A recent survey revealed that many Australians harbour incredibly negative attitudes towards all religion. 46% said; "Religion is a major part of the problems in our world." 42% said; "It's not religion which is the problem, but "religious people' who are the problem."

This poses a number of questions.

Why are people so down on religion?
What is the problem with religion?
What is the solution, if there is one?
Why does religion exclude and discriminate?

Does religion allow Buddhist to look down at those who they see as less enlightened. Hindu's can look down on those with less karma. Christians, Muslims and Jews can feel superior, believing only they have the gift of god within them.

Paul,

It is all about faith which is belief without facts which is the keystone of all religions such as Christianity, Islam, Greens etc.

Religion is divisive because it has nothing to do with Faith !

And, everything to do with blind faith !

Here we go again, mistakenly believing that 'religion' is generic and all religions are equal. There is only one religion that makes sense, and that's Christianity. Christianity is not divisive. People are divisive.

It's not religion which is the problem - it's that which is mistakenly (or deceitfully) considered to be religion, or a part thereof, mainly comprising of cultural and ethnic practices and attitudes which truly have very little to do with religion itself.

This problem was recognised even within the bible itself [Isaiah 1:11-17].

Can't speak for all religions but Scriptures declare that the Light come into the world but men loved darkness lest their evil deeds be exposed. So where there is a clash between light and darkness division occurs. Strange however in our secular society the most violent and nasty are those who claim to be atheist or worship 'mother earth'. Shows all hearts are sinful as the bible declares. Thank God for the opportunity to be saved through His Son.

As we came out of Africa, and into the caves, we invented God, we know of about four thousand men invented
Each was our light in the dark and made promises we would be protected even reborn
And as the tribe next door wanted our food and women God told us it was ok to kill
Even prompted that
Not unlike witch doctors those serving God, every one of them,served themselves first
so yes religion is divisive it devids us
Just ask Israel, he tells us God burnt 476 homes and murdered five people just to let us know he is unhappy

Paul,

What survey?

I can't find any reference to a survey that makes the claims you are making.

To my mind, there's only two reasons someone wouldn't post the link:

1. The survey doesn't say what is claimed or says other things that you want hidden.

2. The survey is mirage.

Dear Runner,

«Can't speak for all religions but Scriptures declare that the Light come into the world but men loved darkness lest their evil deeds be exposed.»

I can ascertain that Hinduism too embraces this idea.

In this world there is no absolute darkness, nor absolute light: whatever exists, is there by God's light, faint as it might be, then it is our spiritual journey to move from relative darkness into ever-increasing light.

---

Dear Belly,

«As we came out of Africa, and into the caves, we invented God, we know of about four thousand men invented»

What man invented, are different ideas ABOUT God, not God Him/Herself.
(else how possibly, or logically, could man invent that which would then create him...?)

God is God, unfathomable, infinite, unborn, unending, unchangeable, unlimited and beyond description. Our relative ideas of God could be true or false or any mixture of the two, good or bad or any mixture of the two, but they cannot affect in any way the Absolute Reality of God Him/Herself.

«Not unlike witch doctors those serving God, every one of them,served themselves first so yes religion is divisive it devids us»

But how can you tell that they (who were like witch doctors) were serving God? Just because they said so? Do you believe them? Now you write it yourself: these people served themselves first, thus they were NOT serving God, so what you write in effect is: "those serving God are not serving God...". The people you are speaking about are/were not religious to begin with, thus it is/was not religion that divides us!

Dear Paul,

You ask - "Why is Religion So Divisive?"

It could be because there are a large number
of religions, many of whose members are
convinced that theirs is the one true faith
and that all others are misguided, superstitious,
even wicked.

There is also a relationship between societies
and religion. Religions reflect the cultural
concerns of the societies in which they arise.
War-prone societies tend to have gods of war;
agricultural societies, gods of fertility.
Societies that accord much greater power and prestige
to men likewise tend to have male gods and religions
dominated by male officials. It is therefore not
surprising that priests, rabbis, and other clergy have
been exclusively male in the past, of that this
situation is gradually changing as gender roles become
more flexible in other areas of society.

Another example of division is that most Western Christians
being white tend to think of both God and Jesus as white.

The idea of a black God is almost unimaginable to them, and
portraits of Jesus frequently present him as a blond Caucasian
rather than as the person of Semitic features he no doubt was.

In many African churches on the other hand statues and
portraits of Jesus show him with dark, Negroid features.

Belly, Foxy et al,

Believe what you like but I know, positively, that in my belief in God and a life after death I shall never feel disappointment.

Christ, one of the many we invented, has become the property of far right or conservatives
His teachings ignored and his people down trodden

So... You've all probably read me write this. But I'll say it again anyways. Religions are not the same.

With that in mind, generic questions bundling all religions together as if they are the same are nonsense questions with no one answer. Each religion has it's own answer. There's no generic answer for all of them. Another question could be asked "why do people go to war? If you want real answers you have to ask the specific people that went to war. Same concept applies here.

On that note, I can only speak on account of the divisiveness that I've seen that relates to Christianity. I don't know if Hindus think they are superior, or Buddhist, or any other religion, and neither would I know why they would think they are or aren't. That's for someone who is within each religion to know a better.

For Christianity, there are a few divisive aspects. But before exploring those, it's worth noting that there are also many welcoming and including elements as well. Love your neighbor, look after the poor, the sick, the widowed, the stranger (immigrant), even those in prison. If you want divisiveness though, I'll tell you what I can.

The first thing that is divisive is the message to turn from your sins. No one wants to hear this in fact Jesus commented on it that the world hates him because He confronts them of their sins. With this in mind the first element of divisiveness is in that the message in Christianity isn't one anyone wants to hear. Turn from your sins, repent, and turn to God. A second part of the Christian message to the world is not divisive at all, but after hearing the first part no one wants the second one. "God loves you."

This aspect of turning from your sins has the first condition of facing your wrongs, and that they are wrong and unjustified. Rarely does anyone do this on their own without being drug to the conclusion after seeing the results. And even then there are excuses people make.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Second part of the divisiveness is in the fact that no one is perfect, and people generally get bitter when that's pointed out. If I tell you to turn from your sins, you can say right back "right back at ya" and it gets more personal after that. Same goes if I say "you're wrong," a similar response is often thrown back.

This leads to a third aspect of divisiveness. Christianity actually says there's such a thing as truth, as well as saying about a right and wrong morally. The truth is not relative and something to squabble about as if truth is as feeble as opinion, popularity, or slant. There actually is such a thing as truth. The issue here is that people disagree with what the truth is, and that creates division. Between Christians and nonchristians, and among Christians as well. None the less the high standard here is "don't lie." Even if you don't know the truth about one thing or another, don't lie to make your case sound better.

Last aspect of divisiveness that I can think of that relates to Christianity is that Christianity doesn't claim to be one of many ways. Jesus says that He is the way, the truth, and the Light. No one come to God except through Jesus. This basically goes further then pointing out wrongs, and standing for truth but also says that if you're not Christian you aren't going to get to God. The only way is with Jesus.

(Continued)

Is Mise,

What do our beliefs have to do with you?

Or yours with us?

You're more than welcome to your beliefs.
As we are to ours.

BTW: I also believe in Christ and his teachings,
and in life after death. I just don't feel the
inclination to try to convert anyone - or find my
beliefs superior to anyone else's.

Live and let live.

(Continued)

After all of that the issue of divisiveness stands on the fact that Christianity isn't accepted. Which unfortunately goes back to the aspect of divisiveness when people get bitter and angry at each other for saying they are wrong or because they weren't listened to. Christians get bitter at nonchristians bitter or dismissive attitude, and nonchristians get bitter and angry at the message of Christianity.

With that in mind one issue of division can be placed at your feet as well as any religion. Why do you reject this religion or that religion. Your reaction is actually just as divisive as the perceived divisiveness of religion as a whole. For example, I reject Islam, Buddhism, Wiccan, and many other religions and other philosophies. Because I reject it it causes division. Just as much as rejecting someone else's politics causes division.

That all said, Christianity has another aspect that is the opposite of divisiveness. It is not racist, has no boundaries from social class, speaks about being welcoming as well as forgiveness, mercy and grace. These aspects are far from divisive.

Dear NNS,

Christianity - "welcoming, forgiving, mercy and grace..."
and not being divisive?"

You left out - except if you happen to be gay, want to
get married, raise children, attend a Christian school, or
teach at a Christian school, and the list goes on.

Yes NNS and you left out liars, paedophiles, adulterers, fornicators. I mean its up to us to tell God what is right and wrong. Just ask Foxy. How dare we tell Him murdering innocent unborn babies is wrong and He must accept our moral superiority. I mean its makes sense that the puny fist of the created should tell the Creator of heaven and earth a few things. I mean he must also believe all women (including the toxic feminist) and lesbian priests. Then he must also be inclusive and accept old uncles marrying young nieces. Just ask Foxy. I mean the modern day feminsist is the font of all wisdom.

To Foxy.

Being gay falls on the same line as turn from your sins. And from there on all
I'd say is to not be actively gay. In other words be celibate. It's not about attraction but on actions that we choose.

I don't expect that to be any easier then to have an alocholic avoid beer and liquor. Still, people do it. Why would the standard not be the same for adultry, homosexuality, pedophilia, incest, and any other sexual sin? Do you think giving up alochol is easier then giving up sex? Maybe it is, but that's still the standard. Everyone is welcome but each of us still has the issue of turning from our sins and turning to God.

My hope is in God, more then it's in my ability to consistently walk away from the sins I struggle with. The same would be for homosexuals except that the movement that there's nothing wrong with the practice. There's a difference between struggling with anger, and with being easily angered and seeing nothing wrong with it. If you don't know it's wrong, or don't acknowledge it, then nothing gets better.

Probably like you I use to believe that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality outside that the bible speaks against it. Then I started to get a better picture of the sitution, and unfortunately there are issues and problems with homosexuality.

runner,

Boy, I've certainly touched a nerve with you.
But you've not let me down - proving exactly
why religion is divisive when practised by
people such as yourself.

However, to help you - the following link is
worth a read:

http://www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality

Dear NNS,

We shall have to agree to disagree on the question
of the treatment of homosexuals by churches.
Same sex couples can't get married in Catholic or
Anglican places of worship. And a lot of churches won't
let openly gay people so much as serve the coffee.
So being " welcoming" and "Love they neighbour as
thyself..."doesn't quite apply.

Shouldn't religion represent a radical, unconditional,
non-judgemental approach to love. Isn't that exactly
what a church claims to promote?

Here's a link worth a read:

http://www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality

'Boy, I've certainly touched a nerve with you.'

no just uncovered the idiotic secular notion that humans can tell God what is right and wrong!

Foxy,

Interesting link and it says that the majority of Christians along with footy's Israel think that homosexuality is a sin if practised.

Belly,

"Christ, one of the many we invented,..."

Care to back that up with a bit of evidence and a reference or two?

Is Mise,

Still master baiting ...

Foxy,

"What do our beliefs have to do with you?"

Nothing at all, I was merely stating my unassailable position.

mhaze, the information, limited to 350 words, came out of a Christian publication, this weeks edition of the Salvation Army's 'WARCRY' which I read regularly, and I discuss with a mate, a Major in the Army, about things from time to time. Not everything is on the 'Internet' old chum. Thanks for your vote of confidence.

P1405: Does religion allow Buddhist to look down at those who they see as less enlightened. Hindu's can look down on those with less karma.

Actually Buddhism & Hinduism aren't strictly Religions. Although Hinduism does have Gods. Buddhism doesn't.

These two are really Philosophies. Much of what Jesus preached is Philosophy taken from Hinduist & Buddhist Philosophies & melded in to a Jewish World.

Foxy: In many African churches on the other hand statues and
portraits of Jesus show him with dark, Negroid features.

& in South East Asia they show Jesus as South East Asian or even Chinese. I even have a Statue of the Virgin Mary that is very Chinese looking.

NNS: Each religion has it's own answer.

Actually I would say that, each Religion has it's own Agenda.

NNS: This basically goes further then pointing out wrongs, and standing for truth but also says that if you're not Christian you aren't going to get to God. The only way is with Jesus.

Yes, I've had this screamed at me from across the Street by those lovely Southern Baptist Preachers that get on Street Corners. "You, you are a Sinner, Repent in Jesus name now." Now, isn't that divisive?

Mind you I been told the same thing by JW's & 7DA's. Very Divisive.

I've been told that, "I am only an Animal & can be shot, no problem", by an Islamic Imam. Now, that is Divisive.

I can't say I had that problem with Hindu's or Buddhists.

All the problems, I remember growing up between the Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists & Anglicans. Do you remember the old Ditties. "Anglicans, Anglicans sitting on a log, eating gutses out of a Frog." Etc. That was divisive.

Then, of course, there was the Masons, Boy, they were supposed to be bad news. Sex with Goats, etc. Does that mean moslims are Masons? Divisive?

Of course Religion is Divisive. Fortunately, most people don't take it too seriously now-a-days. Just the old, Dyed in the Wool Hardliners, who no-one takes seriously anymore anyway.

To Jayb.

I actually think there are more aspects in Christianity that bring people together and are wholesome then there are that divide people apart. Nonetheless there are aspects of division within Christianity, and that's the question on this topic. I pointed out that "turn from your sins" is one of those aspects of division. I don't think this is a bad thing either. If people took that bit of teaching more often to turn from our sins, the world would be a better place. If people also turn to God then it makes the struggle to get away from your sins easier also, so I think both are valid and need to stay together.

I'm sorry for you if you got screamed at from someone. I think this has a larger society interacting with itself kind of element that causes the preemptive yelling, then it is about the person yelling at you. Like I said ongoing reactions can cause bitterness and anger. Just having a different position and having the gall to voice that position is divisive in the same way because it'll cause a reaction. Try not to take it personally, the people I've found yelling at me for one thing or another seemed like there was baggage there before they talked to me. In other words regardless if they are right or not, the yelling wasn't aimed at you, it's probabley something or someone else they are angry at from before. Christianity has a soothing element to help the baggage from continuing on. The verse to turn the other cheek is awesome social responsibility that lets the baggage someone gives you just get absorbed instead of passing it on or passing it back.

To Foxy.

If God says it's no good, then regardless if we understand why or not, it's no good. In the Old Testament at least one place, there is the standard against active homosexuality. Men not to lay with other men (like they do with a woman), and women to not lay with other women (like would with a man). This includes those who want to be gay couples.

As for how the church treats homosexuals, my heart goes out to them. As far as I can tell they are truthful when they say they have no choice on being gay or being streight. And from what I've read it seems that often being gay is a product of enviornmental causes. Trauma and abuse as a kid, or even the rarer side of "turning gay" after a traumatic relationship or being raped as an adult.

In my opinion having compassion on a homosexual is the answer. The answer isn't accepting and welcoming active homosexual behavior.

Our PM & Treasurer are supposedly religious, just look at the divisions they cause in peoples' lives ! Particularly with Centrelink & Immigration.

Dear Foxy,

Your explanation of homosexuality does not seem to fit with what we know of it in ancient Greek societies.

Why should we distinguish between the motivations for homosexuality and heterosexuality? They are both driven by the same thing - sexuality. Which in itself is a basic determinant for the furtherance of life and the evolution of our species. Thus, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality when considered within an evolutionary scheme, except that it's a bit of a dead end in gene distribution.

Care to back that up with a bit of evidence and a reference or two?
Is Mise,
sadly, no evidence will suffice there ! Surely, you're looking around you sometimes but do you see ?

Why so many Gods
Why has each claimed to be the only true one, can we count the very different ones we made and continue to make
If we got them all in the one room would it be full of love or hate
Surely we can not claim the millions who follow a different one are just wrong?
IZZY told us his God murdered fire victims, for no other reason than OTHERS had abortions or sex with their own sex
After we die is life sitting at the feet of God in rapture ok? no romp in the field with a nice young lady, God will not like it?
As we que on the other side meeting our loved ones again will we have time to meets mums mums mum and great great great grand mum?

During this debate someone assured me he was sure he would live again after death
So am I
In a long ago thread, long long ago, think it may have been called ghosts
We saw very long thread, in that I said I believe even know, something exists post this life
If someone wants to start a thread I will join in
See many [ME TOO] tell of being in the company of dead people
We read of near death that saw very solic Christians tell of seeing those they love, often however not again being a Christian after
Bush tales of soldiers killed in action appearing in their homes at that very time
I found many shared my thoughts in that long lasting thread maybe worth tossing it around some day

NNS: Like I said ongoing reactions can cause bitterness and anger.

Nah... I never get angry. Tried that once & people laughed at me, then I got angry. ;-) No. the Screamer just made me laugh.

Foxy,

You are a perfect fit to your description of people who call others names.

Individual,

"Non-Christian sources
Josephus and Tacitus
Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline letters and synoptic gospels, and are usually independent of each other; that is, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process.[39][40][41][41][42]

In Books 18 and 20 of Antiquities of the Jews, written around AD 93 to 94, Josephus twice refers to the biblical Jesus. The general scholarly view holds that the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, most likely consists of an authentic nucleus that was subjected to later Christian interpolation or forgery.[43][44] On the other hand, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman states that "few have doubted the genuineness" of the reference found in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".[45][46][47][48]

Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44,[49] describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He writes that founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself.[50] Some scholars question the historical value of the passage on various grounds."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Non-Christian_sources

More important than a discussion on religion started by an atheist who knows nothing about the subject, is the fact that, of 310,O00 new jobs created to June this year, only 64,000 were in the private sector. We are getting closer to a socialist state in which religion will be banned.

To Belly.

You asked why so many gods that we invent. However in a topic of religion divisiveness, I have a counter question for ya. Why so much divisiveness towards religion by atheists?

Since I can't speak for an atheist perspective, either from my own understanding or from being among other like minded atheists, then perhaps you can offer up an explaination.

Why is it when religion is mentioned among an atheist audience there is so much bitterness, hate, and anger that would be the divisiveness directed towards the person of said religion?

If an an atheists position is divisive, can you really blame it on religions? Or wouldn't atheist have to own up to the product of their own culture? Perhaps you can't speak from a atheist position in general such as different socialist or communist governments that have banned and oppressed religous practices. Those in that society would be better to give a response. So with that in mind, go with what you can. Why is atheism within Australia so divisiveness?

Paul? Jayb? You guys can answer too if you can,

I have a complete works of Josephus. It a rather large volume Bigger than most Books. About 11" X 9" X 5", First edition, about 1918. If I remember correctly.

The translation does mention Jesus, which I find Strange because "Jesus" as a name didn't exist until the Nicene Conference. Christos did, as it is a translation of the Greek "Lord" in English. The translators would have translated his real name "Yeshua" as Jesus. I guess. Remembering that there is no "J" in Middle Eastern Languages or Latin. Don't you find it strange because Mary was given the strict Instructions from God to call the child "Emanuel" yet she called him "Yeshua." Fail. Ay.

It's a very hard book to read, although it z rather large Book, the printing in in Telephone Book Script. It has a Blue Hard back Cover. Probably worth a few bob. It's Packed away at the moment as we are selling up here & moving.

TTN: More important than a discussion on religion started by an atheist who knows nothing about the subject,

Strange, I find most Atheist to know more about Religion than Religionists. That's why they're Atheists.

NNS: Why is it when religion is mentioned among an atheist audience there is so much bitterness, hate, and anger

Strange that. I usually find the opposite to be true & have been subjected to that vitriol, mostly by Southern Baptists.

P1495: A recent survey revealed that many Australians harbour incredibly negative attitudes towards all religion.

A negative attitude doesn't mean they abuse Religionists. It just means they don't believe in Religion or Gods. If Religionists interpret that as abusive (negative) then, the Log in is their eye.

If a Religionist engages an Atheist in a debate & that Atheist is not persuaded by the Religionist, then most Religionist tend to get somewhat Ikey. They then perceive the Atheist to be Negative & abusive when, in fact, it's mostly the other way around. Ay.

"
Strange, I find most Atheist to know more about Religion than Religionists. That's why they're Atheists".

Very strange indeed, even if you know "most atheists", which I doubt. As an agnostic, I find atheists no different from believers: both are making assumptions they can't prove or disprove. I have more respect for the believers, who at least have faith. Atheists have nothing, and nothing to say worth hearing.

Paul wrote: "Not everything is on the 'Internet' old chum. "

Not quite true. http://www.warcry.org.au/single-post/2019/11/16/Whats-the-problem-with-religion

Still, that doesn't help. My experience is that when you can't trace the provenance of a claimed survey, there are usually good (or nefarious) reasons for that. Survey results are easily manipulated as Sir Humphrey showed all those years ago... http://youtu.be/oLhFXkvugLM?t=58

Currently there are polls in the USshowing that 70% of people want Trump impeached and that 30% want Trump impeached. Iffy polls get the answer they want.

So I don't believe the numbers since they don't gel with other reputable numbers around. Still, it seems we'll never know.

As to religion being divisive, its my experience, when someone claims these people or this insitution or whatever are divisive, what they really mean is that they won't agree with them.

If only everyone agreed with me, society wouldn't be divided. That's the level of thinking. Religion of itself isn't divisive. When the majority of people are religious, religion by definition is unifying.

Religion is only seen to be divisive because it refuses or cannot concede its principles to the current fads. But the fadists demand that it does concede, that it ignore its teachings and follow their held-for-the-present dictates. And since religion demurs, they declare it divisive which is one of the biggest pejoratives available to a leftist.

Religion and the religious aren't stopping the same-sex community from living their lives as they want. They just refuse to lie by saying that such lifestyles are acceptable in their or their deity's eyes.

"Religion is only seen to be divisive because it refuses or cannot concede its principles to the current fads".

Spot on, mhaze, if you are talking about the Catholics. Many, if not most, non-conformist preachers, however, go out of their way to be trendy by introducing 'fads' into their sermons and ramblings in an effort to gain the approval of Leftist ratbags and Christianity haters.

Move over scientology my new God is ready to get the tax free run all have
You must be born again, in to the race/religion you harmed in this life
Did not do that? move up a step,all races are Gods children all colors all faiths, harm not one of them
Bring your money with you to Church we will truly honestly share every cent with the poor

Jayb.

You've really never seen it? I find that hard to believe. I've seen it when I first came to OLO. I've also seen Christian divisiveness towards nonbelievers, as well as towards other Christians. I make a note to pay attention to this because of issues as a kid, and not wanting to see the same thing happen again. The only reason to not see divisiveness among atheists is if you're not being observant. My question still stands if you have any explainations as an atheist, for atheist divisiveness.

To Belly. The same question still is open to you as well.

Belly: Bring your money with you to Church we will truly honestly share every cent with the poor.

I queried one of these Traveling Preachers once. I asked him why should we donate money for the church to spend overseas when there are poor people here living under Bridges. You could spend the money on them, instead of building another Church.

He said that the Church wasn't there to help their Physical wellbeing, it was there for the spiritual Wellbeing. So I said, "So, you get to keep the money." That's when I got hustled away. Ay.

And so it is with these preachers, especially the TV Type. Ay.

Jayb,

"Some consider the Catholic Church as a spiritual institution founded for a spiritual purpose – and only that. And I recall Josef Stalin’s quip to French Prime Minister Pierre Laval in 1935: “The Pope! How many divisions has he got?” (as quoted in Winston Churchill, The Second World War, 1948), which was purposeful sarcasm to point out how on earth a spiritual institution could do anything to help thwart the escalating military threat of Nazism.

But the Catholic Church is more than a spiritual institution. Apparently using “the strategy of non-coercive power” (Deus Vult: The Geopolitics of the Catholic Church, 2010), the Church runs 5,500 hospitals, 18,000 clinics, 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs, with 65 percent of them located in underdeveloped and developing countries."
http://usa.inquirer.net/15692/catholic-church-worlds-biggest-charitable-organization

'He said that the Church wasn't there to help their Physical wellbeing, it was there for the spiritual Wellbeing. So I said, "So, you get to keep the money." That's when I got hustled away. Ay.

And so it is with these preachers, especially the TV Type. Ay.'

no doubt Al Gore and co learn't a few things. If ever their was high priest making a killing from the public.

Is Mise: the Catholic Church is more than a spiritual institution. Apparently using “the strategy of non-coercive power” (Deus Vult: The Geopolitics of the Catholic Church, 2010), the Church runs 5,500 hospitals, 18,000 clinics, 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs, with 65 percent of them located in underdeveloped and developing countries."
http://usa.inquirer.net/15692/catholic-church-worlds-biggest-charitable-organization.

Exactly my point. The Churches (All of them) are looking after the Spiritual needs of a person not the Physical needs. When it comes to Clinics, Old peoples Homes & Special Needs Homes. Well that's a farce. The Cost just to apply is exorbitant & the ongoing Costs outrageous. Then the dependants get virtually nothing from the Estate.

It's all a big money making Business & they make lots & lots of Moola. Even the Aged Home Care is really a Scam. This is all Religions, not just the Catholics.

Oh, I'm Catholic, or was. I went to a Convent with the Nuns (The Crows) Then onto the Marist Brothers to grade 10. Grade 10 was a big deal in those days. My Parents, being good Catholics (Mum was Irish Catholic) None of that Roman stuff for her. The paid a fortune for my Education & when the Italians owned all the Cane Farms the Fees skyrocketed to cater for the rich Italian Farmers (see gouge the Italians for as much as you can get.)

As I said why go to 3rd. World Countries? Why not look after the poor people living under the Bridge? Hmmm... They haven't got any money. In the Missions (3rd. World Countries) the Churches will eventually own everything & the people will all die off. Ay. That's the way it has worked for about 600 years since the Spanish, Portuguese carved up the Colonies.

Dear Belly,

«Why so many Gods»

How possibly could there be many Gods?
It is a logical impossibility to have two or more different beings of unlimited power!

Alright, people can have different ideas ABOUT God and assign Him/Her/It different attributes such as personality, legends or expectations of mankind, yet they all speak about the same God regardless whether or not their attributions have a real basis.

No takers?

Is it because it's an uncomfortable question? Or because you really don't see any divisiveness among atheists? In case blindness is your excuse I'll give a few examples.

•Israel Folau. Got canned because he posted on Twitter when he was off the clock about people who won't go to heaven and the type of sins. The original Twitter post wasn't directed at homosexuality, but against many sinful behaviors. Getting canned for speaking against homosexuality is what it got turned into.
-follow up question: why were atheist so oppressive and divisive to make an example here against Folau

•Richard Dawkins. Not much needs to be said, because everything he says is so much against religion that the obvious question is:
-why so aggressively divisive against religion?

•Here on OLO. Do you really want direct quotes? Just look at the comments on OLO. If a Christian has an opinion on anything that another poster disagrees with, then just by being Christian the insults start to fly, or the arguments that their stance (in whatever topic) is stronger then the Christian's "belief without proof." There are too many examples in this forum to claim blindness on not seeing it.
-why the divisive and active hostility by atheists? If you want direct quotes, or even just naming the posters that have done this, then that can be arranged. But do any of you really fake blindness that much?

I'll say it again. If atheist are divisive shouldn't they take responsibility for the product of their philosophy and the culture of divisiveness within their philosophies?

I answered the question of divisiveness in religion that I've can answer for. Namely explanations that I can give within Christianity. Is there a reason why none of the atheists here care to stand up to the same question?

If Christ lived why did he let other Gods do so
Christ threw the money lenders out of his father's house why has he not thrown American millionaire fraudsters claiming to be his servants out of his father's house
Hillsong, its former head, father of its current one
Has Christ forgiven the infamous sexual assault we are told about
Is it ok to live so very highly on donations meant for Christ?

Mental illness is till a major problem, religion highlights that at every turn !

There's a really obvious question here that I'm surprised no one has asked so far, and that is "Why is Paul1405 so divisive"? This is an inflammatory thread, to say the least, which makes me wonder why someone would start it.

I don't see any evidence that religions in general are particularly divisive. And I see evidence that many religions are actually inclusive rather than divisive. If you want to go to a Christian church there is no threshold requirement, no membership fee required, no vetting committee, no application form, no referees, no questions asked, you don't even have to put money in the plate - just walk through the door. That's more inclusive than my local pub.

Which raises the question as to why Paul1405 decided to start this thread. And why some people make the argument that religion is divisive when there is no evidence of this.

Of course some people have used religious identity as a way of prosecuting wars and persecutions, but that's no different from the way some people use other identities, like race, or gender, to do the same thing. You won't see Paul posting "Why is race so divisive"? So why pick on religion?

Jayb,

"As I said why go to 3rd. World Countries? Why not look after the poor people living under the Bridge? Hmmm..."

Hmmm, ever heard of St Vinnies, the Salvos etc?

Is Mise: Hmmm, ever heard of St Vinnies, the Salvos etc?

My Mother worked at both places at different time for many years. She said that they are strictly money making concerns that make donations to poor people for the Publicity.

Actually, come to think of it they have been outed a few times. So have a few other similar "Charities" come to think of it again.

GrahamY: I don't see any evidence that religions in general are particularly divisive.

I think you are right Graham. Except for Islam. What I see is people being devisive. P1405 is a bit of a stirrer, as am I at times, I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

GY: you don't even have to put money in the plate - just walk through the door.

There are a few exceptions. (Tithing)

Indie: Mental illness is till a major problem, religion highlights that at every turn !

Yep, Ol' Jack Jones, Kircherian?, Planet X, Scientology & a myriad of smaller non-inclusive private Religious Sects where you hand over you're life savings. Definitely Mental Illness.

HI JayB, tithing is voluntary in any of the mainstream Christian denominations, although there may be some sects, like perhaps the Exclusive Brethren, who require it before you can belong to one of their congregations (this is speculation on my part).

I know people who tithe voluntarily (meaning they give 10% of their income to the church), and I've heard people discuss whether this should be pre- or post-tax. But again, in the mainstream churches, this is very rare. And it is voluntary, meaning no one will be denied access to anything because they don't contribute 10% of income to the church.

I can say with authority that in the plate at my church the evidence is that no one in our congregation tithes as we raise around $60,000 from collections per year and there would have to be much more than $600,000 p.a. being earned across the congregation.

FWIW I think tithing is an irrelevant hold over from Old Testament times when the synagogue was the source of social security for those who couldn't look after themselves. So in a sense it corresponds to our taxes now. With the shrinkage of the church in this respect, and the growth of the state, it's an outmoded idea.

Graham,

Another unasked question is.."why is being divisive bad". I'm not agreeing that religion is divisive (see above) but even if it was, why would that be bad.

Elsewhere in these pages, I've argued that not only is being divisive not a negative, but that its very much a positive and that democracy both relies on it and is partially designed to handle it.

But for the left, 'divisive' is one of those words used to close down debate. It's undefined but inherently bad. No argument needed. "oh you're divisive" to the left means discussion over - you loose.

For the left, unity around an idea (THEIR idea) is desirable, even required. So, as per above, calling people who fail to agree with them 'divisive' is a no-brainer and makes perfect sense to the totalitarian-lite mind-set.

Unfortunately, many religious leaders and institutions, have caved to the onslaught and compromised on this or that principle in the hope of being given a pass. But paying the dane-geld never, ever works.

Just as the real racists are those who see racism everywhere, the real dividers are those who treat the accusation of divisiveness as a weapon.

A very long time ago GY you told us you had a thread on hand that concerned you
You, without telling us what is was about asked our advice
It got posted, it was from our dumpster diving One Under God
Rough diamond doing it hard, and was his view of evolution
Mate I like you, know completely we sit far apart on almost every issue, your task managing us is no easy job
But why are some threads so wrong, should not be posted
OH SOME ARE once not here, saw a pedophil post things that never ever should have been
They tell us about a third in this country have no religion, maybe right or wrong,
Find myself with Paul here, history is full of pure evil done by faiths Jonestown the Spanish Inquisition, long list

Belly: history is full of pure evil done by faiths Jonestown the Spanish Inquisition, long list.

Yes, you are right, Hugonaughts, Various Baptists, Lutherans, New Geneva Presbyterians, Wesleyans, etc, they were all into it 400 years ago. Not just the Catholics.

Personally I think if people of faith in Australia only give 10 per cent of what they earn then their faith is tenous at best. You find the more a church relies on Government handouts the more compromised it becomes. The church should never end up like the Greens and regressives who are champions at spending other peoples money. Whether a person gives to a minsitry, the poor or some other worthy cause can be left to the individual. The average Aussie is very rich. Jesus spoke on the issue of money more than even what most church goers are comfortable with. If people are not willing to give to what they believe in then their belief must be of little value.

GY is a true Christian, it is his right to be so, in my past life here and again after my return I said these words
If you are in trouble *it will be a true Christian first to help*
I see nothing wrong with the thread, and fail to see Paul acting out of bounds
I a no believer ask that in the current reforms about to be put before the house my views be respected
And Warned in thread about this that bill could be divisive, like it or not MINORITIES IN EVERY FAITH ARE DIVISIVE
Islamic radicals first put on that list
If we can not talk about this we are in fact selecting what free speech we will ,alowe

Jayb,

John Wesley died in 1791, when he died he was a Methodist and Wesleyanism did not come into being until the 1800s, hardly 400 years ago and I can find no record of the Weslians persecuting anyone.

Today the greatest evil is the god deniers who think its ok to kill millions of unborn babies just because they are covered by their mother's skin. Then again the other godless regime China deal in body parts. What is it with godless people?

Religion has many aspects. Christianity has its god and angels and cherubs and burning bushes, etc., but it also has its underlying moral principles. Love they neighbour - i.e., 'agapaw' - have regard and concern for one's fellow human beings, is surely a better principle than not to trust or associate with non-believers. Don't exploit the weak, as Christ demonstrated with his expulsion of the money-lenders.

I keep going on about the Good Samaritan, someone who helps someone else who is NOT from his own group, which seems to be unusual amongst religions. This story is similar to the story of Esther in the Old Testament. And surely the essence of the story of Christ, true or not, is one of sacrificing one's well-being and life for others ?

My parents were communists, working-class which was rare among communists, so I was raised in a religious environment worshipping first Stalin and Lenin, while leaning towards the Stakhanovite sense of dedication to a cause. When we split from the pro-Russians about sixty years ago, like many devout people we went even further devout and supported Mao. That came to an end after revelations about his murder of Lin Piao and more generally, his degenerate lifestyle, not to mention finding out afterwards about the millions killed and jailed during the Cultural Revolution. With it died any belief in the efficacy of socialism. But I hope that the sense of dedication to the people has survived.

I don't see that as much different from the best of Christian or Jewish or Muslim principles, of the Golden Rule to relate to others as I would wish they relate to me. And I wouldn't be surprised if most Christians these days don't go along with the burning bushes and cherubs stuff.

No, I still don't believe in any gods, or in an after-life: I certainly am not in a hurry to die, but once that happens, in my view, that's it. If I'm lucky, I've got another twenty years, then the worms can have me.

Joe

Hey loudmouth2, you are more than what the worms consume. You are living now and making an impact in this Universe. Your impact remains in your family and friends and beyond. They will know what that is and be influenced by it. It is your life story as lived in that mortal body. That impact is written in the history of the Universe. Do not pull a curtain over yourself and pretend you never existed.

Joe,

I go along with the burning bush, the Israelis used its calculated location to find oil in one account that I read.

More here:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1131312/000113131206000057/fwpthw.htm

.

According to the Encyclopedia of Wars (2005), of the 1,763 wars that occurred between 8 000 BC and 2 000 AD, 123 (nearly 7%) were considered “religious wars”.

Also, in 2011, the historian, Matthew White, published “The Great Big Book of Horrible Things : The definitive Chronicle of History’s 100 Worst Atrocities”, in which he listed the following :

Religious Conflicts:

Taiping Rebellion- 20,000,000 Deaths (Rank- 6th)
Thirty Years War- 7,500,000 Deaths (Rank 17th)
Madhi Revolt- 5,500,000 (Rank 21st)
Crusades (in the East)- 3,000,000 Deaths (Rank- 30th)
French Wars of Religion- 3,000,000 Deaths (Rank 30th)
War in the Sudan- 2,600,000 (Rank 35th)
Albigensian Crusade- 1,000,000 Deaths (Rank- 46th)
Panthay Rebellion- 1,000,000 Deaths (Rank 46th)
Hui Rebellion- 640,000 Deaths (Rank 66th)
Partition of India- 500,000 (Rank 70th)
Cromwell’s Invasion of Ireland- 400,000 Deaths (Rank 81st)

Human Sacrifice :

Gladiatorial Games- 3,500,000 Deaths (Rank 28th)
Aztec Sacrifice- 1,200,000 (Rank 45th)

There are at least two other conflicts that might be added to the totals given by White that involve significant enough religious motivations to be included here. They include the Roman-Jewish Wars (350,000 Deaths- Ranked 94th) and the Great Turkish War (384,000 Deaths- ranked 89th). White lists the Roman Jewish Wars under the primary category of “Colonial Wars” and the Great Turkish Wars under the primary category of “Clash of Cultures.” While White or others could certainly make a strong argument for framing both wars these ways, there is nevertheless a significant enough religious component to include them under the general category of religious wars, even if only to fend off potential critics who would object to their exclusion. Including them does not change the final analysis much, as instead of 13% of the world’s greatest atrocities being religiously inspired it brings the total to 15%.

.

To Banjo Paterson

If the encyclopedia of wars is correct, then that means that out of 1763 wars referenced, roughly 1640 of those wars were not religious, and only 143 were. It makes it sound like religion isn't the big culprit when it comes to wars.

Regarding "The Great Book of Horrible things," of those hundred things listed, only thirteen (possibly fifteen) have a religious influence involved? That also means that 75-77 of the worst 100 atrocities made, were not influenced nor motivated by religion. The smoking gun isn't facing religion. I'd even wager a look at the ones that have a religious influence and ask the question: "how many of those atrocities were actually following their religion's teachings when committing the horrible acts?" If any of them were in line with their religion to mass slaughter people, then a more focused look at that religion and that event should be done, with a follow up question of "why."

I'd wager that only a few of the atrocities are actually following their religion's directions, and of those that are following their religion, the focus should be on that specific religion. Islam is the only religion that I am aware of that still has violent acts as acceptable within the religion itself. Most other violence that I'm aware of isn't taught from a religion, yet it's still there. Something to think about.

On that note Banjo, I've a question that so far no one in the atheist crowd has tried to answer. "Why are atheists so divisive?" Is there a explaination you can share from your own understanding? (You usually try to stick to points instead of insults or changing the topic, so I have higher hopes for an answer from you, then so far from Belly, Jayb, or Individual, who've all either changed the topic away from them and added insults to cover their tracks.)

There might be a rational for atheist divisive behavior towards religion. But so far I don't think anyone wants to hold themselves to the standards they hold religions to. Thus no explaination.

I think in terms of the Bible the English revised one [why did we need to change the word of God]
A truth exists within that second Bible we see true rules to live by that stand out as in my view brilliant
But too ,stay with me on this, the information that our very reproductive act is original sin!
Well recent revelations may support that, about the people who said it to us
Yes religion is divisive, always will be
But should we not speak about that?

Belly, What is divisive in North Korea and Communist China, where millions are persecuted and murdered. Are the religions divisive or oppressed by another religion - Atheism?

NNS: 1640 of those wars were not religious,

This doesn't mean that the perpetrators of these Wars were Atheists. It just means that the Wars were over, usually Land or Crowns. The Perpetrators were religious people.

BP: “The Great Big Book of Horrible Things"

OMG! One I haven't got. Fixed, just ordered.

Here is the scenario. An Atheist comes along & meets a Religious. (Southern Baptist, say) The SB tell the Atheist that he's a sinner & the Atheist says, "Aren't we all" & tries to walk on. He gets hasseled by the SB, "Pray for forgiveness, become Born Again." The Atheist walks on. The SB persists & waves the Bible at him. The Atheist then says, "Sorry I don't believe in God" & walks on.

Now that like waving a red flag at a Bull to a SB. (personal experience here) The SB keeps insisting in engaging in conversation much to the consternation of the Atheist. So the Atheist says, "Look, mate, there is no God. Go away." The SB still persists, waving & quoting the Bible & New Testament with much flurry & insisting the Atheist is a Sinner.

Now the Question. Just who is being divisive here, the Atheist or the SB?

There are some Religious Cults that are no better than the moslims in this regard in as much that they would still be burning people at the Stake.

Note: Protestants burnt more people at the Stake than Catholics ever did.

josephus needs to disagree, with everything, see he claims to be Christian but just maybe the type that are leaving Church benches empty
Conservatives own or think they do Christ
Had he existed I suspect he would wack them behind the ears, often

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You ask :

“Why are atheists so divisive?"

I presume you mean “why are atheists divisive towards religious people?”

I don’t think it’s true to say that atheists, generally, are “divisive”. My impression is that they are largely indifferent – as long as they are not being confronted, provoked or preached to by would-be moralists, proselytists, evangelists or whatever (e.g., Izzy Folau).

Might I add that in addition to atheists, I have the impression that there are also a growing number of “ordinary people” who have never been confronted with the question of religious beliefs and have therefore never accepted nor rejected them. I class myself among this group though I was baptised and confirmed as a Christian and served as an altar boy for many years.

Having carefully and conscientiously studied the god hypothesis most of my life, I never found any reason to believe in it. In fact, I became convinced that it was a purely human concept.

While, therefore, I don’t reject my Christian inheritance, I have never adopted the religious beliefs that go with it. And as it seems silly to me to define myself as an “a-theist”, i.e., by reference to “theists” (people who believe in something that I consider does not exist), I prefer to think of myself as just an ordinary person.

Divisiveness seems to me to be far more prevalent among religious people. No less than 84% of the world’s population declare adhering to a religion, yet, according to the adherents.com data base, there are 4,351 religions in the world (http://www.adherents.com/) - and that does not take into account all the different denominations of certain major religions : e.g., there are about 34,000 Christian denominations, several branches of Islam (Sunni, Shia, Sufism, Ibadi Muslims, Wahhabis, etc.) and several branches of Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Haredi, Hasidic, etc.).

As Graham suggests : “If you want to go to a Christian church … just walk through the door” or, alternatively, he could just walk through the door of a Mosque, Temple or whatever. No need to be divisive.

.

To Belly.

You said religion is very divisive, but should we not speak about that?

I'm sorry if my points were not made clear. I started with some explanations for the any divisive actions that I've seen that sometimes comes from Christians. But as the topic continued (as Graham noticed), the topic was very divisive against religion and many have used it as an opportunity to fill the air with anything they want to say against religion. (Whether it be serious, or just to mock and insult. For an example of insult, look at Mr. O's new branded insult "one dollar brain.")

That counts as a double standard in my opinion. Religions are held to the standard to not be divisive (that's the criticism of this topic) but it's ok for atheists to continue on their insults, their divisiveness to any religion? No dice, double standards should be rooted out from among you. Among any of us. However instead of even confronting the double standard, none of the atheists around here seem to even see their own behavior. You included Belly.

All I'm asking for is an explanation why atheists are as divisive towards religion. Or am I imagining things that more and more that there's growing pressure to remove religion from the public. Neither speak about it in public, as well as many places around the world trying to remove anything that has a religious symbol or religious phrase that can be seen in the public. Just getting to the point of you seeing your own behavior or the behavior of fellow atheists is like pulling teeth. If religion needs an explanation then so do atheists who in their causes drag religious people through the mud. That's my point that none of you seem to own up to. Justify your actions if they can be justified, or explain them if they can't be justified.

Look around you. Just in OLO, can you all really say your so blind that you don't see the regulars of the anti-religion brigade who step up whenever religion is mentioned?

To Jayb.

The non religious wars don't point to atheism, but do point out that religion is not the cause of wars as much as it's claimed. Even the wars fought in the name of religion are likely not actually following the teachings of that religion when they go out to war.

NNS sorry you swim in deep mud, or at least try using things that are only meaningful to you
Your defense of faiths needs to bypass true honest look at who you defend
Some, in every faith are divisive, in this thread you in fact are divisive

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

What had the young Jesus of Nazareth done to merit being tortured to death on the cross despite being declared innocent by the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate ? Who wanted him eliminated – were they atheists ?

Wasn’t Saul of Tarsus (Saint Paul) a religious zealot (of Judaism) – not an atheist – when he persecuted the Christians and participated in the stoning to death of (Saint) Etienne ?

Why did Nero, a polytheist – not an atheist – have Simon-son-of-Jonas (Saint Peter) crucified upside down following the great fire of Rome ?

And why did the same Nero have Saul of Tarsus (Saint Paul) beheaded ?

Why was Giordano Bruno, a Dominican friar, mathematician, astronomer and poet, burned at the stake by the Catholic Church ?

Why was Joan of Arc, who acted on religious visions, also burned at the stake by the Catholic Church ?
.

None of these atrocities and terrible injustices were committed by atheists. They were committed by religious people against other religious people. They are acts of religious intolerance.

I may be wrong but I think there is more divisiveness bred by religious intolerance than by atheism – even among people of the same religion.

.

Banjo Paterson,

<<What had the young Jesus of Nazareth done to merit being tortured to death on the cross despite being declared innocent by the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate ? Who wanted him eliminated – were they atheists ?>>

Banjo,

Jesus told us why:

"But Jesus called the disciples together and said:You know that foreign rulers like to order their people around. And their great leaders have full power over everyone they rule. But don’t act like them. If you want to be great, you must be the servant of all the others. And if you want to be first, you must be the slave of the rest. The Son of Man did not come to be a slave master, but a slave who will give his life to rescue many people" (Matthew 20:25-28).

All sinners (including you and me) are rebels against God. To be reconciled with God and enter eternal life, the apostle Paul taught, "Even when we were God’s enemies, he made peace with us, because his Son died for us. Yet something even greater than friendship is ours. Now that we are at peace with God, we will be saved by his Son’s life" (Romans 5:10).

Jesus predicted his own death to rescue people and no declaration of 'innocence' by Pontius Pilate could stop his sacrificial shedding of blood to cover sins for those who believe in Jesus: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16&version=ERV

<<I may be wrong but I think there is more divisiveness bred by religious intolerance than by atheism – even among people of the same religion.>>

I've observed quite a bit of divisiveness and religious intolerance by you towards Christians on this forum. How would you document that statistically around the world?

What is your definition of intolerance?

Hi Josephus,

On your observation: " .... you are more than what the worms consume. You are living now and making an impact in this Universe. Your impact remains in your family and friends and beyond. They will know what that is and be influenced by it. It is your life story as lived in that mortal body. That impact is written in the history of the Universe...."

Certainly, I've always thought that everybody could make a difference, and I'm confidence that I may have done so, so I can eventually pass away (not yet, Lord !) more or less content. But also knowing that that's the end. Fair enough: one can be fortunate to live so many decades and then say goodbye, forever. Yes, i hope that I'll be remembered by some, especially my loved ones, at least until their turn comes.

But it's not what takes up much of my time wondering. We live, we do what we can to improve the world, then we die, and that's it. Would I like to live forever ? Sure, although all that praying and singing and floating around as a soul in a well-lit and timeless heaven (maybe I'm presuming that that's where I could be going ?) would surely pall after a while. Can we argue with each other up there ? Resolve anything ? Would it make any difference ? Sounds all a bit futile.

Joe

Paul1405,

<<A recent survey revealed that many Australians harbour incredibly negative attitudes towards all religion. 46% said; "Religion is a major part of the problems in our world." 42% said; "It's not religion which is the problem, but "religious people' who are the problem." >>

I wish you would document your source.

The YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project (statistics) found that

"51% of Australians had unfavourable sentiments towards Islam, and only 10% looked upon the religion positively, making Australia more negative than 17 of the other 22 countries surveyed.

"In fact, 37% of people said they were “very unfavourable”– the most negative response available. This was far higher than the milder option of “fairly unfavourable” (14%), and made it the single most common response to the religion. 23% of people were neutral.

"In comparison, 45% of Australians were positive towards Christianity, and 21% were negative", http://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/04/australians-accepting-of-migrants-but-negative-towards-islam-poll-finds

In a thread about that Muslim woman being bashed by a stranger on that train or was it bus, some seemed to say it was ok
Look read the posts, then tell me that is not what was said
But if you agree? then let's highlight GYs view this thread was unneeded
Now win no friends with this BUT dislike seeing Islamic middle east or Asian clothing on women
But even at my age would have instantly jumped on that offender
We have rights to our opinions doubt either thread in the end could not be used for better if we think about it

Really interesting to me that god denying virtue signallers have a history of depravity and child abuse. See Prince Charles banging on about gw. Nice distraction from Prince Andrew. That Gail sheila and the current ceo of Bankwest refusing to lend to coal producers. Nice one as they laundered heaps of money for child molestors while virtue signalling their woke ideologies. Then we have Hollywood. I would imagine Epstein was probably the next gw high priest of gw but that did not go to well.

I'm not sure what you are asking me to do Belly. I read the violence against Muslim women thread and I don't think anyone was urging anyone to go out and bash anyone because they were Muslim. I would remove a post like that.

The assailant is mentally ill, and the woman was defended by people in the restaurant who detained the assailant and took him outside. He apparently has issues with Islam.

Some commenters, who obviously hadn't looked at the footage remarked that the women must have been wearing Islamic garb, and there was some antipathy towards that. I don't think that calls for me to step in and start deleting comments.

Not sure why we are discussing this on this thread anyway, as it doesn't really have anything to do with religion being divisive, unless someone is going to mount a case that it is the women's fault for wearing dress associated with a faith. But I'd argue that the divisive ones are those who object to them wearing that dress.

If you are Christian here are the top 15 worst places to live as a Christian:
1. North Korea (94/100)
2. Afghanistan (94/100)
3. Somalia (91/100)
4. Libya (87/100)
5. Pakistan (87/100)
6. Sudan (87/100)
7. Eritrea (86/100)
8. Yemen (86/100)
9. Iran (85/100)
10. India (83/100)
11. Syria (82/100)
12. Nigeria (80/100)
13. Iraq (79/100)
14. Maldives (78/100)
15. Saudi Arabia (77/100)
—
45. UAE (58/100)
46. Sri Lanka (58/100)
47. Colombia (58/100)
48. Bangladesh (58/100)
49. Palestinian Territories (58/100)
50. Azerbaijan (58/100)
China also comes up in the figures for persecution, but they also currently persecute Muslims, some 600,000 and 4,000,000 Hong Kong. I do not think China supports theism. In all the figures of countries above have a religious based constitution.

I saw it differently GY post the coming bill on religious protection and rights others may see it my way
Had it been a Christian bashed by a Muslim my view would be the same admit it needed no formal action but is my right to question those two posters ok?

Dear Banjo,

«None of these atrocities and terrible injustices were committed by atheists. They were committed by religious people against other religious people. They are acts of religious intolerance.»

They were committed by people who called themselves "religious", but were they indeed? These are acts of intolerance, but are they indeed religious acts? Has God indeed ordained these terrible acts? Why should you believe all those self-proclaimed "religious" idiots?

Also, these horrible atrocious people could well have been atheists: so what if they SAID that they believed in God (or gods) - can you really know what was in their hearts?

(just note however, that the above does not imply that an atheist cannot be religious)

To Belly.

You said that I am being divisive. I think I am being disagreeable at best, not not divisive. Consider it this way. If each religion rejects the other religions as well as atheism, then religion and atheism hold the same score card on divisiveness. Atheist reject all religions, and rationalize their divisiveness by saying what they think about all religions of the world. That they are made up, or are violent, or otherwise make excuses for rejecting all other religions. On the score card of divisiveness an atheist is the minority population of the world that rejects all of the religions of the world. How can you be more divisive then that?

And that is my point here. It's not to defend religion. It's to point out the double standard. Atheism is a divisive philosophy. Look back through this thread. In how many posts have you said anything that wasn't divisive towards religion? In how many other places have you insulted a person based on their religion, calling them idiots or a similar term. I reject the double standard, the hypocrisy, and the "do as I say not as I do" approach that is always evident in atheist philosophy. Religion as a general term makes up the majority of the world population!

(Continued)

(Continued)

Am I defending religion? So far I'm the only one on the religious side that admits that there can be divisiveness in my faith. Not always is that divisiveness a bad attribute, but sometimes it gets out of hand. I've seen it and I can see the reasoning of it from within a Christian perspective to better explain behavior from Christians that I have seen. I've also said that the divisive side is very small compared to everything else that comes with Christianity.

I'm not so much defending religion as much as I'm saying that atheism is no better then what it accuses of religions. I'm holding atheists to a standard they try to hold religions to. Yet if holding a standard is divisive, then so be it. I won't balk at being considered divisive if I hold you all to the same standards you try to hold the rest of the world to.

NNS, I find it is dominant individuals that divide in Christianity and not the faith. The Christian faith teaches acceptance and gentleness in spreading the message, because we are equally failed persons, and in need of restoration.

Not_Now.Soon,

<<Am I defending religion? So far I'm the only one on the religious side that admits that there can be divisiveness in my faith. Not always is that divisiveness a bad attribute, but sometimes it gets out of hand.>>

There has been divisiveness in Christianity since the first century. In the New Testament it is called heresy, which means 'a sect or division'. It eventually meant a departure from orthodoxy. Jesus had to battle with the Judaizers who didn't like His teaching. The Book of 1 John addressed a docetic form of Gnosticism that divided that first century church. The heresy of Gnosticism invaded the church in the first 2 centuries.

Then the church had the divisiveness of Marcion of Sinope (ca. 85-160) who contended that the God who sent Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty of Judaism. Leading church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian regarded him as a heretic.

Then there was the Trinitarian vs Unitarian controversy, where Unitarianism was promoted by Arius. This divisiveness was addressed at the First Council of Nicaea in 325, which concluded in favour of the Trinity.

There was the BIG division that came in the 16th century between Roman Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation, led by Martin Luther (AD 1483-1546).

Even in the 21st century we have divisions with, say, Pastor Rob Bell's belief in universalism and no hell, when compared with evangelical orthodoxy that rejects such teaching: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2065289,00.html

The New Testament warns of heresies that will continue until Jesus' Second Coming: 'For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather round them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myth' (2 Timothy 4:3-4), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+4%3A3-4&version=NIVUK

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

There is no consensus among scholars as to why Jesus was crucified.

You point to one of the three synoptic gospel predictions as a possible (faith based) explanation. Scholars have offered various explanations based on the particular political and religious context at the time. They all have merit from a historical point of view, but there is no way of determining with certainty, today, exactly why Jesus was crucified
.

You wrote :

« I've observed quite a bit of divisiveness and religious intolerance by you towards Christians on this forum »
I was not aware of that OzSpen. It certainly was not my intention. I respect the sincerity of personal belief, whatever the domain, and whoever may express it – however incredible or ridiculous it may appear to me.

The case where I have no respect whatsoever is when belief is presented as fact. It is totally dishonest if a clear distinction is not made between fact and faith. I respect faith as much as I respect fact, but I do not tolerate something that is a question of faith being presented as fact or being cited as evidence of fact or reality.
.

You ask :

« What is your definition of intolerance? »

My reference is the OED definition :

« Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own »
« [Ex. 1. ‘a struggle against religious intolerance’] »
« [Ex; 2. ‘an intolerance of dissent’] »

.

the vast majority of militant god deniers in the West are Christophobic. They claim tolerance and are open to all 'diversity' except Christianity. One would only need to see the hatred our own abc has spewed out to Christianity over the last 50 years. When it comes to Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam they are happy to tolerate and even promote.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Referring to the atrocities and terrible injustices which I indicated had been committed by religious people against other religious people, you observed :

« They were committed by people who called themselves "religious", but were they indeed? »
.

The people, authorities and institutions to whom and to which I was referring in my post (page 14 of this thread) – those who had committed the “atrocities and terrible injustices” – were the following :

• The people who wanted Jesus eliminated – local Jewish leaders and Roman political leaders (?)

• Saul of Tarsus (Saint Paul) who participated in stoning to death (Saint) Etienne

• Nero, the Emperor, who ordered (Saint) Peter to be crucified upside down and (Saint) Paul to be beheaded

• The Catholic Church who tried and condemned the Dominican friar, Giordano Bruno, and Joan of Arc (who acted on religious visions) to be burned at the stake

If all these people, authorities and institutions were to be judged in a reputable, democratic court of law, I think the court would consider it reasonable to presume that the accused were, indeed, religious.

If, however, they were to be judged by a hypothetic deity, we have no way of knowing whether they would be found “religious” or not.

However, as you kindly informed me on a previous thread here on OLO that you are God and I am God and we all are God (statement of faith that I perfectly respect), as God, I, personally, declare that all the accused are “religious”.

What about you, Yuyutsu ?

I also extend this invitation to any eavesdroppers on this thread to feel free to make a personal Godly pronouncement of “religiosity” or “non-religiosity” regarding the accused, if he or she (or whatever) would care to join in on our divine deliberations.

.

Dear Banjo,

Yes, what we truly are is God, but so long as our minds are impure, so will the words we utter (or type), being processed through our impure minds (mine included), remain short of truly reflecting the word of God.

Another way to look at it is regarding your claim, "as God, I, personally, declare that...": yet God is not a person, it is only your impure mind which makes you ignorantly think that you are a person, a limited being that falls way short of God's unlimited infinitude, love, freedom, joy and unrestricted knowledge.

As for the people you mentioned, they were violent and cruel, they abused others and they did not love their fellows as themselves - their attitude and behaviour took them away from God, not towards God, hence they were irreligious, either misguided, impostors or a combination of both, this regardless of what an ignorant secular court of law might say.

Banjo P,

<<There is no consensus among scholars as to why Jesus was crucified.>>

Please name the scholars on different sides of the reason for Jesus' crucifixion.

<<Scholars have offered various explanations based on the particular political and religious context at the time.>>

Generic answers like this demonstrate a resistance to dealing with the data.

<<They all have merit from a historical point of view, but there is no way of determining with certainty, today, exactly why Jesus was crucified >>

You demonstrate that you don't know how to engage in historical research. NO historical research can come up with a certain answer because the crucified Jesus is not with us. However, we can know the truth of the historical situation, beyond reasonable doubt.

Aristotle's dictum was that the benefit of the doubt is given to the document itself and not arrogated by the critic to himself (Art of Poetry, 1460b-1461b). Therefore, 'one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies' (J W Montgomery, History and Christianity 1965:29).

We also need to remember that historical science reaches conclusions beyond reasonable doubt. It does not guarantee 100% certainty because the presence of the incident is not in contemporary society, whether that be Emperor Nero's actions, Martin Luther and the Reformation, or the terrorism of 9/11.

Eminent theologian, the late Dr Carl F H Henry, stated: 'As history the New Testament saving events are subject to the same research as other historical events.... It is certainly true that there is more to the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ than historical fact....

But when it comes to the question of a historical resurrection from the dead and the matter of the empty tomb, this can be answered on in terms of historical research and testimony. And I quite grant that one cannot get to absolute certainty in terms of historical method.... But the very heart of the apostolic preaching falls out if you lose the historical ingredient' (in Montgomery 1965:105).

(continued)

(continuation)

Prof Montgomery added: 'It is fairer to compare the resurrection to other events of classical times, because it's in the same general time area and therefore the amount of data is perhaps more comparable.

I majored in classics in college, and to my amazement I never heard any questioning of the events of the classical period as to their per se historicity despite the fact that these are based on much less data than the resurrection of Christ. For example, the existence of Plato depends upon manuscript evidence dated over a thousand years later' (Montgomery 1965:106).

So, why was Jesus crucified? You will never get consensus among scholars when they write from different presuppositional views.

The Scriptures give the reasons why he was crucified and resurrected: Matthew 27:22-25 states that Jewish leaders demanded his crucifixion, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27%3A22-25&version=NLT.

Physically, he was put to death by the Romans (Matthew 27:27-37), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27%3A27-37&version=NLT

No matter how much theologians and exegetes disagree, the fact remains that each sinful human being, including you and me, killed him because of our sins, 'For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ' (2 Corinthians 5:21).

This is why Jesus came to earth to die, 'But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners' (Romans 5:8).

Don't bother going to contradictory theologians. I recommend that you go straight to Scripture for God's reasons for why he was crucified and resurrected.

Why Is Religion So Divisive?
Because religious people are very judgemental as a consequence of their own beliefs

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for your Godly pronouncement :

« As for the people you mentioned, they were violent and cruel, they abused others and they did not love their fellows as themselves - their attitude and behaviour took them away from God, not towards God, hence they were irreligious, either misguided, impostors or a combination of both … »
.

As you, a fervent Hindu, Yuyutsu, condemn for “irreligiosity” the actors of those “atrocities and terrible injustices”, all of which [except the stoning to death of (Saint) Etienne by the Jewish religious zealot, (Saint) Paul] were committed some 2,000 years ago, in the name and under the authority of two major religious institutions (Judaism and Catholicism) and a major political institution (the government of Rome), I wonder what Vishnu would have to say about that :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EENh1hxkD6E

.

Dear 0zSpen,

.

Many thanks for your long, informative post.

I think the penultimate line of your post sums-up nicely the difference of our approach, not only to the subject in hand, but to life in general – our “Weltanschauung” (world view) :

« Don't bother going to contradictory theologians. I recommend that you go straight to Scripture for God's reasons… »

What more can I say ?

All else would be to no avail.

Except, of course :

« I wish you well, OzSpen. Have a great day ! »

.

To Josephus.

Sorry I should have worded that better to say that divisiveness is in the people not the faith itself. You're right. However, there are some divisiveness among the people, and that's what I'm referring to. It's not about the teachings as much as how well we are at both knowing the teachings to be loving, as well as living up to the standard of being gentle. As well as being patient and forgiving because we all are in the same boat with sin.

Most Christians that I know are not divisive at all. They are warm, welcoming, and uplifting. But the ones that I see that have something divisive I can usually see their stance or their struggle. Some just get pushy instead of being gentle, and though they might have a good heart to try and save someone they care about, what they do instead is push them away. It's sad to see this in families when a parent loves their kids and throughout their lives in the topic of religion they can't come together.

Others get angry at sin. Armchair Critic pointed out being judgmental, and I see his point. Some get angry at others sins, and others just quietly distance themselves from those sinning. In either case, the stereotype of being judgmental is part of several ongoing negative stereotypes Christians are views as. Sometimes it's not the divisiveness of the Christians, but the divisiveness of the reactions to Christians that are the issue. No one likes to be judged or distanced because of their sins, so the reaction sometimes is aggressive against a Christian regardless if they said anything or if they quietly avoided that person.

(Continued)

(Continued)

I think a good reference at different types of Christians are in the second and third chapters of Revelation. Where seven church cities are told what they are doing well and what they are lacking. The part to the Ephesian church hits the nail on the head for a Christian path that loses it's love for one another. While two others show an issue of not rejecting false doctrine and tolerating some bad teachings within them. The issue of rejecting sin and loving your neighbor are hard to juggle sometimes. Sometimes Christians fall towards one side and lack the other attribute. Either to reject sin and lose their love for others; or in trying to love and welcome others, compromise on standing against sinfulness or on even believing the bible.

To OzSpen.

You're probabley right that there is divisiveness due to doctrine versus false doctrine. However that's an element that I don't see too much of. So I can't really comment on it causing division. But I know of people who are married and go to seperate churches. So the issue you're talking about is real, it's just not what I have anything worthwhile to offer on.

Dear Banjo,

«the actors of those “atrocities and terrible injustices”, all of which [except the stoning to death of (Saint) Etienne by the Jewish religious zealot, (Saint) Paul] were committed some 2,000 years ago, in the name and under the authority of two major religious institutions (Judaism and Catholicism)»

Judaism and Catholicism are institutions all right, but are they indeed religious? Yes they touch on religion, they overlap with religion: only to that extent we can call them "religious", not when they do and teach other things, especially when they get involved with politics.

Yes, atrocities were also carried out in the name of Hinduism, such as the ill treatment of widows, currently also the persecution of the Rohingya in Burma in the name of Buddhism, but these are not religious acts and were never ordained by God or by the Buddha.

were never ordained by God or by the Buddha.
Yuyutsu,
So, why do you think God or Buddha don't stop the attrocities ?

I'm not all that interested in whether or not Jesus did this or that, etc. etc. I'm concerned about the divisiveness between believers and non-believers.

Surely we all have to have some sort of system of values, of moral principles ? Even us atheists can learn from religious teachings - and of course from other sources, such as the Greek philosophers etc. - as rough guides to what we believe is proper behaviour towards other people ? It doesn't mean that we've suddenly dropped our guts and become religious, since after all, no religion has any monopoly on the best moral principles.

So this topic should concern all of us, and we shouldn't let it degenerate into some obscurantist hair-splitting, which allows us atheists to pretend that moral principles - even those in religious teachings - have nothing to do with us. We may find that we have more in common with good people everywhere than only those who claim to have the same narrow views that we may have.

Just saying :)

Joe

So Yuyutsu, how do you determine whether persecution is ordained by God? You might also find this interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence. Gives a longer list of Buddhist violence than yours.

"Surely we all have to have some sort of system of values, of moral principles?" says Loudmouth2.

We do. We have rule of law and democracy. As long as atheists and believers stick to that in their dealings with each other, they can think and say whatever they want to. We are all going to find out whether God exists or not sooner or later.

Individual,

<<So, why do you think God or Buddha don't [sic] stop the attrocities [sic]?>>

That's an excellent question since the Almighty God is all powerful (see Psalm 66:5-7), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps+66%3A5-7&version=NLT

What would happen if God were to step in and stop all evil (e.g. atrocities) NOW? God is all good but there is evil in the world. See Psalm 119:68, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+119%3A68&version=NLT

This is the progress of how atrocities entered the world in my understanding of Scripture.

1. God created human beings perfect and good (Genesis 1 & 2);

2. He made us with the ability to obey or disobey. As a result, the first man (representing the human race rebelled against God and everyone has been confirmed in rebellion against Him (Romans 5:12), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom+5%3A12&version=NLT

3. So, humanity is responsible for sins and not God.

4. You may ask: Why didn't God make us so that we couldn't sin, droughts and cyclones would no longer come? He could have, because he is God. If he had done that, we would no longer be human beings but robots, machines. We love God and one another voluntarily. That outcome we have in our world today is from the risky gift of free will. See Lamentations 3:22, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lam+3%3A22&version=NLT

(continued)

(continuation)

individual,

5. God could get rid of evil right now if he chose. It happens in the futuer. Evil and atrocities are real but they are temporary. For the Christians, we know that the new world comes when tears and pains will be gone forever. There will be no more evil & sorrow. Revelation 21:5 states it well: 'And the one sitting on the throne said, “Look, I am making everything new!” And then he said to me, “Write this down, for what I tell you is trustworthy and true.”'

6. If God stamped out evil today, he would have to do a complete job. Paul Little asked: 'Suppose God were to decree that at midnight tonight all evil would be removed from the universe? Who of us would still be here after midnight?'

7. We must not forget that nobody has done more about the problem of evil than God Himself. He did it a dramatic and costly way by sending his Son, Jesus Christ to die an horrific death for evil. The purpose of his death was: 'For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And it was not paid with mere gold or silver, which lose their value. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God' (1 Peter 1:18-19).

Why can religion be so divisive? If people reject the premises of the 7 points above, they can banter over bits and pieces. However, religion is not the only issue that divides. I shopped in a local supermarket, looking for hair conditioner. You ought to see the divisive brands offered. My son encouraged me to buy a larger screen for my PC. You ought to see the divided opinion over brands at the local computer store. Do we fight over the choices/divisiveness of which restaurant or club to attend for a meal?

If it was there in the church of the first century, only decades after Jesus' death and resurrection, it probably will continue until His Second Coming.

Dear Individual,

«So, why do you think God or Buddha don't stop the attrocities ?»

How long an answer would you like?

The shortest answer is that God gave men free will.

It goes much deeper than this, but given that in the past your patience to study and reflect on my answers was short, I rather keep it like this unless/until your desire to know becomes more serious and steady.

---

Dear Graham,

«how do you determine whether persecution is ordained by God?»

"Ordained" is more of a Western term: it is a good approximation, but strictly speaking, God has not ordained anything. Rather, it was the great sages and seers/prophets who in their meditations discovered the secret principles of the universe and the mind, including what works and what does not work.

We do have free will, but the sages revealed that our actions, the way we use our free will, have consequences, so if we want to come closer to God, then certain attitudes and behaviours are warranted, while their opposite would instead take us further away from God.

The teachings of Yoga tell us that the first step towards God, if we hope to have any progress at all, are the restraints, or "Yamas", the second being certain observances, or "Niyamas". The 5 Yamas were listed in order of precedence and the first among them is Ahimsa, roughly translated as non-violence.

If one fails to follow even the first restraint, let alone the other restraints and observances, what hope can s/he have to approach God? None whatsoever!

Persecution hurts others, it gives them great pain, it is something that we ourselves hate being subjected to, it is a form of violence.
Religion being the process of coming closer to God, is therefore diametrically opposed to violence and persecution.

Some, in every faith, do great harm
True statement, but in my Christian days love and respect lived there most of the time, I fell for the Christ being our true one God, even that he was his father
In just my lifetime, we see about a third say they have no faith
And about that number not truly practicing their faith
And God, once seeming to be the property of the Roman Catholic Church, [the hollest in my mind then] caring for the poor it has changed
Money making rules some
But if only we had one God, for all of humanity, what a great world it would be