​

 

Religions are just a reflection of the societies that create them and sometimes humanity can be very ugly. In this sense, they're not so different from other human institutions. The problem with religion is that a) it tends to demand blind obedience that denies rationality and can often lead to corruption, oppression, etc. and b) it causes people to assume indisputable moral superiority invested in them by an invisible, omnipresent superbeing. At their most extreme, they can drive people to act in the most barbaric ways, all in the name of an unprovable faith.

 

Yep. Also different religions can't be reconciled by reasoning: since the 'truth' can't be modified by evidence, there's no basis for compromise.

So religious conflicts are everlasting, where otherwise there could be integration. It's the worst kind of tribalism.

 

What you say is more true of some religions than others. Within Christianity it is more true of some religious denominations than others.

In the sixteenth century Christianity was introduced to Japan. It began to spread quickly. It was crushed by a persecution that was more brutal and thorough than that practiced in the Roman Empire before the reign of Emperor Constantine. This was the only time I am aware of that Buddhism has ever engaged in religious persecution.

There are no Buddhist terrorists that I am aware of. There are many Muslim terrorists. There are few Christians who could be called terrorists.

In Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, and probably many other Islamic countries the vast majority of Muslims favor the death penalty for those leaving the Muslim faith.

Everything secular liberals hate about the religious right and the Bible Belt is far more true of even moderate Islamic countries. Nevertheless, secular liberals generally support the Palestinians against Israel, and they favor few or no restrictions on Muslim immigration to Europe and the United States.

I will not go so far as to say that all secular liberals hate the West. Nevertheless, most blame European colonialism, American imperialism, and white racism for the ills of the world. They simply do not bring any passion to a condemnation of Islamic terrorism, Islamic religious persecution, honor killing, and female genital mutilation. They either ignore the evils of Islamic society, while shouting "Racist!" at those of us who describe those evils, or they try to argue that Islam and Christianity are morally equivalent.

 

Why do all those of a religious favouring believe they need to separated from the rest of us and given special protection, or are your beliefs not quite strong enough.

Does you god not promise to send unbelievers to hell for eternal torture, or maybe just exclude us from the rapture, or maybe not let us int heaven. So if the aforementioned is true why do you need the laws of man to protect you from people who blaspheme and make fun of you.

Personally I tend towards the fact that you want to play with a loaded deck and when you run out of arguments you can scream loudly for the Spanish Inquisition, who will do the dirty work for you.

And all that is before we get to the sacrilegious acts of members of the Roman church.

 

Let me give you an analogy: It's really only kosher for Jewish comedians to make disparaging jokes about other Jews. If a Gentile tried it, it would likely be considered racist or insensitive. As someone who was raised a Catholic in the U.S., I feel perfectly comfortable critiquing the Church or the U.S. government from within because I have so much first hand experience with these institutions. I tend to be a lot more cautious about making sweeping generalizations about other cultures that I'm not as informed about.

That being said, I would recognize that Islam as it exists today appears to highlight a lot of the ugliest tendencies of organized religion--the violent fanaticism, the intolerance, the sexism, etc. I don't know exactly how widespread the practices you note above are, but they are undeniably heinous. I wouldn't certainly want to live in a country where this was the dominant religion, particularly if they controlled the government. Does this justify U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East for the last fifty years? I don't think so. I'd prefer to have as little involvement with that part of the world as possible.

 

The main word is "secular", they are supporting the Palestinians regardless of their religion, something you cannot even think of doing. As for christian terrorists, go and have a wander around Ulster and see the boasting of the taigs and prods as they queue up to get into church. You will now try and deny the fact that these terrorists are christians because what they do is not christian behaviour, the very same could be said of muslims, by the fact that they commit certain acts that go against the qu'ran they are then not muslim.

 

The main difference between Christianity and Islam, is that Christianity is more prevalent in secular countries, Whereas in countries where Muslims are the majority, Islam has taken over running the state.

Anglicanism/Church of England is pretty harmless denomination of Christianity, but I will grant you even some of the not so nice Christian sects are nowhere near as bad as pretty much all forms of Islam. Likewise most Christian faiths are not as bad as Scientology either.

But I do think in general, Christianity is not a force for good, its teachings are immoral, and the world would be a lot better off without it, particularly those people that believe in it. However, I think of Islam as an infectious brain poisoning cult, in all of it's forms, and it is the biggest threat to freedom and world peace that exists today.

 

The Halakah admonishes followers to be steadfast in the face of persecution and not to focus on retribution.

"To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste."


More peaceful and loving approach?

Jesus is strict above everything else. Re-read your NT. Not to mention that Jesus introduces the concept of Gehenna as place of eternal suffering....

 

That is a good analogy.

 

You don't think that Jesus preached a message of love, compassion and forgiveness? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Turn the other cheek? I'm not trying to make him out to be some kind of laid back hippie type, but there is an undeniable shift in tone from the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament to loving forgiveness of the New Testament. I guess we all see the things we want to see in religion.

 

Jesus' main message was to repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is upon us. Hence the reason He sacrificed Himself for all of humanity so that all who believe in Him shall be saved from eternal death in Gehenna.

 

On the one hand I think the United States was wrong to overthrow the democratic government of Iran in 1953. On the other hand I think it is foolish to promote democracy in countries where most people favor persecution of non Muslims, the destruction of Israel, and where most think rape victims should be punished more severely than rapists.

I am particularly opposed to invading and occupying Islamic countries. I do favor air strikes if they are in our interest and those of Israel.

For very many reasons I favor continued support for Israel.

 

Let me also twist the question back to you. You don't think YHWH, in mercy towards the children of Israel, displayed a message of love, compassion and forgiveness throughout the Old Testament?

"“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the LORD,
“Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool."

 

I have read the Bible including the Apocrypha eight times in seven English translations. As Judaism evolved it became more universalistic.

Non Fundamentalist Bible scholars consider the books of Ruth and Jonah to have been composed as works of fiction written to promote concern for non Hebrews.

Ruth is portrayed as a Moabite woman who is the grandmother of David.

According to Deuteronomy 23:3 this would make Israel's greatest king ineligible to be an Israelite.

In the book of Jonah God tells Jonah to go to Nineveh to tell the people to repent. Nineveh was the capital of the Assyrians. The Assyrians were oppressors of Israel. Nevertheless, when Jonah preached to the Assyrians the Assyrians repented.

 

Interesting. A lot depends on how you want to interpret that. Most Christians think of Heaven as something you might get to after you die, but I personally think Jesus meant that we can achieve Heaven right here, right now by surrendering completely to God's love. Similarly, I think Hell is a human condition, something we create for ourselves in our hearts through sin (which could be defined as misguided actions, as well as more obvious evil). But that's just my own interpretation!

 

And Rahab the prostitute was also ineligible for conversion and should have been stoned on sight. A constant motif of the Old Testament is that the Commandments are frequently broken and yet YHWH continues to grant grace and forgiveness.

How else could the son of an immoral union (Solomon) become a great king of Israel?

 

Do you Christians love Jesus more than your own children ?

 

The Scriptural evidence for this is very weak according to the Gospels--and is totally contradictory with what is written in the Apocalypse of John.

The acts (including his sacrifice) and words of Jesus make a strong case that HE believes that Heaven and Hell are actual places.

Matthew 7:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.