God a figment of an evil imagination?

StormWarrior

Have you ever noticed that the more religious a society is, the more cruel and punishing the justice system is towards even minor "crimes"? For example, Saudi Arabia is going to give a university professor 150 lashes for sitting in a cafe with a woman he was not related to.

On the other hand, the more secular a country, the more humanitarian they are, and the more the justice system focuses on rehabilitation rather than sheer punishment. For example, Sweden. Swedes try to remould the criminals to make them fit to enter society again, without abusing them unnecessarily.

It often seems that religious people are more cruel-minded and punishing than atheists. So perhaps this is why the God of the bible is so "fire and brimstone" and torment forever without hope of redemption, just for punishment's own sake. Maybe the people who wrote it were just cruel and enjoyed thinking of others being tortured?

PDN

StormWarrior wrote: »

Have you ever noticed that the more religious a society is, the more cruel and punishing the justice system is towards even minor "crimes"? For example, Saudi Arabia is going to give a university professor 150 lashes for sitting in a cafe with a woman he was not related to.

On the other hand, the more secular a country, the more humanitarian they are, and the more the justice system focuses on rehabilitation rather than sheer punishment. For example, Sweden. Swedes try to remould the criminals to make them fit to enter society again, without abusing them unnecessarily.

It often seems that religious people are more cruel-minded and punishing than atheists. So perhaps this is why the God of the bible is so "fire and brimstone" and torment forever without hope of redemption, just for punishment's own sake. Maybe the people who wrote it were just cruel and enjoyed thinking of others being tortured?

Yes, the Vatican State kills and tortures many more people each year than the humanitarian secular nations of China and North korea. :rolleyes:

Galvasean

What a waste of a thread.

Nerin

in fairness, the religions that one should respect (the ones with a good message) arent to blame. its the followers.
i mean,im not a christian, but i respect someone that follows jesus' peaceful teachings,whereas when i hear of some idiot(phelps example) totally getting it wrong, its more man than message thats to blame.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, the Vatican State kills and tortures many more people each year than the humanitarian secular nations of China and North korea. :rolleyes:

Given the population of the Vatican city is 821 one wouldn't expect much going on in that regard.

On the other hand the Vatican city did have capital punishment on the law books up until 1971 for the crime of assassination of the Pope. After the Pope criticised executions in other countries pressure built for the Pope to remove this law in the late 60s, lest he be seen as being hypocritical.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

the Vatican State kills and tortures many more people each year than the humanitarian secular nations of China and North korea

hmm... an interesting slip -- I assume you mean "humanist" rather than "humanitarian"

Anyhow, it seems that the Vatican has one of the world's highest per-capita crime rates:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0300163.htm

...while at 10% for petty-theft, its prosecution rate is rather low:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2639777.stm

And yes, while China's number one when it comes to executing its own citizens (the DPRK's rate is unknown), it would stretch the truth somewhat to refer to the next four on the list -- Iran, Saudi, Pakistan and the USA -- as "secular"!

.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

hmm... an interesting slip -- I assume you mean "humanist" rather than "humanitarian"

No, I meant 'humanitarian' because that was the word used by the OP. Of course I had my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, as befitted such a silly thread.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

hmm... an interesting slip -- I assume you mean "humanist" rather than "humanitarian"

Anyhow, it seems that the Vatican has one of the world's highest per-capita crime rates:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0300163.htm

...while at 10% for petty-theft, its prosecution rate is rather low:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2639777.stm

And yes, while China's number one when it comes to executing its own citizens (the DPRK's rate is unknown), it would stretch the truth somewhat to refer to the next four on the list -- Iran, Saudi, Pakistan and the USA -- as "secular"!

.

The Vatican's high theft rate is exactly what I would expect. A prime tourist attraction with crowds of Americans with big cameras, big mouths & big wallets will attract plenty of pickpockets etc. Of course you may choose to believe that it is the residents of the Vatican that carry out the crime if you wish. the thought of all those Cardinals dipping into tourists' pockets is certainly one to savour.

I would not be so silly as to suggest that cruel punishment is characteristic of religion or of atheism. Some forms of religion do indeed seem to specialise in cruelty, but then so do particular forms of atheism.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I would not be so silly as to suggest that cruel punishment is characteristic of religion or of atheism. Some forms of religion do indeed seem to specialise in cruelty, but then so do particular forms of atheism.

The cruel punishment seems to goes hand in hand with totalitarian states, the "do as we say, we know best" states.

These states are very often religious in nature, as religions (including Christianity and Islam) more often than not are formed around the idea of a system of "do as we say, we know best" systems of instruction, they know best because they claim the teaching comes from God.

But it is not exclusive to religious dogma. In the case of China, and North Korea the dogma is State Communism, which again says "do as we say, we know best"

Systems like these tend to allow for the assention of to power of quite nasty people, who are followed by the large population due to their claim to be representing the "correct" way, be that the teachings of Jesus or Karl Marx or Chairman Mao.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

...while at 10% for petty-theft, its prosecution rate is rather low:

Probably turning the other cheek and forgiving.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The Vatican's high theft rate is exactly what I would expect.

Well, I'd have thought that god would have looked after his own, or made sure that the thieves were caught, or at the very least, made sure that his representative on earth had a police force able to catch those who disappear into the shadows with the handbags and wallets of the One True Faithful.

I'd be interested to hear a religious reason as to why the Vatican's crime rate is apparently 20 times Greater Rome's, which presumably hosts all the Vatican's tourists, as well as its own.

PDN wrote: »

Of course you may choose to believe that it is the residents of the Vatican that carry out the crime if you wish.

Well, looking at the statistics again, that triple-murder in the Swiss Guards -- must have been eight or ten years ago -- overnight gave the Vatican the highest per-capita murder rate in Europe. Quis custodet custodes ipsos?

PDN wrote: »

The thought of all those Cardinals dipping into tourists' pockets is certainly one to savour.

An interesting thought, but perhaps superfluous, given the enthusiasm with which the faithful already and over their Pence to Peter?

irishsaint

Hmmm, very interesting.
.
Perhaps God is not a figment of evil imagination but rather a figment of controlling imagination.....
.
What about Christianity though, lets assume GOD was created by a figment of imagination for whatever reason, the religious faiths, such as christianity which has be born out of that are the ideals that control the states. Not GOD as that is only an imagination, therefore, it is the religous faiths that are evil in that context.
.
Secular states do not always conform to non torture and humanatarian ways, Turkey is a prime example of that. Its not a simple to say Christian / Moslem controlled states are bad and secular states are good. Its actually down to the ruling individuals and their belief or power mongering.
.
I believe that religion born out of the creation of GOD was intended as a controlling method and because there are so many faiths, I believe all nations must be secular in order to allow real freedom to prevail for all its residents.
.
You do not need a law against abortion passed to practice your faith
You do not need a law passed homosexuality to practice your faith
You do not need a law passed to enfore women to cover up to practice you faith.
.
Secular nations are the only way to go

all the stars

PDN wrote: »

Yes, the Vatican State kills and tortures many more people each year than the humanitarian secular nations of China and North korea. :rolleyes:

Em, How many people have been murdered in the name of god? civilisations completely wiped out? come on now, its well documented! God himself doesn't do it - but people di it in his name... have been doing so for many, many, many years.

PDN

all the stars wrote: »

Em, How many people have been murdered in the name of god? civilisations completely wiped out? come on now, its well documented! God himself doesn't do it - but people di it in his name... have been doing so for many, many, many years.

It's well documented that both religious organisations and atheists have murdered people brutally. However, the OP appears to only be able to see one side of it, therefore I cited a very religious society today where there is no oppression worth talking about.

You get two kinds of extremes in these discussions. One tries to portray religion as oppressive and evil (the Crusades, inquisition etc) and atheism as humanitarian and enlightened. The other extreme is to pretend nothing bad was ever done by religious people and to point out the murder carried out by atheists such as Stalin, Mao etc. Both extremes are equally dishonest and fat-headed.

Nerin

PDN wrote: »

It's well documented that both religious organisations and atheists have murdered people brutally. However, the OP appears to only be able to see one side of it, therefore I cited a very religious society today where there is no oppression worth talking about.

You get two kinds of extremes in these discussions. One tries to portray religion as oppressive and evil (the Crusades, inquisition etc) and atheism as humanitarian and enlightened. The other extreme is to pretend nothing bad was ever done by religious people and to point out the murder carried out by atheists such as Stalin, Mao etc. Both extremes are equally dishonest and fat-headed.

have to agree here,that a very good point.
its frustrating when either side of an argument buries their head in the sand

seamus

PDN wrote: »

You get two kinds of extremes in these discussions. One tries to portray religion as oppressive and evil (the Crusades, inquisition etc) and atheism as humanitarian and enlightened. The other extreme is to pretend nothing bad was ever done by religious people and to point out the murder carried out by atheists such as Stalin, Mao etc. Both extremes are equally dishonest and fat-headed.

Indeed, while it may have been possible at one point to say, "Look, all the major genocidal acts have been carried out by religion", communism has shown us that totalitarian regimes tend towards these acts, regardless of belief. It's the totalitarianism that creates the acts, not the religion. Religion is often just used as a convenient method of maintaining the totalitarianism.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

One tries to portray religion as oppressive and evil (the Crusades, inquisition etc) and atheism as humanitarian and enlightened. The other extreme is to pretend nothing bad was ever done by religious people. Both extremes are equally dishonest and fat-headed.

And it's equally dishonest to suggest that a sensible compromise lies half way between the two extremes.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

And it's equally dishonest to suggest that a sensible compromise lies half way between the two extremes.

A sensible compromise is a secular society where people have the freedom to practice whatever religion, where people have the freedom to be atheists, and we all have the freedom to discuss our views with each other.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

A sensible compromise is a secular society where people have the freedom to practice whatever religion, where people have the freedom to be atheists, and we all have the freedom to discuss our views with each other.

quite right, but that glides by the point the OP was making, which is that religious societies tend to the coercive. It also ignores my question -- whether religion, on balance, is beneficial or harmful.

At some point, equivocating ceases to have much benefit and an informed decision should be made.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

quite right, but that glides by the point the OP was making, which is that religious societies tend to the coercive. It also ignores my question -- whether religion, on balance, is beneficial or harmful.

At some point, equivocating ceases to have much benefit and an informed decision should be made.

No, the OP was making more of a point than that. He was saying that religious societies are more coercive, and that secular societies are kinder. That in itself betrays faulty reasoning because a society can be both secular and religious. Secular does not equate with atheist.

Then he went on to make the leap of logic that therefore religious people are crueller and more punishing than atheists. I, quite reasonably responded that we can look at societies that are overwhelmingly religious and repressive (eg Saudi Arabia) and others that are overwhelmingly religious and tolerant (eg Vatican City). Also you can have overwhelmingly atheist societies that are oppressive (eg North Korea) and overwhelming atheist societies that are tolerant ( eg ...... er... uhm ... help me someone!)

all the stars

PDN wrote: »

You get two kinds of extremes in these discussions. One tries to portray religion as oppressive and evil (the Crusades, inquisition etc) and atheism as humanitarian and enlightened. The other extreme is to pretend nothing bad was ever done by religious people and to point out the murder carried out by atheists such as Stalin, Mao etc. Both extremes are equally dishonest and fat-headed.

taking it pesonal much...
so , was just making the point... Im not anti-religion, i think it does give a nice template of how to live life - i struggle with the rest of it.
I wasn't trying to suggest athiests and pagans didn't add to the body count, meerly saying dont be forgetting that plenty have died for this through christianity....

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

No, the OP was making more of a point than that. He was saying that religious societies are more coercive, and that secular societies are kinder. That in itself betrays faulty reasoning because a society can be both secular and religious. Secular does not equate with atheist.

Then he went on to make the leap of logic that therefore religious people are crueller and more punishing than atheists. I, quite reasonably responded that we can look at societies that are overwhelmingly religious and repressive (eg Saudi Arabia) and others that are overwhelmingly religious and tolerant (eg Vatican City). Also you can have overwhelmingly atheist societies that are oppressive (eg North Korea) and overwhelming atheist societies that are tolerant ( eg ...... er... uhm ... help me someone!)

Ha ha, very funny. For your information countries that the census says are mostly irreligious (over 50%)

1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

Of course all these countries are terribly intolerant and just awful places to live....:D

robindch

PDN wrote: »

others that are overwhelmingly religious and tolerant (eg Vatican City).

Sir's sense of humor is running away with itself

PDN wrote: »

No, the OP was making more of a point than that. He was saying that religious societies are more coercive, and that secular societies are kinder.

I think the OP -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- was using the usual, but slightly sloppy, shorthand to describe what happens in countries with high levels of public religiosity and countries with low levels of public religiosity, aka "religious" and "secular".

You're familiar enough with the stats which show that high levels of public religiosity are positively correlated with high levels of many kinds of social dysfunction, that it's probably not worth rehashing them again.

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

Ha ha, very funny. For your information countries that the census says are mostly irreligious (over 50%)

1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

Of course all these countries are terribly intolerant and just awful places to live....:D

I didn't ask about irreligious - I asked about overwhelmingly atheist.

I find it interesting that you list Estonia at 49%. That means that even when you lump the agnostics in with the atheists they are still in the minority. Of course 50 years ago Estonia would have boasted much higher figures of atheist. I do hope it hasn't become less tolerant since those halcyon days of the Soviet Union.

According to official government statistics, in 2005 South Korea's population was composed of 29% Christians and 23% Buddhist. So, again, hardly fits the description of overwhelmingly atheist, does it?

85% of the Norwegian population are members of the State Lutheran church. This means that a proportion of Norwegians are both religious and atheists since 25% of the population also claim to be atheist. But again, hardly overwhelmingly atheist.

The Czech republic would seen fairly tolerant - unless of course you're either Jewish or Gypsy in which case the neo-Nazism there is rather frightening.

Vietnam's record of persecuting Christians is really pretty shameful. I would be genuinely scared of anyone who holds Vietnam up as an example of enlightened tolerance!

As for countries like France, Denmark and Sweden - consider this. Have these countries become more tolerant because of the increasing percentage of atheists and agnostics there? Or, have they seen an increase in the number of atheists and agnostics due to the secular tolerance that already exists?

Japan is an interesting case which could probably keep an entire thread busy for months. The official membership of religious organisations in Japan add up to over 140% of the population . Other surveys indicate that only 10% of the Japanese believe in God. So perhaps we have some more religious atheists there?

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

I didn't ask about irreligious - I asked about overwhelmingly atheist.

I find it interesting that you list Estonia at 49%. That means that even when you lump the agnostics in with the atheists they are still in the minority. Of course 50 years ago Estonia would have boasted much higher figures of atheist. I do hope it hasn't become less tolerant since those halcyon days of the Soviet Union.

What's your point here? 50 years ago? You mean during the German occupation then. Ok I won't argue for that one, it just happened to come in the bottom of the list, I don't know much about Estonia's history.

PDN wrote: »

According to official government statistics, in 2005 South Korea's population was composed of 29% Christians and 23% Buddhist. So, again, hardly fits the description of overwhelmingly atheist, does it?

Hardly a beacon for Christ though is it. I see you are starting from the bottom up. Clever tactic.

PDN wrote: »

85% of the Norwegian population are members of the State Lutheran church. This means that a proportion of Norwegians are both religious and atheists since 25% of the population also claim to be atheist. But again, hardly overwhelmingly atheist.

Indeed they are registered into this Church of Norway at birth by default. So this is entirely meaningless. Kind of like all the Catholics in this country...;)

PDN wrote: »

The Czech republic would seen fairly tolerant - unless of course you're either Jewish or Gypsy in which case the neo-Nazism there is rather frightening.

Oh yes, huge majorities of the population are neo-nazi. Hardly. Besides all neo-nazis are atheists? I think not, in fact I suspect they would tend to be religious, but I don't have any figures for that.

PDN wrote: »

Vietnam's record of persecuting Christians is really pretty shameful. I would be genuinely scared of anyone who holds Vietnam up as an example of enlightened tolerance!

Ok I know nothing of Vietnam so I can't respond to that.

PDN wrote: »

As for countries like France, Denmark and Sweden - consider this. Have these countries become more tolerant because of the increasing percentage of atheists and agnostics there? Or, have they seen an increase in the number of atheists and agnostics due to the secular tolerance that already exists?

Makes no difference which way around it happened. Chicken or egg; it makes no difference. These countries have high levels of atheist(and growing) right now, and these countries right now are accepted as among the most tolerant. In other words, tolerant societies with high levels of atheists in them. My my, whatever next?!:pac:

PDN wrote: »

Japan is an interesting case which could probably keep an entire thread busy for months. The official membership of religious organisations in Japan add up to over 140% of the population . Other surveys indicate that only 10% of the Japanese believe in God. So perhaps we have some more religious atheists there?

Japan is interesting indeed. The main "religion", has no holy writings, no founders, no canon. Its more like a collection of interesting mythologies and folklore. Tolerant certainly. Atheist? Maybe. Religious? Sort of. As you said, interesting case.

JimiTime

i can't believe people indulge in this drivel talk. Bad things have been done in the name of religion, yadda, yadda, yadda. Bad things have been done by people of all sorts throughout the ages. If religion never existed, i guarantee it would be no better! Bad people are the problem not bad religion! End of!









IMO.:)

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

What's your point here? 50 years ago? You mean during the German occupation then. Ok I won't argue for that one, it just happened to come in the bottom of the list, I don't know much about Estonia's history.

No, if you think it was occupied by Germany in 1958 then I don't think you do.

DublinWriter

PDN wrote: »

Yes, the Vatican State kills and tortures many more people each year than the humanitarian secular nations of China and North korea. :rolleyes:

Well, they used to: the death toll of the Spanish Inquisition was pretty impressive considering the limited technology available to them at the time.

...and if the First and Second Crusades weren't Ethnic Cleansing, I'll eat my hat.

Damn those Godless tolerant Danes and Belgians, they're all going to hell.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

No, if you think it was occupied by Germany in 1958 then I don't think you do.

he he. oopps. :eek: my mistake. so 1 + 1 != 3?

StormWarrior

PDN wrote: »

85% of the Norwegian population are members of the State Lutheran church. This means that a proportion of Norwegians are both religious and atheists since 25% of the population also claim to be atheist. But again, hardly overwhelmingly atheist.

Norwegians are automatically considered members of the church unless they opt out. Most simply cannot be bothered to go to the hassle of officially opting out. I lived in Norway and can assure you nowhere near 85% of them are Christians. I never met one.


As for the vatican being tolerant, I was quite annoyed to hear that the pope declared contraception against church laws despite evidence to the contrary. So the pope would rather have women stuck at home popping a kid out every year, despite the fact that the bible does not demand this. Very tolerant of him.

Galvasean

StormWarrior wrote: »

Norwegians are automatically considered members of the church unless they opt out. Most simply cannot be bothered to go to the hassle of officially opting out. I lived in Norway and can assure you nowhere near 85% of them are Christians. I never met one.

I did not know this. Ive been to Norway and they didn't seem all that religious to me.

StormWarrior

JimiTime wrote: »

i can't believe people indulge in this drivel talk. Bad things have been done in the name of religion, yadda, yadda, yadda. Bad things have been done by people of all sorts throughout the ages. If religion never existed, i guarantee it would be no better! Bad people are the problem not bad religion! End of!

Yep, but religion is a means that "bad" people use to control the masses. ok, atheist countries do too, but just look at my comment about the pope above.

StormWarrior

Galvasean wrote: »

I did not know this. Ive been to Norway and they didn't seem all that religious to me.

Exactly, thats what I'm saying. They are "officially" Christians, but most don't consider themselves to be at all. In fact there has been quite a neo-pagan revival in Norway, in the early 90's many churches across Norway were burned to the ground by the Pagans, as that's exactly what the Christians did to the Pagan sites when they took over.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, the Vatican State kills and tortures many more people each year than the humanitarian secular nations of China and North korea. :rolleyes:

Are you serious?

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Are you serious?

As serious as the OP deserves.

PDN

StormWarrior wrote: »

As for the vatican being tolerant, I was quite annoyed to hear that the pope declared contraception against church laws despite evidence to the contrary. So the pope would rather have women stuck at home popping a kid out every year, despite the fact that the bible does not demand this. Very tolerant of him.

Do you actually understand what 'toleration' means?

The pope does indeed teach (wrongly, in my opinion) that Catholics should not practice contraception. However, the Church has no mechanism for forcing Catholics to obey this teaching.

Do you really want to equate a guy saying, "By the way guys, you really shouldn't wear a condom, but if you do decide to do so there's absolutely nothing I will do to stop you." with what happens in China and North Korea?

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote: »

i can't believe people indulge in this drivel talk. Bad things have been done in the name of religion, yadda, yadda, yadda. Bad things have been done by people of all sorts throughout the ages. If religion never existed, i guarantee it would be no better! Bad people are the problem not bad religion! End of!

And I can't believe you don't understand that by encouraging people not to think but to follow a philosophy founded in violence and bigotry, the christian religion provides a mechanism that is wide open to exploitation by bad people in the pursuit of bad ends.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

Do you really want to equate a guy saying, "By the way guys, you really shouldn't wear a condom, but if you do decide to do so there's absolutely nothing I will do to stop you." with what happens in China and North Korea?

Well of course that isn't really what the pope says, is it? What he actually says is "If you wear a condom you commit a sin for which you will burn in hell for all eternity", which you will agree would be a powerfully persuasive argument for people who believe in such nonsense. But as usual you prefer to skirt around the unacceptable face of christianity.

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote: »

And I can't believe you don't understand that by encouraging people not to think but to follow a philosophy founded in violence and bigotry, the christian religion provides a mechanism that is wide open to exploitation by bad people in the pursuit of bad ends.

I do indeed understand it, and its not just the religions of christendom. But do you really believe that there would be nothing in its place if it wasn't there? Patriotism, nationalism can be just as expoitative. As I said, bad people will use and create whatever means they can. Religion has been and is one of those means, I'm not denying that. However, its lazy to just say its all religions fault. IMO.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, bad people will use and create whatever means they can. Religion has been and is one of those means, I'm not denying that. However, its lazy to just say its all religions fault. IMO.

I think is true, its like if someone killed someone with a hammer and it was argued that it was the hammers fault the victim was killed. Religion just happens to be a tool that bad people can abuse to get power and do bad things, however you must wonder what it is about religion that makes it such a useful tool for bad people to use for this purpose.

rockbeer

Mark Hamill wrote: »

however you must wonder what it is about religion that makes it such a useful tool for bad people to use for this purpose.

1. It encourages people follow rather than to think for themselves. Once habituated to obeying orders, how are they then supposed to be able to work out whether what they are following is right or wrong?

2. It creates a ready-made group of outsiders (those that don't believe as we do - those who don't follow our revealed 'truth') to persecute, victimize and ostracize. cf the inquisition.

3. As far as the judeo-christian religions are concerned, intolerance and violence are woven deep into their very fabric.

@ JimmyTime - just out of interest, what and when were the last acts of genocide committed in the name of Buddhism, Hinduism or Jainism? Or even paganism? You can try to exempt christianity from culpability on the grounds that all religions are susceptible to the same problem, but this isn't true. It's largely confined to the judeo-christian religions, I would suggest because of the fundamentally violent nature of their deity.

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote: »

@ JimmyTime - just out of interest, what and when were the last acts of genocide committed in the name of Buddhism, Hinduism or Jainism? Or even paganism? You can try to exempt christianity from culpability on the grounds that all religions are susceptible to the same problem, but this isn't true. It's largely confined to the judeo-christian religions, I would suggest because of the fundamentally violent nature of their deity.

Honestly, I don't know. You are right though, the judeo-christian religions have defo brought great shame on themselves over the years, and still do. Its nothing to do with God though. Again, thats a lazy leap. Someone in a position of power, lets say the pope, who has gained power and obedience over people. He firstly has to 'abuse' the scriptures in order to authorise things such as the crusades. these same men were having affairs and children while condemning such behaviour. This is certainly the work of men, and not the work of God. That man can be so bad, and that other men will follow is indeed a great shame. However, Christ is aware of who his flock is. Thankfully, he doesn't care for people of power, but rather for the heart of individuals. Such individuals have been victims of these professing christians etc themseves.

StormWarrior

JimiTime wrote: »

Honestly, I don't know. You are right though, the judeo-christian religions have defo brought great shame on themselves over the years, and still do. Its nothing to do with God though.

Uh, the Christian God is always punishing the naughty, smiting people, wiping out whole civilizations.... and you say it's nothing to do with God that Christians have often done the same?

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote: »

Honestly, I don't know. You are right though, the judeo-christian religions have defo brought great shame on themselves over the years, and still do. Its nothing to do with God though. Again, thats a lazy leap.

No, it's not a lazy leap. It's a recognition of what's actually written in christian scripture. All the bits that christians don't much like to think about, the bits they say 'don't count' any more... You know the stuff I'm talking about. The casual misogyny, the genocides, the brutal punishments, the incitements to sacrifice, yadda yadda yadda as you'd put it.

The trouble with following a faith with a long history, such as christianity, is that all of its history informs its present. Justifications for every evil carried out in the name of christianity are right there in the bible. Not only that, but as a book of some record the bible records countless acts of violence committed in the name of god.

This is the legacy modern christians have inherited, and they face a real problem when they try to distance themselves from it. Some retreat behind the 'new covenant', conveniently ignoring the contradiction in the infallible word of god having turned out to be so wrong after all. As though all that horror can just be dismissed as god's early period or something. Like it was his rebellious teenage years. (Duh.. this is god we're talking about. Was he right or not?) Others shy away from the elephant in the corner, pretending it's somehow not relevant, blame 'bad individuals' who in fact were only doing what the good book said.

But to be honest, all that's just kidding yourself. You might not like it but those bad people were just following the bits of the bible you prefer to pretend weren't actually there. It's all written down in black and white and the consequences are a matter of historical record. Wishing won't make it go away.

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote: »

No, it's not a lazy leap. It's a recognition of what's actually written in christian scripture. All the bits that christians don't much like to think about, the bits they say 'don't count' any more... You know the stuff I'm talking about. The casual misogyny, the genocides, the brutal punishments, the incitements to sacrifice, yadda yadda yadda as you'd put it.

The trouble with following a faith with a long history, such as christianity, is that all of its history informs its present. Justifications for every evil carried out in the name of christianity are right there in the bible. Not only that, but as a book of some record the bible records countless acts of violence committed in the name of god.

This is the legacy modern christians have inherited, and they face a real problem when they try to distance themselves from it. Some retreat behind the 'new covenant', conveniently ignoring the contradiction in the infallible word of god having turned out to be so wrong after all. As though all that horror can just be dismissed as god's early period or something. Like it was his rebellious teenage years. (Duh.. this is god we're talking about. Was he right or not?) Others shy away from the elephant in the corner, pretending it's somehow not relevant, blame 'bad individuals' who in fact were only doing what the good book said.

But to be honest, all that's just kidding yourself. You might not like it but those bad people were just following the bits of the bible you prefer to pretend weren't actually there. It's all written down in black and white and the consequences are a matter of historical record. Wishing won't make it go away.

i certainly don't wish it would go. But any idiot with an axe to grind can assert what you have. still a lazy leap.

Nerin

StormWarrior wrote: »

Uh, the Christian God is always punishing the naughty, smiting people, wiping out whole civilizations.... and you say it's nothing to do with God that Christians have often done the same?

nah,its not the god,its the people who claim the god does such things.
poor old thor could be the god of flowers and pretty things, and not of war. we're taking what humans say as fact.

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote: »

i certainly don't wish it would go. But any idiot with an axe to grind can assert what you have. still a lazy leap.

Mods, isn't this verging on the personal?

JimiTime, the old axe-to-grind argument. Give me a break. Try engaging with the facts rather than resorting to personalizing the discussion.

You know, it was this sort of thing that made me swear off this forum before. You make a reasoned, reasonable, culturally informed argument, you back it up with evidence and everything, and for your trouble you get called a lazy idiot by someone who admits to believing in an all-powerful invisible man on a cloud who can create a universe but can't even get it together to write a book that says what he means in an unambiguous fashion.

StormWarrior

Nerin wrote: »

nah,its not the god,its the people who claim the god does such things.
poor old thor could be the god of flowers and pretty things, and not of war. we're taking what humans say as fact.

I'm not talking about Thor though, I'm only speaking here of the Christian God, and all this stuff is in the bible.

Nerin

StormWarrior wrote: »

I'm not talking about Thor though, I'm only speaking here of the Christian God, and all this stuff is in the bible.

¬_¬
gods are gods.
the christian gods characteristics are described by his followers. Thor was just an example.

StormWarrior

Nerin wrote: »

¬_¬
gods are gods.
the christian gods characteristics are described by his followers.

That's exactly what I was saying when I started this thread!

Nerin

StormWarrior wrote: »

That's exactly what I was saying when I started this thread!

and im somewhat agreeing with ya
i wouldnt say all religious countries vs secular ones are better/worse. you cannot generalise.