How harmful is religion?

This is his living flesh and blood. It does not kill Jesus, therefore it's not cannibalism. The sacrament of the Eucharist goes way back before the council of Trent. The Eucharist is the main reason why I go to church

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

"And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. "

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No the main point I'm making is that the muslims attacked first. There was reasons beyond religious ones to crusade. You also have a narrow view. Suppose that Martin Luther was burnt alive. Well that's horrible but then the 100 year war may have never happened. The crusaders did exactly what the muslims did when they invaded constantinople.

You do not have evidence of this. Even if it were true it does not make it right. People have predispositions to violence, to adultry, drunkness, and to steal.

I think some, very few, are born that way. Sexual tendancy may be a trait ingrained in someone when they are really young. As for yet there is no suitable genetic evidence to make the claim either way.

This is what the Church teaches concerning homosexuality. Having homosexual tendancies is not a sin but may may lead to sin.

I'm being careful not to condemn someone. I'm specifically talking about the homosexual act not the person commiting it.
You are asuming that I meant everyone who commits the homosexual act is guilty of a mortal sin. Perhaps some are not guilty. Not everyone who steals is guilty of stealing due some possible disorders. However we must put Christ before everything else including sex.

Christ did. The old testament clearly shows the Holy Spirit, the ark of the convenant, killing the enemies of Israel. However from the beginning it was God's intent to make all of mankind serve Him. It was told to Abraham that all nations would find blessing in him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No kidding JDawg. These religious people freak me out sometimes. I can't tell if it's their wiring or upbringing, but it's just so bizarre! I mean, they look just like humans, talk just like humans, but WTF? I don't mean to dehumanize anybody, but check this out:

Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Is that what drives all religions? This is actually a direct reply to my rejection of an afterlife in an earlier post. The fact that this guy can assemble an arguement that a willful rejection of the afterlife will cause fear!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

It really freaks me out. It's like having a monkey read me King Lear! It's a bad acid trip! THIS CANNOT BE HAPPENING.....oh, but it is. Every Sunday they wind him up and dance around wearing only immortality. "I need some god, Mildred,.....let's go watch a state of the union address!"

I really wish I could make just one devout person understand (grok) that I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO DEATH! I'm not suicidal, but I'm also not delusional or stupid. What point in denying death? You might as well be afraid of your feet! Quick! Run away from them!

I'll tell you all one thing, if I'm wrong, and there is an afterlife, it's going to be hilarious! Because whoever comes to get my soul and direct it around is going to get the shit beaten out of them! If I can end my mortal life, then it stands to reason that I'll be able to end my afterlife, and I'll be one seriously suicidal maniac in the afterworld!

It's like coming home after a hard day's work only to realize that you've still got hours of work that you forgot you still need to do. Damn!

What do you mean, I'm not allowed to die? Bullshit. I'm in love with mortality. I accept my life AND my death. Fuck off, God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fear of God means to be meak and humble. God is love.

Well if you want to spend eternity without God that is your choice. God is loving and will do what you ask of him. Still I find nonexistance worse than being in hell.

 

Fear of nothing?????LOL! The whole point of hell is lost on you. It takes all kinds......

 

Can you imagine nonexistance? Would you still would exist in the past? Maybe, but is that really you or is that just someone making choices you've already made before? Ok what's your point of hell?

 

It seems to me that you are the one who is incapable of imagining nonexistence, since you think it would be worse than hell. What a paradox you are. You invoke the word "humility", yet your greatest fear is nothingness.

The point of hell is fear, so for you, it would seem that death is "hell". No wonder you subscribe to religion. Set and match.

 

Let's talk about this, Okinrus. Your point here is that Christians only retaliated, right? And, in the case where you were the aggressor (Crusades) you claim the church was just doing what the muslims had done beforehand. Finally, you say that the burning at the stake of Martin Luther was bad, but without it, the 100 years way would never had happened, which was good.

Well, Okinrus, doing what the muslims had done doesn't make it right. It makes you just as bad. And even if there were reasons beyond religion for the crusades, it was religion that was tool used to muster the support for the cause. Without religion, no way would those disgusting crimes against humanity have happened. And in the case of Martin Luther and the 100 years war, the ends do not justify the means. If the US were to drop a nuke on Iraq right now, and kill a million civilians along with Saddam, the fact that Saddam was killed does not make what was done right.

Ok, first of all, you have no evidence of god, but does that stop you from believing? Anyway, the difference between homosexual tendancies and the tendencies to steal, drink, adulterize and commit violent acts, is that homosexual acts don't hurt anyone. The family of a homosexual may be depressed for a time, but no lasting scars are left on a group or family. It is victimless, and therefore, completely different than the tendancies you listed above.

Ohhh, so now the sinner isn't really a sinner? The sin just ups and jumps into a host and commits itself? Hmm, that's a new one.

Yeah, you're right. Silly me, why in the world would I assume that?

Ohhhh, that's why. Becuase you said so! Look, buddy, get your shit together before you come up and bring an argument to me, OK? I'm not stupid, and I know what I'm talking about. I won't let you accuse me of something when you yourself made the comment. The fact is, you said the act of homosexuality is a mortal sin. Those are your words. Now, just out of convience, you backtrack, and come up with this complete nonsense about how the person committing the sin isn't bad; the sin is, and I'm not having it. Come correct with me, buddy.

But that wasn't my question. My question was "Who made the distinction between the wars being literal or figurative?" That comment does NOT answer my question. And just for your info, Christ wasn't around in the OT, moron.

And let's take that a step further: Earlier, you said that the wars were to teach man how to fight the forces of satan, yet, in this example, the holy spirit is killing the "Enemies of Israel." Excuse me, but since when does being an enemy of Israel make you a satanic force? I mean, Iraq was an enemy of Israel, but should we make the leap to calling them a force of satan? To me, it sounds like they attacked people who didn't believe in thier god, not satan's army.

JD

 

Fear of God is self-destructive. Fear of God is omni-destructive. To fear God is to fear yourself, your own survival in this world, and your entire understanding of your purpose in life. Why would your Creator want you to fear him? (Oh, because your God is a male God?). Creation is a positive force (otherwise we wouldn't be here). From the dawn of time we humans have feared predator animals, marauding barbarians, famines, inquisitions, diseases, various and sundry technologies that eliminated wo/man's livelihoods, wars of all kinds, religious zealots, and now nukes. Fearing God has nothing to do with it. Maybe for these reasons religions were created by man so he/we could garner help from a higher power than ourselves. But this defeats the purpose. To fear God is to fear ourselves which puts us in the weaker position. Love yourself and fear no one!

 

I agree that fear is bad, but I think that when the Bible says fear it means respect. Fearing God is not the same as fear of heights or scorpions. Then again, both kinds of fear are equally good at screwing up a lot of fun things.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, it's another one of those "mistranslations" (i.e. distortions of the truth)! In any event, to respect God is also to respect oneself and one's fellow human being. Just think, if we all did that, there would be no need for religions--we'd love one another as we love ourselves!

 

Medicine Woman

In any event, to respect God is also to respect oneself and one's fellow human being. Just think, if we all did that, there would be no need for religions--we'd love one another as we love ourselves!

Or, we could forget about gods and religion altogether and love one another. In that way, we could serve ourselves and our fellow man rather then serving gods.

 

God and fellow man

That, my friend, is the whole point of our existence!

 

Is it bad that I don't love another human automatically? In fact I kind of loathe most of the people I meet at first. I do love humanity as a whole though and I would do anything to preserve it.

 

Love one another

No, it isn't bad that you you don't love another human being automatically. Your desire to preserve humanity is our human nature and our bioevolutionary quest for survival of the fittest--our most basic human instinct. You do love humanity as a whole as I believe most humans do to some extent, because we were created for the good of all living. There are some people, however, who have a basic hatred for other creations: humans, animals, plants, etc. Fortunately, we have discovered some really good medication for these people.

 

Amma liking this Medecinewoman ...Alot.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Medicine woman

That, my friend, is the whole point of our existence!

Really? Then why do religious wars exist?

There are some people, however, who have a basic hatred for other creations: humans, animals, plants, etc. Fortunately, we have discovered some really good medication for these people.

That makes no sense. First you say it is the whole point of our existence and then you say some people require medication. You’ve just contradicted yourself.

 

Some people require medication.

No, this was not a contradiction. I was trying to be humorous. Being one with the human race and nature is what I call God. There are people out there who are filled with hatred even though they, too, are the creation of God. They don't see that, though. Free will does get in the way of one's relationship with oneself and one's God just as religion gets in the way. Fortunately, for some people who are so negative and hateful or spiritually lost, wonderful medications have been discovered by the intelligence given to the human race. I didn't mean using medication as some sort of 'control.' I meant it in a purely medical sense. There are a lot of 'unhappy' human beings out there who are searching for the meaning of their existence. Sometimes they have a medical condition that changes their outlook to a more positive one--then, and only then, can their minds be free from stress and worry perpetuating negativity that will eventually devour one's soul. Sometimes people look at the wrong thing to make themselves 'happy'--drugs, alcohol, sex, murder, perversion, etc. They are hopeless because their despair rules them. That's all I'm saying.

 

Medicine Woman

Being one with the human race and nature is what I call God

I agree – we are a product of nature, and not some supernatural omnipotent being. But rather then calling nature a god, why not just call it "nature?"

Fortunately, for some people who are so negative and hateful or spiritually lost, wonderful medications have been discovered by the intelligence given to the human race.

With this I somewhat don’t agree. There is no need for spirituality and there is certainly no link to negativity and hatefulness. One can very easily lead a happy and fulfilling life without spirituality.

There are a lot of 'unhappy' human beings out there who are searching for the meaning of their existence.

And there are a lot of happy people out there who do not dwell on the meaning of the their existence because they know their time here on Earth is short. I think that searching for a meaning to existence would make one unhappy.

 

There were more secular reasons for the crusades than the war Bush just fought. If the crusades were really a religious war than the participants would have spent more time trying to convert than looting the cities. Also not all crusades were bad. I'm sure you agree with the crusades against the albigensians. Perhaps Clover united Europe allowing economic and social improvement. But you are only looking at the negative, a few people being killed.

You are unwilling to look at the larger implications on its affects on society. Using your logic nither does premarital sex.

I'm trying to be clear that even in simple cases it may be difficult to know if that person commits a mortal sin, veniel sin, or just cannot be held responsible. Your probably not aware that to be a mortal sin some prerequisites must be met.

No the wars are literal and did happen. However the meaning is that God destroys evil. There's no general commandment that says "Be violent and start lots of wars."
Isaiah 9:5 "For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-forever, Prince of Peace."