Is religion harmful to society?

[RevOfAllRevs]

Religion demands the abandonment of rational thought. I don't see how this can be beneficial to society in any way, shape or form.

 

I think that is an old wives tale. and belongs in the 1920 with the scopes monkey trial. We won that one too BTW. I have demonstrated by the cosmological arguments that its possible to use a logical and reasonable argument to explain that God could exist. That's just the tip of the ice berg. Godels Ontological argument for the existence of god is another. I like the modern version of the KCA better though.

 

Of course as I said if even after only hearing one argument you want to form an opinion that is your privilege and I respect your views.

 

Notes (I left the descriptive paragraph for the reader to determine if he wants to visit the link.)........ Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) was probably the most strikingly original and important logician of the twentieth century. He proved the incompleteness of axioms for ...

KURT GODEL

 

Kurt Gödel's Ontological Argument

Paper by Chris Small about Gödel's proof of the existence of God.

Kurt Gödel's Ontological Argument

 

; {>

[RevOfAllRevs]

The force is mankind regardless of religion or non . Hatred, loathing and greed is the core of what fuels war.

 

Yes I said as much in an early thread in this post. However I was rebutting the claim that religious war was a atrocity caused by religion. I was simply delineating between war fought for secular reasons ie greed and religious reasons and demonstrating that war fought for secular reasons causes far more harm than the relativity few causalities (compared to the wars fought for secular reasons).

 

 

not religion, but faith or belief in said religion, is where the abandonment occurs. Aptly put in one religious text " faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence unseen"

which is not only irrational but illogical as well

 

I decided not to attempt to say that the crusades etc and maybe even the modern Islamic atrocities ie 9/11 were not allowed by the bible or the Koran. I touched on the study of the Koran in school. However I don’t think the holy wars (most of them with the possible exception of the first crusade) were allowed by scripture. As usual when corrupt leaders of the church influence the lives of men all is lost. The bible warns of false prophets and Jim Jones wasn’t the only false prophet of history.

 

Faith or belief in anything can drive you and cause change that can be beneficial. For example, Had i accepted the confining label of educably mentally disabled for my son, believed it to be true, he would remain at that level by lack of being taught as there would be no reason to. However, my belief is as such, that the brain is an amazing thing and not limited to that which we have already learned. Therefore, books, experiences, field trips, discussions and yes even Hypography, have been utilized in the development of my child. Now i ask you, would a child labeled as such, ask me at 4am if cavemen were real, get a brief but groggy answer from me, and head out the next day to dig in my yard looking for ancient tools???

 

I think that is fantastic Pam and I agree. We can move mountains having only the faith of a mustard seed. The trouble is the faith of a mustard seed is so difficult to muster!

 

My belief in the brain, although not fully known, was the impetus for change, that has proven beneficial to my son. Therefore, it is indeed important to separate, those things we do as humans from the ideologies that many subscribe to. It is not religion that brings about those things that are beneficial or beautiful to mankind, but mankind itself that creates and builds those things beneficial or detrimental to us

 

Well I agree but maybe for different reasons. Let me explain my take for the Christians and religion curious here. When God wants something done in this universe he never materializes in his form. He always sends liaisons. A bush that is not consumed by fire, he sends angels and visions. This is because the true form of God is not anything we can comprehend. So yes we are Gods hands and its up to us to create and build the things that glorify him, or to help us as a society. If we all would follow the red letter words in the bible the world would be a far better place.

 

That said ~

 

The era of (big) miracles ended just after the Passover and will not return until near the human reign is coming to an end. So its up to all of us, the religious and the non religious to attempt to work together and use love instead of hate to accomplish what could be wondrous things.

 

; {>

[modest]

Religion demands the abandonment of rational thought. I don't see how this can be beneficial to society in any way, shape or form.

 

I agree. The danger of religion over secular ideologies is that religious morals are derived from metaphysical concepts. There's no guarantee that the morality will be based in the rational reality of the world we live in. Not only do I think this is not beneficial to society, I think it's usually very dangerous.

 

I'll give a few examples to make clear...

 

The rain god of the Aztecs was called on when rain was needed. The priests sacrificed children to the rain god because children cried a lot when they were sacrificed. The rain god liked the tears of dying children thereby making it rain. (*) Since this is a religious practice based on a religious ideology there is no guarantee that the morality of the act has any basis in reality.

 

Similarly, in Christianity in early modern Europe, it was not unusual for the church to abduct young girls or entire families, accuse them of flying around the sky at night having sex with the devil, then burn them alive. (*) This particular execution for this particular reson ended tens of thousands of lives. The idea that women were seduced by the devil is supernatural in origin. There is therefore no need for it to be rational or based on reality. As such, I believe there is a danger involved. The danger is the conclusion "torturing and burning young girls is moral" which can be inspired by nothing more than the fear of an imaginary and metaphysical enemy, Satan.

 

Religious ideas can also serve as reasons for war. Differences between Protestants and Catholics caused the 30 years war from 1618–1648 (*). The death toll is estimated at 7 million over the 30 years of conflict. One half of the men in Germany and approximately 1/3 of the population of many European states died in what is usually considered one of the most brutal of conflicts:

The war, one of longest and bloodiest wars in European history, is a horrifying example of how easily religious beliefs and a hunger for power can quickly throw an entire continent into a horrendous international bloodbath.

 

Thirty Years' War: Worst European Disaster Since the Black Death - Associated Content

 

A woodcut depicting the typical treatment of captured enemy:

-

source

 

The same thing happened during the second half of the 16th century with the French Wars of Religion where an estimated 3 million died.

 

On Aug. 20, 1191 the King of England was not terribly troubled with executing 2,700 captured Muslims including women and children (*). Yet, he was a moral person in the eyes of the Christian authority because the priests were saying that it's OK to kill women and children so long as they are not Christian.

 

Saint Bernard in 924 wrote: "The knight of Christ, I say, kills with tranquil conscience... The Christian glories in the death of a pagan." (*) So, Richard the Lionheart is guided by religious morals telling him that it's OK to decapitate children—that he should be tranquil about it.

 

The Christian debate when the new world was discovered was whether or not Native Americans had souls. The conquistadors were blessed by priests for slaughtering the Indians. It was completely moral to sail to another land and wipe out the inhabitants so that you might find some gold for church. And, there's no guilt. Twenty million Natives die and Christians are happy to let God sort them out, because "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" (Kill them all, Surely God will known his own) :shade:

 

Yes, I think a person can safely say that Religion can be harmful to society. When morality itself is immutable and so very fundamentally flawed from being based on imaginary things then awful things can happen. You end up with Aztec priests doing their level best to make a child cry as many tears as possible while torturing it to death *for the good of society*! It's a flawed and dangerous system because if there is no rain god then all of the "good" which was done in his name was really just sadistic evil. If the young woman whom the church just burned alive wasn't really having midair sex with the prince of darkness last night then the morality of the Inquisition is just a perverse and fiendish evil like a poison which humanity would do well without.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

YouTube - Billy Connolly on Catholicism and Sarah Palin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH40zaUxTTE

[Moontanman]

I think the main thing wrong with religion is that it's basically what humans make it, and well, you know us humans...... If it can be screwed up we as a group will find a way to screw it up and twist it to make us look good while we screw it up..... It's just human nature to take advantage of the system, a great many individuals do not take advantage of the system but they generally do not prevent others from doing so. Religion predisposes that anyone who claims to be religious is good person with no evidence to back it up. As a system it is predisposed to corruption, much like a duck is predisposed to water......

[HydrogenBond]

A universe governed by statistics, uncertainty and chaos, is not a rational universe, since reason is not based on probability, but on cause and effect. Religions often use irrational premises, that can't be proven, but they nevertheless assume order in the universe, which is needed to reason. Science and atheism like the uncertainty approach.

 

As an example, even if the premises are not correct, one can still use such certainty premies to practice the art of reasoning. For example, if this apple is orange and orange apples all taste like butter, this apple tastes like butter. These premises may not be part of physical reality, but it is proper reasoning. If we say this apple has a high probability of becoming red, and red apples are good 67% of the time, we might conclude that this apple could be bad or it it could be good, since it may not be exactly red or it may be one of the reds that isn't good. The premises better reflect reality, but reasoning begins to become irrational, with irrational angles, that almost seem rational but are not since there is no cause and effect.

 

Picture if we went back into history and humans began to form civilization based on the gods of uncertainty and chaos. Reasoning would be next to impossible. The atheist universe may have been the way things first were. How do you develop the ability to reason, from scratch, in that type of world? One would have to rebel against the gods of uncertainty and look for gods of certainty. Then reason can begin.

[Boerseun]

A universe governed by statistics, uncertainty and chaos, is not a rational universe, since reason is not based on probability, but on cause and effect. Religions often use irrational premises, that can't be proven, but they nevertheless assume order in the universe, which is needed to reason. Science and atheism like the uncertainty approach.

Assuming order by saying "God did it" means nothing. Invoking God is the ultimate cop-out, saying "we don't know". Assuming a universe in which there is such an entity as "God" merely makes for lazy reasoning and the abandonment of the responsibility of having a brain, i.e. using it.

As an example, even if the premises are not correct, one can still use such certainty premies to practice the art of reasoning. For example, if this apple is orange and orange apples all taste like butter, this apple tastes like butter. These premises may not be part of physical reality, but it is proper reasoning. If we say this apple has a high probability of becoming red, and red apples are good 67% of the time, we might conclude that this apple could be bad or it it could be good, since it may not be exactly red or it may be one of the reds that isn't good. The premises better reflect reality, but reasoning begins to become irrational, with irrational angles, that almost seem rational but are not since there is no cause and effect.

This simply does not hold. If an orange apple taste like butter, it's because of certain chemicals that can be perfectly pinpointed and described by chemistry. If an apple has a high probability of becoming red, then it can be perfectly described by certain genetic traits being expressed or not. There is absolutely no irrationality here.

Picture if we went back into history and humans began to form civilization based on the gods of uncertainty and chaos. Reasoning would be next to impossible. The atheist universe may have been the way things first were. How do you develop the ability to reason, from scratch, in that type of world? One would have to rebel against the gods of uncertainty and look for gods of certainty. Then reason can begin.

So you believe that reasoning is dependent on the existence of a "God", first?

This fails on so many levels.

Reason begins when you have the courage to question your premises. In other words, if you're a believer, your belief in God is also open to reason. And then your belief fails when reason show it to be completely irrational. So much so that Martin Luther declared "reason" to be the ultimate enemy of belief, and said the following regarding the matter under discussion:

 

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

 

And: "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason."

 

And again:"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."

 

Now if that's not an admission of the failures of faith, then I don't know what would satisfy you.

 

Reason is the polar opposite of faith. Yet reason have led to all the advances you see around you, where life expectancy is elevated from the low 30's in the Dark Ages to more than 80 in the most developed countries in the world today. Mother and baby mortality have come down spectacularly over the last 100-200 years, by employing reason. Humans have walked on the moon not by praying, but by employing Reason in all its glory.

 

Martin Luther's comments above is exactly what organised religion is about. They want to keep the human mind in the dark, they want to discourage free inquiry, they want to abolish reason. In short, they would very much like to return to the Dark Ages, because that is beneficial to religion, and to religion only. It benefits the virus that causes this particular irrationality we call "religion" by killing off all potential solutions that might kill the virus, like skepticism, rationality and science. Your God wants you to return to the Dark Ages where babies died, mothers died in birth, general mortality was high, illiteracy was rife (so that reason cannot spread), life expectancy was low and misery was high - only so that the meme can spread. That's your God of Love.

 

So, yes - to return to the OP (yet again), religion is obviously and blatantly bad for society.

[InfiniteNow]

More evidence lending support to the position that religion IS harmful to society.

 

 

YouTube - Real Time - Bill Maher interviews Jeff Sharlet on his book "The Family"(7-31-09) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq20THy7Hbk

[Southtown]

Strawman dude. Two of 'em. C'mon.

[InfiniteNow]

Strawman dude. Two of 'em. C'mon.

 

Strawman: When one misrepresents the position of their debating opponent, argues against that misrepresentation instead of the opponents true position on a matter, then supposes they have won some sort of victory (without ever having actually addressed the position put forth by their opponent).

 

What I did was to share evidence of events taking place today in our world which show some seriously negative, harmful, and disgusting impacts on our society as a DIRECT result of religion and religious belief.

 

Southtown - Please clarify for all of us. In your opinion, what precisely have I strawmanned? Please be specific, as I truly don't think that word means what you think it means and suggest that your accusation is baseless.

[Southtown]

Strawman: When one misrepresents the position of their debating opponent, argues against that misrepresentation instead of the opponents true position on a matter, then supposes they have won some sort of victory (without ever having actually addressed the position put forth by their opponent).

 

What I did was to share evidence of events taking place today in our world which show some seriously negative, harmful, and disgusting impacts on our society as a DIRECT result of religion and religious belief.

 

Southtown - Please clarify for all of us. In your opinion, what precisely have I strawmanned? Please be specific, as I truly don't think that word means what you think it means and suggest that your accusation is baseless.

Neither the actions of "The Family" nor that of the army dude were connected with any scriptures whatsoever. Therefore, the following comment is unqualified.

"And this is, excuse me, why the bible is such a wicked book." --Bill Maher

I contend that books cannot be inherently 'wicked' because they are inanimate. If you disagree, feel free to burn as many as you wish. Bill Maher's guest elucidates my point:

"In the hands of 'The Family,' it is, yeah." --Jeff Sharlet

The best that Bill can do to connect the topic of discussion with his least favorite inanimate book is this:

"Right, and when they defend these dictators, or these awful people, I've read in your book again, what they say is that, 'Well the bible is full of killing, mass killing, lots of blood and genocide.'" --Bill Maher

But he is retorted.

"Yeah they're right. Um, it's true. Uh, but I don't think, you know, it's one thing to say that the bible's full of that, it's another thing to interpret that as an endorsement." --Jeff Sharlet

I was raised to read between the lines.

"Is this bipartisan? Are there Republicans

and

Democrats living there? Can we blame this on any one party?" --Bill Maher

[InfiniteNow]

Neither the actions of "The Family" nor that of the army dude were connected with any scriptures whatsoever. Therefore, the following comment is unqualified.

"And this is, excuse me, why the bible is such a wicked book." --Bill Maher

I'm sorry, but this is false. In addition to other gospels, my most recent video showed how these men directly referenced the stories of David to justify their actions.

 

 

I contend that books cannot be inherently 'wicked' because they are inanimate.

Well, that's parsing words a bit too much for my taste. Obviously, the concept being discussed is that the "ideas" and the "teachings" in these books are wicked and destructive, not that the pieces of paper with ink and an binding are somehow animated.

 

You're free to disagree, for sure. However, I think you're grasping at straws with that particular argument.

 

 

Bill Maher's guest elucidates my point:

"In the hands of 'The Family,' it is, yeah." --Jeff Sharlet

The best that Bill can do to connect the topic of discussion with his least favorite inanimate book is this:

"Right, and when they defend these dictators, or these awful people, I've read in your book again, what they say is that, 'Well the bible is full of killing, mass killing, lots of blood and genocide.'" --Bill Maher

But he is retorted.

"Yeah they're right. Um, it's true. Uh, but I don't think, you know, it's one thing to say that the bible's full of that, it's another thing to interpret that as an endorsement." --Jeff Sharlet

So, you're now suggesting that there is only one correct interpretation of the words in the bible, and this correct interpretation is yours (and yours alone)? Why don't the people in "The Family" have just as much right to interpret the bible in their own way? What makes your interpretation more correct than theirs? Is this not further reason why religion is harmful, because it causes us/them mentalities and is derisive and divisive... even among people of the same faith?

 

I'm just saying... Your argument above does not hold weight unless you can prove that yours is the only correct interpretation. Do that, and I will concede the point. However, if you cannot, then your argument fails. Different people interpret the book differently. If nothing else, this is further evidence of the books wickedness (specifically, the nature of the interpretations being made so frequently)... If the book truly had only one interpretation, many of these problems about which we are posting would disappear immediately.

 

 

"Is this bipartisan? Are there Republicans

and

Democrats living there? Can we blame this on any one party?" --Bill Maher

I like how you conveniently left out the next line, which was Sharlet's response to this question. Let me put that out there for our readers:

"It is historically... I mean... It's been around for 70 years. It's the oldest and most influential fundamentalist organization in America. It's historically been mostly Republican... and, uhh... Dixie-crats used to be a strong part of it... Strom Thurman was a big part of it in his day. More recently, though, it is a little bipartisan. In fact, Senator Mark Prior of Arkansas (who was in your movie, Religulous)... When I spoke to him, he explained that "Through the Family, he had learned the meaning of 'bipartisanship.' he said. 'It's that Jesus didn't come to take sides, he came... to take over.' That's bipartisanship... Family style." --Jeff Sharlet

 

 

Regardless of all of the above parsing of the interview, your suggestion that I have strawmanned anything is still baseless and off-point, and further, I still see the points being discussed in this video as exactly what I said they were when I presented it in my post above... and I stand by my words. It is additional evidence lending support to the position that religion IS harmful to society.

 

That's even before we start talking about their points regarding the building of megachurches on military bases and how our soldiers are becoming more like messianic cults than defenders of the United States and our secular democratic republic.

[pamela]

since the common religion being referred to in this thread appears to be christianity, i have to wonder how this particular passage could be misconscrewed

 

Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Luke 12;

 

it has become evident ,at least to me, that the Bible does indeed cause separation among people.Certain groups, sects and denominations take this particular passage to the extreme.Clearly the only peace to be seen is amongst those who believe the same and all others who do not, are faced with animosity.There is division amongst people and where there is division there breeds anger and strife.If the only purpose of the Bible, specifically New Testament, as most modern day denominations prefer, was to love your brother, and take care of the widows and the poor, then this religion wouldn't be so terrible. However, with passages such as the one above, religion can be, already has been, and will continue to be, harmful to society on many levels.Those things that were once deemed kind and helpful, have now become forgotten and tossed to the wayside, for a more militant show of aggression towards those who do not believe the same.

[Galapagos]

The "Nigerian Taliban" is a Nigerian Islamist group with no actual ties to the Taliban in Afghanistan, but a serious anti-science agenda:

BBC NEWS | Africa | Nigeria's 'Taliban' enigma

Mohammed Yusuf, leader of an Islamic sect which launched deadly raids across northern Nigeria, has died in police custody, officially as he was trying to escape.

 

His followers attacked several police stations, threatening to overthrow the government and impose strict Islamic law - but who exactly are the group known locally as the Taliban?

...

Flat-Earth views?

 

In an interview with the BBC before he was killed, Mr Yusuf, 39, said such education "spoils the belief in one God".

 

"There are prominent Islamic preachers who have seen and understood that the present Western-style education is mixed with issues that run contrary to our beliefs in Islam," he said.

"Like rain. We believe it is a creation of God rather than an evaporation caused by the sun that condenses and becomes rain.

 

"Like saying the world is a sphere. If it runs contrary to the teachings of Allah, we reject it. We also reject the theory of Darwinism."

Sound familiar?

 

 

In other religion-harmful-to-society news, a Wisconsin father has been convicted of second-degree reckless homicide for denying his 11 year old daughter modern medicine in favor of prayer, which unnecessarily caused her death:

Father Guilty in Prayer Death Case - CBS News

(AP) A Wisconsin man accused of killing his 11-year-old daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care was found guilty Saturday of second-degree reckless homicide.

 

Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted in the March 23, 2003, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or speak. Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.

YouTube - Father Chooses Prayer Over Medicine As His Diabetic Daughter Died http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjFv5VrQqT0

[modest]

I was raised to read between the lines.

 

Others are not so lucky. You cannot mitigate the blood shed in the name of your God by claiming your hands are clean. You, at best, exculpate yourself, but by no means can you exculpate the book you worship or the God in it. It’s too late for that. Jephthah's daughter is dead. Reading between the lines doesn’t bring her back. Ignoring the details doesn’t expunge the devil in them.

 

Your religion was built on foundations of blood and violence and its followers are still justified in interpreting it that way. If the only way you can suffer your God is by reading between the lines then you’ve got a rather large problem on your hands... as do we all.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

YouTube - The Chaser's War on Everything: Do you Believe the Bible is True? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95hH1H5qK08

[Southtown]

I'm sorry, but this is false. In addition to other gospels, my most recent video showed how these men directly referenced the stories of David to justify their actions.

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Home Box Office, Inc.." --youtube

I tried to review it, but I was deterred. Can you elaborate? I can recall no reference to David.

Well, that's parsing words a bit too much for my taste. Obviously, the concept being discussed is that the "ideas" and the "teachings" in these books are wicked and destructive, not that the pieces of paper with ink and an binding are somehow animated.

 

You're free to disagree, for sure. However, I think you're grasping at straws with that particular argument.

I disagree because I think individuals should be held responsible for their actions. When people start giving excuses for inexcusable actions, they detract attention from themselves and deflect the blame elsewhere. This is just another way of saying 'I am incapable of making sound decisions' which is another way of saying 'I cannot interpret reality in any respect.'

 

So, you're now suggesting that there is only one correct interpretation of the words in the bible, and this correct interpretation is yours (and yours alone)? Why don't the people in "The Family" have just as much right to interpret the bible in their own way? What makes your interpretation more correct than theirs? Is this not further reason why religion is harmful, because it causes us/them mentalities and is derisive and divisive... even among people of the same faith?

Interpretations become excuses a little too quickly. Look at the bible for what it is, an archaeological artifact. Maybe it's infallible, maybe it's deplorable, maybe it's a multi-faceted, multi-cultural record of ancient history, whether realistic or philosophical. I don't care what people think of it, I will always disapprove of the deplorable actions of individuals regardless of their excuses. I am always willing to discuss scriptures, but statements that usurp such discussions leave me to assume that you're pushing propaganda.

 

I'm just saying... Your argument above does not hold weight unless you can prove that yours is the only correct interpretation. Do that, and I will concede the point. However, if you cannot, then your argument fails. Different people interpret the book differently. If nothing else, this is further evidence of the books wickedness (specifically, the nature of the interpretations being made so frequently)... If the book truly had only one interpretation, many of these problems about which we are posting would disappear immediately.

So you assert that this historical artifact, rather than being an object of intrigue, has to be either benevolent or malignant based on the way that people use it? How about hammers? Or chainsaws?

 

I like how you conveniently left out the next line, which was Sharlet's response to this question. Let me put that out there for our readers:

"It is historically... I mean... It's been around for 70 years. It's the oldest and most influential fundamentalist organization in America. It's historically been mostly Republican... and, uhh... Dixie-crats used to be a strong part of it... Strom Thurman was a big part of it in his day. More recently, though, it is a little bipartisan. In fact, Senator Mark Prior of Arkansas (who was in your movie, Religulous)... When I spoke to him, he explained that "Through the Family, he had learned the meaning of 'bipartisanship.' he said. 'It's that Jesus didn't come to take sides, he came... to take over.' That's bipartisanship... Family style." --Jeff Sharlet

Yeah, I left it out because the question is framed in partisan context, and therefore limited in scope. The answer however from Sharlet expands the frame back to the perpetrators, "The Family."

 

Regardless of all of the above parsing of the interview, your suggestion that I have strawmanned anything is still baseless and off-point, and further, I still see the points being discussed in this video as exactly what I said they were when I presented it in my post above... and I stand by my words. It is additional evidence lending support to the position that religion IS harmful to society.

I have to delay my response until I know exactly which scripture(s) to which you are referring.

 

That's even before we start talking about their points regarding the building of megachurches on military bases and how our soldiers are becoming more like messianic cults than defenders of the United States and our secular democratic republic.

So it can wait then.

 

since the common religion being referred to in this thread appears to be christianity, i have to wonder how this particular passage could be misconscrewed

 

 

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Luke 12;

 

it has become evident ,at least to me, that the Bible does indeed cause separation among people.Certain groups, sects and denominations take this particular passage to the extreme.Clearly the only peace to be seen is amongst those who believe the same and all others who do not, are faced with animosity.There is division amongst people and where there is division there breeds anger and strife.If the only purpose of the Bible, specifically New Testament, as most modern day denominations prefer, was to love your brother, and take care of the widows and the poor, then this religion wouldn't be so terrible. However, with passages such as the one above, religion can be, already has been, and will continue to be, harmful to society on many levels.Those things that were once deemed kind and helpful, have now become forgotten and tossed to the wayside, for a more militant show of aggression towards those who do not believe the same.

The question is which line of division. Would you argue against division between the truth seekers and the fantasy pushers? The interpretation remains elusive, at least to me.

 

The "Nigerian Taliban" is a Nigerian Islamist group with no actual ties to the Taliban in Afghanistan, but a serious anti-science agenda:

 

Sound familiar?

No.

 

In other religion-harmful-to-society news, a Wisconsin father has been convicted of second-degree reckless homicide for denying his 11 year old daughter modern medicine in favor of prayer, which unnecessarily caused her death:

 

Are the individuals responsible, or not? Why or why not?

 

Others are not so lucky. You cannot mitigate the blood shed in the name of your God by claiming your hands are clean. You, at best, exculpate yourself, but by no means can you exculpate the book you worship or the God in it. It’s too late for that. Jephthah's daughter is dead. Reading between the lines doesn’t bring her back. Ignoring the details doesn’t expunge the devil in them.

 

Your religion was built on foundations of blood and violence and its followers are still justified in interpreting it that way. If the only way you can suffer your God is by reading between the lines then you’ve got a rather large problem on your hands... as do we all.

 

~modest

Old Testament times were barbaric. The specific reasons for Old Testament brutality in my mind were three-fold. One, to prevent the dispersion of Isrealites into various surrounding cutures allowing, two, descendants to learn and maintain the way of life that, three, maintained an inexorable allegory that would later be perceived as an unmistakable prophecy of a certain someone.