Is religion really so bad?

[Mudda]

Religions are a means to kill and enslave. Works pretty well.

Religions are also a means to help and support others. Works pretty well, a helluva lot better than gov't does. Those who would kill and enslave will use whatever means necessary to achieve their ends, religion is only one of those means.

Religions strong arm people out of money and use only an infinitesimal amount of that to pretend to help others. Have you seen the price of a Popemobile?

 

[task0778]

The problem with religion is that people end up following like sheep, and then those with the power, abuse that power.

"The problem with ____________ is that people end up following like sheep, and then those with the power, abuse that power." This blank can be completed in a variety of ways. The problem with:

sports
colleges
corporate employers
the law
television commercials (particularly drug companies)
political parties
clubs
housing authorities
Congress

One of the strengths of religion is that it stops people from following like sheep and inspires them to break away from things that enslave and live a more fulfilling life. People who follow a religion may also have greater discipline, which helps attain greater success in other of life's pursuits.

Yes, from an individual point of view, religion can be a good thing. This is why I, as a non-religious person, actually stand up for people's rights to religion and to believe whatever they want.

However from a larger scale perspective we see the problems that people trying to separate themselves into groups and the leaders of those groups start hating on other groups just because they can gain some political advantage.

Take gay marriage. It doesn't hurt these religious people, but they'll be opposed because some knob end religious person has decided they don't like it, and go around saying that in order to be a good [insert religious adjective] you need to hate on people.

There are plenty of racists, sexists, homophobes, and all sorts of other haters out there who use religion or any other reason to support their position, whatever that might be. I do think the position that some religions take on homosexuality is deplorable, but I would not assume that all religions support that view AND there are a number of positive reasons why religion is a positive influence on society.

Let's not assume that people group themselves together just for some political advantage, there are a bunch of other reasons that are all a lot more positive. For mostof them it ain't about hate at all.

 

[task0778]

Religions are a means to kill and enslave. Works pretty well.

Religions are also a means to help and support others. Works pretty well, a helluva lot better than gov't does. Those who would kill and enslave will use whatever means necessary to achieve their ends, religion is only one of those means.

Religions strong arm people out of money and use only an infinitesimal amount of that to pretend to help others. Have you seen the price of a Popemobile?

BULLSHIT. Religions do not strongarm anybody, that is a load of crap. And I put it to you that the money from religious organizations that gets to people who need it isn't infinitesimal and it sure as hell isn't pretend either. You think gov't does it any better? And who gives a damn about the price of the popemobile?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem with religion is that people end up following like sheep, and then those with the power, abuse that power.

"The problem with ____________ is that people end up following like sheep, and then those with the power, abuse that power." This blank can be completed in a variety of ways. The problem with:

sports
colleges
corporate employers
the law
television commercials (particularly drug companies)
political parties
clubs
housing authorities
Congress

One of the strengths of religion is that it stops people from following like sheep and inspires them to break away from things that enslave and live a more fulfilling life. People who follow a religion may also have greater discipline, which helps attain greater success in other of life's pursuits.

Yes, from an individual point of view, religion can be a good thing. This is why I, as a non-religious person, actually stand up for people's rights to religion and to believe whatever they want.

However from a larger scale perspective we see the problems that people trying to separate themselves into groups and the leaders of those groups start hating on other groups just because they can gain some political advantage.

Take gay marriage. It doesn't hurt these religious people, but they'll be opposed because some knob end religious person has decided they don't like it, and go around saying that in order to be a good [insert religious adjective] you need to hate on people.

There are plenty of racists, sexists, homophobes, and all sorts of other haters out there who use religion or any other reason to support their position, whatever that might be. I do think the position that some religions take on homosexuality is deplorable, but I would not assume that all religions support that view AND there are a number of positive reasons why religion is a positive influence on society.

Let's not assume that people group themselves together just for some political advantage, there are a bunch of other reasons that are all a lot more positive. For mostof them it ain't about hate at all.

No, I'm not making the assumption that all religions are like that. We are, of course, talking as a generalization, as such we're going to have to look at things religions have in common, but may not be had by all.

But when the heads of religions all end up beating on the same people, like gay people, then you know there's a problem, at least this side of the world. For lots of individuals it's not about hate, but they end up hating anyway. They don't think they're bad people because their religion tells them they are good people, and tells them they are good for hating.

 

[Mr Natural]

Religion has got to be at the top of the list of the stupid things that pit humans against humans

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't hate religion or those that practice it. I find myself sometimes amused by it. For example, my brother, who is a fundy, thinks that the World Council of Churches is a communist organization. Other times, I am appalled by it. Fundamental Islamics throw gays off of buildings. Other times, I am bewildered by it. Mormons quote the Book of Mormon, and can do so with a straight face. Often, I am bored by it. My parents raised me to go to a Baptist Church that had the same effect as taking a 10 MG Valium. I guess that the only time I get angry is when people decide that their religion should be reflected in the law of the land. I consider these people fair game.

 

[Mudda]

Religions are a means to kill and enslave. Works pretty well.

Religions are also a means to help and support others. Works pretty well, a helluva lot better than gov't does. Those who would kill and enslave will use whatever means necessary to achieve their ends, religion is only one of those means.

Religions strong arm people out of money and use only an infinitesimal amount of that to pretend to help others. Have you seen the price of a Popemobile?

BULLSHIT. Religions do not strongarm anybody, that is a load of crap. And I put it to you that the money from religious organizations that gets to people who need it isn't infinitesimal and it sure as hell isn't pretend either. You think gov't does it any better? And who gives a damn about the price of the popemobile?

Passing a plate in from of everyone is a strong-arm tactic.

So you're excuse is that government can't do any better, so the church can do practically nothing itself?

 

[there4eyeM]

Taking advantage of the credulity of the feeble is 'strong-arming', at least psychologically.

 

[task0778]

The problem with religion is that people end up following like sheep, and then those with the power, abuse that power.

"The problem with ____________ is that people end up following like sheep, and then those with the power, abuse that power." This blank can be completed in a variety of ways. The problem with:

sports
colleges
corporate employers
the law
television commercials (particularly drug companies)
political parties
clubs
housing authorities
Congress

One of the strengths of religion is that it stops people from following like sheep and inspires them to break away from things that enslave and live a more fulfilling life. People who follow a religion may also have greater discipline, which helps attain greater success in other of life's pursuits.

Yes, from an individual point of view, religion can be a good thing. This is why I, as a non-religious person, actually stand up for people's rights to religion and to believe whatever they want.

However from a larger scale perspective we see the problems that people trying to separate themselves into groups and the leaders of those groups start hating on other groups just because they can gain some political advantage.

Take gay marriage. It doesn't hurt these religious people, but they'll be opposed because some knob end religious person has decided they don't like it, and go around saying that in order to be a good [insert religious adjective] you need to hate on people.

There are plenty of racists, sexists, homophobes, and all sorts of other haters out there who use religion or any other reason to support their position, whatever that might be. I do think the position that some religions take on homosexuality is deplorable, but I would not assume that all religions support that view AND there are a number of positive reasons why religion is a positive influence on society.

Let's not assume that people group themselves together just for some political advantage, there are a bunch of other reasons that are all a lot more positive. For mostof them it ain't about hate at all.

No, I'm not making the assumption that all religions are like that. We are, of course, talking as a generalization, as such we're going to have to look at things religions have in common, but may not be had by all.

But when the heads of religions all end up beating on the same people, like gay people, then you know there's a problem, at least this side of the world. For lots of individuals it's not about hate, but they end up hating anyway. They don't think they're bad people because their religion tells them they are good people, and tells them they are good for hating.

LOL, you're not making the assumption that all religions are like that, and then you say the heads of religions ALL end up beating on the same people? Do you see a little bit of divergence there? Are you sure that the heads of ALL religions are homophobic? And who are these 'heads' that you are referring to?

Here's the thing, people are people and as such heir to all the frailties and negative traits that we all have. I'm not so sure that we can or should lump all religious people together and say they're all homophobes. Or even mostly homophobes. Some are and some are not, in or out of any religion. Just like racists, sexists, etc. Yeah, there's a problem there, but can a person be a Christian and also not homophobic? I think so.

 

[task0778]

Taking advantage of the credulity of the feeble is 'strong-arming', at least psychologically.

BULLSHIT. Strongarming: "using or characterized by force or violence". Your argument is really feeble, people can donate money if they want to but nobody has to.

 

[task0778]

Religions are a means to kill and enslave. Works pretty well.

Religions are also a means to help and support others. Works pretty well, a helluva lot better than gov't does. Those who would kill and enslave will use whatever means necessary to achieve their ends, religion is only one of those means.

Religions strong arm people out of money and use only an infinitesimal amount of that to pretend to help others. Have you seen the price of a Popemobile?

BULLSHIT. Religions do not strongarm anybody, that is a load of crap. And I put it to you that the money from religious organizations that gets to people who need it isn't infinitesimal and it sure as hell isn't pretend either. You think gov't does it any better? And who gives a damn about the price of the popemobile?

Passing a plate in from of everyone is a strong-arm tactic.

So you're excuse is that government can't do any better, so the church can do practically nothing itself?

BULLSHIT, see my post just above. It's a choice, not a requirement and there is sure as hell no force involved and therefore it is not strong-arming. No excuses at all, various religions can and do a lot more to help those less fortunate than the any gov't does. To suggest any church does practically nothing for the less fortunate is patent BULLSHIT. I understand, you have a major hate-on for Christianity and I'm thinking Catholicism in particular, and that's fine. But your argument is as weak as water. Those who seek to do harm can and do use religion as a tool, no question about that. But that doesn't make any religion a bad thing. And some religions do have their drawbacks, such as their positions on homosexuality. But all that means is they ain't perfect, they have their flaws just like everything else in this world. So, you can choose to discard the whole thing if you want or pick and choose what you believe and what you don't, or find another religion or start your own.

 

[there4eyeM]

Understanding of human frailty and using it is the lamentable trait of religions and other movements. Psychological force and violence are the most despicable kind.

 

[task0778]

Understanding of human frailty and using it is the lamentable trait of religions and other movements. Psychological force and violence are the most despicable kind.

True. But the threat of violence or violence itself is almost non-existent outside of Islam. And I think it could be that in many cases the use of violence by muslims is done for personal or political reasons instead of serving Allah. It is a misuse of Islam IMHO.

 

[Vastator]

Religions have worked as an effective control on certain aspects of the human psyche. They limit 'God' and human potential in doing so. Ultimately, we are poorly served by them.

Religion, like martial arts, is a tool towards a goal. In this case spiritual enlightenment, in the case of martial arts, self-discipline and self-defense. While some leaders have abused that tool, many have gained from it.

Stalin and Mao attempted to stomp out religion, but failed. Why?

Failed? How so? They suppressed it, and snuffed it out fully enough to keep it from supplanting their own ambition. Sounds like a success to me. If your asking why it wasn't forever eradicated... The answer is simple. They didn't kill every last adherent. But then... That wouldn't be practical.

Your glee at that "success", while understandable coming from an atheist, is erroneous. All they did was drive it underground. About as effective as the US "war on drugs".

You see what you desire to see; for nothing in my words suggests "glee". It's truly an amazing phenomena... The ability of ones mind, to counterfeit the object of ones desire... Almost... Supernatural...

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem with religion is that people end up following like sheep, and then those with the power, abuse that power.

"The problem with ____________ is that people end up following like sheep, and then those with the power, abuse that power." This blank can be completed in a variety of ways. The problem with:

sports
colleges
corporate employers
the law
television commercials (particularly drug companies)
political parties
clubs
housing authorities
Congress

One of the strengths of religion is that it stops people from following like sheep and inspires them to break away from things that enslave and live a more fulfilling life. People who follow a religion may also have greater discipline, which helps attain greater success in other of life's pursuits.

Yes, from an individual point of view, religion can be a good thing. This is why I, as a non-religious person, actually stand up for people's rights to religion and to believe whatever they want.

However from a larger scale perspective we see the problems that people trying to separate themselves into groups and the leaders of those groups start hating on other groups just because they can gain some political advantage.

Take gay marriage. It doesn't hurt these religious people, but they'll be opposed because some knob end religious person has decided they don't like it, and go around saying that in order to be a good [insert religious adjective] you need to hate on people.

There are plenty of racists, sexists, homophobes, and all sorts of other haters out there who use religion or any other reason to support their position, whatever that might be. I do think the position that some religions take on homosexuality is deplorable, but I would not assume that all religions support that view AND there are a number of positive reasons why religion is a positive influence on society.

Let's not assume that people group themselves together just for some political advantage, there are a bunch of other reasons that are all a lot more positive. For mostof them it ain't about hate at all.

No, I'm not making the assumption that all religions are like that. We are, of course, talking as a generalization, as such we're going to have to look at things religions have in common, but may not be had by all.

But when the heads of religions all end up beating on the same people, like gay people, then you know there's a problem, at least this side of the world. For lots of individuals it's not about hate, but they end up hating anyway. They don't think they're bad people because their religion tells them they are good people, and tells them they are good for hating.

LOL, you're not making the assumption that all religions are like that, and then you say the heads of religions ALL end up beating on the same people? Do you see a little bit of divergence there? Are you sure that the heads of ALL religions are homophobic? And who are these 'heads' that you are referring to?

Here's the thing, people are people and as such heir to all the frailties and negative traits that we all have. I'm not so sure that we can or should lump all religious people together and say they're all homophobes. Or even mostly homophobes. Some are and some are not, in or out of any religion. Just like racists, sexists, etc. Yeah, there's a problem there, but can a person be a Christian and also not homophobic? I think so.

No, not really. Of the major religions, which ones aren't homophobic?

Catholic Church. Yes. Maybe the current Pope isn't, but the church certainly is.
Orthodox Church. Yes.
Islam. Yes
Judaism. Yes.
Buddhism. Yes, but the current Dalai Lama has said it's wrong for Buddhists but okay for society.

So... what am I supposed to say? That the major religions are openly embracing gay people when they're not?

Go own to minor off shoots of such religions and there is acceptance.

No, I'm not lumping all religious people together and calling them homophobes. I have been to church with gay people. And I'm not religious. My argument is that homophobia is coming from the top and leading a lot of people within these religions to view it as acceptable behavior. Wouldn't you say so?

 

[task0778]

"The problem with ____________ is that people end up following like sheep, and then those with the power, abuse that power." This blank can be completed in a variety of ways. The problem with:

sports
colleges
corporate employers
the law
television commercials (particularly drug companies)
political parties
clubs
housing authorities
Congress

One of the strengths of religion is that it stops people from following like sheep and inspires them to break away from things that enslave and live a more fulfilling life. People who follow a religion may also have greater discipline, which helps attain greater success in other of life's pursuits.

Yes, from an individual point of view, religion can be a good thing. This is why I, as a non-religious person, actually stand up for people's rights to religion and to believe whatever they want.

However from a larger scale perspective we see the problems that people trying to separate themselves into groups and the leaders of those groups start hating on other groups just because they can gain some political advantage.

Take gay marriage. It doesn't hurt these religious people, but they'll be opposed because some knob end religious person has decided they don't like it, and go around saying that in order to be a good [insert religious adjective] you need to hate on people.

There are plenty of racists, sexists, homophobes, and all sorts of other haters out there who use religion or any other reason to support their position, whatever that might be. I do think the position that some religions take on homosexuality is deplorable, but I would not assume that all religions support that view AND there are a number of positive reasons why religion is a positive influence on society.

Let's not assume that people group themselves together just for some political advantage, there are a bunch of other reasons that are all a lot more positive. For mostof them it ain't about hate at all.

No, I'm not making the assumption that all religions are like that. We are, of course, talking as a generalization, as such we're going to have to look at things religions have in common, but may not be had by all.

But when the heads of religions all end up beating on the same people, like gay people, then you know there's a problem, at least this side of the world. For lots of individuals it's not about hate, but they end up hating anyway. They don't think they're bad people because their religion tells them they are good people, and tells them they are good for hating.

LOL, you're not making the assumption that all religions are like that, and then you say the heads of religions ALL end up beating on the same people? Do you see a little bit of divergence there? Are you sure that the heads of ALL religions are homophobic? And who are these 'heads' that you are referring to?

Here's the thing, people are people and as such heir to all the frailties and negative traits that we all have. I'm not so sure that we can or should lump all religious people together and say they're all homophobes. Or even mostly homophobes. Some are and some are not, in or out of any religion. Just like racists, sexists, etc. Yeah, there's a problem there, but can a person be a Christian and also not homophobic? I think so.

No, not really. Of the major religions, which ones aren't homophobic?

Catholic Church. Yes. Maybe the current Pope isn't, but the church certainly is.
Orthodox Church. Yes.
Islam. Yes
Judaism. Yes.
Buddhism. Yes, but the current Dalai Lama has said it's wrong for Buddhists but okay for society.

So... what am I supposed to say? That the major religions are openly embracing gay people when they're not?

Go own to minor off shoots of such religions and there is acceptance.

No, I'm not lumping all religious people together and calling them homophobes. I have been to church with gay people. And I'm not religious. My argument is that homophobia is coming from the top and leading a lot of people within these religions to view it as acceptable behavior. Wouldn't you say so?

What Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism really think of LGBTI people will surprise you

Hinduism
Hindu views of LGBTI issues are diverse and different Hindu groups have distinct views.
Overall homosexuality is regarded as one of the possible expressions of human desire. Although some Hindu dharmic texts contain injunctions against homosexuality, a number of Hindu mythic stories have portrayed same-sex experience as natural and joyful. There are even several Hindu temples with carvings that depict both men and women engaging in homosexual sex.

Sikhism
Sikhism has no specific teachings about homosexuality andӬthe Sikh holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, does not explicitly mention it.
Views on homosexuality tend not to be a primary concern in Sikh teachings, as the universal goal of a Sikh is to have no hate or animosity to any person, regardless of race, caste, color, creed, gender, or sexuality.

Buddhism
Is homosexuality forbidden in Buddhism? Is it sexual misconduct? Let’s look at what Gautama Buddha, the founder of the religion says.
Gautama Buddha stated in one of the five precepts that lay-people should refrain from sexual misconduct. He never really elaborated on this point, only to say that a man should not fool around with a woman who is married or betrothed.
He did of course say in the Vinaya, which are the rules for monks and nuns, that they have to take a vow of celibacy, but no such rule was made for lay-people.
Buddha taught the five precepts to steer us away from cause harm to ourselves and others. It should be noted here that the precepts are not commandments, and are five things we should try to refrain from.
If the sexual act is not going to cause harm it should be consensual, affectionate, loving and not breaking any marriage vow or commitment. It should also not be abusive, such as sex with an under-age person or rape, and this includes forcing your partner into having sex.
So I believe in this way a consenting, loving homosexual act isn’t in any way against Buddha’s teachings.

Jainism
Jainism has not condemned homosexuality but it shuns all sexuality with the exception of procreation within a marriage.
This translates into no homosexual sex but does that mean it specifically shuns homosexuality? No. It reacts to homosexuality the same way it would pre-marital sex. Even sex within heterosexual marriage is only acceptable due to the need for more people to practice Jainism.
Jainism does not want to promote one sexuality or the other. All sexuality is oppressed, it just so happens that homosexual sex can not be for procreation, married or not, and therefore is not allowed at all.
So no follower from any of these faiths can claim ‘my religion says homosexuality is wrong’. At most, they can say that homosexuality is not formally endorsed by the faith – and even that requires a selective reading of the evidence.
Surely all religious heads have the moral and religious duty to re-think this issue in a modern light.


Judaism (from Wikipedia)
An edict signed by dozens of Israeli Orthodox rabbis and published in 2016 by the Israeli Modern Orthodox rabbinic group Beit Hillel, a group which promotes inclusiveness in Orthodox Judaism, stated in part, "according to the Torah and halacha, the [same-sex sexual] acts are forbidden but not the proclivities, and therefore people with same-sex tendencies, men and women, have no invalidation in halacha or tradition. They are obligated by the commandments of the Torah, they can fulfill a [ritual] obligation on behalf of the public and carry out all of the community functions just like any member.” It also stated in part, "just as it [is] inconceivable to mock someone for being physically, behaviorally, or mentally different, so too those with same-sex tendencies should not be mocked. On the contrary, those around them — family and community — should show special feeling for them, and apply to them the Torah commandment of ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’ and to be diligent in avoiding the prohibition of insulting another."


Christianity (from me)

Some Christian denominations do not view monogamous same-sex relationships as sinful or immoral, and may even bless such unions and consider them as marriages.


There are other eastern religions and other forms of spirituality that also do not condemn homosexuality, add up the numbers and it isn't that much of a minority. But if you want to tar them all with the same broad brush of intolerance on that issue, that is your perogative.

 

[Mudda]

Religions are a means to kill and enslave. Works pretty well.

Religions are also a means to help and support others. Works pretty well, a helluva lot better than gov't does. Those who would kill and enslave will use whatever means necessary to achieve their ends, religion is only one of those means.

Religions strong arm people out of money and use only an infinitesimal amount of that to pretend to help others. Have you seen the price of a Popemobile?

BULLSHIT. Religions do not strongarm anybody, that is a load of crap. And I put it to you that the money from religious organizations that gets to people who need it isn't infinitesimal and it sure as hell isn't pretend either. You think gov't does it any better? And who gives a damn about the price of the popemobile?

Passing a plate in from of everyone is a strong-arm tactic.

So you're excuse is that government can't do any better, so the church can do practically nothing itself?

BULLSHIT, see my post just above. It's a choice, not a requirement and there is sure as hell no force involved and therefore it is not strong-arming. No excuses at all, various religions can and do a lot more to help those less fortunate than the any gov't does. To suggest any church does practically nothing for the less fortunate is patent BULLSHIT. I understand, you have a major hate-on for Christianity and I'm thinking Catholicism in particular, and that's fine. But your argument is as weak as water. Those who seek to do harm can and do use religion as a tool, no question about that. But that doesn't make any religion a bad thing. And some religions do have their drawbacks, such as their positions on homosexuality. But all that means is they ain't perfect, they have their flaws just like everything else in this world. So, you can choose to discard the whole thing if you want or pick and choose what you believe and what you don't, or find another religion or start your own.

Religions can't have flaws, nor do they think they have flaws, as they're supposed to be from the word of god.

 

[Meriweather]

No, not really. Of the major religions, which ones aren't homophobic?

Catholic Church. Yes. Maybe the current Pope isn't, but the church certainly is.
Orthodox Church. Yes.
Islam. Yes
Judaism. Yes.
Buddhism. Yes, but the current Dalai Lama has said it's wrong for Buddhists but okay for society.

So... what am I supposed to say? That the major religions are openly embracing gay people when they're not?

Go own to minor off shoots of such religions and there is acceptance.

No, I'm not lumping all religious people together and calling them homophobes. I have been to church with gay people. And I'm not religious. My argument is that homophobia is coming from the top and leading a lot of people within these religions to view it as acceptable behavior. Wouldn't you say so?

No, neither the Catholic churches nor Judaism is "homophobic." They weren't before gay marriage, and they are not now. If your complaint against Catholicism is that gays may not be married in the Catholic Church, that dates back to Jesus' teachings on marriage: A man and a woman til death parts them; no divorce. Doesn't mean that the Church does not recognize the validity of civil marriages; it means in the Catholic faith there is a difference between civil marriage (done by the State) and sacramental marriage (in accordance with Church teachings). The Pope's feelings regarding gays is no different from most Catholics.

 

[Meriweather]

Religions can't have flaws, nor do they think they have flaws, as they're supposed to be from the word of god.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[NLT]

Funny how a lot of liberal atheists dont believe in god but do believe in the devil (evil)