What if the World never had Religion ?

Originally posted by Columbus
Yes, what would the world be like if Hitler never existed? Religion is an energy sapping mind controlling force.

Hitler would have never done what he did if the dragon wasn't in power. The beast of the see gave him his power.

Originally posted by Columbus
The Middle East would be peaceful.

As long as satan is running around trying to counterfeit GOD, that wont happen.

Originally posted by Columbus
The Vatican would not have accumulated enormous wealth and power and pitted the nations of Europe against each other time and time again.

The dragon gives it, it's power.

Originally posted by Columbus
Rome would not have collapsed and the Dark Ages would have been avoided.

The people of the prince that shall come, are going strong.

What if the World never had Religion ?

There would still be wars, any difference between people can be sufficient.

Nice what if

No idea what would happen.
You'd think we would have had even more killing, war etc..
But then again.. How many people died just in the name of the holy church alone, torture, execution, war, forceful conversion.. the church had a hand in every single one of those examples at one time or another. Now add all the other religions..

I don't know why but I feel strongly about making this point for some reason. It's reality it should be concidered (because it's all too often not talked about, or neglected to mention)

Here goes. A short list, just to name a few cases of religious murder and war.

• Before Pius V became pope, he was grand inquisitor and amongst other things sent Catholic troops to kill 2000 Waldensian Protestants in southern Italy. After becoming pope he sent troops to kill Huguenot Protestants in France. He also launched the last crusade against the muslims, sending an armada that slaughtered thousands in 1571. He intensified the inquisition, torturing and burning catholics who's beliefs varied from official dogma. The penalty he got for all this killing? He was sainted in 1712.
  
• Saint Dominic, who's priests were the judged in the inquisition. presiding over screaming victims who got twisted and ripped on pain machines until they confessed to onorthodox thoughts. After which they were lead to the stakes to burn.
  
• Saint Cyril, whose monks and followers beat to death the great woman scientist, Hypatia, director of the Alexandria Library, for her scientific approach to nature.
  
• Saint Pedro Arbries, a Spanish inquisitor who tortured and burned former Jews for harboring their old beliefs.
  
• Christians killed 3 million Jews during Europe's centuries of religious persecution
  
• the Third World today still sufferes bloodbaths caused by religious tribalism
  
• I'll stop here, this list is endless, and I've barely touched religions other then christianity.

Or just read the newspapers:

• "Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs massacre each other in India"
  
• "Protestant gunmen kill Catholics in Belfast, and vice versa"
  
• "Shi'ites in Iran hang Baha'i teens who won't convert"
  
• "Christian snipers pin down Muslim machine-gunners in Beirut"
  
• "Hands and feet chopped off under Islamic law in Sudan"

I'd just like to state these are simply facts, this is not my personal opinion.
I just feel the dark side of religion is often neglected unless it's convenient for some reason (like propaganda vs muslims, but keeping silent about how many of them we killed in past history).
So basicly it boils down to I posted this for fairness sake.

Originally posted by David2012
How many people died just in the name of the holy church alone, torture, execution, war, forceful conversion.. the church had a hand in every single one of those examples at one time or another.

Revelation 17:3-6
3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by WiseSheep]

Originally posted by apex

What if the World never had Religion ?

There would still be wars, any difference between people can be sufficient.

One of the truest statements on this site.

We will always find a reason to kill eachother. No matter how petty we will fight, religion or not.

Originally posted by spines
We will always find a reason to kill eachother. No matter how petty we will fight, religion or not.

The key difference is that religion immunizes people against feeling remorse or sympathy for their enemies, making it so much easier to kill and no need to even take prisoners unless they are useful through torture. Why do you think Bush ignores the Geneva convention? When the Hebrews first entered Israel from Sinai, they slaughtered everyone they found. Compare that to any non-religious wars. I would rather be captured by Genghis Khan than Aaron.

Religion is a part of social evolution in my opinion. If it was not needed it would not be there. It brings comfort in a way, even if it may have been invented by man.

Originally posted by Columbus
The key difference is that religion immunizes people against feeling remorse or sympathy for their enemies, making it so much easier to kill and no need to even take prisoners unless they are useful through torture. Why do you think Bush ignores the Geneva convention? When the Hebrews first entered Israel from Sinai, they slaughtered everyone they found. Compare that to any non-religious wars. I would rather be captured by Genghis Khan than Aaron.

Whether the Nazis believed in God or not, they were taught that they were the Aryan master race, and that everyone else was below them, and should be enslaved. Not religion there, dehumanization. And I don't know enough to fully use it, but as far as I know, non religion was a fairly large aspect of Stalin's regime and that wasn't friendly.

There is no difference between dehumanization and religion. One teaches people that they are the Aryan master race, and other does the same thing (religion) except they are God's chosen children

Originally posted by apex
Whether the Nazis believed in God or not, they were taught that they were the Aryan master race, and that everyone else was below them, and should be enslaved. Not religion there, dehumanization. And I don't know enough to fully use it, but as far as I know, non religion was a fairly large aspect of Stalin's regime and that wasn't friendly.

Nazis did believe in God, their motto was "God Mit Uns" (God With Us), just like Bush. And who do you think selected Aryans to be the Master Race? Absolutely Nazis were religious. They had their own version of Christianity, I won't say twisted because thats redundant.

Communism as it appears in the real world is also a religion and a faith, merely substituting God for The State. Stalin killed Jews too, which suggests he was still latently Christian and held onto his old hatreds, like Mel Gibson. The communists, as brutal and totalitarian as they were, were not able to destroy other religions. Russia still kept the Orthodoxy and China still has Buddhists and the Faluns.

In my opinion, being brutal was what kept communists from destroying the opposing faiths. I believe like many that reason is the proper tool. As Lincoln said, the surest way to eliminate your enemies is to make them your friends.

someone on here has a great signature for this.

"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend." So much for the intelligence of mankind or the actual adulthood of 'adults' lol

I happen to agree with him on his signature.

Nazi's .. whats in a name, a lot of the people in the high ranks of the party were part of a cult, the Thule society (no it's not fiction from Hellboy lol).
They had there own occult beliefs which mixed with christianity.
At least they recognized and actively looked for artifacts like the spear that stabbed jezus on the cross.
It was a secret society dabbling in the occult that in itself isn't actually that uncommon or special I think lol.
But the term Nazi is simply the abbreviation used for party members.. keep in mind this also means people who were just desk clerks and so on..

As for war, i think it's part of our nature.
Our behaviour is not that strange when you look at the rest of the animal kingdom. alpha male instincts still linger in us, territorial and group forming instincts. In war's it's simply that kind of behaviour blown to enormous scales.
For the people who say war doesn't happen in nature.. ants rage war on other ant hills, hornets massacre honey bees, and you definitely need to watch meerkat manor on animal planet, it's a great show but also shows war between 2 groups (countries? ) of meerkats.
All in all our wars prove imho that we're just mere kids as far as evolution is concerned.

[edit on 14/4/2007 by David2012]

Originally posted by Columbus
The key difference is that religion immunizes people against feeling remorse or sympathy for their enemies, making it so much easier to kill and no need to even take prisoners unless they are useful through torture. Why do you think Bush ignores the Geneva convention? When the Hebrews first entered Israel from Sinai, they slaughtered everyone they found. Compare that to any non-religious wars. I would rather be captured by Genghis Khan than Aaron.

Non-religious wars do just the same. The enemy is dehumanized as less then human; as beasts.

Look at the American propeganda during WWII. The Japanese were shown to be buck-toother monsters or as buck toothed fools. You teach the people and the army to see the enemy as something which is to be hated and detested.

Religion was never needed for some of the worst actions man has taken against man:

The Rape of Nanjing

The extermination of the Jews (this was not because of their religious beliefs but rather because of their secular position in Europe).

The extermination of the mentally retarded in Germany.

My Lai during the Vietnam War.

The bombing of Dresden.

Bataan Death March.

Should I continue?

The point remains: Religion or not we would continue to fight for land, for power and for resource.

Originally posted by Columbus
Nazis did believe in God, their motto was "God Mit Uns" (God With Us), just like Bush. And who do you think selected Aryans to be the Master Race? Absolutely Nazis were religious. They had their own version of Christianity, I won't say twisted because thats redundant.

I never absolutely stated that they didn't, but just because they wore "God Mit Uns" on their belts, doesn't make them believers.

Communism as it appears in the real world is also a religion and a faith, merely substituting God for The State. Stalin killed Jews too, which suggests he was still latently Christian and held onto his old hatreds, like Mel Gibson. The communists, as brutal and totalitarian as they were, were not able to destroy other religions. Russia still kept the Orthodoxy and China still has Buddhists and the Faluns.

No, they, like the Nazis, used the Jews as scapegoats more than anything, and in case you didn't notice, it wasn't just the Jews in either case. And just because Russia has orthodoxy now, doesn't mean the Soviet Union didn't oppress them.

Originally posted by spines
Non-religious wars do just the same. The enemy is dehumanized as less then human; as beasts.

I'll agree that brainwashing is used by the military and propaganda is brainwashing used by the media. However, the typical human is still compelled by real morality in first person situations unless the circumstances are extreme.

The Rape of Nanjing

Bataan Death March.

The Japanese have religion too. The Emperor is the descendant of the Sun goddess. When the God-Emperor asked men to die or commit massacres, not only is there no question but thousands volunteer.

The extermination of the Jews (this was not because of their religious beliefs but rather because of their secular position in Europe).

You can't be serious! There is no way to make Anti-semitism a purely secular concept. Anti-semitism arose immedaitely with the foundation of the Church and for nearly two thousand years was applied in the secular world through scapegoatism by blaming Jews for this and that, economics and even natural disasters, that their Sin caused Germany to suffer in every way.

The extermination of the mentally retarded in Germany.

They were in denial because the Master Race should not have any defects. This was the elimination of evidence that contradicted their religious beliefs.

My Lai during the Vietnam War.

This is a complex issue, partly due to morale and the brainwashing that soldiers endure to follow commands without question, just as Christians follow the commands of God blindly.

The bombing of Dresden.

"I am in full agreement (of terror bombing). I am all for the bombing of working class areas in German cities. I am a Cromwellian - I believe in 'slaying in the name of the Lord!" Sir. Archibald Sinclair, Secretary for Air
I have put the keyword in bold so you may recognize it.

Should I continue?

If you like, you haven't proved anything and it doesn't look like you can.

Originally posted by Columbus
The key difference is that religion immunizes people against feeling remorse or sympathy for their enemies, making it so much easier to kill and no need to even take prisoners unless they are useful through torture.

Christianity happens to teach love for ones enemies, which happens to require sympathy, remorse, or empathy. How else can you love something that opposes you if you don't first understand the less than perfect nature of yourself? You seem to confuse false followers of Christ with the true meaning of its message. Would you just admit that you are stereotyping the whole religion by the acts and beliefs of a majority of false followers?

Contrarily, the true message makes it more difficult to kill or torture.

Why do you think Bush ignores the Geneva convention?

Bush has nothing to do with Christianity. If you believe that then follow my advice and quit believing in the words of politicians. The twisting of legal terms in order to disregard the Geneva Convention in my own opinion is just a sign of the methods of this administration. They are masters of manipulation of words and thoughts in order to do exactly what they please, circumventing the law whenever they see fit. It is contrary to Christianity which teaches somewhere in the acts of the apostles that they are not teaching the ends justifies the means. The Bush administration seems to think otherwise.

When the Hebrews first entered Israel from Sinai, they slaughtered everyone they found. Compare that to any non-religious wars. I would rather be captured by Genghis Khan than Aaron.

Well, what about the US dropping an atomic bomb (a weapon of mass destruction) upon two civilian populations to end the war in the pacific? I don't think religion was involved in that case and it was carried out en masse against a lot of innocent people. It was more devastating than the events of 9-11 so far as casualties and destruction. As well, there is more evidence that it actually happened than anything early Israelites claimed to have done, outside the Bible. Isn't that the athiest's constructed argument that there is no evidence that Israel was even a slave nation in Egypt so how could they have crossed Sinai and conquer the promised lands?

Very-interesting and forthright responses, I'm quite taken by the many different thoughts on this subject.

In short, I would think without religion having some influence over basic human morals -- and often animalistic tendencies, without some belief this world and human evolution would not be, or might be hundreds of year behind present times.

I don't think over population would be a factor for quite sometime in the future.

Dallas

Originally posted by ben91069
Christianity happens to teach love for ones enemies, which happens to require sympathy, remorse, or empathy.

No, love is a word with many contradictory meanings. Christians are brainwashed and programmed to accept new definitions of words and multiple definitions to aid in confusion and make it easier to control them.

Love is usually agape, which implies sacrifice, and that can be extended to include suicide and murder. Interesting definition of love really, and wrong.

You seem to confuse false followers of Christ with the true meaning of its message.

There are two classes of Christians, the apathetic who attend on Sundays and sin on Mondays, and the Fundamentalist nutjobs who want to start WWIII over Isreal. I don't know which false followers you mean, they are all wrong.

Would you just admit that you are stereotyping the whole religion by the acts and beliefs of a majority of false followers?

If the majority of Christians behave a certain way the stereotype is valid, and it is. The brainwashing is actually very specific programming here. Every single Christian I run into recites word-for-word exactly the same bull and it gets really tedious.

Contrarily, the true message makes it more difficult to kill or torture.

Not from what I've seen.

Bush has nothing to do with Christianity.

They elected him, and were so overwhelmingly satisfied with His Work, they elected him again. They certainly think is one of them.

The twisting of legal terms in order to disregard the Geneva Convention in my own opinion is just a sign of the methods of this administration. They are masters of manipulation of words and thoughts in order to do exactly what they please, circumventing the law whenever they see fit.

These techniques are built right into Scripture. The authors of the Gospels knew how to brainwash masses of people and that is how they spread from the beginning. It didn't take some new people to create the current situation.

The Catholic church was once ubiquitous and could not grow, but then Protestantism came along and started using the techniques to spread again.

Well, what about the US dropping an atomic bomb (a weapon of mass destruction) upon two civilian populations to end the war in the pacific? I don't think religion was involved in that case and it was carried out en masse against a lot of innocent people.

The atomic bomb was developed in case the Nazis should do it first. Once it was done, you can't just say you've got it, you have to prove it. They dropped two to show it wasn't dumb luck. I agree it may have been racist to choose Japan considering they were mainly worried about Germany when the designed it, but there was a concern about Russia invading Japan, then the Cold War would have had two fronts.

"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.
--Harry Truman
Harry Truman was already president when the order was given and he sounds not to have much respect for human life, German, Japanese, or Russian.

Isn't that the athiest's constructed argument that there is no evidence that Israel was even a slave nation in Egypt so how could they have crossed Sinai and conquer the promised lands?

Hebrews (Apiru) were know to have been in Eqypt, but there is no evidence of the supernatural claims.

You have voted ben91069 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Well said Ben...............

Originally posted by ben91069
Christianity happens to teach love for ones enemies, which happens to require sympathy, remorse, or empathy. How else can you love something that opposes you if you don't first understand the less than perfect nature of yourself? You seem to confuse false followers of Christ with the true meaning of its message. Would you just admit that you are stereotyping the whole religion by the acts and beliefs of a majority of false followers?

Contrarily, the true message makes it more difficult to kill or torture.

As bad as I hate to admit it. That's some good stuff there.

You have voted ben91069 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Columbus,

The other points which I gave and you refute can, and will, be argued to death. But before that is done I feel that I shall adress one point specifically which you seem to have completely wrong.

Originally posted by Columbus

Originally posted by spines
The extermination of the mentally retarded in Germany.

They were in denial because the Master Race should not have any defects. This was the elimination of evidence that contradicted their religious beliefs.

Your statement, as a rebuttal to my previous, is false. Allow me to elaborate:

The killing of severly disabled individuals (either mentally or physically) was an institutionalized program which was called 'Action T4' and was active between 1939 and 1941.

This program fell under the direct supervision of Philipp Bouhler, the head of Hitler’s private chancellery, and Dr Karl Brandt, Hitler’s personal physician.

As a ideology it was formed out of the German policy of 'racial hygiene'. This was a policy which stated that the German peoples needed to be cleansed of r'acially unsound elements'. This included those with physical or mental disabilities.

This thought process was not secluded to Germany however. These ideas were popular throughout much of the Western world (although not as extreme in form as Hitler).

Hitlers extreme version of 'racial hygiene' can be attributed to the 20th century concept of 'social Darwinism' known as 'eugenics'.

Contrary to your statement of it being religous in nature, Hitler had harbored a sort of hatred for the disabled since his earlier days. Hitler had said that he saw the disabled as a 'diseased element' in the German racial body (a racial perfection he sought through genetics rather then a religous belief).

Hitler makes explicet mention of these peoples in his book, Mein Kamph. He states that:

"He who is bodily and mentally not sound and deserving may not perpetuate this misfortune in the bodies of his children. The völkische [racial] state has to perform the most gigantic rearing-task here. One day, however, it will appear as a deed greater than the most victorious wars of our present bourgeois era."

The Nazi regime performed acts of racial cleansing from the very begining of its coming to power. In July of 1933 the 'Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring' went into affect. This law called for the sterilization of those who were deemed mentally or physically unsound; those who would taint the genetic perfection of the German gene pool. Individuals with schizophrenia, epilepsy and other diseases were sterilized. Even individuals who exhibited certain social deviences were mandated to be sterilized --this includes prostitutes and chronic alchoholics. An estimated 360,000 were sterilized under this law.

Hitler had always wanted these individuals who were deemed 'genetically inferior' to be killed but understood that, in peace time, the German peoples would viemently oppose this and risk his control over the German populous. He then waited for war to enact his policy of killing.

Those with disabilities, even the sterilized, needed institutional care and with the now active war in progress the public opinion of these individuals could be swayed.

The mentally and physically disabled needed to be housed in places which could be used for wounded soldiers or evacuated citizens and were housed at a great cost to the state. Even with this the policy of killing was to be kept quiet by the Nazi regime as public opinion would not entirley be swayed.

The T4 program then began to kill genetically 'undesirable' adults and children. The only vocal opposition to this program was that of a religous institution: The Catholic Church.

Now, as some may already know, I am not in the practice of defending the Catholic church or its atrocities. I find myself on the opposite side of many core ethical/theological doctrines and dogmas. However, I can not and will not allow my issues with the church shadow the good which it has historically done and currently does.

Leading Catholic Churchmen, led by Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber, wrote privately to the regime protesting the policy of killing asylum patients. And in 1941 the church 'went public' with its discontent and had all of their Bishops read a pastoral letter to their congregations denouncing the T4 Action (although they were not aware of its official name). This, however, was far from the most important protest of the action.

Catholic Bishop of Münster, Clemens August Graf von Galen publicly denounced the T4 program and then telegrammed his sermon to Hitler. Galen's sermon called for Hitler to:

"To defend the people against the Gestapo.” "It is a terrible, unjust and catastrophic thing when man opposes his will to the will of God. [...] We are talking about men and women, our compatriots, our brothers and sisters. Poor unproductive people if you wish, but does this mean that they have lost their right to live?"

This sermon was reproduced and passed illegally throughout Germany in the form of leaflets; the RAF dropped the leaflets over German troops.

The protestant church also spoke out, although not as vocally or with as much of an impact. Theophil Wurm, the Lutheran Bishop of Württemberg, wrote a strong letter to Interior Minister Frick in March 1940. Theophil Wurm, the Lutheran Bishop of Württemberg, wrote a strong letter to Interior Minister Frick in March 1940. The Lutheran theologian Friedrich von Bodelschwingh and Pastor Paul-Gerhard Braune also wrote letters of discontent and both used their connections with the regime to negotiate exemptions for their institutions (effectivly saving the lives of hundreds who would otherwise be 'cleansed').

Originally posted by Columbus

Originally posted by spines
Should I continue?

If you like, you haven't proved anything and it doesn't look like you can.

It would seem that I, despite your disrespectful tone, have proved something. The German policy was clearly one based on eugenics and 'genetical perfection'. Neither of which were religous in conception.

Hitler took a pervasive ideology and warped it in the direction of the extreme; stemming from both his long lasting fear/hatred of the disabled and his belief that Germans were the equivalent to eugenics 'perfection'.



[edit on 4/15/0707 by spines]