religions and hate?

[corynski]

when a violence took a place in the world, i see media and much people around me and in the web begin to point and accuse the religion of the violent, like what's happening in Burma, Muslims point to Buddhism although Buddhism has nothing to do with it, same as Islam and Christianity in the past

Perhaps, Islam Abduallah, you could tell me more about what I read in your 'holy' book, such as Sura 5:51 - "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians as your friends. They are friends with one another." Or Sura 5:82 - "You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: 'We are Christians." And Sura 9:4 - "Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers, except those idolators who have honored their treaties with you and aided none against you." Sura 3:118 - "Believers, do not make friends with any men other than your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin." And as an 'unbeliever' I see I have been singled out in Sura 22:17 - "As for the true believers, the Jews, the Sabaens, the Christians, the Magians, and the pagans, Allah will judge them on the Day of Resurrection.... Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skin and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron." And on and on..... I can only ask myself "And this is a 'holy' book?"
I have already commented elsewhere about the insanity of the Bible, or Torah, which reads like a Manual for Conquest and Genocide, so I remain thoroughly confused. I don't see any of this kind of hateful talk in the Tao or in Bhuddism, so if you would be so kind as to enlighten me........

 

[corynski]

And, Islam Abdullah, I'm sorry but I simply cannot understand Sura 41:46 - "We gave the Torah to Moses, but before long men disagreed about it. And had your Lord not deferred their punishment, He would have punished them in this life, grave though their doubts about it." Please, who is the 'We" referred to, who gave the Torah to Moses?
Why do the Jains or Shinto people not have books with discussions of conquest and torturing non-believers? It seems to be a central element in western religions.
Last, and I regret I seem to be getting redundant....... Sura 4:144 - "Believers, do not choose the infidels rather than the faithful for your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves?"
It would appear to me that the three belief systems associated with these 'Holy Books' are not in any way seeking friendship and understanding, but rather they are the dictates of peoples who believe they are superior, 'chosen', people....
Chosen by fictional deities to my mind........

 

[shunyadragon]

you reminded me by my first post in the forum six years ago

lots of good comments were posted at this time, you may enjoy it

the right religion

From your post in the previous thread:

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

Considering the fallible and faulty nature of being human it is very possible that there is no one 'right religion.' Beliefs are so variable and contradictory between religions, and even within any one religion that human judgement concerning which is the 'right religion' becomes severely questionable.

The worn paths of the ancient religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are worn so deep and out of context with the modern world that it highly unlikely any one of these is the right religion given the violence and contention between and within these religions.

It is more likely that all religions are to some degree 'wrong' from the fallible human perspective. This does not preclude that 'religions' have a basis in Revelation for the time they were revealed, but that is another discussion in a different thread.

 

[corynski]

Were it not for facts, religions could be accepted for their positive values, and useful for society. But in our present age of archaeology and anthropology facts are being brought together to arrive at a wider perspective, a perspective that includes hundreds, if not thousands, of religions which have existed over the thousands of years of human evolution. For example, the Jewish/Christian holy book absolutely implies a societal structure of rewards and punishments, taught to every child from birth, with penalties for disobedience that stagger the mind, just read them at Lev 26:14, Punishment for Disobedience........ "But if you will not listen to me...... I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy ...... I will punish you for your sins seven times over.... I will send wild animals against you....... I will send a plague among you.... in my anger I will be hostile toward you..... You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters....... and I will abhor you. I will turn your cities into ruin..... Your land will be laid waste, and your cities will lie in ruins." In other words, fear of considerable magnitude is instilled in a child's mind, fear that is reinforced continually in future years using this 'holy' book. Skip to Deut 28:15, to read the curses for disobedience that await our children......"However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not careful follow all his commands and degrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you...... The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him." My point obviously is that religion is a fear-based system of population management. And that worked, sort of, for thousands of years before science and method. It's time to reconsider I would think, or what, continue warring and killing as it's been going on for thousands of years?

 

[islam abduallah]

Perhaps, Islam Abduallah, you could tell me more about what I read in your 'holy' book, such as Sura 5:51 - "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians as your friends. They are friends with one another." Or Sura 5:82 - "You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: 'We are Christians." And Sura 9:4 - "Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers, except those idolators who have honored their treaties with you and aided none against you." Sura 3:118 - "Believers, do not make friends with any men other than your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin." And as an 'unbeliever' I see I have been singled out in Sura 22:17 - "As for the true believers, the Jews, the Sabaens, the Christians, the Magians, and the pagans, Allah will judge them on the Day of Resurrection.... Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skin and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron." And on and on..... I can only ask myself "And this is a 'holy' book?"
I have already commented elsewhere about the insanity of the Bible, or Torah, which reads like a Manual for Conquest and Genocide, so I remain thoroughly confused. I don't see any of this kind of hateful talk in the Tao or in Bhuddism, so if you would be so kind as to enlighten me........

well, lots of Non Muslims have a bad vision about Islam, that's because that many Muslims scholars are representing a very bad example to Islam and so as an audience you'll reject Islam and believe in what i called misconceptions about Islam as lots of Muslims and even not small numbers of Muslims scholars are practicing that misconception

Islam from A t oZ is about monotheism god and worship him and to deliver that message to others.
how does Allah command us to deliver the message by hating others? by sword is some claimed ?

people who believes in a violent Islam and their answer was yes for the above two questions are getting Islam wrong and getting verses out of the whole quran context and the whole Islamic message

Allah says "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided" 16:125
and says"And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him." 29:46

and says "So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah . Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him]. 3:159

and so many other verses that i can't count here

so what about the verses you posted, for first verse 5:51, mistranslated the arabic text neither a good translation contains the word friends
the real verse says
O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

i bet there's a great difference in the meaning between friends and Allies

for 5:82, the meaning of your translation is true? but i don't know your objections? if you doubt it then just read in history and look at world map and see if this verse is false

9:4 what do you understand about the verse? don't you consider who broke a peace treaty with you and helped your enemies to invade you among your enemies?

3:118 again another mistrasnlation word friends isn't existing in the verse

and to summrize all of that, Allah explained to us in just two verses how to deal with non Muslims "
Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly
Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.60:8-9
from that two verse you can understand whom we should deal with love, sincerity, friendship and whom we aren't allowed to be alliance

 

[islam abduallah]

And, Islam Abdullah, I'm sorry but I simply cannot understand Sura 41:46 - "We gave the Torah to Moses, but before long men disagreed about it. And had your Lord not deferred their punishment, He would have punished them in this life, grave though their doubts about it." Please, who is the 'We" referred to, who gave the Torah to Moses?
Why do the Jains or Shinto people not have books with discussions of conquest and torturing non-believers? It seems to be a central element in western religions.
Last, and I regret I seem to be getting redundant....... Sura 4:144 - "Believers, do not choose the infidels rather than the faithful for your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves?"
It would appear to me that the three belief systems associated with these 'Holy Books' are not in any way seeking friendship and understanding, but rather they are the dictates of peoples who believe they are superior, 'chosen', people....
Chosen by fictional deities to my mind........

41:46 says :Whoever does righteousness - it is for his [own] soul; and whoever does evil [does so] against it. And your Lord is not ever unjust to [His] servants, so i guess you quote another verse number

4:144 another mistrasnlation it's allies or kings

 

[islam abduallah]

From your post in the previous thread:



Considering the fallible and faulty nature of being human it is very possible that there is no one 'right religion.' Beliefs are so variable and contradictory between religions, and even within any one religion that human judgement concerning which is the 'right religion' becomes severely questionable.

The worn paths of the ancient religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are worn so deep and out of context with the modern world that it highly unlikely any one of these is the right religion given the violence and contention between and within these religions.

It is more likely that all religions are to some degree 'wrong' from the fallible human perspective. This does not preclude that 'religions' have a basis in Revelation for the time they were revealed, but that is another discussion in a different thread.

that was one of my points there, that our judgement aren't fair enough or fallible as you said but from god's sight the truth is one, contradicted information can't be all truth

 

[Quintessence]

It can have its benefits to we humans, sure. But I would assert that there is far more detriment than benefit that has been brought to bear by its employment, surely. And I don't think it would be very easy for someone to ascribe benefits to the brands of division caused by religious belief specifically.

Perhaps I am wrong? Why not give it a try?

I ask the question because division is basically another way of talking about diversity and individuality, only with a negative connotation attached to it. I'm hard pressed to called diversity a bad thing - one of my most deeply held values is pluralism, or the valuing of diversity. I have to say that everything not being exactly the same is far more an asset than a detriment.

Besides, I'm not sure where folks get the idea that we're all supposed to be "united" and agree with each other. That just seems silly to me, and also very boring. All good storytelling involves diversity, differences, divisions. There's not much story to "and they were all Christians who were united in believing and doing exactly the same things all the time, the end."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I ask the question because division is basically another way of talking about diversity and individuality, only with a negative connotation attached to it. I'm hard pressed to called diversity a bad thing - one of my most deeply held values is pluralism, or the valuing of diversity. I have to say that everything not being exactly the same is far more an asset than a detriment.

Besides, I'm not sure where folks get the idea that we're all supposed to be "united" and agree with each other. That just seems silly to me, and also very boring. All good storytelling involves diversity, differences, divisions. There's not much story to "and they were all Christians who were united in believing and doing exactly the same things all the time, the end."

Division is diversity taken in the direction of "I am right, you are wrong, and now we argue/fight/battle/litigate to settle it." Accepting differences is where we need to go... not being pig-headed because your way is "better."

I saw a video once where the participants in the project were all tested for genetic heritage. The project purposefully selected people who were very headstrong in their culture - identified very heavily as "Irish" or "Norwegian", etc. They interviewed them before they gave them the results of their potential ancestry - like what nationalities comprised their ancestry - and after. One particular man they interviewed, asking him whether he believed his culture better than others around the world replied (and I am bound to be paraphrasing, as I don't remember his exact words): "Yes, my culture is better. In fact I am better. I am more important than you, and I am more important than you." is what he said - turning to each of the interviewers.

This is what I call division... not diversity, and is one of the reasons I lumped "cultural differences" into my list of dividers. People get all bent out of shape when they feel their culture threatened... and they tend to feel threatened even if it is only that people of a different culture are becoming less of a minority around them. It is at that point that your "culture" becomes a detriment to you, and to the rest of society.

The survivors of the 1972 Andes plane crash - the ones who cannibalized the dead passengers bodies to survive - at a certain point they had to come together, drop all pretense, and work to keep one another alive. Is this "boring" to you? Is it a problem for you that they set aside any possible differences they had, and even set aside their personal feelings about eating human flesh? "Culture" would have most certainly become a completely useless contemplation. Garbage to be cast aside because there were far more pressing matters to concern oneself over.

 

[Quintessence]

Division is diversity taken in the direction of "I am right, you are wrong, and now we argue/fight/battle/litigate to settle it." Accepting differences is where we need to go... not being pig-headed because your way is "better."

Hmm. I would use the word "intolerance" for that, or perhaps the phrase "self-righteous intolerance," not the word "division." Division by itself implies disagreement, but not necessarily self-righteous intolerance. To my mind, anyway.

 

[Silverscale derg]

To me I have my views, I don't care about other peoples views but I am open on mine and I want equality for all. From my experience non pagan ones are hateful and say humans are the "superior" creature and are valued above every other creature but in my eyes in nature just like predator kills prey, prey can kill predator and that's fair. What humans do isn't like that, it's hateful, degrading to those creatures they kill countless of such as wolves and coyotes as well as iguanas in certain areas. "invasive" or "overpopulated" is the words they commonly use yet humans have a population of 7 billion and are all over the world yet most creatures are limited and that's most noticeable with reptiles, the conditions must be right but in the case of Florida it's perfect for iguanas and there's no need to kill them. If humans can spread all over the world then non human animals have every right to spread too. I'm of peace and equality but for every species regardless of size. I admit I think ill of anfibs but that's for another time

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My own approach is to ask myself questions, such as the following:

• Would I rather live in basically atheist Netherlands, or in very religious Syria?
• Would I feel more comfortable (and safe) in almost any part of Europe (religion on the wane), or in almost any part of the Middle East (highly religious)?
• Are people who are "different" (gay, atheist, albino, female ((and yes, that is "different" if you're a male in a patriarchal society))) doing better in countries that take religion lightly (Canada, Britain, Norway, Germany), or in countries where religion rules (Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran)?

Easy answer for me....

PS, I've edited this post to also ask: would you rather be a Baha'i in Iran, or in Canada? How do you rate your prospects in either of them, and why?

 

[Milton Platt]

To me I have my views, I don't care about other peoples views but I am open on mine and I want equality for all. From my experience non pagan ones are hateful and say humans are the "superior" creature and are valued above every other creature but in my eyes in nature just like predator kills prey, prey can kill predator and that's fair. What humans do isn't like that, it's hateful, degrading to those creatures they kill countless of such as wolves and coyotes as well as iguanas in certain areas. "invasive" or "overpopulated" is the words they commonly use yet humans have a population of 7 billion and are all over the world yet most creatures are limited and that's most noticeable with reptiles, the conditions must be right but in the case of Florida it's perfect for iguanas and there's no need to kill them. If humans can spread all over the world then non human animals have every right to spread too. I'm of peace and equality but for every species regardless of size. I admit I think ill of anfibs but that's for another time

Your beliefs (or at least your post) seems not very well thought out. Animals can kill each other because they are predators......okay, but so are humans. Animals (and humans are animals) that kill other animals are by definition predators.

As to religions, Do ALL religions claim humans are superior? There are thousands of religions and thousands of versions of those individual religions. I hardly think you have investigated each and every one. I don't know....but just saying.
Do you believe in equality for the following:

leaches?
parasitic worms?
Disease causing Bacteria?
Viruses?
Fly maggots?

If a lion kills a human, it's okay, but if a human kills a lion it isn't???

 

[Silverscale derg]

Your beliefs (or at least your post) seems not very well thought out. Animals can kill each other because they are predators......okay, but so are humans. Animals (and humans are animals) that kill other animals are by definition predators.

As to religions, Do ALL religions claim humans are superior? There are thousands of religions and thousands of versions of those individual religions. I hardly think you have investigated each and every one. I don't know....but just saying.
Do you believe in equality for the following:

leaches?
parasitic worms?
Disease causing Bacteria?
Viruses?
Fly maggots?

Ha you think humans are predators? Humans are cowards hiding behind a weapon. Trust me when I say this but most animals would be happy to get a quick meal but humans kill just for the hell of it. They kill predatory animals to have more deer, sure they take fur but that's a waste. By definition the prey are predators too because when predators go after a prey they don't always get their way. Prey can kill predators so it's deadly to go after them. A creature who sits down and rings the equivalent of a dinner bell ie a distress call meaning a wounded creature to kill and eat instead of having to chase down the creature is not a predator. Humans have proven they don't deserve to be here.

Countless religions think humans are the center of the world, the major ones at least. Yes pagans are a bit more open to accepting animals and therians even if not really a religion feel themselves as those creatures spirits.

What's your point in pointing out those creatures. I want equality for all of them. I'm not that big on mosquitoes but hey they exist right? Insects are a staple of reptilian diets so i'm all for having them especially the big juicy ones. Viruses aren't really living you know. Bacteria and maggots are part of the decaying cycle yet it leaves them able to be eaten. I know i've sometimes thrown some old meat into the bushes because when flies lay there eggs my lizards go to town eating the result. All life is here for a reason...it's only you humans complaining about minor inconveniences

 

[Milton Platt]

Ha you think humans are predators? Humans are cowards hiding behind a weapon. Trust me when I say this but most animals would be happy to get a quick meal but humans kill just for the hell of it. They kill predatory animals to have more deer, sure they take fur but that's a waste. By definition the prey are predators too because when predators go after a prey they don't always get their way. Prey can kill predators so it's deadly to go after them. A creature who sits down and rings the equivalent of a dinner bell ie a distress call meaning a wounded creature to kill and eat instead of having to chase down the creature is not a predator. Humans have proven they don't deserve to be here.

Countless religions think humans are the center of the world, the major ones at least. Yes pagans are a bit more open to accepting animals and therians even if not really a religion feel themselves as those creatures spirits.

What's your point in pointing out those creatures. I want equality for all of them. I'm not that big on mosquitoes but hey they exist right? Insects are a staple of reptilian diets so i'm all for having them especially the big juicy ones. Viruses aren't really living you know. Bacteria and maggots are part of the decaying cycle yet it leaves them able to be eaten. I know i've sometimes thrown some old meat into the bushes because when flies lay there eggs my lizards go to town eating the result. All life is here for a reason...it's only you humans complaining about minor inconveniences

Cats kill for the fun of it....so do dogs and hyenas and other animals.

I didn't mention mosquitoes, but okay add them to the list. So malaria carrying mosquitoes should not be controlled in populated areas? My point in the list was to know if you were infected with a disease causing organism, would you let it kill you or take antibiotics?

If someone else used your cutting board to cut up raw chicken, would you not sanitize it and risk salmonella?

 

[Silverscale derg]

Cats kill for the fun of it....so do dogs and hyenas and other animals.

I didn't mention mosquitoes, but okay add them to the list. So malaria carrying mosquitoes should not be controlled in populated areas? My point in the list was to know if you were infected with a disease causing organism, would you let it kill you or take antibiotics?

If someone else used your cutting board to cut up raw chicken, would you not sanitize it and risk salmonella?

I agree domestic cats can overkill especially poor lizards but that's because they aren't in the wild. I don't want them controlled in "populated areas" you humans care so much about yourselves. How big is your ego? It's always humans humans humans. Oh humans aren't equal enough...boy just look at lizards being used as live bait, coyotes being killed by the thousands, Wolves killed because they aren't from the US which is a human made idea. They don't know. Humans killed off the natives wolves and the ecosystem needs them. Humans need something besides their own volatility to thin their 7 billion in population which claims every other creature with not even 100 000 in population are invasive or overpopulated and need controlling. I'm not a human, i'm not weak to such a dumb illness

 

[shunyadragon]

Cats kill for the fun of it....so do dogs and hyenas and other animals.

Disagree. I do not believe you understand why animals kill, because you cannot speak their language. In the wild cats do not kill for fun. Aside from the problems of domestication and animal behavior. Animals do kill for other reason than food, and not for fun.

 

[Milton Platt]

Disagree. I do not believe you understand why animals kill, because you cannot speak their language. In the wild cats do not kill for fun. Aside from the problems of domestication and animal behavior. Animals do kill for other reason than food, and not for fun.

I can go with that....

 

[Nakosis]

hi all

lots of atheists say that religions are the main source of hate in that world, and many of religious people claim the same of other religions they don't believe in

if that is real, and if really religions are so bad like that, why do the majority of people believe in a religion if a fact is obvious why religious ignore it

Religion is a type of social guidance. It tells people socially which behavior is ok and which is not. Not all religions are the same. Religions come from various barbaric times in our history.

The question is then, does your religion allow hatred? Does it allow or perhaps even encourage hatred of people of other beliefs, at any time in any part of its teachings?

If it encourages hatred of other people because of their belief, then it's a big problem. If it allows hatred of other people, it is still a problem.

If in your teaching at any point it has God saying it is acceptable to hate the "non-believer" it becomes a foundation for hate. It doesn't mean a follower has to go about hating all the members of a different belief, but if they do, it provides a justification for that hatred.

The question is not whether Islam is a religion of peace. The question is whether Islam allows or justifies the hatred of non-believers in any of its teachings. Not just Islam but any religion which justifies hatred of other people in any of its teachings is a problem.

Also not just religion, any form of social guidance which justifies hatred of other people, especially because of a difference of belief, is a problem.

 

[corynski]

hi all

lots of atheists say that religions are the main source of hate in that world, and many of religious people claim the same of other religions they don't believe in

if that is real, and if really religions are so bad like that, why do the majority of people believe in a religion if a fact is obvious why religious ignore it

Greetings Islam Abdullah...... I believe I missed this post but will attempt to respond now. My background is anthropology, and I've learned that religions must be looked at from an historical perspective as well as an anthropological perspective. There are facts it is true, such as the numbers of gods and goddesses that have been created by humans, and mythologized throughout the centuries. Obviously the three in one special we are most concerned about, beginning with Judaism, whose 'god' claims to have created everything 2000 years ago, is myth, for archaeology has discovered tools and cave paintings, etc. going back many, many thousands of years earlier. Religions are cultural devices that serve many specific purposes, such as identification and cultural heritage with that group, something that can never be taken away. A religion gives specific meaning to the group, often claiming a superiority which is a benefit in time of war. It is said that Yahweh was a storm god coming up out of Arabia in one history text I read. And because of resource limitations these small hunting and gathering groups would fight each other for survival, to the point of cannibalism I suspect, as mentioned in the Bible. I personally believe that we are at the end of that period, and that science and progress in technology have led us into a different paradigm, one where we could produce a stable equilibrium in the world if we all thought the same, like insects for example. But religions hinder forward development as they are backward looking, following knowledge and information thousands of years old. But not only religions foster disagreement and antagonisms, any group with vested interests does it. I half-jokingly have said the same, "Give me your money and I will promise you you will go to heaven and see your deceased family, etc., etc." Belief systems such as these wouldn't gain credence if they weren't instilled into the children from the earliest days of their lives, long before the mind is ready. But as you can see from the archaeological record that such belief systems cannot endure in the face of change, they in fact evolve, just as people and languages evolve. That is fact and that's a beginning of the long answer, and the short answer is yes, members of groups learn to hate members of other groups, nominally over some difference between groups. It has been epitomized by the saying "How can we be friends, your people and mine...... you bury your dead and we burn ours"!``

But happily I will report that Atheists don't have the organization or the will or the desire, whatever, to bring about such change. As 6 -15% of the population we are observers basically, throwing in our two cents worth when we can.