I'm still mourning the loss of the thread "Dangerous Religion". Now I'm starting this one in the hope that people discuss these matters without the need to harass anybody. Ideas may be dissected and discussed, also in a respectful way.

The original thread started about Islam. Unfortunately, Ahmed couldn't catch up with it. I invite anyone to clearly state what do they think about (science and) religion. How do they fill that space of their psyche that so many fill with religion. How is it possible the perception (or illusion) of such a state.

Now I will start this one with further dissection (read: necrology) of religion and particularly Christianity, as it has been the religion that was dictated to me as a child. In matters of faith, when they are recipes to save your soul, there can't be contradictions... They have been useful to me to get rid of it in first place. It appears that skepticism means health of the mind more than faith.

I found these verses in Genesis to contradict Revelations. People think about these prophets as having scruple to not to contradict past scriptures:
There are many things in Genesis meant to justify the reign of men another over living beings and even certain types of men over another and men over women. Presenting it as the view of "God" wasn't hard then, as we know it was the case with many other cultures (e.g, hinduism). Some people approach these holy books to find wisdom, but they aren't all perfect and, even if they were dictated by higher beings, can't there be faults in the men that received them ? Some people (like me) believe that these books are also good to better understand man. Some people can't imagine they can be good. Are they in any way different from those that dismiss other religions' as not being true ? Why don't study them all and regard them as having the same presumptions ? Maybe faith is such an investment of psychic energy that prevents us from even considering that we may be wrong because we'd like to think we are right with that choice!

What would happen when they check these holy books for themselves to find the same conclusions ? When some of these religions reach the same conclusions, did they come from the same source ? Huh ? Do religious people care at all to read their own books ? What if they find contradictions ? It's clear to me that there's people willing to sacrifice (subdue) their wills to something and care no more...

I use Linux ;-)

I'm gonna jump in and say a) restarting a closed thread might piss the mods off just a little but b) I think those who kept the first one going so long on such a touchy topic deserve a medal or something! That was impressive stuff.

Primo. As much as I like religion and science
I really really really wouldn't like to see another
post like this. I read the other "dangerous religion"
thread and I saw a lot of constructive post but I
also read a lot of antagonizing post, some of them
in wich you were involved. Constructive post are
good, thanks for them. But the antagonizing ones
could be ofensive. The mods here were very tolerant
towards that thread and you just opened the road
again. Again, I don't have anything against religion
and science dissection. But this threads tends to
get too long and distractive, and there is people
asking questions with "0" replys waiting for you to
answer them.

Now I take it by you nick and your location that you
speak spanish. If so, you can go hereThere you'll find
a lot of articles you can dissect on. Like "Descendants
of Eve" and a lot more. There are christians, chatolics,
buddist and every religion you can imagine, including
scientific explorers and a lot more. This forum is very
similar to LQ so you'll feel comfortable.

I'm sorry If I was rude, but another dangerous religion???

-W

I agree with you primo. I too mourn the loss, and the attempt to resurrect something similar is indeed valiant. I fear we will just be a shadow of that former glory. However, in the hopes of assisting your OP let me make some comments about your second post.

1. You haven't clearly spelt out what the contradiction between Genesis and Revelation is. I can pretty well guess where you a going with that reference but don't want to jump to conclusions.

2. I don't think the early Genesis text sets out a pattern of 'reign over' other people. It does in terms of animals and plants, and we really have done that for better or worse for several millenia. The main method of doing so is our superior tool using abilities coupled with higher mental faculties.

However people over people is I feel a distortion of the text, and it has been twisted to justify that by many rulers and peoples. Jesus however said it better than anyone; Serving is the way to greatness, not dominant power-wielding.

The poster about 0 reply posts, is partly right. Serving these people with issues, puts our principles into action.

3. Do the commonalities in Holy Books point to common source? I think there are several options here;
a) Yes there is a common source, found in fertile crescent area of Palestine and Babylon.
b) Some of the later works are replicas trying to achieve similar glory to the original. (eg. like this thread)
c) They are deliberate attempts to twist and corrupt the original with a man-made alternative.
d) They reflect the small portion of truth retained by groups separated at the Tower of Babel.

I have found contradictions are not contradictions at all, but actually statements in perfect harmony, once a better understanding of context, culture, audience and purpose are applied. The discovery of these verses actually leads one to further study, and the application of much thought and not the abdication of reasoned thought as you suggest. It is actually the simple labeling of thought provoking verses as contradictions that is "care no more".

I seriously hope this gets locked.
If this thread couldn't get anywhere in more than 45 pages before then I highly doubt it will get anywhere now.

I think you're in severe danger of getting steam rollered by one of Xaviers corking one-liners and I plan to be around here when it happens!

Not true. These verses aren't ambiguous on that:
Some of you must know that the so called descendants of Ham are the black peoples.

On man and woman:
Not true. The Vedas are thousands of years older. What about the mayas, aztecs, incas and other american cultures ?
This certainly happens with all modern sects. I'm talking about these older cultures. I think the common source is man.

We will disagree on this one as long as it isn't true to me and it appears obvious to you.

There are many verses in Genesis that say that the Earth will never be destroyed. This is different from the "New Earth" perspective on Revelations and the tales of destruction.

If this thread is to continue, which by now I really don't think is such a good idea, then it has to cover some new ground. Entertain some new points of view, or at least be willing to acknowledge that other points of view exist...

If you want to pore through books, you will find inconsistencies. That's no surprise. If you've been taught that any holy-book is "word for word the infallable blah-blah," then I'm afraid you have a lot to discover about scholarship.

If you've got a chip on your shoulder about women, or people with dark skin, and you're looking to holy books to "put God on your side," then you certainly won't be the first one to try to do that .. but do the rest of us really need to read it?

If the thread is simply going to consist of people quoting their scriptures at each other for another forty-odd pages, then maybe the topic has run itself out already.

In the early days of the original thread, the question "what makes religion dangerous?" was discussed at length, and I think that we found it . . . intolerance. That and the prideful notion that "I am right, and you are Wrong, and nothing you can say will convince me."

We just don't need another forty pages of the same old same old...

Well, everyone is free to add their points of view, whether they are perceived as "new" by some, or not. But I don't see the need to put some polite words to bring a discussion down. You have the right to remain silent too. I guess we're free to discuss any of these issues and yes, you're free to state that we shouldn't. That's nothing new...

For example, the original thread started highlighting the dangers of a particular religion what we in the West perceive as a threat to our standards. Does this danger come from a particular religion ? No. All religions think their ways are sacrosanct. This is why there's the need for a strict separation of church and state. Does insulting a religion brings some change? No... It only brings the same response. This is why I think that the best way is to expose that they all lie. Do they have the right to lie ? Yes. Do believers have the right to believe them ? Yes. Do they have the right to declare war on another religion, to judge infidels or to introduce doubt and fear on non-believers ? No, because religion is not a necessary lie anymore.

I watch the Sci-Fi channel, eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and drink a glass of milk, Got GOD?

Why keep flogging a dead horse (and reviving a dead subject). This is so..o..o.. predictable. I can point you to some religious forums if you want serious religion discussions.

This is what I fail to understand. The mods close most of the religious/political threads these days, so I don't see why an exception should be made for this one. I normally don't post in these threads just to criticize the subject, but I felt that once that topic was closed, it was closed for a reason and not so that another thread with the same subject can be created.

That thread was closed. Reasons: created originally to discuss Islam then "some atheists came in". Given that wanderings are inevitable, I wouldn't care to discuss even Scientology on this one. Let me tell you that I thought about another title for this thread, but it wouldn't be honest.

Why not ? Is religion dead anyway ? I'm not against spirituality though. I'm against brain-washing. Simply, there are no good reasons to die for a belief, nor to kill others.

The reason I like discussing it in LQ is that we use Linux too, so there's some sort of scientific background. Luckily, we discuss it too.