Religion banning "something"

[Pudding]

Why some religion wants/needs to ban non-believer for doing this thing or that thing?

Why some religion wants/needs to legislating their religion law to be the universal law for everyone must to follow it?

God A say that "something" should be forbidden because it's sin, so lets ban this "something".
God B detest "something" and decide it should be forbidden, so lets ban this "something".
God C don't like another "something", so lets ban this another "something" again.

According to religion A's holy book, "something" is sin and detestable, so it should be ban worldwide.
According to religion B's holy book, another "something" is forbidden, so it should be ban worldwide.

Some believer claimed that everything and everyone is created by their God, so everything and everyone have the obligation to must do as their God say.

Religion A certain that this behavior is sin, ban.
Religion B certain that that behavior is sin, ban.

Ban this, ban that, ban everything which don't agree with one's religion's God.
Is banning people and control everything really that necessary? Is it fun and feel superior?

Why some believer feel the needs of want to control everyone or everything?

Please prove that their God exist to everyone first before justify that everyone must obey their religion's rule, otherwise this justify is not fair. (edit)

Any God from any religion, if you wish everyone to obey you forever, please show yourself to everyone first. Not advice the people to believe in you first, then you'll enlighten them to let them know you exist. Look what happen in the world, many different religion in the world condemn each other for follow false God and insists that they're follow the truth God. You say that i'll go to hell, i say that you'll go to hell. Religion condemn religion, religion hurting religion, for the reason their various different God commanded them to do so. It's not good. (edit)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hinduism has nothing against atheists. I am one and I am very much a part of Hinduism.

 

[morphesium]

Why some religion wants/needs to ban non-believer for doing this thing or that thing?

Why some religion wants/needs to legislating their religion law to be the universal law for everyone must to follow it?

God A say that "something" should be forbidden because it's sin, so lets ban this "something".
God B detest "something" and decide it should be forbidden, so lets ban this "something".
God C don't like another "something", so lets ban this another "something" again.

According to religion A's holy book, "something" is sin and detestable, so it should be ban worldwide.
According to religion B's holy book, another "something" is forbidden, so it should be ban worldwide.

Some believer claimed that everything and everyone is created by their God, so everything and everyone have the obligation to must do as their God say.

Religion A certain that this behavior is sin, ban.
Religion B certain that that behavior is sin, ban.

Ban this, ban that, ban everything which don't agree with one's religion's God.
Is banning people and control everything really that necessary? Is it fun and feel superior?

Why some believer feel the needs of want to control everyone or everything?

Please prove that their God exist to everyone first before justify that everyone must obey their religion's rule, otherwise it's a meaningless and pointless justify.

Any God of any religion, if you wish everyone to obey you forever, please show yourself to everyone first. Not advice the people to believe in you first, then you'll enlighten them to let them know you exist. Look what happen in the world, many different religion in the world condemn each other for follow false God and insists that they're follow the truth God. You curse me go to hell, i curse you go to hell. Religion condemn religion, religion hurting religion, for the reason their various different God commanded them to do so. It's a mess.

God never created any religion. all Religion grow by exploiting the ignorance of the common people.


In the past, as humanity progressed into tribal societies and beyond, power always had to be vested with a few for proper administration. And it was easy for them to realize that they could guarantee their strong hold the most if they could take advantage of the fact that

1. The fear of the unknown is always much greater than fear of the known.
2. There is always the uncertainty of the future.
3. People had to suffer extreme hard ships for their survival and this demanded something strong to pacify them.

and nothing fits better than the God factor and hence the formation of a religion. This is something very easy to sell and makes the least oppression which they can easily suppress with some magical trickery and stories. Additionally, it has a very addictive nature and can propel itself for generations. Rituals and other holy practices were incorporated into it which not only strengthened the religious bondage, but also helped the religious heads to keep an eye on those who are stepping away from such practices. followers are easily made to believe that they get some form of divine protection.

so as different tribes formed, so were different stories and different gods. As societies merged or progressed or destroyed through war etc, so was religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Please prove that their God exist to everyone first before justify that everyone must obey their religion's rule, otherwise it's a meaningless and pointless justify.

I would add that even if God is proven to exist, one specific form over the others, even then legislation should not be based around god and it should still allow follow a secular approach that allows others to choose for themselves.

 

[Pudding]

Hinduism has nothing against atheists. I am one and I am very much a part of Hinduism.

No problem. Your religion is not the religion i have mention in post #1.

 

[Tumah]

So is your actual question here:
Why do religious believers try to force their beliefs on others?
or
Why doesn't G-d show Himself?

I'm confused.

 

[Pudding]

@morphesium
@Shadow Wolf
Thanks for your input.

So is your actual question here:
Why do religious believers try to force their beliefs on others?
or
Why doesn't G-d show Himself?

I'm confused.

My topic is to express my opinion that religion shouldn't impose non-believer to obey their rules.

 

[Tumah]

My topic is to express my opinion that religion shouldn't impose non-believer to obey their rules.

ok. I agree.

 

[Quintessence]

@morphesium
@Shadow Wolf
Thanks for your input.


My topic is to express my opinion that religion shouldn't impose non-believer to obey their rules.

It's true many feel the religions that do that sort of thing shouldn't be doing what they're doing. This isn't particularly remarkable, considering humans judge and condemn each other all the time for one thing or another, be it labeled as religious or not. Irony is, the opinion that one shouldn't impose on others is, in of itself, an imposition.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's true many feel the religions that do that sort of thing shouldn't be doing what they're doing. This isn't particularly remarkable, considering humans judge and condemn each other all the time for one thing or another, be it labeled as religious or not. Irony is, the opinion that one shouldn't impose on others is, in of itself, an imposition.

There is a huge difference though between banning something for logical and rational reasons with empirical data to back up why it should be legislated, and demanding legislation to ban something because your religion says it's bad. One tends to keep things fair for more people; the other tends build favoritism and resentment.

 

[Quintessence]

There is a huge difference though between banning something for logical and rational reasons with empirical data to back up why it should be legislated, and demanding legislation to ban something because your religion says it's bad. One tends to keep things fair for more people; the other tends build favoritism and resentment.

Somehow, I imagine those that do not enshrine yours or my brand of "logic and rational reasons with empirical data" are going to view it as fair; from another's point of view, it's as much a builder of favoritism and resentment as anything else. I don't agree with painting one side or another as somehow having moral high ground.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Somehow, I imagine those that do not enshrine yours or my brand of "logic and rational reasons with empirical data" are going to view it as fair; from another's point of view, it's as much a builder of favoritism and resentment as anything else. I don't agree with painting one side or another as somehow having moral high ground.

Morality has nothing to do with it. Religious based laws that ban things ban them based primarily upon the principle that that particular religion says it's bad, even though it may be a none-issue to others. Sex and sexuality tends to be one area that religious-based laws butts in and needlessly restricts the freedoms of others. The world does not revolve around any one religion, thus no one religion should have the legal authority to declare what is legal and illegal. Some may not like it, but no one should be forced to adhere to religious dogma they don't believe in.

 

[Quintessence]

Morality has nothing to do with it. Religious based laws that ban things ban them based primarily upon the principle that that particular religion says it's bad, even though it may be a none-issue to others. Sex and sexuality tends to be one area that religious-based laws butts in and needlessly restricts the freedoms of others. The world does not revolve around any one religion, thus no one religion should have the legal authority to declare what is legal and illegal. Some may not like it, but no one should be forced to adhere to religious dogma they don't believe in.

Values, then, if you prefer.

Every human is not is going to share your values or my values, regardless of what you or I think "should" be. I am often disinterested in "should be's" and more interested in the fact of what is. The fact of what is: some cultures and peoples do not share this perspective, and in those cultures, a religion does have legal authority to declare what is legal and not legal, and does have the authority to enforce such things. Another fact of what is: peoples and cultures with different perspectives frequently impose their values on those who do not share them and condemn one another with "should be's." I am simply making the observation that people judge other people, and typically in an ethnocentric fashion. I'm not sure what this is you're trying to argue with me about. *shrug*

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Every human is not is going to share your values or my values, regardless of what you or I think "should" be. I am often disinterested in "should be's" and more interested in the fact of what is. The fact of what is: some cultures and peoples do not share this perspective, and in those cultures, a religion does have legal authority to declare what is legal and not legal, and does have the authority to enforce such things. Another fact of what is: peoples and cultures with different perspectives frequently impose their values on those who do not share them and condemn one another with "should be's." I am simply making the observation that people judge other people, and typically in an ethnocentric fashion. I'm not sure what this is you're trying to argue with me about. *shrug*

I am very aware that does go on. However that doesn't make it right that people who do not believe in a certain religion are subjected to the laws of that religion.

 

[Pudding]

ok. I agree.

Thanks for your response.

It's true many feel the religions that do that sort of thing shouldn't be doing what they're doing. This isn't particularly remarkable, considering humans judge and condemn each other all the time for one thing or another, be it labeled as religious or not. Irony is, the opinion that one shouldn't impose on others is, in of itself, an imposition.

If a person request that he don't want and shouldn't be impose to obey a religion rules, this request is an imposition to the religion?

If a religion impose a person to obey their rules and this person disagree, how do you suggest that this person should react so he is not impose the religion to stop impose religion's rules on him? What do you suggest to improve this request to become not an imposition to the religion?

Please explain your definition for imposition.

Do you support the idea of letting religion to impose their rules to non-believer?

 

[Marisa]

Please prove that their God exist to everyone first before justify that everyone must obey their religion's rule, otherwise it's a meaningless and pointless justify.

How about we prove that anyone's god exists and cares what goes on "down here"? To the larger point, it's (IMO) one of the many contradictions of religious belief. Adherents will, in one breath, tell you that their entrance into the afterlife is solely dependent on their belief/actions, and in another breath will seek to make the tenets of their faith law giving the impression that they believe their eternal life is dependent upon the belief/actions of others. So in other words, if you believe dancing is a sin then don't dance. But don't try to prevent the rest of us from dancing.

 

[Marisa]

It's true many feel the religions that do that sort of thing shouldn't be doing what they're doing. This isn't particularly remarkable, considering humans judge and condemn each other all the time for one thing or another, be it labeled as religious or not. Irony is, the opinion that one shouldn't impose on others is, in of itself, an imposition.

Judging isn't an inherently bad thing. Condemnation is, but judgment is simply how we make decisions.

 

[Pudding]

How about we prove that anyone's god exists and cares what goes on "down here"? To the larger point, it's (IMO) one of the many contradictions of religious belief. Adherents will, in one breath, tell you that their entrance into the afterlife is solely dependent on their belief/actions, and in another breath will seek to make the tenets of their faith law giving the impression that they believe their eternal life is dependent upon the belief/actions of others. So in other words, if you believe dancing is a sin then don't dance. But don't try to prevent the rest of us from dancing.

Thanks for your explain and suggest to improve the statement.

 

[McBell]

Why some religion wants/needs to ban non-believer for doing this thing or that thing?

Why some religion wants/needs to legislating their religion law to be the universal law for everyone must to follow it?

God A say that "something" should be forbidden because it's sin, so lets ban this "something".
God B detest "something" and decide it should be forbidden, so lets ban this "something".
God C don't like another "something", so lets ban this another "something" again.

According to religion A's holy book, "something" is sin and detestable, so it should be ban worldwide.
According to religion B's holy book, another "something" is forbidden, so it should be ban worldwide.

Some believer claimed that everything and everyone is created by their God, so everything and everyone have the obligation to must do as their God say.

Religion A certain that this behavior is sin, ban.
Religion B certain that that behavior is sin, ban.

Ban this, ban that, ban everything which don't agree with one's religion's God.
Is banning people and control everything really that necessary? Is it fun and feel superior?

Why some believer feel the needs of want to control everyone or everything?

Please prove that their God exist to everyone first before justify that everyone must obey their religion's rule, otherwise it's a meaningless and pointless justify.

Any God from any religion, if you wish everyone to obey you forever, please show yourself to everyone first. Not advice the people to believe in you first, then you'll enlighten them to let them know you exist. Look what happen in the world, many different religion in the world condemn each other for follow false God and insists that they're follow the truth God. You say that i'll go to hell, i say that you'll go to hell. Religion condemn religion, religion hurting religion, for the reason their various different God commanded them to do so. It's not good. (edit)

It is most comical to ear theists make the claims of how powerful their god is then turn right around and try to get their alleged gods will put into law.

Does each failure of getting their alleged gods will into law show just how powerless their god is?

 

[Stevicus]

Ban this, ban that, ban everything which don't agree with one's religion's God.
Is banning people and control everything really that necessary? Is it fun and feel superior?

Why some believer feel the needs of want to control everyone or everything?

Please prove that their God exist to everyone first before justify that everyone must obey their religion's rule, otherwise it's a meaningless and pointless justify.

What's ironic about it all is that, by feeling the need to take action against whatever "sin" or "heresy" or anything else they want to control or ban, religionists are as much as admitting that their God really doesn't exist or (at the very least) is not the all-powerful deity they make him out to be.

The presumption is that God will punish whatever "sin" or disbelief there might be out there, so there really shouldn't be any need for any humans to do anything in that regard. But all these religious vigilantes out there are either impatient or don't really believe that God will punish these alleged "sinners," so they feel the need to do it themselves.