What is the worst religion?

[Akron]

This question is as stupid as asking which is the best ethnicity. Every religion has a many sects within it, and there are many philosophies that are parellel among all the major religions. There are many ways to follow each religion, so you can't generalize here.

Also, all religions are corrupted. It's just what happens when a philosophy with such power is controlled by people. People take advantage of religions to achive whatever goal they have. Personally, I believe that spirituality should be a solely individual pursuit.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Caligastia

Mohammed was not a revelation of God to man,

But Jesus was ?

As long as this type of arrogance exists, there will be wars.

[atawa]

IMHO the question here should be witch religious institution do you think is worst, while judeism, islam and christianity in their origin are much the same and share most morals and beliefs (most parts of the koran and old testament are copied from the talmoud) Its the institutionalisation that makes them so different.

When asked that question I'd say hinduism and islam becouse they put large segments of the population down as second class by birth.

just my 2 bits

[MrFun]

I think you misunderstood me, Sikander. I believe that these different religions are equal, with both positive as well as negative aspects. You only seem to focus on the negative and ignore the positive aspects of the religions.

Originally posted by loinburger


Sorry, had to finish my program up.

I just fail to see how all religions can incorporate equal affirmations of humanity and respect for humanity when nearly every single religion also incorporates indoctrinated hate (or at the very least "dislike" or "pity") of one or more groups of people.

Loinburger, the more extreme fundamentalists of any religion will likely interpret their holy scriptures and tomes in a more literal sense. These are the people who are likely to twist their religion around to serve their hateful motivations towards a certain group of people.

I think that the mainstream followers who are not extremists, are not likely to interpret everything in their holy scriptures literally. Thus, they are more likely to pratice their religion for what it was truly meant to be --- a positive affirmation of humanity.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
I think that the mainstream followers who are not extremists, are not likely to interpret everything in their holy scriptures literally. Thus, they are more likely to pratice their religion for what it was truly meant to be --- a positive affirmation of humanity.

Or rather, they are more likely to practice their religion for what they want it to be -- a positive affirmation of humanity. Thus all religions are the same in your eyes because you make all religions the same. If two religions disagree on a major point of doctrine ("We say that you should hate the Jews!" "Yes, but we say that you should hate the Hindus even more than you hate the Jews!"), then you simply resolve the conflict by dismissing it ("Oh c'mon, I know that both of your holy books say that you're supposed to hate the Jews and Hindus, but the authors didn't really mean to be taken literally"). Yes, if take any religion, interpret away the beliefs that you don't like, and substitute in beliefs that you do like, then every religion becomes functionally equivalent.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Richelieu
As long as this type of arrogance exists, there will be wars.

As long as people believe that metaphysical nonsense is a valid reason to start a war, there will be wars.

[Az]

how can one be a revelation of god to man , if god , well, isn't around quite often?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger


Or rather, they are more likely to practice their religion for what they want it to be -- a positive affirmation of humanity. Thus all religions are the same in your eyes because you make all religions the same. If two religions disagree on a major point of doctrine ("We say that you should hate the Jews!" "Yes, but we say that you should hate the Hindus even more than you hate the Jews!"), then you simply resolve the conflict by dismissing it ("Oh c'mon, I know that both of your holy books say that you're supposed to hate the Jews and Hindus, but the authors didn't really mean to be taken literally"). Yes, if take any religion, interpret away the beliefs that you don't like, and substitute in beliefs that you do like, then every religion becomes functionally equivalent.

You cannot just reinterpret parts of holy scripture nilly-willy, or out of whim.

Only after serious spiritual reflection, theological reading and discussion, and so forth, can you then reconsider what some of the parts of holy scriptures really mean. Sometimes, we find that some parts are not meant to apply to our contemporary society anymore --- supporting slavery, for instance.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by loinburger


As long as people believe that metaphysical nonsense is a valid reason to start a war, there will be wars.

Yup. You did me one better there.

[Richelieu]

edit DP.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
You cannot just reinterpret parts of holy scripture nilly-willy, or out of whim.

I didn't say that's what you were doing. I meant that you strongly feel that beliefs which fails to affirm humanity or respect for humanity are inferior (note that I am not challenging this), and so you interpret out the parts of religion that you justifiably disagree with. However, once you've interpreted out the beliefs that you justifiably disagree with, then all religions become functionally equivalent.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger


I didn't say that's what you were doing. I meant that you strongly feel that beliefs which fails to affirm humanity or respect for humanity are inferior (note that I am not challenging this), and so you interpret out the parts of religion that you justifiably disagree with. However, once you've interpreted out the beliefs that you justifiably disagree with, then all religions become functionally equivalent.

Oh, ok then.

[Faeelin]

Hinduism.

there's an old quote from a British officer in India. A group of Hindu clerics went to protest the fact that England had banned the traditional, religious, etc. past time of suttee.

Suttee is burning widows alive.

The British officer said, "You have a national custom of Suttee. We British also have a national custom. When men take a women and burn her alive, we hang those men. You may follow your national custom; we shall follow ours."



The entire religion was designed when India was conquered by the Aryans, who placed themselves as katryshas as the highest class. The locals became the lower castes, whiel supplicants to the invaders became, over time, brahmin, or priests. Thus, keeping the low low and the high high became a traditional part of India. Untouchables are a great example. If they tried to get a job besides begging, they were killed, beaten, etc.

This is in the 1950's.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by loinburger


As long as people believe that metaphysical nonsense is a valid reason to start a war, there will be wars.

Plato said something like "Only the dead will know times of no war".
It was quoted in BLACKHAWK DOWN.


Other good quotes from Plato:

"You are so young, my son, and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as judge of the highest matters."


"Nothing can be more absurd than the practice that prevails in our country of men and women not following the same pursuits with all their strengths and with one mind, for thus, the state instead of being whole is reduced to half."

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Nothing can be more absurd than the practice that prevails in our country of men and women not following the same pursuits with all their strengths and with one mind, for thus, the state instead of being whole is reduced to half."

Translated from Greek to American : That's right. Just support us. All of you. No matter what we do. Baaaaa.

Is this Bush or Rumsfeld speaking here?