31 replies to this topic

[Peeves]

Some are far better than others in intent practice and deed.

Lets look at Christianity as the one most in the West are familiar with.

I'll start on the premise that IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS with all it's warts, it is still doing more good than bad and overall it's virtues outnumber its faults.

There are of course Christianities critics and detractors. Often with good reason.

Priest abusers and cover ups.
The likes of Westboro Baptist Church, the Phelps.
But they certainly don't represent Christian tenets or values.
Christianity does much good.
Charitable works and Good Deeds. Guidance and support groups. Youth programs and hospices, foreign country work with aids, leprosy and with disasters.

Whether completely altruistic or not, billions flow from Christian coffers to the indigent, sick or
those other sufferers from disaster.

I suggest that Christianity is therefore more a plus than a minus, and, is superior in practice and sincerity of charitable works and deeds than other religions.

[stopstaaron]

All religions are evil and prey on the weak

I could go on and on about how bad Christianity and Islam are (those two being the worse)

[Derek L]

Some are far better than others in intent practice and deed.

Lets look at Christianity as the one most in the West are familiar with.

I'll start on the premise that IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS with all it's warts, it is still doing more good than bad and overall it's virtues outnumber its faults.

There are of course Christianities critics and detractors. Often with good reason.

Priest abusers and cover ups.
The likes of Westboro Baptist Church, the Phelps.
But they certainly don't represent Christian tenets or values.
Christianity does much good.
Charitable works and Good Deeds. Guidance and support groups. Youth programs and hospices, foreign country work with aids, leprosy and with disasters.

Whether completely altruistic or not, billions flow from Christian coffers to the indigent, sick or
those other sufferers from disaster.

I suggest that Christianity is therefore more a plus than a minus, and, is superior in practice and sincerity of charitable works and deeds than other religions.

I wouldn’t necessarily list Christianity solely as being the “superior” religion or that it has more “pluses than minuses”……Being a Catholic or Presbyterian might have it’s inherent advantages, but can’t the same be said for Islam or Judaism (or other religions) and the “beauty” is deemed by the eye of the beholder?

[Michael Hardner]

I'll start on the premise that IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS with all it's warts, it is still doing more good than bad and overall it's virtues outnumber its faults.

Unprovable for a few reasons - inability to objectively measure any of the factors described being the first one that comes to mind.

Why even try ?

[bleeding heart]

On the one hand, part of me (reluctantly! ) agrees with the late Christopher Hitchens, that the whole "perversion of religion" which people cite as explanations is not quite accurate: religion IS what it DOES, and the majority of horrific religious crimes are based on (often technically legitimate) readings and interpretations of the Holy Books themselves.

For example, the Qu'ran really does implore its followers to do some horrible things.

And then, yes, it contradicts the horrors with compassionate wisdom.

Similarly, my King James Bible informs me that any Christian who wanted to beat his wife...or even commit genocide--could point with perfect clarity and accuracy to the book as justification.

And then, yes, it offers beauty and love and compassion elsewhere...also as actual demands from God Himself.

On the other hand, Peeves' points aren't without merit; take, for example, the Good Reverend Phelps, whom he summons:

Sure, in a way, Phelps has a point, given a literal interpretation of the Bible. (In other words, he has a point within a lunatic framework, lest anyone misread my remark.)

On the other hand, virtually all Christians, including the reactionaries and homophobes, have denounced him. He's not an accurate symbol of Christianity at all.

Edited by bleeding heart, 02 April 2012 - 11:24 AM.

[The_Squid]

Well if we are comparing religions based on their inherent evils, then Buddhism kicks their asses. Taoism too.

[Michael Hardner]

Well if we are comparing religions based on their inherent evils, then Buddhism kicks their asses. Taoism too.

Wait ? Buddhism "kicks their asses" based on its inherent evil ? What ?

[Peeves]

Well if we are comparing religions based on their inherent evils, then Buddhism kicks their asses. Taoism too.

Evils? hows about charity?

They give billions in aid and dedicated adherents to aids, African relief, floods and other disasters etc. ? I did not know that.


Buddhism has it's violent history,after all they too are human,,,

You have monks taking up arms and marching in the Russo-Japanese War, or earlier messianic battles in China when they thought killing people would bring them closer to enlightenment (a Ten Stage Process). Buddhists have fought against non-Buddhists, or other Buddhists. Japanese Buddhists fought to cleanse the impure Buddhist lands in China and Korea. Thai and Burmese fought for centuries against each other, each claiming religious authority as Cakravartins. This is what the book covers.

via Monks With Guns: Discovering Buddhist Violence | RDBook | ReligionDispatches.

The recent bloody violence in Sri Lanka and Thailand are but examples of this. Yes, Sri Lanka’s violence has traditionally recognized political and cultural components to it, but the Janata Vimukti Peramuna had very clear religious motivations voiced during their assassinations and calls to exterminate the LTTE.

http://tkcollier.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/history-of-buddhist-violence/



Personally as an all around ideal religion in contemporary societies, I'll take Judaism and Christianity and Baha'i faiths as the most sincere and charitable and non violent.

[The_Squid]

For example, Bible is a God gifted Book but it is now written by man. As a result, God have to sent another prophet with another book and another religion, Islam.

Both are written by men. And often translated by other men who want the good book to emphasize something that benefits them.

God didn't create man.... man created God. Actually, man created gods.... A whole lot of gods!! And all sorts of myths to go along with them. Your gods and prophets are no more real than those of the First Nations, the ancient Romans, the ancient Egyptians or the Norse vikings.

[bush_cheney2004]

....God didn't create man.... man created God. Actually, man created gods.... A whole lot of gods!! And all sorts of myths to go along with them. Your gods and prophets are no more real than those of the First Nations, the ancient Romans, the ancient Egyptians or the Norse vikings.

Not my 'god' bro...it is very real and key to man's "creation". It rises in the east and sets in the west....every day. This is not a myth.

[kimmy]

Not my 'god' bro...it is very real and key to man's "creation". It rises in the east and sets in the west....every day. This is not a myth.

Ra!

-k

[jbg]

I wouldn’t necessarily list Christianity solely as being the “superior” religion or that it has more “pluses than minuses”……Being a Catholic or Presbyterian might have it’s inherent advantages, but can’t the same be said for Islam or Judaism (or other religions) and the “beauty” is deemed by the eye of the beholder?

I think it's more the way the religion and the respective holy books are interpreted that's crucial. The Bible and the Koran both have their moments, both almost perfect, and despicably bloody. The problem is that the Koran is not safely subject to modern, moderating interpretation. The Old and New Testament are.

[Michael Hardner]

I think it's more the way the religion and the respective holy books are interpreted that's crucial. The Bible and the Koran both have their moments, both almost perfect, and despicably bloody. The problem is that the Koran is not safely subject to modern, moderating interpretation. The Old and New Testament are.

But why is that ? There are arguments made here that adherents of Islam are different, implying that it's the religion itself that makes them so. If the holy books have the same problems, but they are interpreted differently then what is the reason ?

I ask because the holy books themselves are sometimes given as the reason, and other times not. In the end, I'm left to ask why we're looking at religion in the first place, when the underlying reason seems to shift from the holy books then back to the culture.

[jbg]

But why is that ? There are arguments made here that adherents of Islam are different, implying that it's the religion itself that makes them so. If the holy books have the same problems, but they are interpreted differently then what is the reason ?

My own view is that Islam has en-grafted the desert warrior culture from which it sprang, and who were subsumed in much of the initial conquests by Muslim fighters. Until Islam reached its outer geographical reaches of Spain (since reversed), Turkey and Indonesia most areas and tribes within the Ummah were warlike. Even Turkey under the Ottomans had a rather bloody history.

I ask because the holy books themselves are sometimes given as the reason, and other times not. In the end, I'm left to ask why we're looking at religion in the first place, when the underlying reason seems to shift from the holy books then back to the culture.

To some extent the two feed each other. In the West, where the Judeo-Christian views predominate, most if not all the underlying cultures have become more peaceful over time. This has influenced the interpretation of the Bible, i.e. to ignore or distinguish the bloodier passages and emphasizing "peace on earth, goodwill to man". The more outwardly warlike desert areas picked up the bloodier parts of the Koran, de-emphasizing the mellower passages. Think, in the U.S. and Canada, the difference between the Sioux on one hand and the Tlingit and Haida on the other.

[Michael Hardner]

My own view is that Islam has en-grafted the desert warrior culture from which it sprang, and who were subsumed in much of the initial conquests by Muslim fighters. Until Islam reached its outer geographical reaches of Spain (since reversed), Turkey and Indonesia most areas and tribes within the Ummah were warlike. Even Turkey under the Ottomans had a rather bloody history.

So you blame the underlying culture...

To some extent the two feed each other. In the West, where the Judeo-Christian views predominate, most if not all the underlying cultures have become more peaceful over time. This has influenced the interpretation of the Bible, i.e. to ignore or distinguish the bloodier passages and emphasizing "peace on earth, goodwill to man". The more outwardly warlike desert areas picked up the bloodier parts of the Koran, de-emphasizing the mellower passages. Think, in the U.S. and Canada, the difference between the Sioux on one hand and the Tlingit and Haida on the other.

It sounds like it has nothing to do with the books, really. That cultures look to books to validate their world view.

In other words, there's no poison there. Canadian culture is a salve...