marriage - Death
Now forgive me for being a little ignorant, but how exactly is this God an all loving, and compassionate God? That is by no means the lot either, (speaking of Lot, that's quite a story), there is genocide, murder, slavery, rape, sexism, sacrifice, etc… Hmmm… So how on earth did this little book of horror become the guide for a good and wholesome life? f
k knows… All I know is that I'll take my atheistic ways, and morals over this crap. This is by no means an ancient things either. People are stoned today for being a witch, or committing adultery, etc. Fine theocracies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc, all hold their religious teachings very seriously. So next time someone wants a Christian country, and not a secular one, just point out how great those other theocracies are, and do they want to head down that path of intolerance, and hatred. Does the bible only lead you down a path of hatred? Seemingly, as it leaves no scope for people who may be different to you, or hold different beliefs.
Granted, many people ignore these particular teachings, but what does that say about their faith? Either the bible is the word of God, or it is the collection of short stories available at all good bookshops. Which is it. I'm not sure picking and choosing the parts of your religious text gives you much credence, and certainly shows you to be a hypocrite.
Conclusion
So what IS the church good for? Raising funds, and being a security blanket? Is that is? It has no other use apart from negative things? It gives nothing to the world. There have been no advancements made because of religion. If religion was given free reign over the world, would mankind have progressed? I don't think so, and this suggests to me that it would only retard mankind, and his progression. That leaves only one conclusion…
The church, and religion, are retarded...
Edited by Blue Meanie on Saturday 18th September 23:53
NoNeed said:
Blue Meanie said:
By the way, I've started a new thread if you want to take this discussion there, instead of this thread?
Invitation accepted.NoNeed said:
LOL wish I hadn't accepted now
It's a good thing
When was the last time you knew somebody got the death penalty for being raped purely on the word of the bible?
Still reading but that bit jumped out.
Well, not necessarily the Bible, but in Saudi, women are stoned for adultery, and the like. This is Sharia law. It's a good thing
When was the last time you knew somebody got the death penalty for being raped purely on the word of the bible?
Still reading but that bit jumped out.
PS, the Holy word of God, the bible states this in the OT, which Jesus in the NT says still stands.
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
Edited to add bible quote
Edited by Blue Meanie on Sunday 19th September 00:01
Blue Meanie said:
NoNeed said:
LOL wish I hadn't accepted now
It's a good thing
When was the last time you knew somebody got the death penalty for being raped purely on the word of the bible?
Still reading but that bit jumped out.
Well, not necessarily the Bible, but in Saudi, women are stoned for adultery, and the like. This is Sharia law. It's a good thing
When was the last time you knew somebody got the death penalty for being raped purely on the word of the bible?
Still reading but that bit jumped out.
PS, the Holy word of God, the bible states this in the OT, which Jesus in the NT says still stands.
Edited by Blue Meanie on Sunday 19th September 00:00
Blue Meanie said:
NoNeed said:
LOL wish I hadn't accepted now
It's a good thing
When was the last time you knew somebody got the death penalty for being raped purely on the word of the bible?
Still reading but that bit jumped out.
Well, not necessarily the Bible, but in Saudi, women are stoned for adultery, and the like. This is Sharia law.It's a good thing
When was the last time you knew somebody got the death penalty for being raped purely on the word of the bible?
Still reading but that bit jumped out.
Trouble is I think we have to be careful with the 2nd group as our liberal political elite seem to have tied that up as a potential hate crime don't they? As if Sharia Law doesn't encourage or excuse evil, course not. Can't hate it, that would be wrong . .
groak said:
What's probably worth pointing out is that this is the NP&E forum.
Which category of NP&E does this topic belong in, and if it doesn't could the mods please move it to....The Lounge perhaps?
Hit the report button on the first post and explain why it should be moved. It might be some time before one reads this thread, better to bring it to thier attention IMO, if you want it moving.Which category of NP&E does this topic belong in, and if it doesn't could the mods please move it to....The Lounge perhaps?
NoNeed said:
Blue Meanie said:
NoNeed said:
LOL wish I hadn't accepted now
It's a good thing
When was the last time you knew somebody got the death penalty for being raped purely on the word of the bible?
Still reading but that bit jumped out.
Well, not necessarily the Bible, but in Saudi, women are stoned for adultery, and the like. This is Sharia law. It's a good thing
When was the last time you knew somebody got the death penalty for being raped purely on the word of the bible?
Still reading but that bit jumped out.
PS, the Holy word of God, the bible states this in the OT, which Jesus in the NT says still stands.
Edited by Blue Meanie on Sunday 19th September 00:00
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." - (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
Are you translating them as you want just like those religiousists? I am reading them differently. "Commandments" and "relations" - I don't follow your logic with these words. "Commandments" surely refers to the 10 Commandments, not the Old Testament in its entirety? "Relations" doesn't suggest rape but something else ie affair.
Edited by ShadownINja on Sunday 19th September 00:14
ShadownINja said:
Are you translating them as you want? I am reading them differently. "Commandments" and "relations" - I don't follow your logic with these words.
Having 'relations' with someone is in the same vein as 'knowing' someone in the bible. The text also suggests rape as the woman did not cry out. Blue Meanie said:
ShadownINja said:
Are you translating them as you want? I am reading them differently. "Commandments" and "relations" - I don't follow your logic with these words.
Having 'relations' with someone is in the same vein as 'knowing' someone in the bible. The text also suggests rape as the woman did not cry out. Edited by ShadownINja on Sunday 19th September 00:16
ShadownINja said:
Blue Meanie said:
ShadownINja said:
Are you translating them as you want? I am reading them differently. "Commandments" and "relations" - I don't follow your logic with these words.
Having 'relations' with someone is in the same vein as 'knowing' someone in the bible. The text also suggests rape as the woman did not cry out. Edited by ShadownINja on Sunday 19th September 00:15
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
with regards to the Old testament. The text says she did not cry out for help... Women seldom need to cry for help when having an affair.
The irony is that the Old testament is full to the brim with decrees regarding raping the enemies of God.
Edited by Blue Meanie on Sunday 19th September 00:19
Let me start again. By commandment, I read it as following the 10 Commandments. By relations, I read it as having an affair rather than being raped.
I think this sums up the problem with the various religious texts - we can translate it how we want and apply logic to arrive at some conclusion completely different to the author's intentions.
I think this sums up the problem with the various religious texts - we can translate it how we want and apply logic to arrive at some conclusion completely different to the author's intentions.
Blue Meanie said:
Jesus also said
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
with regards to the Old testament. The text says she did not cry out for help... Women seldom need to cry for help when having an affair.
1) What does this mean to you? And what was the context?"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
with regards to the Old testament. The text says she did not cry out for help... Women seldom need to cry for help when having an affair.
2) That's what I said. Thus the stoning of man and woman having an affair. Bit harsh, of course, but not stoning a raped woman.
Edited by ShadownINja on Sunday 19th September 00:21
ShadownINja said:
Let me start again. By commandment, I read it as following the 10 Commandments. By relations, I read it as having an affair rather than being raped.
I think this sums up the problem with the various religious texts - we can translate it how we want and apply logic to arrive at some conclusion completely different to the author's intentions.
makes you wonder why the Lord made it so confusing... After all, there are 3 separate Abrahamic religions... All from the same God... It's all very odd.I think this sums up the problem with the various religious texts - we can translate it how we want and apply logic to arrive at some conclusion completely different to the author's intentions.
Without going in to detail as I cba to type all night, the problem with religion is that men in positions of influence can take any book from any religion and translate it as they see fit. That's what causes problems. Blaming religion is slightly erroneous. Blame man's greed for power and land. An individual can take any religious book and use it for advice and to guide them to be a better person. (Cue 4,000 PHers saying they don't need a book to tell them right from wrong.) It can give someone inspiration especially in times of darkness. And it keeps dust off a bookshelf.
I often wonder what would happen if chavs went to church. (Yeah, I know they already visit churches hence the missing lead from roofs.)
I often wonder what would happen if chavs went to church. (Yeah, I know they already visit churches hence the missing lead from roofs.)
Edited by ShadownINja on Sunday 19th September 00:32
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff