What is wrong with religion?

[TashaN]

But all in all I don't believe that any religion is right for this world, we can see it in the atrocities of today. People are willing to kill other human beings over what they believe in, and that is where I draw the boundry.

Just because some people used religion for their political gain for instance so that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in religion anymore unless you proved to me that their religious teaching asked them to do what they have done.

 

[wizanda]

Just because some people used religion for their political gain for instance so that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in religion anymore unless you proved to me that their religious teaching asked them to do what they have done.

Also how can submitting to a peaceful existence, be violence….Oil!

 

[gnostic]

Well, i showed you where he said that Islam doesn't condone this, and if you have any further argument against him, so he is not here to defend himself. You know well that when i said a muslim in here, i meant someone who can defend himself/herself.

I did not know he was absence. And I certainly didn't know he had left.

Anyway, if you know what does Islam say about this so no need for any further argument about who said what if they are not around.

As I said before, I see religion differently. I see religion more than just a prophet, teaching and a book or two. I see everyone who follow the religion as being part of the religion.

The Qur'an, the teaching and Muhammad, each forms part of the religion. The worshippers are the other part of religion, either in the past or in the present.

You can distinguish the people from Islam, but I choose to see it as part of the whole.

 

[Smoke]

You can distinguish the people from Islam, but I choose to see it as part of the whole.

Islam consists in the beliefs and behavior of Muslims. Christianity consists in the beliefs and behavior of Christians. Neither Muslims nor Christians will ever admit it, though.

One of the marvelous things about religionists is the way they give their religion credit for anything good done by any of its adherents, but disavow any connection between their religion and the bad things done by its adherents.

Christians will boast about the Salvation Army, the hospitals and orphanages run by nuns, and medical missionaries. Isn't it wonderful how Christianity inspires such wonderful deeds! But if you bring up the Crusades or the Inquisition or witch trials or the genocide of Native Americans, why those were just things caused by economics and the evils of human nature, and they're no reflection at all on Christianity.

Muslims boast about how they invented algebra and the compass -- and soap and paper and gunpowder, for that matter. Seriously. And since Muslim scholarship in the 21st century consists almost entirely in copying from other Muslims, if one Muslim claims that Muslims invented bread, within a few months Muslims all over the world will be saying and believing that Muslims invented bread. What a glorious religion is Islam! But if you mention the Janissaries or honor killings or suicide bombers, those are just cultural quirks that have nothing at all to do with Islam.

 

[TashaN]

Also how can submitting to a peaceful existence, be violence….Oil!

lol. Oil huh?

 

[wizanda]

lol. Oil huh?

As an orphan you plant loads of fruit trees, hoping one day to raise a family and live in the ripe orchard….yet over time the trees die and fall; so the ground starts to rot, this in turn produces Oil…..
Then they fight over the Oil destroying the ground and say it has something to do with gardening…

They used the trees also, as wood for tall buildings........

 

[TashaN]

I did not know he was absence. And I certainly didn't know he had left.

That's ok now. Don't worry about it.

As I said before, I see religion differently. I see religion more than just a prophet, teaching and a book or two. I see everyone who follow the religion as being part of the religion.

The Qur'an, the teaching and Muhammad, each forms part of the religion. The worshippers are the other part of religion, either in the past or in the present.

You can distinguish the people from Islam, but I choose to see it as part of the whole.

Islam consists in the beliefs and behavior of Muslims. Christianity consists in the beliefs and behavior of Christians. Neither Muslims nor Christians will ever admit it, though.

You guys make me feel as i'm a robot who can't do anything on his own will but ONLY based on the software uploaded to my mind called Islam. Is that what you really mean?

Your notions--both of you--are way too general to be considered because you are treating religion differently than any other idology whether it was religious or not.

I think i'll blame democrasy which came up with someone like Bush into power and make him act upon it.

That's because, democrasy consists in the beliefs and behavior of those who adopt it.

One of the marvelous things about religionists is the way they give their religion credit for anything good done by any of its adherents, but disavow any connection between their religion and the bad things done by its adherents.

Well, we all love goodness, but we also have to take some bullets if anything bad the followers do was really based on that particular belief, otherwise, i have no reason to believe that my religion taught those people to be evil.

There is a law in any country and think of religion as this law, so can we say that all the criminals--for sure--came as a result of this cruel law?

I'll really be so gratful if one of you could show me how the law is responsible in here. The biggest problem ever is that people have a grudge on religion or something, and treat it differently and they never judge it in a fair way, i don't know why.

 

[Smoke]

I think i'll blame democrasy which came up with someone like Bush into power and make him act upon it.

What makes you think democracy has anything to do with Bush being in power? The U.S. has a lot of faults, but at least the people didn't elect Bush.

However, it's quite correct that there are inherent flaws and dangers in democracy, and it would foolish and dangerous to overlook them, even though democracy seems to be, overall, less dangerous than other forms of government.

I'll really be so gratful if one of you could show me how the law is responsible in here. The biggest problem ever is that people have a grudge on religion or something, and treat it differently and they never judge it in a fair way, i don't know why.

Whenever people behave at their very worst, they always explicitly say, and I'm convinced they believe, that they are motivated by some arbitrary and irrational set of beliefs, whether that is set of beliefs is Christianity, Islam, Communism, or National Socialism. Even the most cynical and insincere leaders are able to convince millions of sincere believers to go along with their evil plans precisely because those millions of believers see those plans as perfectly in accord with their beliefs. Can you believe, for instance, that suicide bombers are not motivated at least in part by their beliefs that Islam is the one true religion, that Islam has been offended, and by their certainty of an afterlife and the rewards assured to "martyrs"? Any set of beliefs that lends itself so readily and so enthusiastically to evil, is in itself evil, if only because of that predisposition.

Any set of beliefs that divides humanity into the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie, the Saved and the Damned, the Chosen People and the Gentiles, or the House of Islam and the House of War, is an evil set of beliefs, from the outset because it demonizes and dehumanizes the "other." Marxism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are wrong, and it is morally wrong to embrace those religions, not just because so many of their adherents do such bad things, but because they provide the moral underpinning and justification for those bad deeds. People are selfish and violent and hateful enough as it is. Marxism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism make them feel virtuous for being so.

 

[rocka21]

The problem with religion is legalism and its inherent abuses. Legalism is DEADLY TOXIC VIRUS spread by religion.

I discarded legalistic religion a long time ago yet remain a devout Christian.



Religion sucks. I highly recommend a personal relationship with God instead.

amen and amen!:bow:

but you can still have that and attend a church. not every church is legalistic.but, most are.

 

[sojourner]

The problem with religion is legalism and its inherent abuses. Legalism is DEADLY TOXIC VIRUS spread by religion.

I discarded legalistic religion a long time ago yet remain a devout Christian.



Religion sucks. I highly recommend a personal relationship with God instead.

One cannot have a "personal relationship" with God, because God is not one's "personal God." God does not belong to individuals. If one desires a relationship with God (from the Xian perspective), one looks to the relationships one builds, expecially with the poor, downtrodden and disenfranchised. In other words, one looks to "community" to find and love God. In other words, one looks to the Church.

The Church is, in many ways, flawed, because it is comprised of flawed human beings. The legalism you mention is one of those flaws. However, it still is the only real way (again, from a Xian perspective) one can build a relationship with God.

 

[McBell]

One cannot have a "personal relationship" with God, because God is not one's "personal God." God does not belong to individuals. If one desires a relationship with God (from the Xian perspective), one looks to the relationships one builds, expecially with the poor, downtrodden and disenfranchised. In other words, one looks to "community" to find and love God. In other words, one looks to the Church.

The Church is, in many ways, flawed, because it is comprised of flawed human beings. The legalism you mention is one of those flaws. However, it still is the only real way (again, from a Xian perspective) one can build a relationship with God.

No offense, but this, as written above, is a big bunch of nonsense.
Personal relationship does not default/equate to personal ownership.
I have a personal relationship with my wife.
I do not own her.

 

[sojourner]

No offense, but this, as written above, is a big bunch of nonsense.
Personal relationship does not default/equate to personal ownership.
I have a personal relationship with my wife.
I do not own her.

Because you only have one wife, and she only has one husband.
But if your wife had multiple husbands, any relationship with her could not, by definition, be "personal." It could only be "communal," since the other husbands would influence who she is, just as you influence who she is.

 

[McBell]

Because you only have one wife, and she only has one husband.
But if your wife had multiple husbands, any relationship with her could not, by definition, be "personal." It could only be "communal," since the other husbands would influence who she is, just as you influence who she is.

I disagree.
MY relationship with HER is personal regardless of what ever other relationships she has.

 

[sojourner]

I disagree.
MY relationship with HER is personal regardless of what ever other relationships she has.

You're fooling yourself. There is no such thing as "my" relationship. Only "our" relationship. And if one is as fully intimate with others as with you, then all with whom intimacy is shared must, of necessity, be considered in relationship.

a very base way of looking at it is this: If your wife went out and was intimate with someone else and caught the clap, she'd pass it on to you, and then you'd have the clap, too. Even though you were not intimate with the infected person, that person still intimately affected both you and the relationship you have with your wife.

It is said that God lives in our hearts. But our hearts are meant to be shared with others. Love only works with others. Otherwise it's merely infatuation.

 

[McBell]

You're fooling yourself. There is no such thing as "my" relationship. Only "our" relationship. And if one is as fully intimate with others as with you, then all with whom intimacy is shared must, of necessity, be considered in relationship.

a very base way of looking at it is this: If your wife went out and was intimate with someone else and caught the clap, she'd pass it on to you, and then you'd have the clap, too. Even though you were not intimate with the infected person, that person still intimately affected both you and the relationship you have with your wife.

It is said that God lives in our hearts. But our hearts are meant to be shared with others. Love only works with others. Otherwise it's merely infatuation.

LOL
believe what you like.
The fact is that my relationship with my wife is a personal relationship.
If you feel better by trying to cheapen all relationships by claiming there is nothing personal about them, by all means, do whatever makes you feel the best.
But it in no way changes the fact that i have a personal relationship with my wife.

You attempt to claim that outside influences indicate that a relationship cannot be person is your hang up, not mine.

 

[MBones]

Midnight Blue, you are right on.

 

[MBones]

Hey everyone we are getting off topic here, Please read the topic thread and post accordingly.

 

[wizanda]

Problem with over zealous fundamentalist religions is people think they have the right to tell someone how to live their personal life (not religious life) differently, to what they know and have been told is Good....
So when people do that and say “here follow my Good, its better then your Good,”….

God is good, two religions makes two Good’s?

 

[TashaN]

What makes you think democracy has anything to do with Bush being in power? The U.S. has a lot of faults, but at least the people didn't elect Bush.

Hmmm, i thought the US legal system is working based on democrasy, no?

However, it's quite correct that there are inherent flaws and dangers in democracy, and it would foolish and dangerous to overlook them, even though democracy seems to be, overall, less dangerous than other forms of government.

Just .. amazing. Now everything is dangerous!

I guess you realize by now that there is nothing wrong with laws in origin but with those who choose whether to apply them in the correct way or not.

Whenever people behave at their very worst, they always explicitly say, and I'm convinced they believe, that they are motivated by some arbitrary and irrational set of beliefs, whether that is set of beliefs is Christianity, Islam, Communism, or National Socialism. Even the most cynical and insincere leaders are able to convince millions of sincere believers to go along with their evil plans precisely because those millions of believers see those plans as perfectly in accord with their beliefs. Can you believe, for instance, that suicide bombers are not motivated at least in part by their beliefs that Islam is the one true religion, that Islam has been offended, and by their certainty of an afterlife and the rewards assured to "martyrs"? Any set of beliefs that lends itself so readily and so enthusiastically to evil, is in itself evil, if only because of that predisposition.

Hmmm, then i guess we should eliminate this evil religion called Islam because people are fighting for it. Is this what you mean?

Any set of beliefs that divides humanity into the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie, the Saved and the Damned, the Chosen People and the Gentiles, or the House of Islam and the House of War, is an evil set of beliefs, from the outset because it demonizes and dehumanizes the "other." Marxism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are wrong, and it is morally wrong to embrace those religions, not just because so many of their adherents do such bad things, but because they provide the moral underpinning and justification for those bad deeds. People are selfish and violent and hateful enough as it is. Marxism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism make them feel virtuous for being so.

I think that you believe that earth will be like heaven without these beliefs you just mentioned, am i right?

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

What makes you think democracy has anything to do with Bush being in power? The U.S. has a lot of faults, but at least the people didn't elect Bush.

So how did Bush get in office if not elected?