You have not read much on this board then, we have several right NOW actively creating threads to ask peoples belief's and then attacking anyone that posts they believe in a God or religion.
Ohh and I notice you have a cartoon against religion but none against the rabid atheists that try to belittle the religious and are very vocal about their attacks.
As I said, the reason for secularist attacks against religion and theism is as a result of the undue influence that those exert over wider society. Have you witnessed comprehensive or detailed secularist attacks against astrology on this board? Both belief in astrology and belief in religion are based on a certain degree of irrationality and faith despite a lack of evidence, but secularists have no interest in attacking the former because it lacks any relevance in mainstream society.
I am not saying religion is blameless by any means. If you have not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious beliefs simply because they consider it irrational a baseless, you may want to re-read you comment wherein you compare it to things regarded as superstitions.
"Attack" is somewhat more comprehensive than that. I'm referring to complaints about secularists penning detailed and comprehensive critiques of religious belief, such as the "Unholy Trinity" of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. There exist detailed attacks on religious belief where detailed attacks on belief in astrology do not exist because religious belief exerts an undue influence over mainstream society where belief in astrology do not. Though secularists consider both forms of belief to be based on irrationality, there is little use in attacking astrology where there may be greater use in attacking religion, since belief in its tenets can be reduced, thereby reducing its influence.
The openly hierarchical institutions you mention are out of context to their times. The inquisitions are non sequitur to any argument against Christianity today. Yes they happened. As did the plagues, and Europeans believing that bathing and fresh air were dangerous; which, ironically enough, only created a better breeding ground for disease.
Of course they are. I'm merely explaining why opposition to religion has traditionally appeared; it's always been a matter of objection to its excessive influence or power. That was the basis behind the opposition to excessive entanglement between church and state in both historical and modern terms.
The argument that religion can intrude where it is not wanted has merit. What you fail to mention is the opposite side of the coin. In the name of secularism and the US Constitution, the non-religious have encroached on religion.
Secularism is a neutral condition and a happy medium between state theism and state atheism. Although "atheism" is technically merely the lack of theism, strong atheism has manifested itself in the form of direct anti-theism. State theism seeks to impose religious mores or principles on a public citizenry, while state atheism seeks to obstruct and diminish them through the vessel of the government. Secularism does neither; it merely prevents the undue influence of either extreme. The problem with theists is a poor framing wherein secularism is itself depicted as an extreme akin to state atheism and some form of theism as "moderate,"
You also place emphasis only on the negative aspect of religion. Religion has had far more profound positive impacts on society than negative.
I don't believe there are many positive elements caused directly by religious belief that couldn't be replicated by secular rationality, whereas there are clearly negative elements of religion that could seemingly only stem from faith in particular religious doctrines but not from that same secular rationality. I can envision an obvious role for secular rationality aiding the formation of detailed ethical codes; I cannot envision any basis in secular rationality for declaring jihad.
The Christians that teach people go to heaven when they die are not teaching biblical information, The bible is clear, when you die you do not go to heaven or hell, you are "asleep" as Jesus put it and others. No one is judged until Judgement Day after the final battle. There is only one person that knows for a fact he is accepted, that would be the thief that was crucified with Jesus. There are others that know but the bible is not specific who they are, just that there are 144000 of them.
Only the 144000 will actually ascend to Heaven, the remaining that are found faithful will be given perfect bodies and live on a Paradise Earth with no disease and no sickness. Jesus will rule for God as their King, the 144000 in Heaven will help Jesus.
Then where did Elijah and Enoch go, and where did Paul go during his "third heaven" experience? And what of Jesus's comment in Matthew 5:12 that
"great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you"? I see no scriptural justification for your interpretation of the role of the 144,000; the book of Revelations indicates that they are a "missionary corps" of messianic Jews who proselytize during the Great Tribulation.
There are numerous passages in the Bible that clearly explain Hell is not a fire and brimstone place.
Psalms 72:8 And he will have subjects from sea to sea
And from the River to the ends of the earth.
What conceivable relation has this to hell? This is a description of the Messiah's reign on Earth in general.
Revelation 20:3 and 4
3 With that I heard a loud voice frome the throne say "Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them.
4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will be mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away."
That would be Revelations 2
1:3-4, not chapter 20. And this similarly has no conceivable relation to hell, because it's a description of the "new heaven and a new earth." There also seems to be a rather obvious conflict between your account and verse 8, which notes
"ut the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
There is also an implication of different degrees of suffering existing in hell. For example, consider Matthew 10:15, wherein Jesus states of cities that refuse to accept the apostles' gospel, "it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." Similarly, he remarks of Capernaum that "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." This is then repeated in Mark 6:11. Then, it's remarked in Hebrews 10:29, "[o]f how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot..." How then can different degrees of punishment and suffering exist in a state of permanent death, when sensory capacities and self-awareness are nonexistent?
