Agnostic.com

25 3

I have a question for the fellow agnostics and atheists.

What is Not in Question
Religion is bad, it feeds ignorance, has brought violence, atrocities, abuse, exploitation and outright fooling to fellow human beings for thousands of years. We all agree on this.

There is no doubt that Christianity and Islam brought mayhem of killing and atrocities to achieve this goal but imagine what we would be fighting today, had they not done the world occupation across continents.

What I Want to Ask About

QUESTION 1 - Have the religious crusades of Islam and Christianity and their defeating all thousands of voodoo, tribal, primitive religions around the world NOT made our job of fighting 1 or 2 major enemies easier? Else, our Enemy Would have been bigger and in thousands. We would be fighting this today what they did in the name of Gods:

  1. Human sacrifices including of children
  2. Higher animal sacrifice
  3. Cannibalism
  4. Higher ignorance
  5. Higher exploitation of humans

QUESTION 2 - Maybe science and human progress was unstoppable, but don't you think Islam and Christianity brought scholarship, progress, charity at least a little more than the primitive, jungle, voodoo, tribal and scattered religions would have?

St-Sinner 9 Nov 27
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

25 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

5

"Have the religious crusades of Islam and Christianity and their defeating all thousands of voodoo, tribal, primitive religions around the world NOT made our job of fighting 1 or 2 major enemies easier?"

I do not see the religious as our enemies, I see them as victims of the worlds longest running con.

" at least a little more than the primitive, jungle, voodoo, tribal and scattered religions would have?" I do not know by what method you view these older religions as "primitive"
Because of what . . .

  1. Human sacrifices including of children--Judges 1, part and parcel of Abrahamic faiths
  2. Higher animal sacrifice--Again, part and parcel, of all three, but evolved socially into money or final human sacrifice and money.
  3. Cannibalism--Part and parcel of Christianity in the sacrament, Catholics even believe the cracker and wine transform into flesh and blood in you (transubstantiation)
  4. Higher ignorance--as compared to what, believing in magic blood is less ignorant?
  5. Higher exploitation of humans-- all three religions texts endorse and support slavery, and Christianity has been used on both sides of the Chattel slavery argument in the civil.

So NO, I do not think the conquest and slaughter of indigenous peoples around the globe makes "Our" job easier, nothing justifies genocide.

Don't you think the violent traditions of ancient tribal religions would have continued were "more" bizarre? The Teotihuacáns in Mexico sacrificed a child each week to the Rain God and the tribe took the corpse to the child's house to feast off the sacrifice. This included the parents. Did Christian crusades not tell people to stop these bizarre human sacrifices? I am talking about a comparison.

@St-Sinner More bizzare than what, wich burnings, the inquisition, the crusades?

Yes they made sacrifices, child sacrifices, so did the Jews.
Every week seems a little farfetched, the nation would depopulate.

Nor did they all feast, the royalty consumed hearts.

Where did you read that?

Sanity. Thank you. I wish I could be as concise lol. All Christians are not bad, etc. But I do not defend religion as good, it definitely has not lifted up humanity, as I see it.

5
  1. No. 2. No.
5

Wow, what a pair of loaded questions. When you say that Christianity and Islam defeated other "primitive" religions, don't you mean they typically used violence to eradicate competition? Also, human and animal sacrifice are depicted in the Old Testament. Cannibalism--let's just agree that it is wrong and move on. You are very unclear as to what "higher ignorance" and "higher exploitation of humans", but I think all religions are guilty of pushing ignorance over knowledge and exploiting others for their own gain.

Religions have held back humanity, not helped. Seriously! I honestly feel this post is click bait and a bit insulting for this site.

I am driving but I want to explain my point better. I will come back here. Thank you.

3

Those "voodoo" havent dissappeared, they still survive. They just don't get reported as much. Doesnt mean they arent actively being practised.

It's very very hard to destroy a religion.

Often a religion copies or absorbs a practise. Often atrocities get forgotten or rewritten. 500 years from now no one will know that hundreds of children were raped by priests and they won't understand why it was accepted practice.

But it's not accepted practice, you say, but 500 years in the future they'll just assume everybody was cool with itb just like we think all the horrible practices from past was endorsed by the majority. But the reality is more like most people were against it, but it happened any way.

I see. So, the main religions also did human sacrifices and bizarre traditions but they have stopped not because religions stopped it but the human civilization, progressive thinking, and human rights evolution over time stopped it?

@St-Sinner they have not stopped. Atrocities continue, sadly. And the main religions, in my opinion, are squelching progressive thinking, keeping their flock undereducated. Much of the Evangelical movement is promoting blind faith & fealty, as one would expect from mobmembers. Then these followers go out into the public, harassing atheists & agnostics. Also, if you want to describe civilizations of past that were crushed by the 2 « main » religions because they were practicing evil, you must also go back to the same time periods in comparison. Unification of cultures has it’s plus, but I disagree that the christians were mostly beneficial. Anyway, nuff from me.

3

The problem is and always has been our incredible creative imagination we're ready to create anything fantasy we don't care what it is if it sounds good we like it that's just human were very creative and we haven't got the foggiest idea of what we're doing

3

I do not agree that all religions are “bad”. Religion in one form or another has been a way of life throughout human evolution. The seeds of religion were also the seeds of all kinds of human creativity.

There are various religious groups that spread nothing but peace, joy and wellbeing. For example, I am a Religious Naturalist—we have our own association. You can read about it on Wikipedia.

I do not think a conversation with you can help because you support religion and it is against what I stand for. If you are religious, why are you participating in atheists and agnostic groups?

@St-Sinner “we” don’t stand for any one thing. this isn’t an organized group.

@St-Sinner I take part here because there are some intelligent, open minded people who are a joy to talk with. I would not last long on a religious site because I am not in accord with traditional religions.

There are also a few people like yourself who provide me with stimulating ego conditioning, very useful for dealing with hostile people. It’s like basic training. Also you should thank me for providing you with a target upon which to vent your anger or displeasure.

And besides that, for the stimulation of new ideas, any real forum should foster a variety of opinions.

@WilliamFleming Do you realize that we do not want to hear about your support for religion on the atheist groups?

@St-Sinner I realize that some people don’t, but you do not represent the entire group. You can not make me leave.

If you actually read that Wikipedia article on Religious Naturalism you might be more sympathetic.

@WilliamFleming I cannot make you leave but two things are certain. 1) you are stupid to come and support religion in atheist groups, 2) I will block you.

You can take your religion and God shit somewhere else.

@St-Sinner I do !

@basher, @St-Sinner Who is ‘we’. Sounds like an exclusive club. How much to join, when is the AGM? What are the criteria for association with such rarified company?

@basher, @St-Sinner Well, Bill, that’s a relief. The ultimate sanction. However, no sausages for YOUR tea tonight it would seem!

@basher, @St-Sinner Why would you ask a question and then respond with hostility when the response was not what you wanted?

@basher, @St-Sinner I must also say that Bill is certainly not ‘stupid’. He is one of the more erudite contributors and without he and a few others this site would just be a religio-political Punch and Judy slugfest.

I read the Wikilinks link on Religious Naturalism. It didn't say whether it followed an Abrahamic religion or not. Almost sounds Deist. In the interest of learning are you an Abrahamic religion follower?

@rogueflyer No I am not. For Religious Naturalists, religion means deep awareness, awe and reverence for the mystery of existence. We do not believe in supernatural stuff.

@Geoffrey51 why do you keep tagging me when all i said is that there’s no organized group here? lol

@St-Sinner Censorship is NEVER acceptable. This site would be better off to forego your contributions rather than those of @WilliamFleming. I am not suggesting that you leave, we need opinions from all sectors.

I see nothing inherently wrong with "Religious Naturalism", other than its adjective. It is NOT strictly a religion; there is no mystical entity involved.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@WilliamFleming Sounds kind of rational to me. Nature, no supernatural shit. A little woo maybe do to the spiritualism but I wonder what St-Sinner is upset about?

@basher sorry about that for whatever reason your tag comes up as well with the reply

@PBuck0145 Religion maybe ok with you, not with me. I can exclude anyone who keep vomiting religion and its support on to my posts.

@WilliamFleming So what is your response "Religion is necessarily bad" about? What are you trying to tell me?

@St-Sinner Just that some religions are not bad at all and that very few religions are totally bad. That’s just my opinion based on past experience. I realize that your experience might be different, and I respect that.

@St-Sinner, @Geoffrey51 I am heart-broken, not for myself but for poor St. who will henceforth be deprived of my witty responses and my beautiful picture. Oh what a pity it is!

I am hoping beyond hope that the guy reconsiders. 🙂

@St-Sinner I suppose every religion has a more tolerant (liberal, inclusive) extreme and a more intolerant (conservative, exclusive) side, and I wonder if the ugly dogmatism some religions are accused of is not often just a character trait of some of its more visible extreme members. I once knew a very ugly, outspoken, dogmatic Christian who became an atheist when his church superiors failed to support him. He then became a very ugly, outspoken, dogmatic atheist. I think it was just his personality. And I suspect religion tends to attract those who would like to perceive of themselves as being God’s righteous lieutenant on earth.

@St-Sinner I say again, "Censorship is NEVER acceptable. You seriously need to get your thinking straightened out.

@Wallace We are not debating if the religion is good or bad today or some people are good. All religions started with a noble goal. Side with the good and defeat the bad among and around us. But what we are fighting today is what has become of it. It has morphed into the an abusing, exploitative, manipulating, truth hiding, primitive thinking, science opposing institution that does a lot of evil itself. I started the post with the premise that religions are bad. That is not in debate.

@WilliamFleming
I was asking this questions to agnostics and atheists. Read again. There was no need for you to come and spew the religion shit here.

@WilliamFleming Your response was not witty at all. You said all religions are not bad. What are you trying to teach me here on my post if you are not an atheist or agnostic?

@WilliamFleming

Your profile does not tell if you are an atheist or agnostic. You may very well be a religious nut trying to spread the God shit. I don't want it.

I don't want you to come to my posts and defend religion or religions. If you want to hold a discussion or a valid argument, let's talk. I propose cross arguments on many posts but my orientation is clear. I am a moderate Democrat and an atheist.

@PBuck0145

Never acceptable to who? How can I not block anyone from responding my posts? I can do that in a minute.

@St-Sinner your question was addressed to me alone and that is why I answered.

The reason I do not call myself an atheist or agnostic is that for me those labels are meaningless. For me, the most rational response to the stark fact of our existence in this overwhelming reality is a frank acknowledgment of ignorance, along with a sense of awe, appreciation and reverence. Belief or disbelief simply don’t apply.

I do lean toward the idea of universal consciousness, but that is just metaphysics. Whatever this great and mysterious world is all about, I know one thing with certainty: There is nothing supernatural involved. There are aspects of nature that we can not understand, but nothing is accomplished by labeling the unknown as “supernatural”, or “magic”, or for that matter, attributing it all to “God”.

We might disagree but that is no reason to be enemies. We are much more than our opinions.

@WilliamFleming
Whatever is your thinking, I don't want to hear from you that all religions are not bad because we are not debating which religions are good today or defend one or more religions.

@St-Sinner Bah, St.Sinner,speak for yourself! How rude!

@AnneWimsey I was not speaking for you. You can take a hike.

@basher I meant commenting on my post.

@St-Sinner well now you’ve changed it, and that’s fine. you’re welcome to stand against religion, i don’t have any problem with that. i only take issue with people speaking for what atheists and other nonbelievers as a whole believe as if we’re members of some sort of religion.

@basher When I read a sentence from someone that "all religions are not bad", I read a defense of religions. As an atheist, I think you are a part of religion. There is no need on my post to start defending one or more religions. That is not what the debate is about.

@St-Sinner “you are a part of religion” meaning me or them? i don’t really have any interest in defending religion of any kind. in my opinion, it varies but only from harmful to unnecessary.

@basher I am not a part of any religion. I despise them all. I was talking about another member's comment defending religion.

@St-Sinner why would you assume they aren't an agnostic or atheist? Heck Buddhists can be atheists, Many Jewish folks are atheists. I even know Christian atheists. The Satanic Temple is atheist and actually helping the cause in the USA. I get your allergic reaction to religion but in some cases the lack of nuance is problematic.

@jdubbs1066 I don't have to assume. Firstly he has not said if he is agnostic or atheist. Secondly, he has frequently defended religion on various posts. This is enough for me to tell him he is not welcome on my posts.

@AnneWimsey I kinda see St as troll. She’s kinda all over the place. Going to block her. Oh well. Anyway, she is extremely rude. Agree. Rest well

2

no

2

Religious extremists Christian & others, consider women & children as property, Christian ministers & Catholic priests sexual abuse of children and other crimes are rampant. They traded human sacrifice for enslavement & mass killings of natives of countless cultures, declaring persons from cultures other than Christian to be inferior or subhuman until they submitted. The other culture’s texts & recorded knowledge was obliterated, burned or destroyed as satanic. Then, when no record remains of the generations of knowledge going back 100s or thousands of years, the Christians declare conquered people as “ignorant”. The Aztec & Mayan cultures for example, were destroyed in exchange for conquest for riches. Christians were burning, stoning & torturing their own christian followers in Europe (for hundreds of years), as witches or as heretics. How is this different from human sacrifice? Killing indigenous folk hundreds at a time, even thousands, while claiming to be good christians, I do not agree. Destroying the history of other cultures, forcing them into slavery, & then calling them “saved” when they have no choice but to convert. Churches turning a blind eye to institutionalized abuse, saying that this also does not exist. All I see is propaganda. If you erase history, then rewrite it, that does not make it truth.

2

You're an idiot! Read, 'The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire' by Richard Carrier. If you want to gain some understanding of the historic role science played in the age religion.

I will read it. I am not claiming to be a "know it all guy". I was starting a discussion with a premise. Often things come up that you have not known previously.

As this is a discussion, and on a website for rational freethinkers, I don't think its appropriate to start a discussion with "You're an idiot". For me, @St-Sinner's question has been very thought-provoking, and interesting.

@Vpatel My apology to everyone that is offended by my rather abrupt response. I will try to control myself & censor my future comments.

@Vpatel, @St-Sinner My sincere apology for being so hypercritical.

@Atheist3 No need to censor anything. Please feel free to scrutinise and criticise as required - that's the whole point of skeptical inquiry. But we need to be respectful and criticise the ideas and concepts, rather than people. After all, we are all products of our biology and environment, and people get things wrong. That's how we learn things, and I've got a lot out of this community. I'm quite new to this site and really look forward to lots of thought provoking concepts in the future 🙂

@Vpatel 😜 On your guard!

2

If you are overrunning the carrying capacity of the land you inhabit, as did the Mayans, brutal war & what we consider brutal killings are probably necessary.
Applying the relatively civilized thinking of today to far different cultures is Always a mistake!

2

No. They did not. In fact chrisitanity deterred educatin, particularly science. I refer you to Galileo and the church.

g

1

I think all the tribal jungle voodoo would have died out without the horrors of organized religions due to the rise in population and greater connectivity in the world. I,m not talking about modern communication but hundreds of years ago when ships sailed to other countries to do trade with what ever goods being traded. I think if one culture or country that had no ridiculous beliefs what so ever did trade with another culture that worshiped frogs or what ever to make the sun rise the next day, I think eventually they would figure out that these people that just left on this ship does none of this and the sun still rises for them. So it seems the smarter ones of this culture would eventually figure out that what ever it is that they are doing is nothing but a waste of time. So no ridiculous dilutions needed.

Very good. Thank you.

1

I would love to comment about your questions but so many others here have answered them perfectly. All I can add is an old Mark Twain quote, "Religion was created when the first con man met the first fool". Which that does explain the largest portion of its existence. But it has been proven though the scary thoughts of a life after death was used to control people. That was thousands of years ago, why can't everyone agree to drop this shit? We all know better now thanks to science so lets move on!

1

I think that absent religion there still would have been violence, war, atrocities etc.

If humans were inherently good these things wouldn't exist whether we had religion or not. In reality, humans are inherently animals and like all animals we protect our own and compete for resources.

So, the human progress or violence, good or bad happened irrespective of religions?

1

Islam once believed in science and discovery, then a fanatic came along . That there was a different view is evident in the Nag Hammadi codices.
Human nature dictates that one group will seek to hold power over another. P.T. Barnum's there's a sucker born ever minute (btw or for example, this phrase has never been proven to have actually been said by P.T.) held true then as much as it does now.

"To anyone familiar with this Golden Age, roughly spanning the eighth through the thirteenth centuries a.d., the disparity between the intellectual achievements of the Middle East then and now — particularly relative to the rest of the world — is staggering indeed. In his 2002 book What Went Wrong?, historian Bernard Lewis notes that “for many centuries the world of Islam was in the forefront of human civilization and achievement.” “Nothing in Europe,” notes Jamil Ragep, a professor of the history of science at the University of Oklahoma, “could hold a candle to what was going on in the Islamic world until about 1600.” Algebra, algorithm, alchemy, alcohol, alkali, nadir, zenith, coffee, and lemon: these words all derive from Arabic, reflecting Islam’s contribution to the West." -[thenewatlantis.com]

It was humans using religion as a means to control the masses while amassing vast fortunes.

Very good. Thank you.

1

I think the religious crusades and partial success thereof has made it easier for folks like us to be where we are today. Despite the tragic cost I think it is better then the alternative of thousands of fragmented and isolated tribes.

I think that kind of answers both questions.

Nardi Level 7 Nov 30, 2019

Thank you. I asked a question about the comparitive good or bad but most are debating if the current religions or any religion are good. That was not the question.

We agree that although religions are bad, the alternatives of other religions would have been worse. An argument can be made that the human progress cannot be attributed to two religions and that human intellectuals and ingenuity is solely responsible for the progress because they did it In Spite Of resistance from the two religions.

1

Another reason why these two "Abrahamic" religions are dominant is because the fictional character they believe in resides outside of the natural world, so you cannot prove its non-existence, its impotence, or its lack of knowledge. So they just cling on a feeling of security rather than facing reality.

The adherents of religions have a problem that is deeply embedded in conceptual faculty of their brains, they cannot grasp the concept of reality and refuse to use reason instead of emotions to guide their actions. If you are fighting bad ideas, go to their root - their epistemological root - which drives these ideas into existence. I would argue that it is the morality of sacrifice (formally known as altruism) that was first described by Plato in The Republic and later by Karl Marx. This means that not everyone who leaves religion is rational. As a matter of fact, there are many agnostics and atheists who seek to destroy others and are guided by the "need" to sacrifice others to achieve their goal, see the works of Nazis and communists who can only achieve their goals through the use of force on unarmed victims. Religion and collectivism are just two sides of the same coin, the same epistemological coin.

1

The answer is Yes but not in the sense that those religions were better than the ones they conquered.
But in the sense that with the fall of the roman empire, the mediterranean area became chaos. And having this "supra-national" ("" because national was not a thing yet) hold back this fragmentation.
Having the same-ish religion was a corner stone to facilitate peace, to keep nobles and plebs unified (and facilitating exchange of territory without the need of genocides).

The latin spread with romans and church facilitate language unity: In europe if you walk village by village from Portugal-Spain-France-italy the language don't jump like US/Mexico border, it changes little by little (exept france that made a nice cultural genocide in any language out of paris dialect).

So Yes, the spread of this gigant religions were good to keep some unification and sense of cultural unity.
Religion and common culture is still a problem today for the acension of Bosnia, Turkey or Albania to EU due to majority/big chink of population having Islamic background. And the ortodox, slavic eastern europe was (and still is) a challenge.

Just by the existence of the 3 big realms (franks, Spania and HRE) europe was a lot more stable than other regions of africa asia and america.
Also the small numbers of Islamic states (one or 2 in the beginning) and late almost unification under Otoman empire made the clasic culture survive there while Europe was chaotic and reorganizing in the early middle ages until the catholic supra national power made it stable-ish.

Religion is a very primitive and unsofisticated way of stabilize a territory, and every state, culture, organization, ethnic group started as a religious or religious sanctioned state.
To deny it is to forget the history.

I think we are missing my question. I was not asking if religions today are good or were good. I was asking if we have a lesser evil with the two religions.

@St-Sinner the answer is in the text and it is Yes, having a religion that spreaded out over a large territory made it easy for cultures to be compatible. And even tough we can question religion with reason, our culture is still based on it, so most of "western" culture from Scandinavia to Southern Cone (Chile, Argentina, etc) is compatible.
The same as Islam, from Morocco to Indonesia, they can relate.

1

First, cool picture and great questions. To the first one, I don't agree. It would likely be easier for a giant dog to kill puppies than to fight two dogs of the same size.

The 2nd question is certainly a yes in some aspects. There is no denying the contribution the Arabic culture made to astronomy. There also have been many a scientist who has advanced science in many different fields, and those scientists were priests.

The question to me is the final balance. Do their contributions outweigh the damage of their willed ignorance?

In the net, I think my answer is the two religions have killed other enemies making out job easier. Now we only have to kill two.

@St-Sinner
So you think killing the Muslims and the Christians will be easy? This is where I disagree. It would be much easier to take out a small group. One at a time.

@Heathenman Not killing. Modern methods of reverse brainwashing, laws and enforcements by modern, progressive civilizations.

@St-Sinner ooohhh, like in "1984"?

1

"Did Islam cause the Dark Ages? . .Did Islam, not barbarians, destroy classical civilization?

Henri Pirenne and others have promoted the theory that 7th century Islam, not 5th century barbarian conquest, was the main force that destroyed classical civilization. The theory is that the "barbarians" preserved much of classical civilization in culture, if not in politics. But then in the 7th century Islam destroyed that culture in North Africa and the Middle East. And even the areas it did not actually conquer, in Europe, were cut off from what had been for centuries a vast area of free trade and civilization around the Mediterranean. These now-isolated non-Muslim areas became backwaters, without access to the trade and products they had long relied on, and they went into decline." . . Hence the dark ages period.

I might be wrong, I will have to check, but the dark ages began in 407 with the fall of Rome. They were destroyed by German barbarians led by a man who betrayed Rome. They effectively destroyed the infrastructure of the Roman army who ruled the world at that time. Other than that I agree with you.

@Heathenman A partial beginning of the fall of rome.

And then. in 538 what is considered to have been a comet, resulted in nearly two years of winter, and the hoards migrating south. And then in 540 the first known spread of plague swept from egypt to england. Prolly 90% died in the cities. And then in 620 islam started conquering.

Do some reading about Henri Pirenne's ideas. And the history of the time.

We lost lots during the spread of disease. And way much more because of islam's suppression of knowledge.

The long-time Moorish occupation of Spain is widely recognized to have been a bastion of enlightenment and tolerance in an otherwise pretty horrible Xian world.

0

This question has me stumped. On the one hand, it would have been easier to defeat a large number of smaller atrocious beliefs, but on the other, the current fewer religions have made passing on their beliefs much easier. The total net adverse effect, particularly on things like FGM and ritual animal slaughter, may be exactly the same.

But in the net, don't you agree that focusing on exposing and resisting 2 or 4 religions is convenient financially and logistically than fighting a thousand or more? I believe that fighting Western religions is easier because they are spread in the societies where freedom of expression, human rights, and laws allowing recourse against injustice are accommodating to the fight. Just compare how difficult fighting Islam while living in the Middle East is compared to fighting Christianity in the Western societies is today. Similarly, just raising a voice against Hinduism in India as an ordinary person gets you killed before you can continue your fight.

@St-Sinner I've been thinking about this a lot today, and I'm still in the middle - and that is unusual for me. Those are the best questions.

But I think that because major religions have state sponsorship (for the control of their people), and that brings mass coerced power, I do think that fighting a large number of smaller in-humanistic beliefs would be easier.

The fact that free expression exists is just a double-edged sword. Yes, in theory its easier to speak against beliefs that go against the good of people and the planet, but in practice its difficult to do so, at least in the UK, without being branded intolerant. It's why ritual slaughter not only continues, but has grown.

The other edge of the sword is that not only (may) it be possible to speak against a backward belief, but its easier also to speak for a regressive belief, and any belief for that matter. That's how new branches of regressive religions form.

In that respect, I would even question if we actually do have a small number of large religions, given the number of sects of Hinduism, Christianity, etc, there are (Wikipedia lists it as 4,200 separate religions).

I don't think that's a conclusive response though, and more research is needed!

0

It's easier to fight a lot of small weak enemies than it is to face one or tow large powerful ones. I'd say our job would be much easier if we were up against a cluster of primitive religions that do wacky stuff like sacrifice and cannibalism.

It is not the same difference as between terrorists and terrorism?

Wacky stuff isn't just for primitive religions. Catholics are actually believe that they are drinking christ's blood and eating his flesh during the Holy Eucharist.

0

Not really history paints a portrait of killing anyone with reason logic philosophy science that does not conform to the norms of religion.

0

There have been Shamans (medicine men) in all religions for thousands of religions and years, and still are. These Shamin's all take advantage of people, especially the poor. Religion was invented to keep poor people from taking from the rich.

You are telling me something that I have never read, never heard of in my life of 60 years. Other than I am ignorant, can it mean it is just your interpretation?

0

What I see people call religion is a lot of old style governments that still have following in a traditional type of way.

Old testiment was about actually kill a lamb that was the fine for violating the law.

New testiment, Jesus character becomes the "living" lamb now lambs are no longer sacred but the tradition is kept in the last supper eating the bread/flesh and drinking the wine/blood.

Nation of Israel, to my knowledge, does not have a government any more of killing lambs as to pay a fine for violating a law.

United States of America, as prophesied, requires worship of the biblical god worship practice in general. God bless America and in God we Trust. Submit to Authority-666 pay taxes.

Word Level 8 Nov 27, 2019

So yes or no.... 2 enemies are better than a hundred, a thousand?

@St-Sinner written 1000s of years ago. I consider it a clue, because if you analyze a fact it was written 1000s of years ago, why does it still hold true that Christianity and Islam is fighting? Or even exist after 1000s of years of history.

Abraham had a first son, Ishmael by a servant woman. Apart of biblical text is finding how "blessings and cursings " follow thru generations of decendents.

Here is a sort of cursings spoken about Ishmael the first son of Abraham which is the Patriarchal origin of islam. And his brother Isaac is the Patriarchal lines that Christians come from.

This spoken about Ishmael
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." Genesis 16:12

Now, could those Islamic peoples in middle east be described as wild donkey of some people and is everyone against them?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:431931
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.