Religion has caused more

decides2dream

El_Kabong wrote:

i didn't choose to ignore it perse...my last reply was on the 4th page...then i came back and it was at around 10 pages and i didn't feel like going thru 6 whole pages...

okey doke. just seemd odd to me, that you'd make the same point twice when asked/answered already. thank you for clarifying in any case. and sure, i still stand by my phrasing.

IndianSummer

Byrnzie wrote:

What so 550bc came before 2,600bc did it? Weird! :eek:

i highly doubt that egyptians were monotheistic - what with gods like Isis, Ra, Osiris and others.
and zorastrianism started from about 1200 bc. and here's what its infleunce has been like.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/zor5.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Relation_to_other_religions_and_cultures

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20041111.shtml

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/zoroastrianism_influence.htm

http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/similarities_and_influences.html

Byrnzie

IndianSummer wrote:

i highly doubt that egyptians were monotheistic - what with gods like Isis, Ra, Osiris and others.
and zorastrianism started from about 1200 bc. and here's what its infleunce has been like.

You highly doubt wrong my freind. Read on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591430046/qid=1152436838/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/102-9536585-7288969?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

I was mistaken about the date of his reign. Seems he was born in either 1379 BC or 1362 BC, almost a thousand years before the emergence of Zoroatrianism.

"The idea of Akhenaten as the pioneer of a monotheistic religion that later became Judaism was promoted by Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, in his book Moses and Monotheism and thereby entered popular consciousness. Freud argued that Moses had been an Atenist priest forced to leave Egypt with his followers after Akhenaten's death...More recently, Ahmed Osman has even claimed that Moses and Akhenaten were the same person,[9] supporting his belief by interpreting aspects of biblical and Egyptian history. Apart from the most obvious correlation, both forms of monotheism arising in a geographically close proximity, there are alleged to be others, including a ban on idol worship and the similarity of the name Aten to the Hebrew Adon, or "Lord". This would mesh with Osman's other claim that Akhenaten's maternal grandfather Yuya was the same person as the Biblical Joseph."

Binaural

cornnifer wrote:

You're going to have to give me an example. ONE example of ONE core teaching of ANY religion. Please. SOMEBODY. Or let this thread die a quiet death.

When did I say that the core teachings of any religion incited murder (Although the violent language and imagery of the bible bears pause for thought)? Just because the core teachings of a religion do not explicitly tell one to murder does not mean that said religion is peaceful. You have to take into account what is done in the name of that religion and what has been ordered and pepuated by leaders and members of that religion.
One definition of religion; A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
Another;An institution to express belief in a divine power.


PEACE

IndianSummer

Byrnzie wrote:

You highly doubt wrong my freind. Read on:

"The idea of Akhenaten as the pioneer of a monotheistic religion that later became Judaism was promoted by Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, in his book Moses and Monotheism and thereby entered popular consciousness. Freud argued that Moses had been an Atenist priest forced to leave Egypt with his followers after Akhenaten's death...More recently, Ahmed Osman has even claimed that Moses and Akhenaten were the same person,[9] supporting his belief by interpreting aspects of biblical and Egyptian history. Apart from the most obvious correlation, both forms of monotheism arising in a geographically close proximity, there are alleged to be others, including a ban on idol worship and the similarity of the name Aten to the Hebrew Adon, or "Lord". This would mesh with Osman's other claim that Akhenaten's maternal grandfather Yuya was the same person as the Biblical Joseph."

hmm... ideas, claims and suppositions... where is it supported by historical evidence and ancient records??

in any case, pre exilic judaism may well have sprung from Aten or any other source, but there is no doubt that post exilic (the "exile" in question being the babyonian captivity) judaism, and thus judaism as it has survived today, was infleunced by the religion of the Phareesees.

angelica

Binaural wrote:

When did I say that the core teachings of any religion incited murder (Although the violent language and imagery of the bible bears pause for thought)? Just because the core teachings of a religion do not explicitly tell one to murder does not mean that said religion is peaceful. You have to take into account what is done in the name of that religion and what has been ordered and pepuated by leaders and members of that religion.

Again, what you are saying here again points to the humans, who in their arrogance, distorted the actual ideals of the religions. Which, even the "believers" in this thread agree 100% to. Humans are imperfect, and have done many ugly things. The ideals that have been distorted are not the problem.

I do realise you originally responded to this: "If you follow religion you are strictly told not to kill anyone..." I can see that one could think this is an unrealistic assertion, considering the killing that has been done in the name of religion. Someone who is a "believer" such as myself would interpret it differently, as I recognise it's not the spiritual truths of religions that incite murder, war, etc, it's humans who justified killing war and other atrocities in the name of religion.

Abookamongstthemany

angelica wrote:

Again, what you are saying here again points to the humans, who in their arrogance, distorted the actual ideals of the religions. Which, even the "believers" in this thread agree 100% to. Humans are imperfect, and have done many ugly things. The ideals that have been distorted are not the problem.

I do realise you originally responded to this: "If you follow religion you are strictly told not to kill anyone..." I can see that one could think this is an unrealistic assertion, considering the killing that has been done in the name of religion. Someone who is a "believer" such as myself would interpret it differently, as I recognise it's not the spiritual truths of religions that incite murder, war, etc, it's humans who justified killing war and other atrocities in the name of religion.

If humans are killing to the extent they are, maybe religon isn't the best thing for humans to engage in. Just a thought. It seems like the most deadly weapon of mass destruction known to man. But who knows, perhaps we would just find another justification to replace it anyway.

Binaural

angelica wrote:

Again, what you are saying here again points to the humans, who in their arrogance, distorted the actual ideals of the religions. Which, even the "believers" in this thread agree 100% to. Humans are imperfect, and have done many ugly things. The ideals that have been distorted are not the problem.

I do realise you originally responded to this: "If you follow religion you are strictly told not to kill anyone..." I can see that one could think this is an unrealistic assertion, considering the killing that has been done in the name of religion. Someone who is a "believer" such as myself would interpret it differently, as I recognise it's not the spiritual truths of religions that incite murder, war, etc, it's humans who justified killing war and other atrocities in the name of religion.

Firstly, you have to differentiate between religion and faith. Faith being a set of ideals and beliefs and religion being an institution, a man made one at that. At no point have I attacked faith. Faith is fine, it doesn't mean it's right, but hey it can't do any real harm. The problems come when a rigid institution is created which aims to regulate beliefs, namely religion. Again what is important here is differentiation.




PEACE

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

angelica wrote:

I know--You accept the free choice that is aligned with your values about religion-inheritance, you do not accept free choice that is not aligned with your values re: inheriting religion.

i do.

what i dont agree with is the PEOPLE WHO TRY TO CHANGE OTHER PEOPLE to their religion.

ie. i am not opposed to conversion. i am opposed to proselytising.

i couldnt have made it any clearer.

Like I say, you are opposed to people choosing when it's not aligned with your values. For example for the millions and their offspring who have been induced by missionaries, you degrade their choices by minimising the validity of their spiritual beliefs they hold now, because, according to you, they are not their original "ethnic" beliefs. It seems as though the obvious resentment you harbour towards missionaries blinds you to the power and potency of the indivudual's choice when faced with persuasion or inducement. I'm bombarded with advertising, persuasion and inducement in each day, and in each moment when faced with that inducement, I still make my own choices and no one else makes them for me. What about people who are induced by their family religion regularly, say, in church from birth throughout childhood, and still leave that religion? They can choose beyond the inducement they have been bombarded with since birth.

"inducement: Something that helps bring about an action or a desired result"--this does not sound heinous or criminal to me at all.

Using a word like "hogwashed", alone, is a derogatory way to refer to the individual's valid decision making process. By your own words "most of them have already done the same mistake" --referring to those who have exercised their will to choose and who moved on from their ancestral religion. It looks like you believe that if others don't follow your belief system, and decide to change religions when they have been convinced (induced) it's in their best interests, that you give yourself license to put such choices down (hogwash, hogwashed) because of your hatred of missionaries.

"try as a girraf might, he don't become an elephant"

I disagree with your giraffe/elephant analogy, because it's not accurate in this situation. A giraffe cannot become an elephant. One human being can legitimately change their beliefs at any given time, becoming a human being with a different belief system. Not only is it possible, it's fully appropriate and the effects can only be truly fully gauged by the person who has done the conversion--if they are not comfortable with the change, they can change back or change again to what suits them--as in evolution. When they don't, they show commitment to the new way for whatever reason. With natural evolution, people will stick with what works for them and they will let go of what is not working for them.

When I refer to "natural evolution", I mean NATURAL. humankind is natural, and all of humankind's actions/choices are 100% part of nature. To me, I cannot remove any of such actions from nature. To believe humans are outside of nature and can act outside of natural law is again, imo, human arrogance.

IndianSummer wrote:

ie.try as a girraf might, he dont become an elephant. he is free to try though, or in the case of proselytised conversion, free to fall for the carrots the missionaries dangle.

IndianSummer wrote:

i just said and continue to say that people are not organically related to any other religion apart from the one that comes from his or her ethnicity. and i stand by it.

IndianSummer wrote:

most of them have already done the same mistake (eg - most of the germanic people on this board are clready christian forgetting asatru, the irish are already christian forgetting wicca/druidism and all thats irish etc) and taken to a belief system to which they are in no way organically connected.

IndianSummer wrote:

they can choose to believe in what ever they like, or get induced to believe, but they cant run away from their ethnicity, as much as a horse cant become an elephant just because he wants to/was induced to.

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If humans are killing to the extent they are, maybe religon isn't the best thing for humans to engage in. Just a thought.

There are many valid views, and ultimately, we'll each choose the one that works for us. And we'll each have our own judgments about what would make the world a better place. That's great for us, and unfortunately (or fortunately??) it's impossible to truly force our own beliefs of any sort on others--whether it be for religion or against religion.

It seems like the most deadly weapon of mass destruction known to man. But who knows, perhaps we would just find another justification to replace it anyway.

I wonder what people would come up with if we asked ourselves: if religion disappeared tomorrow, would we suddenly know how to solve our problems peacefully? Would we suddenly know how to solve our disagreements fairly? Would we understand that it's not okay to try to force anything on anyone? Because we turn our backs to religion en masse, would it mean suddenly there would be no greed, or war, or separation? Would a lack of religion make George Bush a better man? Would he suddenly develop insight and foresight and understand the true consequences of his actions?

angelica

Binaural wrote:

Firstly, you have to differentiate between religion and faith. Faith being a set of ideals and beliefs and religion being an institution, a man made one at that. At no point have I attacked faith. Faith is fine, it doesn't mean it's right, but hey it can't do any real harm. The problems come when a rigid institution is created which aims to regulate beliefs, namely religion. Again what is important here is differentiation.

PEACE

I see it a little bit differently. The word faith has different connotations to people, and as you used it--it can be seen as pertaining to something that may be real or not. I'm talking about ideals, and Knowings and knowledge, not just beliefs and faith. For example, having had numerous spiritual experiences, I have experiential Knowledge of such understanding, rather than a "faith" in a leader, or the "word" etc.

I see that the manmade structures meant to help us achieve such "knowing" personally includes distortion along with the ideal. With the potential for anything to be taken well or poorly in each moment (good/evil??) the potential for ugliness is in everthing. Having experienced spiritual truths firsthand, I can fully understand how through the ages, individuals have sought to shine spiritual light into their surroundings. At the same time, it's also clear that others have sought power and control and have brought uglier consequences into being.

Abookamongstthemany

angelica wrote:

There are many valid views, and ultimately, we'll each choose the one that works for us. And we'll each have our own judgments about what would make the world a better place. That's great for us, and unfortunately (or fortunately??) it's impossible to truly force our own beliefs of any sort on others--whether it be for religion or against religion.

I wonder what people would come up with if we asked ourselves: if religion disappeared tomorrow, would we suddenly know how to solve our problems peacefully? Would we suddenly know how to solve our disagreements fairly? Would we understand that it's not okay to try to force anything on anyone? Because we turn our backs to religion en masse, would it mean suddenly there would be no greed, or war, or separation? Would a lack of religion make George Bush a better man? Would he suddenly develop insight and foresight and understand the true consequences of his actions?

I understand that it is wrong and impossible to force our own beliefs on other people, that's why I said 'just a thought'.

I'm not sure how much would change if religon became nonexistant. It seems like so many feel the need to be right and have others believe in their god for their own salvation's sake.They are told to spread the word of their god and some go to great extent to convert others. They view others as wrong and sometimes bad for having a different faith or no faith at all, they condemn them. They sometimes get extremely frustrated/irratated when others say they don't agree with their belief. They judge according to these rules and therefore create enemies and conflicts. It's possible that these conflicts wouldn't exist without religon. That way no one would be wrong because another person's god says so. Maybe people would just accept each other for what they are and embrace their diversity much more often. Who knows.

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I understand that it is wrong and impossible to force our own beliefs on other people, that's why I said 'just a thought'.

I did realise you were sharing your view and that you are totally entitled to what you see. What I meant is that I truly believe I see ways we could all change and put ourselves on "the right" course, but ultimately, I'm bound by respect to live and let live. I was already fairly sure you would believe the same thing, too.

I'm not sure how much would change if religon became nonexistant. It seems like so many feel the need to be right and have others believe in their god for their own salvation's sake.They are told to spread the word of their god and some go to great extent to convert others. They view others as wrong and sometimes bad for having a different faith or no faith at all, they condemn them. They sometimes get extremely frustrated/irratated when others say they don't agree with their belief. They judge according to these rules and therefore create enemies and conflicts.

I totally agree.

It's possible that these conflicts wouldn't exist without religon. That way no one would be wrong because another person's god says so. Maybe people would just accept each other for what they are and embrace their diversity much more often. Who knows.

It's possible.

I have numerous atheists in my family. These people contributed to my having mental illness for years by continually invalidating my experience as "wrong" because I had spiritual experiences that they believed were "false". Oh, and they also invalidated my sexual assault experiences, among many others. It was because they wanted to protect their own view of the world--their agendas. My experiences with them were devastating, given my own personal experiences, and probably similar to what many people have had with religion looking down upon them and judging them. I understand both sides of the issue.

baraka

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If humans are killing to the extent they are, maybe religon isn't the best thing for humans to engage in. Just a thought. It seems like the most deadly weapon of mass destruction known to man. But who knows, perhaps we would just find another justification to replace it anyway.

Angelica answered this a bit more eloquently, but simply put, if there weren't religions, the ignorant would do something else ignorantly.

Edited for typos

angelica

baraka wrote:

... if there weren’t religions, the ignorant would do something else ignorantly.

I'd say this is pretty eloquent.

baraka

angelica wrote:

I'd say this is pretty eloquent.

Thanks angelica. I'm not very articulate in the mornings before my coffee. I had to edit that one statement for typos.;)

Abookamongstthemany

angelica wrote:

I did realise you were sharing your view and that you are totally entitled to what you see. What I meant is that I truly believe I see ways we could all change and put ourselves on "the right" course, but ultimately, I'm bound by respect to live and let live. I was already fairly sure you would believe the same thing, too.

I totally agree.

It's possible.

I have numerous atheists in my family. These people contributed to my having mental illness for years by continually invalidating my experience as "wrong" because I had spiritual experiences that they believed were "false". Oh, and they also invalidated my sexual assault experiences, among many others. It was because they wanted to protect their own view of the world--their agendas. My experiences with them were devastating, given my own personal experiences, and probably similar to what many people have had with religion looking down upon them and judging them. I understand both sides of the issue.

Yes, I believe people should have the choice to have religon or not have it in their life. I was just wondering what possibilities would exist in the absense of these beliefs...if people made up their own minds about living instead of following certain gospels.

I don't think it was atheism causing your problem but more of the people forcing their beliefs on you...just the same as some religous people do. If there was no religon then the conflict you encountered with these people may have not existed, who knows. But I don't see many people dying due to the spreading of atheism...for the most part these people don't go around trying to push their beliefs. They may defend it and even argue about it once confronted but they don't have a text telling them they need to spread the word of atheism.

Abookamongstthemany

baraka wrote:

Angelica answered this a bit more eloquently, but simply put, if there weren't religions, the ignorant would do something else ignorantly.

Edited for typos

Perhaps. I wonder what they would use instead of the fear of one's afterlife to get such a large base to follow and get behind them?

angelica

I don't think it was atheism causing your problem but more of the people forcing their beliefs on you...just the same as some religous people do.

Exactly. It's the arrogance/intolerance. I see it as going both ways and as the problem. Not religion/lack thereof.

If there was no religon then the conflict you encountered with these people may have not existed, who knows.

In my view, the arrogance that what they understood was "real" and that what I understood was "not real" seemed to really have little to do with much, besides human arrogance, intolerant and the minimisation of a view they could not personally fathom.

But I don't see many people dying due to the spreading of atheism

I also don't see people dying because of the spread of religion. Do you believe God tells George Bush to bring about the deaths of thousands? I sure don't. I know Christianity does not accept killing, but rather one of it's base tenets is "thou shall not kill"

...for the most part these people don't go around trying to push their beliefs. They may defend it and even argue about it once confronted but they don't have a text telling them they need to spread the word of atheism.

I've heard the most degrading and belittling ways of treating the spiritual beliefs of members on this board alone. I can't overlook human ignorance/arrogance from either side. Any sense of arrogance seems to give people license to do all kinds of things in the name of ignorance and "being right".

baraka

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Perhaps. I wonder what they would use instead of the fear of one's afterlife to get such a large base to follow and get behind them?

I think there are many examples in history, charismatic dictators coming into power just at the right time, using people's fears & circumstances to 'unite' them towards a not-so-great ideal. Hell, people could very easily say that our current president uses the fear of 'terror' to justify shady policy & laws. He uses fear to push & justify his agenda.