Is religion harmful to society?

[litespeed]

The Tree Kahns

 

Of course the largest geographic civilization ever to be created or to fall is that of these Kahns. "In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure dome decree..." Free trade and unimpeded travel throught that vast central asian domane existed ONLY during the time of the three Kahns.

 

However, that civilization did not fall due to any religious influence, but for the usual reasons of succession. The empire simply disolved into local fiefdoms once the house of khan lost its authority. As is almost always the case when single individuals and their progeny establish same. Just ask Alexander the Great.

[litespeed]

Finaly Global Warming

 

Warm is Good. Cold is Bad. Google "The Littel Ice Age" and its consequences. It coincided with an extended period with no sunspots. Sunspot are now late by one year. If this trend continues......

[Moontanman]

Finaly Global Warming

 

Warm is Good. Cold is Bad. Google "The Littel Ice Age" and its consequences. It coincided with an extended period with no sunspots. Sunspot are now late by one year. If this trend continues......

 

Ummm, Like, totally Off topic dude! But in my area we are experiencing an unusual cold spell, setting records, native plants are dying back, birds are falling from the sky, dogs and cats sleeping together!

 

It's the end of the world as we know it! It's the end of the world as we know it :hyper:

[Turtle]

Is religion harmful to society? It's a grossly over-broad question of course, but here's a current example of how religion can & did harm society, if wasting money & time and increasing the number of pregnant teens is any judgement of harm. :(

 

The Associated Press: Future of abstinence-only funding is in limbo

NEW YORK (AP) — With the exit of the Bush administration, critics of abstinence-only sex education will be making an aggressive push to cut off federal funding for what they consider an ineffective, sometimes harmful program

...

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of American, depicted the federal abstinence-only program as "an utter failure that has wasted more than $1.5 billion" over the past decade. Like other critics, she noted that several major studies — including a federally funded review — have found no evidence that the abstinence-only approach works in deterring teen sex.

 

The only federal review we needed of this faith-based program in the first place was a look at the Constitution and the separation of Church & State clause. :) :hihi:

[interval]

To have the right answer, you should see religion and culture together. In general lines, religion is the same everywhere, cultures are different. What is positive in one culture could be negative in other.

[litespeed]

interval - You wrote: "In general lines, religion is the same everywhere..."

 

I beg to differ. Religions, one to another, vary hugely! For instance, Christianity, Judaism and Islam to not include reincarnation. Further, many extinct religions included human sacrifice. In addition, Budhism is specifically atheistic. So, is it a religion?

 

Judaism includes hundreds of religious laws, as does Islam. Christianity recognizes only the ten commandments as laws from God. Unlike either Islam or historical Judaism, Christianity is entirely modern in that it respects civil laws created by human legislators. The other two have very specific God Given civil and criminal laws that do not appear in Christianity.

[Thunderbird]

interval - You wrote: "In general lines, religion is the same everywhere..."

 

I beg to differ. Religions, one to another, vary hugely! For instance, Christianity, Judaism and Islam to not include reincarnation. Further, many extinct religions included human sacrifice. In addition, Budhism is specifically atheistic. So, is it a religion?

 

Judaism includes hundreds of religious laws, as does Islam. Christianity recognizes only the ten commandments as laws from God. Unlike either Islam or historical Judaism, Christianity is entirely modern in that it respects civil laws created by human legislators. The other two have very specific God Given civil and criminal laws that do not appear in Christianity.

There are many laws in the old testement like this.

The new testament is what you are reffering to.

Buddhist say they practice a discipline based on trail and error and it is more science than religion, so it is not like the judo-Christian religions.

 

I think Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all the same basic thing in that they are all monotheistic, ritualistic, and contain the same cast of The devil, angels, God and his Prophets that lay out a plan that determines destinations based on rewarding the faithful with Heaven or punishment for nonbelivers with hell.

[Pyrotex]

...I think Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all the same basic thing in that they are all monotheistic, ritualistic, and contain the same cast of caricatures... The devil, angels, God and his Prophets that lay out a plan that determines destinations based on rewarding the faithful with Heaven or punishment for nonbelivers with hell.

Be that as it may, the differences go very deep. Islam claims (with some credibility) that Christianity is a polytheistic religeon. We got Jehovah the Thunder God, Jesus the Human God, Holy Spirit the Invasive God. We got Satan who is so powerful, he's a "god" in his own right. Some "angels" appear to have god-like powers, but hey!!...

anything that can defy the Laws of Nature (like gravity, the laws of motion, conservation of energy), are immortal, invisible, indestructable, and can read minds, is absolutely NOT of THIS mortal space-time continuum. I don't care what you call them, they are just different instantiations of the Class: God.

[litespeed]

Tbird - You wrote: "I think Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all the same basic thing "

 

Once again I must disagree. Islam requires political supremacy in order to provide the proper environment for Islam to flourish with as few temptations as possible. This is not a representative form of government. There is a Caliph [a sort of Pope] and his religious [sharia] advisors who hold absolute power.

 

Further, historical Judaism is nearly extinct. No one can interact with the modern world and still adhere to the hundreds of religous laws that, among other things, exclude Jews from inviting goyim into their homes. In addition, the Talmud generally consider's goyim to be little more then natural resources for the Jews. ["Rabi, if my goyim neighbor dies, and I go to the family to request return of an implement I lent to him, does God disaprove. ANSWER: "Not as long as they don't know you are lieing."]

 

Christianity alone is compatible with liberal democracy. Athiests ignore this at their own peril.

[Moontanman]

Tbird - You wrote: "I think Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all the same basic thing "

 

Once again I must disagree. Islam requires political supremacy in order to provide the proper environment for Islam to flourish with as few temptations as possible. This is not a representative form of government. There is a Caliph [a sort of Pope] and his religious [sharia] advisors who hold absolute power.

 

Further, historical Judaism is nearly extinct. No one can interact with the modern world and still adhere to the hundreds of religous laws that, among other things, exclude Jews from inviting goyim into their homes. In addition, the Talmud generally consider's goyim to be little more then natural resources for the Jews. ["Rabi, if my goyim neighbor dies, and I go to the family to request return of an implement I lent to him, does God disaprove. ANSWER: "Not as long as they don't know you are lieing."]

 

Christianity alone is compatible with liberal democracy. Athiests ignore this at their own peril.

 

 

While what you are saying is true litespeed, in the early history of Christianity they were in complete control of everyone and everything. Modern Christianity no longer has this control but it's not from lack of trying. Morality laws are not a thing of the past and even in the realm of science Christianity still tries to regain as much control as possible. The current problem with trying to teach creationism in schools is an example of this.

[Pyrotex]

I believe it was in the 5th Century, (yes, I said "Fifth") when St. Augustine was alive. Correct me if I'm wrong. It may have been another early scriptural apologetic of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Anyway, St. Augustine argued vehemently that Christians should never attempt to use the scripture to "explain" the natural world or the reasons for natural events -- for when it inevitably happened that the Christian would confront a person (perhaps from a foreign land) who was truly knowledgeable or had first-hand understanding of the natural event, that was in contradiction to the Christian's interpretation of scripture, it would only serve to make the Christian look like an uneducated fool, and undermine the glory of God and the holy goals of the Church.

 

It's really too bad nobody today listens to St. Augustine. He was a sharp cookie.

[Thunderbird]

"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself" - Peter O’Toole

[litespeed]

Moon - You wrote: "...in the early history of Christianity they were in complete control of everyone and everything.''

 

Once again I must object. The early history of Christianity has Christians in control of nothing more then their own homes, where Christians met. Even then, they had no control over their own members, other then to exclude them from their homes. One of Paul's letters actually addresses such a problem concerning an adulterous member, or some such.

 

But Christianity grew and became more powerfull. For instance, Constantine made Christianity the state religion in the 300's CE. However, CONSTANTINE had total control in the Eastern Empire, not any Christian Bishop, whether from Rome or anyplace else.

 

In the West, Roman civill authority over Europe colapsed in the 400s CE, but was not replaced by the Bishop Of Rome. Instead, civil and religious authorities were, at times, colaborators or adversaries, but Christianity never had total civil authority beyond the Papal States of Italy. Read the history of Chalemagne to better understand this relationship.

 

Puritans in the New World exercised total authority over their members for a good period of time. However, even this was an accident of history, as the Puritan Pilgrims made landfall in the wrong place where there WAS no existing civil authority. The Mormons in Utah were, for a time, in much the same situataion.

[Moontanman]

Moon - You wrote: "...in the early history of Christianity they were in complete control of everyone and everything.''

 

Once again I must object. The early history of Christianity has Christians in control of nothing more then their own homes, where Christians met. Even then, they had no control over their own members, other then to exclude them from their homes. One of Paul's letters actually addresses such a problem concerning an adulterous member, or some such.

 

But Christianity grew and became more powerfull. For instance, Constantine made Christianity the state religion in the 300's CE. However, CONSTANTINE had total control in the Eastern Empire, not any Christian Bishop, whether from Rome or anyplace else.

 

In the West, Roman civill authority over Europe colapsed in the 400s CE, but was not replaced by the Bishop Of Rome. Instead, civil and religious authorities were, at times, colaborators or adversaries, but Christianity never had total civil authority beyond the Papal States of Italy. Read the history of Chalemagne to better understand this relationship.

 

Puritans in the New World exercised total authority over their members for a good period of time. However, even this was an accident of history, as the Puritan Pilgrims made landfall in the wrong place where there WAS no existing civil authority. The Mormons in Utah were, for a time, in much the same situataion.

 

I'm sorry litespeed, I guess historical accounts of things like the Inquisition , being drawn and quartered, burned at the steak or boiled in oil for something as simple as eating meat on Fridays or being a Jew that Christians owed money to or anyone of of thousands of infractions not allowed by the church was total bullshit.

[charles brough]

Tbird - You wrote: "I think Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all the same basic thing "

 

Once again I must disagree. Islam requires political supremacy in order to provide the proper environment for Islam to flourish with as few temptations as possible. This is not a representative form of government. There is a Caliph [a sort of Pope] and his religious [sharia] advisors who hold absolute power.

 

Further, historical Judaism is nearly extinct. No one can interact with the modern world and still adhere to the hundreds of religous laws that, among other things, exclude Jews from inviting goyim into their homes. In addition, the Talmud generally consider's goyim to be little more then natural resources for the Jews. ["Rabi, if my goyim neighbor dies, and I go to the family to request return of an implement I lent to him, does God disaprove. ANSWER: "Not as long as they don't know you are lieing."]

 

Christianity alone is compatible with liberal democracy. Athiests ignore this at their own peril.

I would mostly agree. All the mainstream religions are a little different in their compatability with Secular Humanism. I should add, however, that there is no Christian theocracy of a nation in existence (that I know of) now. Even in the New Testament, there are things Jesus or God are supposed to have told us we should and should not do other than just the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament. In the OT, is Jewish, but in the NT we are, for example, told to play with snakes, drink wine, wash each others feet and speak in tongues. Only a liberalized, non-Fundamentalist belief in Christian doctrine is compatable with our Secular beliefs.

 

And it would be a mistake for us to ignore such long-standing secular states in Islam such as Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, and other parts of North AFrica. All of them have limitations, but so does the US. We are just so brain-washed by the media that we don't know what is happening to us.

[litespeed]

Moon - You wrote: "...in the early history of Christianity they were in complete control of everyone and everything.'' You also wrote of inquisitions etc etc.

 

First , the inquisitions were not part of early Christianity. My post was specific to your erroneous characterization of 'Eary Christianity". Which characterization is false on its face. Further, the inquisitions were contemporaneous to the Reforamation. Again, on its face, the inquisition is disqualified to satisfy your statement "... they were in complete control of everyone and everything."

 

But I suggest we limit the upcomming discussion to the EARLY Christianity that you specified was in complete control. Specifically, list a date when this first became true, in your estimation.

[litespeed]

CB

 

First, I have little to quible about with you. However, you wrote: " Only a liberalized, non-Fundamentalist belief in Christian doctrine is compatable with our Secular beliefs." I live in an area with lots of fundamentalists, although snake handlers continue in short supply everywhere.

 

I assure you, however, these fundamentalists have a firm belief in Constitutional Government as it was written more then 200 years ago. I agree they will not find a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, and they will generally insist the Second Ammendment applies to individuals (recently upheald by the US Supreme Court on appeal from the District of Columbia).

 

However, you will not find much talk of theocracy.