Opinion Are You Religious? (Discussion about religion because why not!)

[madame moiselle]

Personally, I was. Then, my dear friend (which I will not mention since they want to stay out of it) made me realize all kinds of religion are pure bullshit (don't get me wrong, I ain't hating on religious people, but on religion in general).

We can exclude Buddhism. Buddhism is cool. It's just the story about a dude that sat under a tree for a long time and went "Oh dude I realized the key to super ultra relaxation!" That's chill.

The religions I disdain the most are two:

1. Christianity - the one I was involved into.
2. Islam - the one where terrorists supposedly come from.

There are a big number of reasons as to why I left Christianity:

• The Bible - Seriously? Who needs a thousand metaphors to figure out you shouldn't be a dick? (Thanks, Bo Burnham). And let's not talk about the contradictions! God is supposedly an omnipotent being that knows what was, what is, and what will.
  • Adam And Eve - THEN WHY IN THE FUCK did our dear All-Father (do you guys call him that? Or is that Odin from the Nordic Mythology?) put the Tree of Knowledge if he ALREADY KNEW IN ADVANCE that Adam And StEve would commit sin and eat the apple off of it?
  • Lucifer - Omnipotent beings don't make mistakes. THey're just not able to. Unless they want to. And so, why the fuck was Lucifer (or Samael, if you're that nit-picky) psychologically able to rebel? How did God create him knowing his mindset would make him rebel? He must've created Lucifer with the intent of him rebelling.
  • Hell - No matter how much you rape, kill, or destroy in life -- no temporary crime or sin deserves PERMANENT punishment in the form of torment. To allow this to happen and be capable of stopping it is to be evil. According to this large book I have on my shelf called, and I quote "The Old Testament", Hell is eternal. Eternal punishment means Permanent punishment. Temporary crimes do not amount to permanent punishment. It is an injustice. And injustice, by strict definition, is evil. And don't go around saying that Satan rules hell because that's not true mate. Satan is simply the warden. Our friend God is the maker and rule-giver!
  • Heaven - Is there free-will in heaven? If no, then what a shit place. If yes, then there's sin. Sin originates from free-will. That means Heaven is sinful and Heaven is flawed.
• Homosexuality - Yeah, I'm looking at you, you gay-haters. Homosexuality is found in over 1000 animal species. Wanna know what is NOT found in animals? Chastity. That's right. Priests and Nuns do something against nature, and thus against God's will! Why would God create something that he doesn't approve of? He is either not omnipotent and that caused a mistake...or he is evil and wanted gays to suffer by putting them on Earth, pointing his finger at them and saying to every religious person that they're bad because they like people of their own biological sex.
  
• Old Testament vs New Testament - In the Old Testament, God killed over 10 million people. In the New Testament, he's an all-loving entity that forgives all. He forgives all? Yeah, right. Explain Hell, purgatory, and the fact that he wasn't so all-loving before. The Flood. Remember that? Exactly. He was angry at people because they were using their own free will to do stuff he didn't want them to do (mind stopped working? Yep! Mine did. Had to reboot it a couple of times). (Psst, Satan killed no more than 15 people in the Bible).

Anyway, if you still believe in God after all of this, post your counter-arguments and I will be more than happy to debunk them to make you realize the truth.

ACH the questions xD I've asked them all----and I think I've got an answer for each one, but of course, in the end you won't be fully convinced. I'll try and see if my answers are good enough. By the way, I'm Christian. I don't like Islam either---all of my external family is Muslim too. Still haven't had a chance to ask how they feel about ISIS.

 

[Idea]

I think I see the distinction you are making, but I'm not entirely sure. You seem to be implying that it is out of altruistic motivations that people show kindness to their neighbors in Christianity, rather than a desire to feel personal satisfaction or peace. Part of my confusion lies in the idea that Christian teachings are not motivated by self interest. To my understanding, Christianity teaches to act good and do good, and as a reward for living a good life you go to heaven. Rather than doing good for it's own sake or the sake of humanity, it seems to me that by it's very nature Christianity promises reward for altruism. As such, I do not see what the difference is. "Promote peace, you will achieve salvation" is the same to me as "promote peace, you will feel satisfied". There is a promise of reward for doing good. Outside of any religious context, people show kindness to each other because it feels good to promote a peaceful society. A sense exists that there will be some pay off in the end, even for people who are not religious.

You mention that kindness is shown more proactively in Christianity, and as a matter of course/passively in others. This is kind of true in regard to how conversions are achieved, since the Eastern religions I know about tend to spread their teachings to those who come to them. In regard to acts of kindness however, I know that Hinduism and Buddhism both encourage generosity and charity.

Oh no, you misunderstand. The motivations of the individual are up to them. I could not speak of whether the members of a religion are more or less altruistic. However, the way to think of what this altruism is is what the key difference I was referring to is. Now, this is of course, still me being pretty vague. There are dozens if not more eastern religions with actually relatively similar ideals as far as the topics we are discussing here are concerned, and that's just referring the ones I know enough of to speak about at all. However, the common cultural difference motivates something that at once unites these religions and puts them apart from western ones, and that is the relationship with one's environment and self. Eastern cultures have always had a bigger emphasis on the ideas of respect and reverence to the past and surrounding world, they sought harmony and peace with it. Western religions had a bigger emphasis with the relationship of humanity to itself. In pagan religions for example, a deity that in an eastern religion would be one with some element of nature, in western culture would be it's ruler or subjugator.

The implications of this that show up in the ideals of more current religions are that while christianity promotes altruism by saying "do good for another", western religions promoted "do this because it is good", it's not about whether or not it is helping another but whethr or not if it fits in the behavior that is in most harmony with the universe or that spiritually cleanses you better, to oversimplify. Again these are generalizations and while i do have my opinion about it, I am trying to express any moral approval or rejection regarding either view at the moment. Not rating them as better or worse but rather as being separate entities whose goals happened to be similar by convergent evolution.

 

[ValkyrieRose]

mmm, i wast trying to say that violence should be what defines a religion, because I hadn't intended today that, that was just me narrating on my own personal reason for leaving it... but I digress on it because, i do agree that one should look at its good.

On the subject that was brought up earlier, I have to agree that most of us are, in some way, motivated by their own satisfaction. It's the promise of heaven that people do these kind acts usually, Now, I'm not saying that some people wouldn't do kind and pious acts, but a lot of people who follow religions uually do so for the eternal paradise of some sort, be it Heaven, Nirvana, etc. I also add that it is not just that, but the opposite as well. If you DONT do the thing mentioned or act in a manner most people consider normal, It;s the pit of flame for you. Fear of eternal pain will put a stop in any one person's step

While I'm on that subject, there is one thing I don't like . I know it exists in Christianity so I am using that as a point, but it is probably not limited to it. Is that the punish you for merely thinking of an act considered in just. According to the bible, if you saw a beautiful woman and had desired towards her, you commuted the cardinal sin of adultery in your heart...without actually doing anything. I find this sort of disturbing, because it means that to enter heaven, you need to be free of what makes us human. WE have base desires, often some that we cannot help. and some flow into this act of sin. We were bnrn with these desires and, by their laws, are subjected to damnation. Now, this is the part of the argument where someone chimes in ."Thats why Jesus died for our sins." And assuming that by confessing your sins does in fact purify you... what then? Will you never think thoughts, or have your head turned by a pretty woman, or imagine defeating your enemies? No. It's human nature and habits die hard. I guess what I am trying to say is to actually GAIN the reward of heaven means to actually move past the blocks that humanity poses on us and stay that way to their dying breath. How many of us can actually DO that? I know I can't

Ah, I do apologize if i went off tangent or are not making much sense. Once again im not condoning or going against any one religion, just giving thoughts in general from my own experience and thought process ^^

 

[Hxndgrenades]

Athiest all the way.
Apologies if i skimmed too much,But does anyone realize
Jesus- Commits mass genocide to make the world a better place- Hero,Savior,Good.
Hitler- Commits mass genicide to make Germany a better place -Awful person,Garbage.

The resemblance is really disturbing.Im not sure why god is a good person for doing the literal exact same thing on a larger scale.
or. 'Doing'
Gods good because he most definately doesnt exist,aha.

 

[Idea]

Athiest all the way.
Apologies if i skimmed too much,But does anyone realize
Jesus- Commits mass genocide to make the world a better place- Hero,Savior,Good.
Hitler- Commits mass genicide to make Germany a better place -Awful person,Garbage.

The resemblance is really disturbing.Im not sure why god is a good person for doing the literal exact same thing on a larger scale.
or. 'Doing'
Gods good because he most definately doesnt exist,aha.

1. God didn't commit mass genocide
2. God is omniscient and omnipotent and literally created both life and eternal life. If there so happened to be innocent people they would just get to go to Heaven
3. God is not a person, or rather, not just a person. I've mentioned this earlier, but we humans have this strange tendency to think we can understand what is evil, when in fact we barely know what will come tomorrow. Let's say, hypothetically that God did commit genocide. Who are you to say that this would be a worse action than not doing it, when you are unable to see the long-term consequences?

 

[madame moiselle]

• The Bible - Seriously? Who needs a thousand metaphors to figure out you shouldn't be a dick? (Thanks, Bo Burnham). And let's not talk about the contradictions! God is supposedly an omnipotent being that knows what was, what is, and what will.
  • Adam And Eve - THEN WHY IN THE FUCK did our dear All-Father (do you guys call him that? Or is that Odin from the Nordic Mythology?) put the Tree of Knowledge if he ALREADY KNEW IN ADVANCE that Adam And StEve would commit sin and eat the apple off of it.

Adam and Eve:
They were made in God's image, which implies that man is given a free choice to either obey or disobey God. If man is allowed free choice, then that means there has to be something to choose between. Without the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then there wouldn't be a choice to begin with for Adam. But be aware, in order for Adam to choose to obey or disobey God, there had to be something else in play as well.
A law.
God made a law for Adam---without a law, no choice can exist. Right and wrong always exists, but unless we are made aware of the choice through a law, we cannot be held responsible for keeping or breaking the law. When we're young, we are not aware of right or wrong. We do and behave as our parents tell us, and avoid certain things because we know we'd be punished if we were caught. But at a certain point in our lives, we come to understand that some things are wrong regardless of what our parents tell us. It's like when you use God's name as a curse word. You understand that it's wrong to do that---not because your dad'll wash your mouth with soap if he caught you, but because you understand that it is wrong. For Adam, yes he was created as a full grown man, but he had the innocence of a child. He was unaware of right or wrong. Yes, God was aware that man was predestined to fail, so that's why he had a rescue plan in mind before creation.

Captain Gabriel

 

[Idea]

mmm, i wast trying to say that violence should be what defines a religion, because I hadn't intended today that, that was just me narrating on my own personal reason for leaving it... but I digress on it because, i do agree that one should look at its good.

Oh I know you weren't I'm sorry if you thought I was saying that about you. No, I was just pointing it out in general using your words as a catalyst. Speaking of...

Is that the punish you for merely thinking of an act considered in just. According to the bible, if you saw a beautiful woman and had desired towards her, you commuted the cardinal sin of adultery in your heart...without actually doing anything.

yes, you did commit adultery in your heart. No, you're not punished for it. Sin does not equal punishment. Sin equals blindness. Blindness which can reedeemed. When i talked about heaven and hell earlier I explained these concepts are not things you are sent to, you choose them. They are the ultimate expression of God's permission of human free will. Free will that allows humans to choose to be wit him or to reject him. Sin merely contributes to making the wrong decision. So if you mistakenly covet the simple act of rejecting the thought outweights it. Just realizing you are wrong, say, when you realize you shouldn't be fawning over the genetials of married woman/man to follow your example, is a huge step for complete redemption.

 

[madame moiselle]

Athiest all the way.
Apologies if i skimmed too much,But does anyone realize
Jesus- Commits mass genocide to make the world a better place- Hero,Savior,Good.
Hitler- Commits mass genicide to make Germany a better place -Awful person,Garbage.

The resemblance is really disturbing.Im not sure why god is a good person for doing the literal exact same thing on a larger scale.
or. 'Doing'
Gods good because he most definately doesnt exist,aha.

God made a massive flood because the world was terrible. Murder, rape, infidelity, theft---the world was indeed a dark place back then. There was no order and people only thought of themselves. God's masterpiece was corrupted, and think about it----if you were in God's shoes, would you really just sit back and let your work of art tear itself apart and ruin everything else? “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). God did not flood the earth because He made a mistake. God makes no mistakes. He gave humanity the right to choose from right and wrong and was grieved to see how far humanity has fallen from what he originally intended.

 

[madame moiselle]

While Hitler blamed his country's woes on the Jews because of the ant-semitism in Vienna, the defeat Germany experienced in WW1 and Hitler's personal belief that some races are superior to others.He wanted to restore Germany back to it's former glory.

I can see the slight resemblances, but the Jews really didn't do anything to deserve such harsh and cruel punishments and hate.

 

[The Gunrunner]

Indeed, that is correct. A famous example are hospitability laws.

However the real inovation of christianity, or rather, one of the major ones was "love thy enemy". That was unprecendented. Love and forgiveness as a form of justice and as something you should take an innitiative on. Conversion through example and diligence, rather than by force. And the idea of a God that reduces itself to humanity's equal for their sins.

This is what the christians brought that other religions wouldn't. And as I mentioned before in this thread, these may (or maybe not) seem like perfectly natural and obvious things to you. But at their time, they were radical ideas, completely revolutionary. Sure, all of them had glimpses in some sense or another in other religions, but they were never as manifest and fulcral as with chrisitanity.

An issue I have here is... how could you possibly know this? When did you look at all other pagan religions stretching from Britain, to Eurasia, to asia, to africa, and finally landing on the Americas? Most importantly, how did you look at them accurately? Many European pre-Christian religions that the romans didn't pick up were oral until exposure to other cultures who actually wrote stuff down. That means the oldest records of them are often from different religions, who aren't the most credible source. Other times the issue is translating the damned thing.
Scandinavia has written accounts, but it's thusfar been in the form of sagas and stories instead of just information. Slavic mythology is still in a state where historians aren't sure if their markings are done in a language at all. Attempts to detail their beliefs have largely been done by christians, which are quite dubious; many have been biased before, mixing claims that angels personally interfered in battles, or intentionally lying about history or beliefs for the sake of propaganda.
Someone shouldn't feel confident to say any religion was the only to say this or that, because there isn't enough information yet. We may never have that, because accounts that were left to be orally passed on only survive with its people.

Perhaps you're basing this idea off of the behaviour? I'd again be dubious, but sure - Maybe that signifies they were more forgiving or peaceful. The problem?
They weren't
Most of the spread of Christianity has been from force of arms and threats, the two big exceptions I am able to list being the original incorporation by Constantine and the spreading of Aryan Christianity to the Gauls. Otherwise, lllooooooooots of genocide. Not to say they were unique for it, because they weren't, but the fact they were just as typical in behaviour is my point. It's spread from the Frankish empire used force, Christendom used collective force during the crusades (when they bothered to attempt conversion, that is,) Christians used it in Africa, and Christians used it in the Americas.
Talking fully about their behaviour regarding 'love thy enemy' is hard though; there's a lot of different implications from a lot of different aspects of these countries: Political manipulation during the split of the church in Constantin's Rome, the goal of the pope to eventually subjugate orthodox-Christian land, that chivalry's protections only applied to nobility, all of the wars that happened between Christians (hundred years war, Prussia-Denmark(?) war, expansion of napoleon, Swedish war with Austria and Russia, etc. etc. and etc.) Pre-crusades, the inter-warring was so bad that one of the goals of the first crusade was to partially unify Christendom against a common outside enemy. This stuff all suggests there wasn't a significant feeling of forgiveness from the religion, or at least to me. Maybe you feel like they weren't following the religion? Idk, but maybe you would. Sure, but then you'd still be admitting that the religion's affect on behaviour doesn't show evidence of its morality. Again, this is just in case you'd use historical behaviour to give evidence to the claim its teachings were more forgiving than the teachings of other religions. Otherwise, I did read your distinction between principles and actions in the name of them.

From what I have found and been presented with, I've seen nothing to suggest Christianity was better in the way you are describing. The tenents of ancient religions are not well documented, and the behaviour seen after christianity's widespread adoption do not signify it being revolutionary either.

 

[madame moiselle]

An issue I have here is... how could you possibly know this? When did you look at all other pagan religions stretching from Britain, to Eurasia, to asia, to africa, and finally landing on the Americas? Most importantly, how did you look at them accurately? Many European pre-Christian religions that the romans didn't pick up were oral until exposure to other cultures who actually wrote stuff down. That means the oldest records of them are often from different religions, who aren't the most credible source. Other times the issue is translating the damned thing.
Scandinavia has written accounts, but it's thusfar been in the form of sagas and stories instead of just information. Slavic mythology is still in a state where historians aren't sure if their markings are done in a language at all. Attempts to detail their beliefs have largely been done by christians, which are quite dubious; many have been biased before, mixing claims that angels personally interfered in battles, or intentionally lying about history or beliefs for the sake of propaganda.
Someone shouldn't feel confident to say any religion was the only to say this or that, because there isn't enough information yet. We may never have that, because accounts that were left to be orally passed on only survive with its people.

Perhaps you're basing this idea off of the behaviour? I'd again be dubious, but sure - Maybe that signifies they were more forgiving or peaceful. The problem?
They weren't
Most of the spread of Christianity has been from force of arms and threats, the two big exceptions I am able to list being the original incorporation by Constantine and the spreading of Aryan Christianity to the Gauls. Otherwise, lllooooooooots of genocide. Not to say they were unique for it, because they weren't, but the fact they were just as typical in behaviour is my point. It's spread from the Frankish empire used force, Christendom used collective force during the crusades (when they bothered to attempt conversion, that is,) Christians used it in Africa, and Christians used it in the Americas.
Talking fully about their behaviour regarding 'love thy enemy' is hard though; there's a lot of different implications from a lot of different aspects of these countries: Political manipulation during the split of the church in Constantin's Rome, the goal of the pope to eventually subjugate orthodox-Christian land, that chivalry's protections only applied to nobility, all of the wars that happened between Christians (hundred years war, Prussia-Denmark(?) war, expansion of napoleon, Swedish war with Austria and Russia, etc. etc. and etc.) Pre-crusades, the inter-warring was so bad that one of the goals of the first crusade was to partially unify Christendom against a common outside enemy. This stuff all suggests there wasn't a significant feeling of forgiveness from the religion, or at least to me. Maybe you feel like they weren't following the religion? Idk, but maybe you would. Sure, but then you'd still be admitting that the religion's affect on behaviour doesn't show evidence of its morality. Again, this is just in case you'd use historical behaviour to give evidence to the claim its teachings were more forgiving than the teachings of other religions. Otherwise, I did read your distinction between principles and actions in the name of them.

From what I have found and been presented with, I've seen nothing to suggest Christianity was better in the way you are describing. The tenents of ancient religions are not well documented, and the behaviour seen after christianity's widespread adoption do not signify it being revolutionary either.

You are right, but it's not like atheism worked well either. Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong---their empires and rules combined have made the 20th century the bloodiest century in history.

 

[The Gunrunner]

You are right, but it's not like atheism worked well either. Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong---their empires and rules combined have made the 20th century the bloodiest century in history.

I didn't say Christian behaviour shows that it is inherently violent, I actually disagree with the connection on its own. If your post is just to say that atheism isn't inherently good due to the behaviours used, i agree... though I disagree with using Hitler's as an example. That would be a tangent, so I'll just encourage searching for his mention of 'god' in Mein Kampf (which can then be fact-checked by PDF saves of the book online,) quotes from speeches he may have made, and phrases found on nazi artifacts. There's a little more to say, but I think those things cast enough doubt.

If your post is to say atheism inherently causes these things, no. Mao Zedong and Stalin did those things because of a political strategy around a 'Cult of Personality.' Their government took out religion to become the ultimate authority, below nothing but the ideals they supposedly represent. Stalin erased religion for the same reason he made the Great Purge, not because he was an atheist.

 

[madame moiselle]

I didn't say Christian behaviour shows that it is inherently violent, I actually disagree with the connection on its own. If your post is just to say that atheism isn't inherently good due to the behaviours used, i agree... though I disagree with using Hitler's as an example. That would be a tangent, so I'll just encourage searching for his mention of 'god' in Mein Kampf (which can then be fact-checked by PDF saves of the book online,) quotes from speeches he may have made, and phrases found on nazi artifacts. There's a little more to say, but I think those things cast enough doubt.

If your post is to say atheism inherently causes these things, no. Mao Zedong and Stalin did those things because of a political strategy around a 'Cult of Personality.' Their government took out religion to become the ultimate authority, below nothing but the ideals they supposedly represent. Stalin erased religion for the same reason he made the Great Purge, not because he was an atheist.

Oh, I didn't mean to say that Stalin and the rest were actual atheists--I'm just saying that history proves that when man tries to take God out of the picture, it doesn't end well. And when God is taken out of the picture, there is always something else that replaces Him---usually man himself.

 

[ApfelSeine]

Oh no, you misunderstand. The motivations of the individual are up to them. I could not speak of whether the members of a religion are more or less altruistic. However, the way to think of what this altruism is is what the key difference I was referring to is. Now, this is of course, still me being pretty vague. There are dozens if not more eastern religions with actually relatively similar ideals as far as the topics we are discussing here are concerned, and that's just referring the ones I know enough of to speak about at all. However, the common cultural difference motivates something that at once unites these religions and puts them apart from western ones, and that is the relationship with one's environment and self. Eastern cultures have always had a bigger emphasis on the ideas of respect and reverence to the past and surrounding world, they sought harmony and peace with it. Western religions had a bigger emphasis with the relationship of humanity to itself. In pagan religions for example, a deity that in an eastern religion would be one with some element of nature, in western culture would be it's ruler or subjugator.

The implications of this that show up in the ideals of more current religions are that while christianity promotes altruism by saying "do good for another", western religions promoted "do this because it is good", it's not about whether or not it is helping another but whethr or not if it fits in the behavior that is in most harmony with the universe or that spiritually cleanses you better, to oversimplify. Again these are generalizations and while i do have my opinion about it, I am trying to express any moral approval or rejection regarding either view at the moment. Not rating them as better or worse but rather as being separate entities whose goals happened to be similar by convergent evolution.

Ahhh I see what you mean now. You're saying that Eastern religions promote unity with the world rather than unity among mankind. I'd posit that the reason for this is that many Asian cultures already achieved unity among humanity. That's not too say there weren't conflicts, I don't mean to idealize them, but on a social level, collectivistic cultures are and were much more common. Thus there was already a sense instilled in them to be mindful of others. So to that end, I get your point that Christianity helped spread humanitarian values in the west. It was more necessary there, among individualistic cultures, than it would have been among collectivistic Eastern cultures. Hence my earlier point that religion functions the way people need it to function. Religion is shaped by people for their benefit (or in some instances, the benefit of those in power).

I kinda think you're selling Christianity short with the final paragraph of this quote. You mention that Christianity instructs "do good for another". That is a command, not an explanation or a motivation. Christianity does indeed give both explanation and motivation. It is, presumably, pleasing to God and will contribute to you going to heaven. Rather than a similar set of instructions, the religion consists of teachings which inspire many people do. These teachings vary depending on denomination nowadays, but the underlying theme is a belief that everything is by design and that good behavior will be rewarded.

 

[Idea]

An issue I have here is... how could you possibly know this? When did you look at all other pagan religions stretching from Britain, to Eurasia, to asia, to africa, and finally landing on the Americas? Most importantly, how did you look at them accurately? Many European pre-Christian religions that the romans didn't pick up were oral until exposure to other cultures who actually wrote stuff down. That means the oldest records of them are often from different religions, who aren't the most credible source. Other times the issue is translating the damned thing.
Scandinavia has written accounts, but it's thusfar been in the form of sagas and stories instead of just information. Slavic mythology is still in a state where historians aren't sure if their markings are done in a language at all. Attempts to detail their beliefs have largely been done by christians, which are quite dubious; many have been biased before, mixing claims that angels personally interfered in battles, or intentionally lying about history or beliefs for the sake of propaganda.
Someone shouldn't feel confident to say any religion was the only to say this or that, because there isn't enough information yet. We may never have that, because accounts that were left to be orally passed on only survive with its people.

Perhaps you're basing this idea off of the behaviour? I'd again be dubious, but sure - Maybe that signifies they were more forgiving or peaceful. The problem?
They weren't
Most of the spread of Christianity has been from force of arms and threats, the two big exceptions I am able to list being the original incorporation by Constantine and the spreading of Aryan Christianity to the Gauls. Otherwise, lllooooooooots of genocide. Not to say they were unique for it, because they weren't, but the fact they were just as typical in behaviour is my point. It's spread from the Frankish empire used force, Christendom used collective force during the crusades (when they bothered to attempt conversion, that is,) Christians used it in Africa, and Christians used it in the Americas.
Talking fully about their behaviour regarding 'love thy enemy' is hard though; there's a lot of different implications from a lot of different aspects of these countries: Political manipulation during the split of the church in Constantin's Rome, the goal of the pope to eventually subjugate orthodox-Christian land, that chivalry's protections only applied to nobility, all of the wars that happened between Christians (hundred years war, Prussia-Denmark(?) war, expansion of napoleon, Swedish war with Austria and Russia, etc. etc. and etc.) Pre-crusades, the inter-warring was so bad that one of the goals of the first crusade was to partially unify Christendom against a common outside enemy. This stuff all suggests there wasn't a significant feeling of forgiveness from the religion, or at least to me. Maybe you feel like they weren't following the religion? Idk, but maybe you would. Sure, but then you'd still be admitting that the religion's affect on behaviour doesn't show evidence of its morality. Again, this is just in case you'd use historical behaviour to give evidence to the claim its teachings were more forgiving than the teachings of other religions. Otherwise, I did read your distinction between principles and actions in the name of them.

From what I have found and been presented with, I've seen nothing to suggest Christianity was better in the way you are describing. The tenents of ancient religions are not well documented, and the behaviour seen after christianity's widespread adoption do not signify it being revolutionary either.

There are several issues with your conclusions, but I do want to start by adressing your innitial questions.
Firstly, I did not and do not, as I did state several times, have awareness of all cultural and existing religions of every period of human history. And neither does anyone. But it shouldn't be shocking to find that people tend to aggregate around particular widespread norms for the most part. think of it as currency if it helps. As much as I want to use euros in England or the united states, if they don't take it my money is worthless. Therefore an effect is generated where by the very fact something, like a coin or a cultural norm, is accepted more, it spreads faster and more easily and solidifies it's domain. By this basic principle of human behavior we can tell that the major cultures of the past while not being all there was, were still the baseline for all lines of thinking of the time. They were the reference point from which major deviations would usually be quickly extinguished.

Second, as to how I know what these were and how they thought and think, that comes from research, experience with people of these beliefs and from looking at what remains of said ancient cultures and religions, namely their works and their art among other historical documents. For example, the concept of the Arete which was fundamental to the primordial greeks, is one which is best understood by viewing how it plays out in thier mythos and in particular in the major works of Homer.

Now, regarding the issues with yoru argument. For starters you are talking about major wars. Is it it true that these were often justified using christianism, absolutely. But think about that, for a second. If I said, let's go fight a war for unicorns or you know anyone you respect as a leader said that, you'd at best take it as a joke. The only reason why these wars could be justified in the first place using religion was it already being ingraned in the actual culture people had. In other words you are cherry picking the mistakes in a machine that works well 90% of the time. You are calling a dice rigged because it sometimes falls on a number you don't want. Are christian societies perfect? Again, no. They are made of people and people rarely live up to their own ideals. But education as we know it, the human rights were cherish today, many of our cultural norms which you'd call common sense are in origin, "radical" christian ideals and behaviors. And even today we find it strange about many of these myths having such different norms. Of course they did, change is not from night to day.

Furthermore, you are ignoring the very fact the majority of the bloodshed in those events you mentioned were either political or just part of the existing culture of the time, not the result of a faith that literally tells you not to do it.

And there lies your third mistake. You are speaking a lot about what christianity did or not do, and that is fine, you have the right to have an opinion which differs from mine, as we know different things, so that is a natural result. But you can't accuse a religion of promiting something when it's focal points are it's opposite. It's faallacious and frankly moronic to think that just because someone happens to belong to a religion that they are representative of the religion or beliefs which they CLAIM to champion or even just belong to. These events that you blaming on religon would have happened regardless, just by other means and other excuses.

To give an example, nowadays and I imagine a lot before too, people often used their religious beliefs as an excuse to get days off work. This does not mean religion says you should skip work. These people would use ANY excuse you gave them to get those days off work. They merely happened to explore something , like legal loophole of sorts, to achieve something for their own laziness.


Sorry about the typos, computer is lagging.

 

[The Gunrunner]

Oh, I didn't mean to say that Stalin and the rest were actual atheists--I'm just saying that history proves that when man tries to take God out of the picture, it doesn't end well. And when God is taken out of the picture, there is always something else that replaces Him---usually man himself.

I don't think it proves that, because both examples were of autocrats trying to cement their power. Dictatorships have almost always, if not always, been brutal.
Then again I'm not entirely certain what you mean by removing god from the picture. Nearly the entirety of western countries now have secular governments, and one of the most politically revolutionary countries on the planet today started with such.
One issue I have is that we're conflicting in our perspectives. You think god gave us morality, and his absence is the absence of morality (from what I'm interpreting of your words.) I think man made up god and his morality, and therefore man can create its own morality as they already have.

 

[Idea]

Ahhh I see what you mean now. You're saying that Eastern religions promote unity with the world rather than unity among mankind. I'd posit that the reason for this is that many Asian cultures already achieved unity among humanity. That's not too say there weren't conflicts, I don't mean to idealize them, but on a social level, collectivistic cultures are and were much more common. Thus there was already a sense instilled in them to be mindful of others. So to that end, I get your point that Christianity helped spread humanitarian values in the west. It was more necessary there, among individualistic cultures, than it would have been among collectivistic Eastern cultures. Hence my earlier point that religion functions the way people need it to function. Religion is shaped by people for their benefit (or in some instances, the benefit of those in power).

I kinda think you're selling Christianity short with the final paragraph of this quote. You mention that Christianity instructs "do good for another". That is a command, not an explanation or a motivation. Christianity does indeed give both explanation and motivation. It is, presumably, pleasing to God and will contribute to you going to heaven. Rather than a similar set of instructions, the religion consists of teachings which inspire many people do. These teachings vary depending on denomination nowadays, but the underlying theme is a belief that everything is by design and that good behavior will be rewarded.

Maybe it is so. Maybe Asian culture did already ahcieve that kind of unity among mankind. But that makes what christinaity did, in it's own context, just as impressive. Shifting the norms of an entire piece of the globe, even if over centuries is no easy feat. Specially one whose way of thinking previously diverged so much.

 

[TheRockInception]

I want to say that I am very happy about the discussion taking place. I absolutely love it when a debate or argument goes like this, no name calling, complete friendliness and actual debate is taking place. This is how arguing SHOULD be on the internet, both sides are not hostile to each other.

I also want to share an interesting fact with y'all; Christianity has contributed to music greatly. Johann Sebastian Bach, probably one of the most important composers and an identifiable name in classical music, was a devout Lutheran and composed several Lutheran Hymns (Music is a very huge part of Lutheran services (source: am Lutheran) ), not to mention Southern Gospel choirs contributed to the development of R&B, and subsequently, Rap.

 

[Idea]

I want to say that I am very happy about the discussion taking place. I absolutely love it when a debate or argument goes like this, no name calling, complete friendliness and actual debate is taking place. This is how arguing SHOULD be on the internet, both sides are not hostile to each other.

Agreed. I mean, the ones here could still use a bit of improvement but boy are they being better than the majority I get into. A shouting match is just a waste of time for everyone, a proper discussion can open minds and improve lives.

 

[TheRockInception]

Agreed. I mean, the ones here could still use a bit of improvement but boy are they being better than the majority I get into. A shouting match is just a waste of time for everyone, a proper discussion can open minds and improve lives.

Of course, of course! Perspective from both sides of the aisle and a calm atmosphere really do help broaden horizons!

 

[TheRockInception]

Athiest all the way.

M'kay, devout Lutheran all the way.

Jesus- Commits mass genocide to make the world a better place- Hero,Savior,Good.

...WHAT?! You know, it's okay to dislike Christianity, or even hate it, that's your business and not mine.
BUT SAYING THE SON OF GOD, THE MAN WHO CAN, AND DID, DIE FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD, COMMITED A GENOCIDE...
...Did you even read the book you claim to hate?!

Hitler- Commits mass genicide to make Germany a better place -Awful person,Garbage.

I have no words. I really, really do have none.

The resemblance is really disturbing.Im not sure why god is a good person for doing the literal exact same thing on a larger scale.

Ok, firstly, Jesus and God are two separate people, or rather, forms. This image can explain it better.

Annnnnnyyyywayyyy, back on topic... Are you seriously comparing Adolf Hitler, Read: The man who ordered the slaughter of 6 Million Jews (PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW GOD, BY THE WAY), Homosexuals, Gypsies (In fact, nobody knows how many Gypsies were murdered due to the fact that the Nazis didn't bother to take records), Pole, among many other innocent people, to Jesus H. Christ, Read: The guy who died for the whole world... I can't begin to comprehend the idiocy presented to me. I simply can't and I don't know why I'm responding to this, but this is truly the epitome of offensive.
You should be ashamed of yourself. You can hate Christianity all you want, but claiming without textual evidence and comparing a person who ordered the extermination of millions of innocent people to a religious teacher and prophet, is truly repulsive.

 

[Idea]

...WHAT?! You know, it's okay to dislike Christianity, or even hate it, that's your business and not mine.
BUT SAYING THE SON OF GOD, THE MAN WHO CAN, AND DID, DIE FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD, COMMITED A GENOCIDE...
...Did you even read the book you claim to hate?!

Oh I don't think they mean Jesus the son, I think they are just referring to Jesus as God in general and talking about the old testament

 

[ApfelSeine]

I mean, at a certain point, you should read a comment comparing Jesus to Hitler and reach one of two conclusions.

1. It's baiting, and therefore a waste if time and energy to respond or get upset about it.

2. The person has reached that conclusion because they equate Jesus with God (as idea stated) or simply do not have a great deal of information about who Jesus was historically recorded to be.

Either way, there is no reason to get upset. It is insulting, and I can understand feeling upset. However, it would be better to stay on more constructive topics of discussion.

(If I'm wrong, which I may well be, and there is some elusive third option, I hope that this point will be expanded upon in more depth. Provided it is done respectfully. The argument "person = Hitler" gets tiring after awhile. It usually either elevates Hitler or hyper villainizes the other person. The only true equivalencies are of other dictators and reprehensible political leaders)

 

[The Gunrunner]

There are several issues with your conclusions, but I do want to start by adressing your innitial questions.
Firstly, I did not and do not, as I did state several times, have awareness of all cultural and existing religions of every period of human history. And neither does anyone. But it shouldn't be shocking to find that people tend to aggregate around particular widespread norms for the most part. think of it as currency if it helps. As much as I want to use euros in England or the united states, if they don't take it my money is worthless. Therefore an effect is generated where by the very fact something, like a coin or a cultural norm, is accepted more, it spreads faster and more easily and solidifies it's domain. By this basic principle of human behavior we can tell that the major cultures of the past while not being all there was, were still the baseline for all lines of thinking of the time. They were the reference point from which major deviations would usually be quickly extinguished.

Second, as to how I know what these were and how they thought and think, that comes from research, experience with people of these beliefs and from looking at what remains of said ancient cultures and religions, namely their works and their art among other historical documents. For example, the concept of the Arete which was fundamental to the primordial greeks, is one which is best understood by viewing how it plays out in thier mythos and in particular in the major works of Homer.

Now, regarding the issues with yoru argument. For starters you are talking about major wars. Is it it true that these were often justified using christianism, absolutely. But think about that, for a second. If I said, let's go fight a war for unicorns or you know anyone you respect as a leader said that, you'd at best take it as a joke. The only reason why these wars could be justified in the first place using religion was it already being ingraned in the actual culture people had. In other words you are cherry picking the mistakes in a machine that works well 90% of the time. You are calling a dice rigged because it sometimes falls on a number you don't want. Are christian societies perfect? Again, no. They are made of people and people rarely live up to their own ideals. But education as we know it, the human rights were cherish today, many of our cultural norms which you'd call common sense are in origin, "radical" christian ideals and behaviors. And even today we find it strange about many of these myths having such different norms. Of course they did, change is not from night to day.

Furthermore, you are ignoring the very fact the majority of the bloodshed in those events you mentioned were either political or just part of the existing culture of the time, not the result of a faith that literally tells you not to do it.

And there lies your third mistake. You are speaking a lot about what christianity did or not do, and that is fine, you have the right to have an opinion which differs from mine, as we know different things, so that is a natural result. But you can't accuse a religion of promiting something when it's focal points are it's opposite. It's faallacious and frankly moronic to think that just because someone happens to belong to a religion that they are representative of the religion or beliefs which they CLAIM to champion or even just belong to. These events that you blaming on religon would have happened regardless, just by other means and other excuses.

To give an example, nowadays and I imagine a lot before too, people often used their religious beliefs as an excuse to get days off work. This does not mean religion says you should skip work. These people would use ANY excuse you gave them to get those days off work. They merely happened to explore something , like legal loophole of sorts, to achieve something for their own laziness.


Sorry about the typos, computer is lagging.

No problem with the typos. I'm on my phone right now and in Vancouver for a while. I might be able to type out a response, but I think I'll need a computer. Small screen = bad reread. Maximum wait until Friday.

 

[Idea]

No problem with the typos. I'm on my phone right now and in Vancouver for a while. I might be able to type out a response, but I think I'll need a computer. Small screen = bad reread. Maximum wait until Friday.

No problem I can wait.