When does organized religion become dangerous?

[idea]

3 religious men in my family are convicted child abusers - 3 different patriarchal sexist religious groups - 3 stories of generation after generation after generation of abuse that was covered up by the religious organizations.

Religious groups are there to groom women and children, to twist "love", to manipulate, lie, and use others.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Since when? If you had said, "Peace SHOULD BE based on our common humanity", I would agree 100%. But, clearly it's not. Humans have made war against each other for as long as there have been people.

Sorry, I meant should. But we have yet to reach the consciousness of the oneness of humanity which I believe we will, just as we reached the concept of citizenship. Only it will be extended to world citizenship. But these changes don’t happen overnight.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans conscious advice says.

I read I'm developed self human consciousness returned. Now we're leaving sacrificed bodily mentally again.

All in the now life lived by experience.

So I asked memory questions.

Human experiences.

Life.

Which told me rich spiritual groups had to pledge money to keep an organisation's position to argue versus evil intention of human brother. Rich man's trade destroying life.

So I knew their position tenable as no man should be rich. It is an oxy Moron.

So never did I think a rich man's destruction I thought of a mutual life trade off. To bring up life's position of equitable family status as rich men lowered theirs.

As the only human position in enslaved family civilisation to survive and save us.

As civilisations building was by designer human first then came rich man by trade invention.

Two types of men as thinkers.

As civilisations history is a chosen human behaviour pattern. Men destroy civilisation by man's choice.

So today we see cities being demolished by bad men's behaviours. We said once other ancient beautiful cities were also destroyed.

We don't want destruction. We want to inherit mutual status only

So we face the dilemma. Rich man. Who do you now support?

Evil self gain monetary lifestyle or mutual equitable human life status?

 

[rational experiences]

3 religious men in my family are convicted child abusers - 3 different patriarchal sexist religious groups - 3 stories of generation after generation after generation of abuse that was covered up by the religious organizations.

Religious groups are there to groom women and children, to twist "love", to manipulate, lie, and use others.

Men are human first.

First known abuse not allowing human woman mutual equal positions. Never gave allowed it as a self idolator.

Men hence give men permission first to abuse.

Then men anywhere abuse anyone as a human. Not of any type religious community. It's human owned evil thought behaviour first.

If a cult group practices by group status sexual deviation then the cult group should all be in human jail. As human man law superseded any religious science cult group status.

It was implemented to support natural human legal rights first.

 

[idea]

Men are human first.

First known abuse not allowing human woman mutual equal positions. Never gave allowed it as a self idolator.

Men hence give men permission first to abuse.

Then men anywhere abuse anyone as a human. Not of any type religious community. It's human owned evil thought behaviour first.

If a cult group practices by group status sexual deviation then the cult group should all be in human jail. As human man law superseded any religious science cult group status.

It was implemented to support natural human legal rights first.

The Mormons were rejected - and they would say "persecured" because they were child molesters. Not "polygamy ", they forced children - not marriage - not legal, not condoned. The Mormons killed local citizens who warned others, burned down newspapers that published what they did, killed people who spoke up. - Mormons are still around today, their current "prophet" is sealed to at least 2 women, and all women in church are taught to not get jobs, not support themselves, to follow their husband - you get shunned, called feminist, if you have a career and fight against child molester leaders - get your temple recommendation taken away for not bowing your head and saying 'yes' to what male leaders tell you.

See Mountain Meadows Massacre - Wikipedia

as example.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

When does an organized religion become dangerous?
I’ll use the Baha’i faith as an example for this thread.
Is the Baha’i faith dangerous? Should their political ideologies be opposed?
So, the Baha’is on this site are like some of the nicest people here, don’t get me wrong.
I was very interested in the Bahai faith at one point. They believe there should be a one world government which design is outlined in Baha’i scripture (at least from what I understand). This was a very attractive idea to me at first. However, looking back, I now see this as a possible danger to society.
Baha’is preach peace, sure, but what if Baha’u’llah is not a real prophet of God? Just some guy. There are only a few million Baha’is in the world right now, but imagine if there was a comparable number of them to let’s say, Christians (2 billion plus). We’d be in a lot of trouble I think.
One needs to only look at countries where religion has integrated itself with the political landscape. America has Christianity interwoven into their political system. Afghanistan is under Sharia (right?). Does mixing religion with politics ever result in anything good? No, they result in crusades and stuff like that.
I think this is when organized religion becomes dangerous. Supposing there is no prophet from god, then Mohammed and Baha’u’llah and other like figures are either delusional or con men. Either way, the influence that their religions wants to wield in politics is dangerous, not divinely directed.
I oppose the Baha’i world order, as well as any other religious order that seeks to exert its influence throughout the governments of the world.
Does that leave me opposing most religions?
What dangers of organized religion do you see?

I find that only the fringe radicals tend to pose any real threat or espouse to wanting to run any governments.

 

[Trailblazer]

When does an organized religion become dangerous?

In my opinion, religion becomes dangerous when it instills guilt and shame and fear.
The Abrahamic religions are famous for doing this to people. Why do so many people put up with it?

What did we do so wrong that we are all sinners? I do not believe in Adam and Eve and the original sin we all inherited from eating the apple from the tree, but that does not matter, I am still a sinner according to my own religion, yet they can’t tell me why I am a sinner. Do I need to be perfect in order to not be a sinner? Why does God care if we are not perfect? After all, nobody can ever hurt God because God is transcendent.

I am tired of being told that I am supposed to love a God that considers me a sinner and no matter how hard I try to be good it is never good enough. This is what religion does to people.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So there is only one peace and that is your peace and it doesn't matter if people believe differently.

The pracrice of virtues bring us to peace, in fact it is the foundation of the Most Great Peace.

The path to a lesser peace needs to be instigated by the peoples of the world through their elected representatives.

There is much detail been given on how this will unfold.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

When the practitioners of a faith refer to outsiders with demeaning epithets and patronizing terminology, that is exactly what that faith is.

There is only one human race. As a Baha'i I see there are no outsiders.

Regards Tony

 

[metis]

When does an organized religion become dangerous?

IMO, when they create theocracies.

 

[ppp]

There is only one human race. As a Baha'i I see there are no outsiders.

Regards Tony

Species has nothing to do with concept of outsiders. If you are going to make nonsensical retorts, at least make them vaguely clever

 

[Link]

IMO, when they create theocracies.

Theocracy is the only way oppressive rich won't dominate rest in terms of ideology and other terms. It's the only way.

 

[ppp]

Theocracy is the only way oppressive rich won't dominate rest in terms of ideology and other terms. It's the only way.

I know of no theocracy in history that was not tied with the weather ruling class.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Species has nothing to do with concept of outsiders. If you are going to make nonsensical retorts, at least make them vaguely clever

History has shown this to be so, that the Human Species does divide into race, belief, political and gender superiorities, to name a few, thus creating inner circles where the remainder of the human race are outsiders, so it was far from a nonsensical retort.

In the Laws of the Baha'i Faith, there are situations where one can become an outsider, but one has to have accepted the Station of Baha’u’llah, become a Baha'i and then broken the covenant.

Regards Tony

 

[Link]

I know of no theocracy in history that was not tied with the weather ruling class.

If true, it doesn't change what I said.

Moses and Aaron ruling is a theocracy.

However in theory wealthier will dominate unless it's not a factor in government.

But who will teach us to correctly apply rules, right now, rich control propaganda, education, system, etc.

The one to me is God. We cut off everyone but God and his chosen from authority guidance, and don't allow wealth to play a role in that, and we have a chance to come to the light and be enlightened in all our affairs and be a just world and race.

Remember, world needs a person like David, Solomon, etc. But when Solomon was given intense kingdom, powers, authority, miracles, domination, control, people became more disobedience and turned to sorcery and accused him of being a sorcerer.

So God provided perfect rulers and even gave a person so much signs and power and domination, but if people don't enjoin each other the truth, the falsehood regarding him (Sulaiman (a)) prevailed.

So society has to do it's part in a theocracy.

So far humanity has failed God, his revelations, and his chosen.

 

[ppp]

If true, it doesn't change what I said.

And if you said you were Napoleon's on the part in the past life, the fact that there's no prior prescedence for that wouldn't change what you said, either. You can say all sorts of things. Without support for what you say, you're just another guy saying stuff on the internet.

But who will teach us to correctly apply rules, right now, rich control propaganda, education, system, etc.

The religious are the rich.

The one to me is God.

Until you can produce that god that is just your unsupported opinion. And if your god is the Christian god as depicted in the Bible, then even if he did exist, he would not meet my minimum moral standards.

 

[rational experiences]

First healing medical venues. Gardens. Buildings sound meditative resonance. Practice herbal oils body annointed defined by malady suffered.

Prayer mat for laying on ground singing meditations surrounding you. A day of rest. Three visits a day a medical human spiritual treatment.

Exact.

Social order a new branch after Jesus testimony. Legal system to argue science versus life. Exact.

Church owned no governing model or argument or preaching as the legal system was the place to argue.

Healing was exact to the organisation that owned spiritual body treatments.

Hence no politics were involved.
Legality was community based applied agreed.

Humans obeyed family law and healed. History.

Then came star fall brain burn again. Dark ages. Humans lost reasoning. Medical application method no longer heeded.

Just needs to be reimplemented how it was first established.

As morality is exact. It's how you socially behave in mutual self control using human manners.

And sex is kept where it's practiced in a bedroom and no one's business.

If you act morally as man or woman in society it is exact.

 

[ppp]

History has shown this to be so, that the Human Species does divide into race, belief, political and gender superiorities, to name a few, thus creating inner circles where the remainder of the human race are outsiders, so it was far from a nonsensical retort.

And religious superiority. So yes, your retort was nonsense.

In the Laws of the Baha'i Faith, there are situations where one can become an outsider, but one has to have accepted the Station of Baha’u’llah, become a Baha'i and then broken the covenant.

Pish. Posh. You are speaking the propaganda of de jure. I am speaking the reality of de facto.

 

[rational experiences]

When healers were men of the cloth.

Who grew the herbs in their gardens near the church as herbalists.

Who you would confess your emotional feelings ailments to as a medical procedure for type of oil annointing.

Brothers with angelic voice that were the best at singing. It was your origin organisation healer role play.

Humans would bathe in holy water then be anointed as given herbal remedy from confession... wear white robes. Then meditate. It worked. Family healed.

Brothers of the cloth. Church a healing model of natural therapy.

I would ask Baha'i had your history tried to implement a social legal system of justice in Muslim community and it failed?

Where the realisation of social abuse had been the rich man's temple science community. And jeru the land science position circuit turn in pyramids. Why it was fought over.

The argument its non reimplementation building of science the reason for war.

Always was about science invention trade governing and threats by weaponry.

All those lives sacrificed in war to save humanity from itself for no reason whatsoever.

The father's realisation your brother lost his mind into nothing space when he invented God earths sink holes. Mind and then money frivolously spent not on family or a mutual lovely life. On his mind schemes about space.

And every problem we ever faced in society could have already been overcome as he promised.

Is our human historic truth.

 

[idea]

I find that only the fringe radicals tend to pose any real threat or espouse to wanting to run any governments.

You do not believe current governments are entertwined with mainstream religious groups? Separation of church and state? Not really...