Shopping & Style1 min ago
Religion, has it been a benefit?
158 Answers
Has religion been an overall to benefit to mankind or would we have been better off without it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Father-Ted. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Naomi, do you distinguish between killings which are simply because of the religion and killings committed by those who are of the same religion but which are motivated by fear of loss of lands, rights or freedom , revenge for previous supposed or real injustices, or to gain control of others' lands, wealth, or people?
Few killings in the world are simply because of a person's religion itself. Catholics in Northern Ireland weren't killing Protestants because the Protestants did not follow the theology behind one branch of the faith.. It wasn't a debate over the status of the Virgin Mary or the Pope made murderous! And the same applies now in the Middle East and has throughout history. The war or killing may be dressed in religion, but the underlying reason for it has nothing to do with simple theology.
Nowadays, the West does not invoke religion. We do not invade countries or have wars excused by it. There is no Armada sent on its way with the Pope's blessing and authority, in the hope of killing a Protestant Queen for her blasphemy; of course, seizing her lands and gaining the control of her country was not behind such an enterprise ! No, we think of other justifications. We do not invade a country because its people are heathens but because its leader might in the future have weapons which he could use, and not, of course, because it is defenceless against our forces , it has lots of oil, and we'd like to have greater influence in the region.
What the holy books of any religion teach, or what its clergy or clerics teach if faithful to them, has really nothing to do with that. Power over others has.
Few killings in the world are simply because of a person's religion itself. Catholics in Northern Ireland weren't killing Protestants because the Protestants did not follow the theology behind one branch of the faith.. It wasn't a debate over the status of the Virgin Mary or the Pope made murderous! And the same applies now in the Middle East and has throughout history. The war or killing may be dressed in religion, but the underlying reason for it has nothing to do with simple theology.
Nowadays, the West does not invoke religion. We do not invade countries or have wars excused by it. There is no Armada sent on its way with the Pope's blessing and authority, in the hope of killing a Protestant Queen for her blasphemy; of course, seizing her lands and gaining the control of her country was not behind such an enterprise ! No, we think of other justifications. We do not invade a country because its people are heathens but because its leader might in the future have weapons which he could use, and not, of course, because it is defenceless against our forces , it has lots of oil, and we'd like to have greater influence in the region.
What the holy books of any religion teach, or what its clergy or clerics teach if faithful to them, has really nothing to do with that. Power over others has.
FredPuli //Nowadays, the West does not invoke religion. We do not invade countries or have wars excused by it.
Don't kid yourself. George W Bush and Tony Blair both publicly claimed to have prayed to God for advice about whether they should invade Iraq because of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia at the time probably did too.
They all saw themselves as backed by God. But God gave them bad advice because there were no WMDs, it totally f@cked Iraq and left religious extremists firmly in power.
It should hardly have come as a surprise that their God said they should go to war. Abraham's monster loves nothing better than wholesale slaughter and the smell of burning flesh.
Don't kid yourself. George W Bush and Tony Blair both publicly claimed to have prayed to God for advice about whether they should invade Iraq because of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia at the time probably did too.
They all saw themselves as backed by God. But God gave them bad advice because there were no WMDs, it totally f@cked Iraq and left religious extremists firmly in power.
It should hardly have come as a surprise that their God said they should go to war. Abraham's monster loves nothing better than wholesale slaughter and the smell of burning flesh.
Yes, beso, but nobody pretends, do they, that the invasion was motivated by a desire to conquer heathens? The prayers, to a deity they happen to believe exists, were just confirming their intent. We might guess that their god was never going to tell them that the whole idea was against his wishes or strike them dead for going against him. Can you imagine the President or Tony Blair saying "Sorry, guys, in spite of our previous arguments and our interpretation of UN Resolutions, we have just been told by the Almighty that the whole thing is off" ?
No they wouldn't back down even though the vast weight of the evidence provided by the official observers and the resolutions of the UN said they should not invade. This advice and evidence was proven to be correct in time.
Instead they went against what everyone told them and decided that they should listen to their imaginary friend.
Science has shown that a believer's perception of their deity's intent closely matches that of their own prejudices.
It is why the faithful should never be trusted to run a nation and why atheists are making so much noise about the problems caused by religion.
Instead they went against what everyone told them and decided that they should listen to their imaginary friend.
Science has shown that a believer's perception of their deity's intent closely matches that of their own prejudices.
It is why the faithful should never be trusted to run a nation and why atheists are making so much noise about the problems caused by religion.
Fred, //Naomi, do you distinguish between killings which are simply because of the religion and killings committed by those who are of the same religion but which are motivated by fear of loss of lands, rights or freedom , revenge for previous supposed or real injustices, or to gain control of others' lands, wealth, or people?//
Reasons aren’t the issue. I was simply pointing out to Sith that Muslims do not ‘always remain peaceful to each other’ as he claims. Far from it.
Reasons aren’t the issue. I was simply pointing out to Sith that Muslims do not ‘always remain peaceful to each other’ as he claims. Far from it.
Dear sith,
Your statement about bad religionsts and bad atheists is a truism with which no sensible person could disagree. Just how does your statement seek to advance the debate. You make one major error of understanding or simple bias with the phrase: "may come as a surprise to you but (there are) bad atheists. Nope, no surprise to an atheist like me! But atheist badness is seldom dressed up in hypocracy or supernatural invention.
Your statement about bad religionsts and bad atheists is a truism with which no sensible person could disagree. Just how does your statement seek to advance the debate. You make one major error of understanding or simple bias with the phrase: "may come as a surprise to you but (there are) bad atheists. Nope, no surprise to an atheist like me! But atheist badness is seldom dressed up in hypocracy or supernatural invention.
but my point is still there. Everyone will commit a bad sin, nobody is perfectly good, are they? correct me if im wrong.
There not all islamic. Of course, people and the media are going to use religious views to back them up when in fact it does not. The minority of muslims that are bad mainly follow this teisted view of "holy war" or "jihad" which is not the correct version. Do you know what "jihad" actually is though?
There are two types of jihad. There are lesser jihad and greater jihad.
Greater Jihad: This is struggling with yourself and this is the main type of jihad. For example if someone has something i want, i have to not be jealous and this is jihad. Basically it is having good intentions and being a good person.
Lesser Jihad: This is what people call "holy war". In fact i and many others would not call it a "Holy war" as the true definition of Greater jihad is defending yourself, your people or your religion if it is under threat and all other reasonable methods have failed. In this war is not number 1. First there is negotiations, talks and maybe an attempt at making peace without violence. If this fails or if you are attacked first than you have a right to fight back with as much power as the enemy gives you. However you are not allowed to harm innocent civilians or women or children. You can not harm any holy place, be that a mosque, church whatever. When the enemy gives up or surrenders all fighting must stop. Any prisoners must be treated with respect.
This is the jihad every muslim should follow. So yes, according to this i am saying those terrorists are wrong as by committing 9/11 they harmed innocent civilians, it was unprovoked and caused unnecessary destruction. The jihad they followed was twisted to fit their own diabolical views.
There not all islamic. Of course, people and the media are going to use religious views to back them up when in fact it does not. The minority of muslims that are bad mainly follow this teisted view of "holy war" or "jihad" which is not the correct version. Do you know what "jihad" actually is though?
There are two types of jihad. There are lesser jihad and greater jihad.
Greater Jihad: This is struggling with yourself and this is the main type of jihad. For example if someone has something i want, i have to not be jealous and this is jihad. Basically it is having good intentions and being a good person.
Lesser Jihad: This is what people call "holy war". In fact i and many others would not call it a "Holy war" as the true definition of Greater jihad is defending yourself, your people or your religion if it is under threat and all other reasonable methods have failed. In this war is not number 1. First there is negotiations, talks and maybe an attempt at making peace without violence. If this fails or if you are attacked first than you have a right to fight back with as much power as the enemy gives you. However you are not allowed to harm innocent civilians or women or children. You can not harm any holy place, be that a mosque, church whatever. When the enemy gives up or surrenders all fighting must stop. Any prisoners must be treated with respect.
This is the jihad every muslim should follow. So yes, according to this i am saying those terrorists are wrong as by committing 9/11 they harmed innocent civilians, it was unprovoked and caused unnecessary destruction. The jihad they followed was twisted to fit their own diabolical views.
beso, no it does not. You could ask the police or the government for help. If you look at the concept of jihad there are so many other options that war is unlikely, however some people bend it to fit their views.
Naomi, i know some muslims are killing each other. But there are also many other people who kill each other who are of the same religion. You cannot just blame it all down on religion.
Naomi, i know some muslims are killing each other. But there are also many other people who kill each other who are of the same religion. You cannot just blame it all down on religion.
