Why the biblical religions are dangerous?

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Your assumptions are incorrect, many founders of today's sciences were Christians themselves, I am sure you understand this already and that is a topic of another debate, my point being to say Christians are backwards thinking and anti progressive is mostly accurate but not completely.

You bring up a good point though about blood sacrifice, I have always wondered what does that really mean, why do so many civilizations seem to use it and so on. Most would say the Bible borrows blood sacrifice, but on the contrary you could also say blood sacrifice borrows from the Bible. Obviously blood sacrifice has been going on since the dawn of humanity, so where did it start?

Genesis 4:10 states, "And He [God] said: 'What hast thou done? [to Cain] the voice of thy brother's blood [Abel] crieth unto Me from the ground. [This was in context to when Cain killed his brother Abel]

This is an example of many a verses about blood having some meaning, or blood being required etc. There is more to blood being a biological life force, it is also our dna, our unique fingerprint, it carries our information and history and so on. You could say the quoted verse is just poetic, or some caveman like babble, the choice is yours. My point is if you believe in what the Bible says about spiritual warfare, higher powers and so on, you'd realize that bloodshed is not just some primitive thing but something that is very much tied to the spiritual realms. So its not that the Bible is copying primitive acts, but moreso the other religions are copying the Bible, which yes has been going on before the Bible, but you have to realize it is a spiritual thing bloodshed, not a primitive thing, as its so rooted in our early startup that you think it is meaningless and brutal.

Any other questions I will help to answer.

reply to post by honested3


Many of the greatest scientists of our world were actually Deist, not Christian. And that's because of the conclusions they reached in the midst of their studies. I have more faith in their critical examinations than in the emotionally-driven conjectures of the average priest.

Originally posted by studythem1

so its not a case of which religion is correct...it is a case of what morality is correct...what least violates free will of the individual without violating another's free will...that is the question...and it was best answered by the minds that contributed to the ideas of the American revolution, and the ideas of personal sovereignty...and that is not a religion, it is a morality, and many of these men who promoted it had moral compass without the organized religions that were all around them...

Name one.... well other than Thomas Payne....

Originally posted by wildtimes

I think he is suggesting that RELIGION is evil, not "the Christian God." The people who dreamed up all the accoutrements and the personality of said "God," simply to scare and control people.

We could call religion evil or we can call the men that corrupt it to their own will evil. When we look at religion is was typically cutting edge of morality, well until Man in his infinite ways made it not so moral.

If we were debating the catholic church I would say they would have a hard time justifying their morals over the last 1000 years, but we are talking about religion in general and I do not find hardly any religion without a moral base. That moral base might be antiquated for todays views but was well advance to when it was created.

Originally posted by wildtimes

Your analogy of Pol Pot, Japan, and all that was due to "lack of religion" is like making the analogy that "all people in county X who are imprisoned for murder ate french fries, therefore eating french fries causes a person to murder." It's a false correlation. ATHEISM has nothing to do with VIOLENCE.

Its called motivation and nationalism, socialism, communism etc do not have moral foundations. Something WILL be a motivating factor no matter what. That is how we are, we can not stop it. Morality is learned anyway you look at it. I don't care how it is learn it is the only way we get it, but humans are not typically moral and tend to fight it all the time, and when we get into groups it really can go astray.

Can you tell me what atheist path teaches morality in a way that a person has total convictions to follow it. I see morality as a concept that our intellect conceives, but it is not our true nature and because of that we need greater than normal understanding and comprehension to morality, we need it driven into us deeply to take root.

I'm sure you disagree, but I would say if you put 100 people in a situation 95 would screw the others over to get ahead...its our instinct...

Originally posted by honested3
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

Your assumptions are incorrect, many founders of today's sciences were Christians themselves, I am sure you understand this already and that is a topic of another debate, my point being to say Christians are backwards thinking and anti progressive is mostly accurate but not completely.

Thanks for your kindly worded and patient response, honested3. No doubt there have been brilliant people who were Christian (Newton, for example). There are most certainly, to this day, brilliant and wonderful people who have Christian beliefs.

This doesn't negate my original point overall though and I see this line of argument as somewhat of a strawman. For a very long time people risked torture and death, should they claim knowledge that might have conflicted with the bible. This doesn't seem a way to encourage an unbiased quest for scientific understanding. The ideas of Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin for example met staunch opposition. It seems one Christian group (the catholic church) has only very recently conceded to Galileo. There are at this very moment, Christian groups who are hostile to theories such as evolution and cosmology, to the point they would prefer the genesis account pushed on to their young ones, or at least given equal billing.

So my point was not so much about whether any particular Christian founded, or help found any branch of science, neither was it a necessarily an assumption (it has a lot of documented history to back it, was also followed by a question mark). It was "has there been a more ignorant, bigoted, repressive, tyrannical, anti-knowledge, anti-intellectual cult that has had a more negative effect within the last couple of millennia, than Christianity?"

Has there been?

Any other questions I will help to answer.

Thank you for the offer. Let me propose a hypothetical. Your children are going "off the rails" and otherwise not acquitting themselves to your liking. Do you.....

1/. Have yourself brutally tortured, explaining that it is completely their fault and you find it quite necessary, so that you can forgive. Also requiring that they bow to you and show great reverance to such a thing.

2/. Show genuine love and care, spend more time, try to understand, also review your parental abilities, seek any help that might be relevant etc., basically not option 1.....

If you veer towards option 2, possibly viewing option 1 as requiring complete insanity, why make excuses for your god?

With many cults of sacrifice that either pre-date both Christianity and the Judaism of which it is a breakaway sect (particularly stone/bronze age cultures), or make them geographically irrelevant, I have doubts about the bible as being a genuine source. On the contrary there seems much to support this aspect of Christianity as having evolved from earlier levantine agricultural sacrificial practices, to the personal saviour cults of which Christianity is one.

There also seems no genuine supportable reason for such, as your vague references highlight, without resorting to supernatural/magic explanations. A superstition which to this day has certain sects of Christianity prefer death, rather than blood transfusion (and tries to force such beliefs on others). It is no more supportable than the primitive stone age belief, that to devour the heart of a (brave) antagonist after battle, would help accumulate such bravery.

It seems simply an unsupportable, primitive superstition.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Its called motivation and nationalism, socialism, communism etc do not have moral foundations. Something WILL be a motivating factor no matter what. That is how we are, we can not stop it. Morality is learned anyway you look at it. I don't care how it is learn it is the only way we get it, but humans are not typically moral and tend to fight it all the time, and when we get into groups it really can go astray.

Hope you don't mind if I but in.....

To some extent yes, obviously culture plays a part. What would be seen as acceptable in one culture, would seem barbaric and primitive in another. Though much of these differences come about directly via religion, it seems very debatable to what extent morals are instilled, as much as over ridden where religion is concerned.

For example, while it does seem somewhat of a fallacy that most wars (modern, less so ancient) are fought over religion, as much as wealth, power, racial or political ideologies etc., it is also obvious that those in charge (whether they believe the religion or not themselves) use religion as an effective tool of propaganda and manipulation.

All references to god, with respect to a pretext or excuse for war, should be treated as genuine insanity.

The well documented use of the anti-Semite ramblings of Martin Luther by the Nazi's and it's effect on the German populace is well known. Originally motivated by religion. In fact, it is proposed by some scholars as instrumental/ directly attributable (among other things) to their ideology. It certainly played a part in the "Holocaust".

The prevailing scholarly view[42] since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust

en.wikipedia.org...

Though, before the usual claims are trotted out..... no Hitler was unlikely to have been an atheist (he might not have been a genuine Christian either), nor had atheism (or religion) as his motivation. There are obvious references to "the almighty creator" in his writings.

Can you tell me what atheist path teaches morality in a way that a person has total convictions to follow it.

No. Can you give similar examples of holy war, torture, self immolation, wiping out of entire cultures, threats of torture and death for defying doctrine, that has indifference to/lack of belief in god as the motivating force..... comparable to those directly attributable to religion?

If you look at the link, you will see the well known (yet politically incorrect) fact that religious observance in modern societies has a direct negative correlation. Things like unwanted/ teenage pregnancy, divorce, incarceration, general peace/tolerance, exploitation, wealth disparity, prevalence of STD's and many other indicators of societal dysfunction, seem to rise directly commensurate with religiosity. Which seems to explode the argument about religion and morals, as complete unfounded myth.

www.epjournal.net...

I'm sure you disagree, but I would say if you put 100 people in a situation 95 would screw the others over to get ahead...its our instinct...

Some truth in that. Yet that instinct seems easily compounded and manipulated in otherwise nice intelligent people, via their religious beliefs. It is another way that, as history both ancient and recent shows, can be effective.

This has been really fun to read. I'd like to throw my bag of marbles in the room. I may be a complete loon but I have been looking at this for a long time and this is where I'm at.

Creator = Love = Law= Word = Vibration= The Oneness (ultimatly to become matter)

In the beginning Was the Word (vibration=big bang)

Angels= Frequencies= Messengers= Electromagnetism Were created and charged with organizing things into Matter based on Resonance, goverened by the laws we can measure. I have no idea whether this was being done intentionally by a "creator" but you'll see it does not really matter in the end, In the end it really does come down to Love.

God created the heavens and the earth and they rejoiced. They talk about the heavens singing and praising God.
Sounds an awful lot like resonating in tune. A grand symphony of coalesing took place(and is still taking place) as the angels in resonance with god create our universe. Now again I am not attributing any special "abilities" to these "angels" simply a force of nature doing what they do. This is my TOE.

A key point to remember with this theory is resonance, Even though we all seemingly have the same gobledegook ( technical term) inside us we all have our own tune quite litterally holding us together.

He made everything after its like kind. Each species has its range of frequencies in which each individual resonates, this also includes all matter, it was also "made after its own kind" through sympathetic resonance.
I believe this is how every thing is formed and held together. This would also account for various cultures attributing "spirits" to everything if you equate spirite to frequency.
Let us make him in our image. What is his image?
I believe when the brain was introduced, through a change in frequency, it gave animals the ability to distinguish
between frequencies, or to put it simply it could exist in its environment but could not manipulate it. It could only respond to frequency. I believe this was the condition up until the introduction of the frontal cortext, or whatever it is, hey I ain't a pro just a joe. I have no idea why this happened but all the sudden man or Adam- first man was given the ability to "control" the radio.

I believe God, or whoever is controling the big "radio" was in direct contact and helping these new creatures learn how to "use" thier new "radios" to control and manipulate the enviroment to thier and his benefit, for the whole universes benefit. This was probably done by an increased exposure to an ever growing aray of frequencies over generations so "radio stations" or knowledge accumulated.

This is what free will is. Humans have the ability to choose which station they want to listen to, often they listen to many at a time this is called confusion.
So I think this happened to a civilization that preceded the current one. Man, in tune with the rest of the universe after thousands of years of learning gained the ability to build a civilization based on Law=Love=Vibration=GOD.
This knowledge through love and harmony is what allowed them to do such wonderful things like build the pyramids and other massive structures.
Now the "angles" didn;t like this so they knock up the earth girls. How? Remember, angels = frequency and though they are not physical, nor have a brain, they can manipulate matter. This explains a lot of wacky crap people see but can't explain, temporary glimpses of OUT OF TUNE MATTER, thats important.

As "angels" helped man grow (remember this is only energy being directed,or tuned) it would seem some of them, for what ever reason fell out of tune and wanted to rush the learning. This can simply be looked at as a percentage of the population going out of tune, or trying to change the LAW. This out of tuneness is what causes men to be evil. They choose a different tune and through resonance they begin to infect and attract everything near them. This, I believe is what destroyed the last civilization and is in the proccess of destroying ours.
I believe the "Creator" started again in the garden of eden with a more advanced version Human 2.0 and was again with them teaching, but this time it was man who wanted to play his own tune (the fall of man). Humans thought they could use knowledge ( the radio) without God (The transmitter) so they started trumpeting thier tune and created false gods like money and war.

And I believe this is where we are. The Op is 100% correct. I don't believe its the book per'se though i more blame the people who manipulate it, and there is plenty of those. The book is an attempt to get every one to tune to the same station. Right now we are on pirate radio listening to lust,greed,gluttony,vainity and all the other ills of the world. There are billions of radios all blaring and we are ALL out of tune.

Until we can all tune our selves to the same station this is what we get. And it only takes following 10 SIMPLE rules.

Oh yeah unless your "preacher" is teaching you how to tune your intrument (body) to live in harmony (on the right radio station then your "religion" is bunk.

in order for humans to have peace they must have harmony, otherwise it will dissolve (entophy?) into caos.

Hamony=good No harmony=bad easy right?

To OP, you're so upset at Jehovah. What do you plan on doing about it? Getting pissy, posting online and trying to change His mind? I've talked to the guy on several occasions. My best advice to you is learn from someone like me and try to stay on cordial terms with Him. He's known to come after people, in all seriousness! But as long as you don't actively cause trouble for Him and treat your neighbors nicely then all should be fine!

Originally posted by studythem1
so what am i trying to say exactly? well lets get a few things out of the way. no i am not an athiest, i just do not believe that the hebrew bible is a true and honest depiction of the creator. and i also have a background in theology and the antiquities, so i have been doing this research for a while. some of it i did for a thesis at a religious school, and i was told to either change my paper, or face severe reprecussions, so i left...and this was one of the many things that actually proved to me that this particular religious and theological school was no good, and that religion is anything but a friend of free thought and speech...

So because a few seminaries are bad apples then that proves all Christians are anti-free thought and anti-free speech? What about the Christians who disagree with the seminaries' fraudulent practices. Are they as bad as all the rest of them?

I'll give you an example of fraud: Perkins School of Theology at SMU. They clearly state on their website that even if you complete the 90 hours for the Master of Divinity degree, you are only considered to be a candidate for the award.

In other words, you can pass all required classes, pay all your bills, be in good standing and fulfill all requirements for the degree, but at the end, they can still deny you the credential for what they feel are certain character flaws (or ideological differences of opinion?) that make you a bad fit for ministry.

You aren't in some special class exclusive to "free"thinkers that says that religious schools have illogical policies and are unjust against students. I'm against all the stupidity they do in the name of religion too.

Do you want to know what I think? I don't view these "Christians" any differently than I do the people who sought to kill Jeremiah, Ezekiel, John the Baptist, Peter, Stephen, James, or Christ. Then later they came after Jan Hus, Joan of Arc, William Tyndale, and a lot of other people.

It just so happens that I share their faith, which I practice (and they choose not to, but still acknowledge it's truth). When you tar us all, you're stepping into the same category of dishonorable people that you are attacking.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Morality is learned anyway you look at it.

Not true.
Here's a post I made yesterday regarding where morality comes from

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

 

I am objecting to your assumption that religion does not make people good, they are good by themselves and religion just takes the credit.

It's not an "assumption", logical7, it's a FACT.

Where do Morals Come From?

Being nice to others and cooperating with them aren't uniquely human traits. Frans de Waal, director of Emory University's Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Lawrenceville, Georgia, studies how our close primate relatives also demonstrate behaviors suggestive of a sense of morality.

De Waal recently published a book called The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates which synthesizes evidence that there are biological roots in human fairness, and explores what that means for the role of religion in human societies. CNN's Kelly Murray recently spoke with De Waal about the book.

read this article on CNN's light-years blog for an interview with De Waal.
The book's summary says:

In this lively and illuminating discussion of his landmark research, esteemed primatologist Frans de Waal argues that human morality is not imposed from above but instead comes from within. Moral behavior does not begin and end with religion but is in fact a product of evolution.

This is another one:
The Neurobiology of Criminal Behavior

The main feature of this work is that it explores criminal behavior from all aspects of Tinbergen's Four Questions. Rather than focusing on a single theoretical point of view, this book examines the neurobiology of crime from a biosocial perspective.

It suggests that it is necessary to understand some genetics and neuroscience in order to appreciate and apply relevant concepts to criminological issues. Presenting up-to-date information on the circuitry of the brain, the authors explore and examine a variety of characteristics, traits and behavioral syndromes related to criminal behavior such as ADHD, intelligence, gender, the age-crime curve, schizophrenia, psychopathy, violence and substance abuse.

This book brings together the sociological tradition with the latest knowledge the neurosciences have to offer and conveys biological information in an accessible and understanding way. It will be of interest to scholars in the field and to professional criminologists.

This one is from YESTERDAY on npr.org:
Criminologist Believes Violent Behavior Is Biological

Adrian Raine was the first person to conduct a brain imaging study on murderers and has since continued to study the brains of violent criminals and psychopaths. His research has convinced him that while there is a social and environmental element to violent behavior, there's another side of the coin, and that side is biology.

"Just as there's a biological basis for schizophrenia and anxiety disorders and depression I'm saying here there's a biological basis also to recidivistic violent offending," Raine, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the new book The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross.

Raine says that this re-visioning of violent criminals could potentially help direct how we approach crime prevention and rehabilitation.

And the book highlighted above has this 'description' of its premise:

A leading criminologist who specializes in the neurological and biosocial bases of antisocial and violent behavior draws on a wide range of new scientific research to explain how brain impairments that control the experiences of fear, decision-making and empathy can render people more likely to engage in criminal activity.

THIS IS SCIENCE. IT IS being PROVEN that people - and some animals - are "wired" for moral behavior or immoral behavior. "Religion" and "fear of hell" may stop some people from acting immorally, but religion does not CAUSE them to act morally.

reply to post by Xtrozero


And by the way, "socialism" is EXACTLY what Jesus taught as the proper way to live.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Name one.... well other than Thomas Payne....

George Washington
Benjamin Franklin
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson

none of them identified as "Christians". At best Paine was a Deist.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

If you look at the link, you will see the well known (yet politically incorrect) fact that religious observance in modern societies has a direct negative correlation. Things like unwanted/ teenage pregnancy, divorce, incarceration, general peace/tolerance, exploitation, wealth disparity, prevalence of STD's and many other indicators of societal dysfunction, seem to rise directly commensurate with religiosity. Which seems to explode the argument about religion and morals, as complete unfounded myth.

I'm DELIGHTED that you "butted" in!
Brilliant post.
Please see the reply I made to Xtro above this one, here.
I totally agree with what you are saying, and thank you for participating with that line of thinking on ATS.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Thanks for your reply, I can tell your very intelligent and informed just by the questions your asking and the highlights you bring up. So to answer your question with the option 1 or 2, i select option 2, only because option 1 is one of control and 'religion'. Option 2 is one of love and acceptance and freewill. We were intended to show the love of God through our actions and how we treat others, not through how we would control others as option 1 in my opinion would entail.

I think our views on science might be sort of the same, I do believe God created the earth in 6 days, but I don't discredit what logic tells us, I just discredit our ability to understand the logic. For example imagine a perfect cube, the edge of a perfect cube where you can see 3 sides, if logic tells us its definitely a cube, you cannot deny that, but what you cannot understand is if your looking at the edge from the inside or the outside. I dont know if that makes sense but if you start at the corner of your ceiling you might see what I mean. Where I am going with it is lets say evolution is true, but whats not true is the timeframe, say God made a plant within a second, you might say it took weeks or months to grow it [after the fact] when in reality it only took a second, I think evolution is like that in my opinion.

Jonah 4:6 "Then the Lord God provided a leafy plant and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant." I know this is going off topic and brings up another whole topic of debate, but you see evidence here of God making something seemingly "appear" and anybody who saw the plant later on [before it withered] would have scientifically deduced it took weeks/months to grow. Thats where I am at with science, most things but not all things I can accept, just it depends on how you look at them.

I do agree with you about the Christians though, it is true there has been very few groups that cold compete with the Christian "religion", maybe it shocks you I agree with you, but I dont believe in religion I believe in a relationship with Jesus. Fundamentalists, westboro baptist church, bigoted pastors and even the crusaders are not inline with Jesus' teaching.

I dont know if I touched on all the topics you brought up, but I feel that our conversation shows we have alot more in common than you might think, of course there will always be differences which in my opinion can only be answered by faith. But if you feel frustrated with "Christians" and religion in general, I can included myself in that as well, because I am not a fake Christian, I am real, and I am a sinner and still sin frequently, but I may know more than you know about how fake and anti progress "Christians" can be, because they are fake. Hope to hear from you again soon!

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

So my point was not so much about whether any particular Christian founded, or help found any branch of science, neither was it a necessarily an assumption (it has a lot of documented history to back it, was also followed by a question mark). It was "has there been a more ignorant, bigoted, repressive, tyrannical, anti-knowledge, anti-intellectual cult that has had a more negative effect within the last couple of millennia, than Christianity?"

Now there's an interesting question. Upon reading it, I was reminded of the paradox that defines Christianity at its very core: in the process of amending the flaws we see in ourselves, we fail to address the flaws in the system we rely on. In essence, we are trying our damnedest to use an imperfect tool to carve a perfect statue. Perhaps the lesson in this is not that we will never be invulnerable, but that we don't have to be.

And I think that's the question I want answered most - why are we so obsessed with being untouchable? I think if we explore the mysteries surrounding that particular vice, we may finally be able to let go of gods and embrace the universe within us, as well as the "us" within the universe. We will have an ascending relationship, instead of a serving relationship...a process of equalization rather than subjugation. Should that day come, I will relish it.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

And I think that's the question I want answered most - why are we so obsessed with being untouchable? I think if we explore the mysteries surrounding that particular vice, we may finally be able to let go of gods and embrace the universe within us, as well as the "us" within the universe. We will have an ascending relationship, instead of a serving relationship...a process of equalization rather than subjugation. Should that day come, I will relish it.

edit on 2-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

For what purpose do we embrace the universe within us? We cant live forever, and if your not living for something then your dying for nothing. Thats the question I want answered, is why so much focus on this life, on this existence and on this physical realm? Were bound in flesh and we die in flesh, we can never get along. Even in your own life if you took an honest examination of yourself, and found the things you really cant stand, the people or person you cannot stand, could you ever get past that? The notion that human kind can one day "get along" and be selfess and care about others moreso than themselves is so impossible that I have much better chances believing in an invisible God. I truly dont mean to stampede all over your belief system, but I feel like anybody who believes that human kind has it within themselves to 'ascend' or to think in terms of others is rudely mistaken. I mean I am sure there are some out there but its definitely not the common denominator.

Just as I hope you elaborate for me, I will elaborate for you on my belief. No i absolutely do not feel or believe I am serving God just to get something from Him, I dont feel or believe that my relationship with God is dependent on how many good works I do or how 'holy' I am or how many times I attend church, its just not a slavery/servant process. I serve because I love Him and I see what He has forgiven me for, what nobody else could forgive. I know you have heard all of this before countless times, but the older I get, the more I realize that deep down I am selfish, I am hateful, I am just plain evil and there is no way I could ever get beyond that without a divine being forgiving me. I wont lie to you though alot of religions out there and alot of Christians out there do see it as a process of subjugation, and they are mistaken, and its truly sad for them because inside there is nothing there except rules. Religion is the enemy of God, religion is mankind trying to 'earn' God.

So no there is no obsession about being untouchable, at least not for me, I dont have some deep desire to be God and to live forever and to serve some invisible being so that someday I can be 'better' than everyone, many believe this but not me. I think the mystery surrounding that vice as you said, is that people deep down want to be perfect by earning it, they want to make themselves better through their own doing, not someone elses. How hard is it for a proud person to accept something they didn't earn? very heard. So if you really want to understand something mind blowing, look deep within yourself, dont kid yourself, and see who you are deep inside, you will an imperfect person there, no better than the worse criminal, thats what I found in myself, and then when you realize your forgiven for that, and invited into heaven [not earned] even after that, you would want to serve out of love, not subjugation. Thats why I feel like everything in this world, it is important yes, but its not forever, its very liberating knowing this planet, this physical body, everything, is eventually going to disappear and I will be with God. Maybe thats stupid to you, maybe it seems illogical, maybe its is completely 100% off topic from your post, but I hope you elaborate on it and search within.

reply to post by honested3

For what purpose do we embrace the universe within us? We cant live forever, and if your not living for something then your dying for nothing. Thats the question I want answered, is why so much focus on this life, on this existence and on this physical realm? Were bound in flesh and we die in flesh, we can never get along. Even in your own life if you took an honest examination of yourself, and found the things you really cant stand, the people or person you cannot stand, could you ever get past that? The notion that human kind can one day "get along" and be selfess and care about others moreso than themselves is so impossible that I have much better chances believing in an invisible God. I truly dont mean to stampede all over your belief system, but I feel like anybody who believes that human kind has it within themselves to 'ascend' or to think in terms of others is rudely mistaken. I mean I am sure there are some out there but its definitely not the common denominator.

So you feel the ultimate destiny of the human species is destruction?

I wanted to focus on this part right here:

For what purpose do we embrace the universe within us? We cant live forever, and if your not living for something then your dying for nothing. Thats the question I want answered, is why so much focus on this life, on this existence and on this physical realm?

Just because we can't live forever, doesn't mean we don't have a legacy. We leave behind marks of our existence, lessons and values that our descendants learn from and use to cultivate their own beliefs. If we create a word of destruction and chaos, they will continue that path. We create our own destiny, so when you ask for what purpose do we exist, I ask you in return: what purpose would you give us?

Our greatest strength lies not in the ability to follow, but to lead. We are gods, in the sense that we can recreate our world however we choose if we want it badly enough. The trick is knowing what is best for us - something we have failed to discern amongst the many dreams that are born of an incomplete understanding.

Just as I hope you elaborate for me, I will elaborate for you on my belief. No i absolutely do not feel or believe I am serving God just to get something from Him, I dont feel or believe that my relationship with God is dependent on how many good works I do or how 'holy' I am or how many times I attend church, its just not a slavery/servant process. I serve because I love Him and I see what He has forgiven me for, what nobody else could forgive.

Have you forgiven yourself? Forgiveness is not a debt. In fact, your servitude as a result of forgiveness is a contradiction of terms. You are giving something as a result of being released from obligation. What then, was the point of being released? What's the point of being forgiven if you're still going to hold yourself accountable for what was forgiven?

I know you have heard all of this before countless times, but the older I get, the more I realize that deep down I am selfish, I am hateful, I am just plain evil and there is no way I could ever get beyond that without a divine being forgiving me.

And this is why I disapprove of Christianity. Look at all that self-loathing. You need counseling. Look at the thread title. "Why the biblical religions are dangerous?" This is your answer. Subjugation, servitude, and self-deprecation. Feeling that you are unworthy, feeling that you have been forgiven for being unworthy, and feeling obligated to serve as a result of that forgiveness. It's sickening.

I wont lie to you though alot of religions out there and alot of Christians out there do see it as a process of subjugation, and they are mistaken, and its truly sad for them because inside there is nothing there except rules. Religion is the enemy of God, religion is mankind trying to 'earn' God.

If you are serving your god in order to receive eternal life in place of eternal death, then you are subjugated. Just as the Africans labored in the fields so that they might live one more day, so you labor to ensure that this life won't be your last. Why? Because you are supposedly a frail, pathetic, unworthy worm of a human being, and you must prostrate yourself before your creator in order to earn your right to live beyond death.

Religion is the enemy of God, religion is mankind trying to 'earn' God.

If you're not trying to earn anything, then why do you serve? Why is a grateful existence not enough? Why is merely recognizing his part in your good fortune not enough? Not even going into the whole self-deprecating aspect of it, surely if you're not trying to earn anything, you don't have to serve? Surely your mere existence would suffice? It's not like your god needs anything from you. Hell, you don't have anything he wants, right? You are an ant beneath his boot heel, his to spare or destroy.

So why serve him? Anything he wants, he can have with a thought. What do you have to offer that he can't do for himself?

So no there is no obsession about being untouchable, at least not for me, I dont have some deep desire to be God and to live forever and to serve some invisible being so that someday I can be 'better' than everyone, many believe this but not me. I think the mystery surrounding that vice as you said, is that people deep down want to be perfect by earning it, they want to make themselves better through their own doing, not someone elses.

How hard is it for a proud person to accept something they didn't earn? very heard. So if you really want to understand something mind blowing, look deep within yourself, dont kid yourself, and see who you are deep inside, you will an imperfect person there, no better than the worse criminal, thats what I found in myself, and then when you realize your forgiven for that, and invited into heaven [not earned] even after that, you would want to serve out of love, not subjugation.

I call that living, not serving. And no, I don't see myself as a worthless slug unfit to even be stepped on. Everyone and everything has a purpose, even if they must give themselves one. And no, I don't need forgiveness. I don't want forgiveness. Forgiveness does nothing for me. I want to accept my imperfections so I can use them and control them to the best of my ability. When your flaws are as much a part of you as your talents, its best to learn their exact dimensions so that they don't get the best of you. It's always better to work as a team, instead of a scattered and confused group of traits that have no idea what the rest of its comrades are doing.

I don't want forgiveness. I want harmony. My imperfection is not a sin, and I refuse to be treated as such.

Thats why I feel like everything in this world, it is important yes, but its not forever, its very liberating knowing this planet, this physical body, everything, is eventually going to disappear and I will be with God. Maybe thats stupid to you, maybe it seems illogical, maybe its is completely 100% off topic from your post, but I hope you elaborate on it and search within.

I pity you. I pity you and your philosophies, because you fail to recognize the opportunities you are given by both your strengths and your weaknesses. And until you do recognize them, you will never become the best of what you were meant to be. You will always hold yourself back because you judge yourself. And sometimes, your flaws become your greatest assets. Without your flaws, your strengths are nothing.

Someday, hopefully, you will realize that.

reply to post by studythem1


Ha Ha...that was awesome, very good points in that video

reply to post by Xtrozero


The flaw is always control. Religion, communism, atheism, pretty much anything with an ism at the end of it can be dangerous, if the desire is power and control. No matter the religion or politics of the day, it wont work until man evolves past his own ego or love of self. This is the point you were trying to make I think