Religion
Related: About this forumMonotheism: One "angry old man" deity for three global religions.
That's called consolidation. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All worshiping the same grumpy regional God.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)religions are consolidated under a "patriarch" who never even existed.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)People of the Book, indeed.
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)over 6 million women were murdered in various ways.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)are innumerable. Truly. Often, followers of that destructive deity have even turned on each other. It's not an inspiring history at all. It should give one pause to consider this.
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)a horror what religion has caused.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Stalin: Estimates of 9-50 million people
Hitler: 6 million Jews out of at least 11 million in death camps
Mao: Tens of millions more
Pol Pot: 2 million (20% of population)
Do these folks qualify as grumpy?
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)we're talking about the one that rules them all.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)your numbers are relatively insignificant. This is not about recent history. It is about the history of civilization. You have no idea.
The disgruntled, vengeful deity itself is supposed to have killed the entire population of the Earth at one point, except for one family. Of course, I don't believe that story for one minute, but genocide is part of the history of Abrahamic monotheism. It's not a pleasant thing to consider. Followers have done their best to follow in their deity's footsteps it seems.
And now, if you're planning a long subthread of back and forth arguments, you'll have to start it with someone else. I'm not at all in the mood for it today.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)But in my book 10s of millions of human lives being snuffed out is significant
Is religion the cause of most wars? The answer may surprise you. Consider this article:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/is-religion-the-cause-of-_b_1400766.html
If you look at world history, and consider wars and genocides, you are just as likely to be killed for a non-religious reason than a religious one. Actually, many purges and genocides were attacks against religion, most notably Hitler
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)Christianity, by itself, is the all time leader in genocide. While others count their victims by the millions, Christianity counts them by the continent.
Europe - the dark ages
Australia
North America
South America
Africa - still an ongoing project
So take your lame apologetics elsewhere.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I noticed you didn't post any
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)Sorry, records weren't kept.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)you just expect us to believe your claims
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)5 continents. Count them. Or are you saying that the natives of the Americas are still the dominant population and still possess their land?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)And, surely, you are not trying to speculate that the native americans were wiped out solely because of religion....that the desire for land was not a more dominant factor? Same for the conquest of other continents.
I am still awaiting your evidence to support your claims.....other than sputtering out the names of continents....and by the way, there are seven continents in the world!
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)So Hitler and Stalin were land grabbers too. Funny, you attributed all their numbers to atheism.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)The central premise I was taking issue with was the idea that a grumpy god has caused all these millions and millions of deaths....whereas if you look at history, that is an oversimplification.
Heck, the majority of wars were non-religious in nature. The majority of genocide was not caused by religion. The last time we had a purely religious war was The Thirty Years War and that was over three hundred years ago! And need I mention the Crusades were soooo 13th Century.....?
Is religion the cause of genocides and war? You may as well speculate as to whether the color of people's underwear is the true cause.
I know I am not supposed to say this in the religion boards here. The orthodoxy is that religion has caused all bad things in the world, that god is grumpy, and religious people are followers of unicorns and such. Just call me a heretic. I never was one for orthodoxy
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)Stop making shit up
ollie10
(2,091 posts)nothing like illustrating my point!
Mariana
(14,858 posts)How unspeakably awful that must be for you.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,858 posts)Really? Is that in the SOP? Have your posts been hidden? Have you been banned from the group? Have you been threatened?
No. All that is happening is that people who disagree with you get to post here, too, and you don't like it, so you've lied about this group and some of its participants. I suppose that dusty old Commandment against bearing false witness against your neighbors has been relegated, and isn't considered important any more.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You are the gift that keeps on giving.
I have not told anyone not to post. Quite the opposite.
I pointed out that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao killed millions and millions of people. The response has been predictable. Again, the orthodoxy is that religion has caused all bad things in the world, that god is grumpy, and religious people are followers of unicorns and such. I get the message. My sin is I was not silenced.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)You are still allowed to post what you like here. No one is stopping you.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Nobody said religion causes all bad things and nobody has made any attempt to silence you. You ate correct that God has been called grumpy, although I thinl there is sufficient evidence to make that case from the Old Testament. And yes believing in God has been compared to believing in unicorns, but I have not seen any defense in this groups that distinguishes between the two beliefs, so I am not sure why that is even a problem.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)But those who engage in hyperbole generally don't believe the things they say are literally true. He may not be a liar, either It's possible Ollie honestly believes the untrue things he's said.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Perhaps this is why so few religious people bother to discuss. The majority of DU are Christians. Being treated as fools by their own DU members, no wonder so few frequent here.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)It seems the Christians on this board just don't want to talk about religion. When they do, it's usually in General Discussion to talk about why the religious right are not Christians or bad Christians.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)...and people of all religions would feel welcome to express their diverse views without having their god called grumpy or compared to a mass murderer. But that is just me. Obviously if you go around calling other people's gods grumpy you are not exactly being diverse
if the Rev. martin luther king jr got in a time machine and spoke here, people would be calling his god grumpy, comparing to mass murderer, saying that if he spoke of love he would be a liar.....so I guess he would not be wecome here.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)of providing followers of all kinds of religion a place to express their diverse views, where they won't have to tolerate any disagreement, criticism, and awkward questions, as those things are not permitted.
This group isn't one of them.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I would prefer diversity. And not so much narrow mindedness.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Here is its Statement of Purpose: A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.
That appears to be exactly what you want. And since the Interfaith Group already exists, wouldn't it be silly to try to transform this group into a clone of that group?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1264
ollie10
(2,091 posts)From this group. Ok. Fine. Thank you
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Please, go spend some quality time with a dictionary.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)So I think he'd be able to handle having his God called grumpy.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)but likely the god haters couldn't handle him
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I think they'd handle MLK just fine. Probably find him rather refreshing. Always expressed his views clearly and forthrightly and took the high the ground no matter what anyone said about him. Try it, you might find it works surprisingly well.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....and of course you didn't know it was MLK.....he would be hooted at, people would say he was worshiping a mass murderer and that he was stupid for following unicorns. That's what religious people face here, and he would be treated just the same.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)He would just provide an eloquent defense of his own beliefs.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)And.....hello.....are you saying MLK did not complain about racial injustice in our society?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)But he his complaints were about injustice in general not abkut how he personally was treated or what people said about him that day.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)or that god is a mass murderer, dochathink? And, of course he would complain about that. And of course he would be scorned. That's the way it is.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)But he wouldn't have raised Stalin and Pol Pot as a defense and he certaintly didn't deny religion's role in perpetuating the racism he was fighting against.
Scorned? The harshest words in this group are mild compared to a lot of what's on the internet. Post a new Hillary vs. Bernie thread in GD and see what kind of response you get. And that's just DU, where we have some standards. Put it on twitter and you might get swarmed by an army of flying monkeys.
Now compare that to firehoses, attack dogs, lynchings, and church burnings. Do you really think calling God "grumpy" or asking a pointed theological question about Noah's Flood is going to upset him much?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Had to laugh. Kudos
Voltaire2
(13,053 posts)groups. But in this group all opinions about religion are welcome.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I was beginning to think that the only views that are welcome are anti-religion!
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Of course your posts about religion are welcome. You might consider being more tolerant of those whose opinions of your god and your religion differ from yours. Their posts are welcome here, too, even if you don't like to read them.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)As I have welcomed others.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Ollie wants to scold people whose posts he doesn't like.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I guess you aren't into practicing what you preach, huh?
But I have discussed religion. I just would prefer to discuss it with someone who is open minded.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Is English not your native language? You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty understanding what you read.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Yes, English is my native language.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)participated in a poll
Mariana
(14,858 posts)It's almost certain that Christians have always been a majority not just in Ollie's church, but in his family, his neighborhood, his school, his workplace, his clubs and whatever other organizations, and his government at all levels. Therefore, Christians must be a majority at DU too. It doesn't even occur to him that it could possibly be otherwise.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)It would likely include an awful lot of nominal Christians who are closet agnostics or atheists. His own pastor might even be one.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)He would go on about his business assuming that everyone around him is a Christian, unless and until they tell him otherwise.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)What does that have to do with the topic?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and such are like God?
Very confusing...
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic.[1] In light of evidence such as his fierce criticism and vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity,[2] numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition,[1] and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity.[1] Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that "Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church".[3] Hitler's remarks to confidants, as described in the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and transcripts of Hitler's private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann in Hitler's Table Talk, are further evidence of his irreligious and anti-Christian beliefs;[1] these sources record a number of private remarks in which Hitler ridicules Christian doctrine as absurd, contrary to scientific advancement, and socially destructive.[1][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_on_atheism
Do I need to report on Stalin and Pol Pot too, to demonstrate that they were not exactly....er.....religious?
So you don't have to follow a grumpy god to wipe out millions and millions of humans.
Beyond that, by far the minority of wars have been religious in nature.....same thing for genocides.
To expand, there have been many crusaders for peace, justice, civil rights, helping the homeless, opponents of the death penalty, etc etc etc among religious people, and many find the same grumpy god as their inspiration, except they don't call him grumpy. they have more class than that.
Is that clear enough?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)To turn bad people into atheists. That regardless of intent, the wars are about anything but religion. Let's forget all the genocide that's in the Bible, all that talk of hosen people. That bit about Hitler was also very Christian centric, that he rejected Christian views (according to shcolars) made him irreligious is faulty logic.
Not getting into this discussion again. It's been rehashed over and over and never goes anywhere.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....by far the majority was NOT done in the name of religion. Actually, some of the most glaring examples are attempts to destroy a religion.
I am not going to say genocide is caused by atheism. But neither does history show that it is caused primarily by religion.
Yet, somehow, atheists think nothing of calling god a mass murderer and acting as if the only ones making war or genocide are Christians, when such is simply not the case.
When it comes to war or genocide, you may as well speculate on blaming it on the color of someone's underwear than to blame it on religion or atheism.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)He's all-good, all-powerful, all-wise and all-loving, but he lets all this go on and he doesn't lift a finger to stop it? Things happen exactly as if this god doesn't exist at all.
Of course, according to the stories, a few thousand years ago, he was ordering his worshipers to carry out genocides and mass murders, or committing them himself. It's clear that this particular god, if it does exist, isn't the least bit opposed to genocide or mass murder on principal. Maybe it enjoys watching people suffer and die in huge numbers.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)thanks for sharing!
Mariana
(14,858 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)who lets bad things happen in his name?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You seem to believe that this is necessary.
As I have tried to explain before, there are lots of different views within Christianity, as there are in other religions as well. It is certainly not one size fits all.
I could give you an answer, but that would not speak for everyone. Each person has his own take on this question.
I guess it also depends on what god wanted people to be like. If we were to have choices and freedom and a certain degree of independence.....then it could be argued that this is the price we pay for having these choices. If we were totally controlled by god, of course we would not sin and we would not go to war and we would all get along. But then again we would be like robots. So, how could you create a world where we had free will that would not have bad things able to happen?
Of course, many religious folk would disagree with your entire premise....and others would of course disagree with me.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Even if God is not omnipotent and omniscient, surely he has enkugh power to prevent or reduce the severe suffering done in his name. And this would not conflict with free will. Mere human beings can fight opprrsion done in their own name and make clear they want no part of it and actively fight. God does not seem so successful at this.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)god of course wants us to love each other, even our enemies. If we don't follow that directive that is our fault.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)If there was evil it could have prevented it, but did not, it bears some responsibility, just as if a human could have prevented an evil but failed to do so.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)just how does that work? please explain.....
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)We could do without ALS disease, childhood leukemia and some other horrible diseases that are nobody's fault and would not affect our free will if we were created without them.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)But then, the world would be rather crowded and resources tapped out.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I am not assuming it could fix everything. But I just pointed a few of the many things that seem just too cruel and we'd be better off without.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)who makes sick the innocent and allows the suffering of his supposed enemies. Whose own actions can be defended by comparisons with Pol Pot and Stalin.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)If you would want to show that you make sense, maybe you should criticize Stalin and Pol Pot a little more, and go a little easier on god. But that's just me.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)But sure Pol Pot and Stalin were evil mass murderers. Two wrongs still don't make a right. If they were wrong, then so was God for ordering it to be done in the book of Joshua. If God did not order it, he should not have allowed the incident to be preserved in the Bible lest future generations take it too literally, which is exactly what they did.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Quite the opposite. Just to clarify.
The Bible was not written by god in my view. It was written by people. Much of it is not considered historical facts by religious scholars today in a literal sense. Often the stories had an audience they were talking to, and we must keep in mind the audience was not 21st century people with 21st century issues or etc etc etc.
You can find stuff in the bible to follow down any rat hole you want to go into. Most christians today emphasize the new testament.
If you want to worship a god of love....that god is in the Bible too.....and it is easy to find.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Western religion has a long history with books that may or may not be true that you can jettison all or part of, nonetheless still set there and are part of the history and do not paint a pretty picture.
Most of the nice modern parts of Christianity were developed in the exhaustion after the blood wars of the 17th century followed by the secular challenges of the enlightenment
Mariana
(14,858 posts)working day and night to prevent access to birth control and abortion, that problem would be mitigated.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Even the victim may become so brainwashing that they believe they deserve it.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Mariana
(14,858 posts)God didn't want his worshipers to love their enemies, he wanted them to exterminate or enslave their enemies.
Even if those things never happened and the stories are complete fiction, they still describe and represent a god that approves of mass murder in his name. When did God change his mind?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)but, truth be told, a lot of christians and jews would strongly disagree with you.
Need I remind that a lot religious folks are pacifists.....and base their pacifism on their religious faith?
Mariana
(14,858 posts)I am not here to tell you what my interpretations of the Bible are. My point is that there are many interpretations. You seem to be thinking that all Christians are into the stuff you described.....that is laughable. Of course, you have a horse in the race. You need to paint Christianity into a simplistic religion that you can show how stupid it is....and it would be inconenient for you to acknowledge that there are many, many serious Christians.....and many liberal Christians.....who don't fit into the mold you want to make out christianity to be
Mariana
(14,858 posts)C'mon, Ollie, think. I asked for your own unique personal individual interpretation of those Bible stories. It's ridiculous to imagine that I think all Christians interpret those stories the same way. It's perfectly obvious that I realize that interpretations differ, since I asked about your own unique personal individual one.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Why on earth would you expect me to want to share with you my interpretations? I may be dumb but I ain't stupid.
You don't want to discuss religion respectfully, as shown by several of your posts (calling god a mass murderer is not up there in respect). You do want to attack religion, and religious people.
I didn't hear you attack Stalin however, nor Hitler nor Pol Pot. Those are real mass murderers. No interest in you about that I see.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)If you want to discuss them, please start another thread.
Why don't you tell me how you interpret the Flood story so it isn't a story about a mass murdering god.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)they were discussed upthread.....btw
Mariana
(14,858 posts)The OP determines the subject of the discussion. If you make your own thread, you get to set the subject.
And you think I'm trying to silence you, because I want to stick to the thread topic? That's really weird, Ollie.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Now, that wasn't exactly the topic either....and you didn't say anything about that.
I made the point that there are non-religious mass murderers, and I linked to article that discussed in more depth.
If it was appropriate to talk about god's alleged mass murders, then....
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Since the OP gets to determine the topic of the thread, he also gets to decide what is off topic.
You can call god grumpy and people can accuse god of being a mass murderer.....but if someone attacks Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot as mass murderers, we can't talk about that? I guess it goes against the orthodoxy. Which is a point that is being illustrated. Maybe we should be less narrow minded and discuss more things? Like the other side?
Mariana
(14,858 posts)How about religion, which is the purpose of this group?
Why don't you tell me how you interpret the Flood story so it isn't a story about a mass murdering god.
sfwriter
(3,032 posts)Where does antisemitism spring from? He also used “the creator” to justify his moves.
https://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic.[1] In light of evidence such as his fierce criticism and vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity,[2] numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition,[1] and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity.[1] Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that "Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church".[3] Hitler's remarks to confidants, as described in the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and transcripts of Hitler's private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann in Hitler's Table Talk, are further evidence of his irreligious and anti-Christian beliefs;[1] these sources record a number of private remarks in which Hitler ridicules Christian doctrine as absurd, contrary to scientific advancement, and socially destructive.[1][
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)In other words, not relevant. It's the public actions and spoken words that matter. Hitler probably thought he himself was god. Doesn't matter. He used religion to push his agenda. And he got the support of religion to carry it out.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)What part of wide consensus of historians is difficult to comprehend?
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)Hitler's personal beliefs are irrelevant. He ran his agenda on the back of Christianity. I can provide more pictures of priests giving the Nazi salute if that would help you understand.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Even attempted to assassinate him.
For crying out loud, he didn't just round up jews. Christians too.
More from the article you ignored:
While a small number of writers accept his publicly stated views as genuine expressions of his spirituality,[13] the vast majority believe that Hitler was skeptical of churches generally – although he "freely acknowledged the religious needs of the masses"[14] – but recognized that he could only be elected and preserve his political power if he feigned a commitment to and belief in Christianity, which the overwhelming majority of Germans believed in.[16] Hitler himself told confidants that his reluctance to make public attacks on the Church was not a matter of principle, but a pragmatic political move.[17] In his private diaries, Goebbels wrote in April 1941 that though Hitler was "a fierce opponent" of the Vatican and Christianity, "he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons."[18]
Once in office, Hitler and his regime sought to reduce the influence of Christianity on society.[19] From the mid-1930s, his government was increasingly dominated by militant anti-church proponents like Goebbels, Bormann, Himmler, Rosenberg and Heydrich whom Hitler appointed to key posts.[20] These anti-church radicals were generally permitted or encouraged to perpetrate the Nazi persecutions of the churches.[21] The regime launched an effort toward coordination of German Protestants under a unified Protestant Reich Church (but this was resisted by the Confessing Church), and moved early to eliminate political Catholicism.[22] Hitler agreed to the Reich concordat with the Vatican, but then routinely ignored it, and permitted persecutions of the Catholic Church.[23] Smaller religious minorities faced harsher repression, with the Jews of Germany expelled for extermination on the grounds of Nazi racial ideology. Jehovah's Witnesses were ruthlessly persecuted for refusing both military service and allegiance to Hitler's movement. Hitler said he anticipated a coming collapse of Christianity in the wake of scientific advances, and that Nazism and religion could not co-exist long term.[1] Although he was prepared to delay conflicts for political reasons, historians conclude that he ultimately intended the destruction of Christianity in Germany, or at least its distortion or subjugation to a Nazi outlook
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)he could only be elected and preserve his political power if he feigned a commitment to and belief in Christianity, which the overwhelming majority of Germans believed in.
That's exactly what I mean. But I bet you still don't get it.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)He was an evil man. He only sucked up to Christians because it was politically expedient for him. Then he sent them to the gas chambers along with the Jews.
Seems to me you have a case of blaming the victims going on.....
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Nice anti-atheist stance you're pushing.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)It's just that the overwhelming number of historians have concluded that he was anti-Christian. I presented some of their evidence. Matters little, I see.
And, please, I am not pushing anti-atheism. As I have made abundantly clear in several boards....I think atheists and religious people should each be respected. This is an extremely unpopular stance here.....
I know this may be difficult to comprehend....but saying someone's god is a mass murderer isn't particularly diverse.....
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Yes, historians have a vested interest in making Hitler out to be evil, and Not Christian™. And yes, there is constant push to call him an atheist, you're being simply dishonest if you claim otherwise. Why else do you lump him with Stalin and pol pot? What do they have in common? If he's not Christian then what is he?
Do I need to pull all the Nazi Christianity stuff out? In Kurt Vonnegut's biographies he wrote that he felt like a saracin fighting against crusaders marching under a cross.
You're the one denying history, and it's much broader than some historians who work overtime to make him out to be evil.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Wow, what a paranoid concept of historians...they are out to get your beliefs, Aren't they?! Ha!
Don't complain to me. Why don't you talk to Wikipedia about your conspiracy theories
Mariana
(14,858 posts)There was no attempt to systematically eliminate Christians. Some Christian clergy opposed the regime and were sent to the concentration camps, just the same as everyone else who opposed the regime. They were not targeted for extermination for being Christians, as the Jews were for being Jewish. It's disgusting that you even suggest it was the same thing.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You missed some of it. Obviously.
Quite frankly, mariana, if you can't even read the article I posted, I have lost any interest in talking with you.
go ahead and try to get the last word. no point in responding.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The Jews were originally polytheistic, worshipping Yahweh alongside canaanitic gods like Ashera.
The religious teachings of the Jews were originally passed on by oral tradition. They were written down for the first time during the Babylonian Exile. The plight of the jewish people was blamed on worshipping other gods beside Yahweh. (And you can see from the way Yahweh is depicted in biblical stories, that he's meant to be a god of war.)
Putting jewish religious teachings down to text also meant editorializing and retconning. Ashera suddenly no longer existed and there were e.g. camels mentioned in stories that happened in Palestine before there historically were camels in Palestine.
The Christians were originally no more than a sect of Judaism, building on a Messiah-prophecy and imagry that already existed. Indeed, early Christians had a tense relationship with Jews because they had trouble making the argument that they are their own religion when so many of their holy scriptures are actually jewish holy scriptures.
And Islam as a religion was invented by Mohammed, who was inspired by Judaism and Christianity but saw his religion as something new. Muslims see Islam as Judaism 3.0 or Christianity 2.0: It's the latest and final version of the abrahamitic religion. The version that finally got it right.
E.g. Mormons also see their version of the abrahamitic religion as the final version that finally got it right.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Most humans were polytheistic at one time. Polytheism is inefficient. Monotheism simplifies things, so it became ascendant as civilization developed and different cultures communicated with each other with greater frequency.
Those three global religions all glommed onto the same deity, with different interpretations. Still, they worship the same essential character, which is an exceptionally vengeful deity, indeed.
In the end, it's all just one religion with sectarian divisions. It can even be self-destructive at times, but the same deity rides over all of them.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)There are more variations of christianity than ever before!
And I know you won't believe this, because it is an inconvenient truth, but not all Christians believe in a vengeful god, and some Christians go to the Bible for spriritual truths rather than historical facts.
I know it is easier for you to just plain assume all Christians believe the same thing....but you know what they say about assuming.....
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Do you think that is a false statement?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Very few scholars would say Judaism is the same religion as Christianity and they are all the same as Islam.
But to each his own opinion!!!!
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)You're trying to hijack my thread. It's about monotheism. Same god, worshiped by three major religions. Sectarianism doesn't change that one bit.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)That does NOT imply that it is the same God nor that each religion has the same conception of what God would be
Nor, even within Christianity or within Judaism, do all believe the same thing or conceive of God in the same way.
But you knew that, didn't you.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)it is the same God. The one described in the Old Testament. All of those global religions use it as the foundation, even Islam.
From what you are saying, I think you have a poor understanding of religion. So, I'm not going to waste any more of my time conversing with you in this thread. I have things to do.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I mean, you think the Abrahamic god is grumpy.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)People say lots of things, and give lip service to lofty ideals. Then, with their actions, they demonstrate their lies.
All Christians believe in the God of Abraham. So do Jews and Muslims. All speak of love. All lie, because they do not love everyone.
If you cannot see that in the world around you, I suggest you take off your blinders and purchase some eyeglasses with a prescription that lets you see more clearly.
I'm done with you in this thread, now.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)your lack of respect is on full display.
Calling all religious people who believe in love liars.
Pfffttttt!!!!! Lighten up a bit
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Let's throw in the Seventh Day Adventists, and their offshoot, the branch Davidians. Let's throw in the Unification Church. On the Jewish side, let's throw in the modern Kabbalah clique where gentiles like Madonna and Ashton Kutcher can be jews. On the Muslim side, let's throw in the Shia, and of course, Isis, which believes they are the true branch because they have a caliphate.
The thing about this is that the Abrahamic meme can mutate and shape change as needed, to fit any number of agendas, especially ones that involve an underclass that is better able to suffer and an overclass that is wanting to inflict the suffering. Even the closest equivalents on the left: the Stalinists and Maoists who believe some "Dear Leader" had all the answers wind up resembling the Abraham meme, despite the fact they would deny it.
Of course, we in America are a prime example of howe religions mutate, because we are the by product of that process. A long tiem ago, Mother England had to deal with all those Anabaptist types who thought that when the Church of England left the Catholic Church, it would become something radically different (as opposed to Robin William;s joke about the Episcopal church being "Catholic light."
Now, it did not help that the Anglican Church tended to favor the upper classes, whereas the anabaptists and others where made of those same Celts and lower class English that the lords enjoyed treating like crap, especially when there was land to take. England has a solution, ship them to the Americas and let them kill the natives and send the lion;s share of the loot back to England.
Now, this worked for a while;as any Native American can tell you, it worked too damned well. However, these Americans had a lot of built in rage, and their religion, sorry to say, was very good at justifying aggression and dehumanizing outsiders. Many of them were Calvinists, whose religion said that the unfortunate were literally created by god for no purpose but Hell, and that Gid's chosen could do anything because they were elected. They also believed that wealth was a sign of God's love; never mind that bit about Camel's and needles eyes that someone said. You had a weaponized faith, one that was very good at killing and cruelty, and frankly, let's be frank, still IS.
Whenever you see the descendants of these Calvinist talk about guns and property as if they were sacred, you hear the ghosts of what was a religious war, where one church used their power to genuinely oppress their ancestors. When you hear them talk about why the poor are evil, you hear the ghost of a faith that very successfully used hate and cruelty to kill and loot, and make the loot not just loot, but an actual divine form of grace, the literal sign that unlike the rest of people, God did not make you to go to Hell.
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)...that, and people keep giving him their discarded foreskins. I'd be grumpy too.
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)
Thank you some moreMineralMan
(146,317 posts)The image of Heaven littered with endless millions of foreskins is inspiring, in its own way.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,731 posts)fashionable handbags and briefcases.
... Eww...
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)It wouldn't be prudent, I think. Nope.
tblue37
(65,394 posts)
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The older the particular faith, the kinder he tends to become. Each new one seems to get angry again. I've always suspected it was a focus on the part of the believers on the past faith from which they were separating.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)the Old Testament angry god. They're actively trying to control this nation based on that.
The violent deity of vengeance is always there, ready to be called upon. Yes, indeed!
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Most of those are probably less than 150 years old. Many even less. And to some extent, that theology in general has seen a revival in the last 50 years or so. Virtually all of it post dates Islam.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)refer to it.
They are all variations of Christianity, and will object if you say they are not.
All are culpable.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)That's always a good path to understanding. By the by, they don't even all have the same "bibles".
trotsky
(49,533 posts)For instance, hell. Many liberal churches still teach that hell is a real thing. They might not agree with conservatives on who ends up there, but the idea of eternal punishment is still frighteningly common in Christian circles.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I guess it all depends.
Hell is having Donald Trump as president, so ergo it exists
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It's OK. I'll wait.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)It's really just what Jesus is supposed to have said, with the deity stuff removed.
Jefferson was not much of a traditional Christian, to put it mildly.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...I was just offering an example (and being a smartass).
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I mean, no one's gonna call a copy of Moby Dick I cut to shreds "The Alastor Moby Dick".
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...I answered the question. 😁
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Pretty much all of Christianity uses the original RCC Biblical Canon as its basis, more or less. It's all been retranslated many times, but the essentials remain in place, regardless.
I've read quite a bit in a number of translations, and the entire OT and NT in three translations. The basic information remains the same in all of them. It's the same Old Testament God in all of them, the same stories, the same fables. None of that is materially changed.
Different denominations stress different parts of the canon. A lot of churches pay more attention to Paul's letters than to the Gospels, for sure. But, the Gospels, particularly Matthew, are part of the liturgical calendar in most denominations. Smaller portions of the OT are used, and selectively, but, the Genesis/Exodus stuff and Isaiah are part of the teachings of most Denominations.
Differences between denominations are more a matter of minor doctrine than anything else. There are some non-triinitarian denominations, of course, but even that doesn't change the Old Testament stories.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)are also in the Catholic Bible. It's based on the RCC Biblical Canon. Translations vary in details. There are many translations, but most Bibles include the same books in both testaments.
Go here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
And learn.
I'm not a teacher.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)So there's that.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)So it would only seem appropriate to address all of the associated core texts.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)See post #31.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)And I definitely was not limiting it to just Christianity.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Because every post after that was about Christianity.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Since it was a post directly responding to the OP, and the OP was about all 3 major faiths, there was no "course correction" required. He was talking about all 3 faiths and I was talking about all three faiths. That you couldn't keep up isn't a burden on me, ensign.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The Quran has a rather vague connection with it, make extensive reference to it, but it is a bit unclear how much of it is considered part of Mohammad's revelation.
But furthermore, there is much of Christianity that suggests that the old testament is a fulfilled prophecy and no longer rules Christianity. They hold that the new testament was a new covenant. It is from here that they are released from circumcision, kosher laws, and a host of the more "barbaric" old testament punishments. "Unto you I bring a new law...". You'll often see them describe themselves as some form of "new testament based" church. This is a distinction, often a liberal one, from some of the more infamous "bible based" which tend to adhere to much of the point of view of the old testament. As I say, they often are some of the newer variations.
Heck, you even have variations of judiasm which deviate in numerous ways from each other often heavily based upon this view of the "angry god" concept. The angry god concept is far from universal within any of the large faiths.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...unless you understand how object permanence works.
Pro-tip: ignoring something doesn't mean it isn't there.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I addressed the amount that was, or wasn't in the Quran, which was your core question. And then I went on to discuss the larger issue of the degree, or lack, that the original assertion was grounded in the fundamental treatment of all the texts in question.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The implication being that because "Most Christians ignore X", the very existence of "X" can be disregarded.
Ignoring the bad things Judge Holden did in Blood Meridian doesn't make the character of Judge Holden as he is written any less evil. And it is the character of God being discussed here, not what "most people" believe.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The "character" of god is exactly about "what most people believe". And there is very little consistency among the major three faiths about that very subject.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)they see god as being as grumpy and angry as they are!
There is a motivation here. If they can portray god as a mass murderer, it is easier for them to attack religion. Sorta like a straw man argument, or straw god?
If they ever set foot in a church....they might know that few pastors today rant and rave with old testament messages to rape and pillage neighboring tribes. They talk about a loving god. A more common verse is John 3:16 that talks about god so loving the world.....
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)There is a motivation here. If they can portray god as a mass murderer, it is easier for them to attack religion. Sorta like a straw man argument, or straw god?
So no one was killed in the great Flood? I didn't know that.
Sodom and Gomorrah still stand? I didn't know that.
Straw god? The more correct term is blood god.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)it is obvious the horse you have in this race
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)I guess you didn't read it.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)but you have created your own conception of god to suit your purposes of attacking god and religion
convenient for you.....
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)Please tell me how killing everyone on the planet but one family is not mass murder.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)that every Christian believes the Noah story was a lliteral historical event. Who appointed you as a spokesman for all Christians?
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)That is not the question. Whether god committed mass murder figuratively or literally makes no difference. Genocide is an inherent trait of god's personality as depicted in the Bible.
I don't take a single word of the Bible literally. I don't even take it figuratively. I reject it completely. As a work of pure fiction, it is apparent that the main character is a homicidal maniac who would even command someone to kill his own son.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I wish you well
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)As I suggested earlier, the angry god concept seems far more popular with "young" religions that are feeling they need to "defend" and establish themselves against the resistance of more established religions. As organized religions age, and feel more established, there is a tendency to move away from the angry god to the more loving almost maternal god. There does seem to be a slight tendency to remember the angry god when civilizations go to war.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)was a pillar for our democracy. Everyone should have the freedom to reject or embrace religion. If there is a god, it does not resemble any human form. imo I do not belong to any organized religion.
Atheists and agnostics are welcome in my house, as are people of color, including Caucasians.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You see a grumpy old man.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)I guess you skip over the bad parts.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I'm just going by the words therein. I suggest a close reading of the Old Testament. Really.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I stand by my reading. And you apparently need yours.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)It's one of the books I have read. One of very, very many. I read it and still read it, because it is the scripture of the dominant religion in the nation where I live. It's important to me that I understand it. You may well have seen me quote scripture here. I do it from time to time, when a quote from it makes a point I wish to make.
I've also read the scripture of other faiths, but almost never have a reason to bring them up in the Religion Group, which appears to have few followers of those faiths participating in discussions.
I do not need to have read and understood the Bible. I choose to have done so.
Response to MineralMan (Reply #157)
ollie10 This message was self-deleted by its author.
PJMcK
(22,037 posts)Kill, kill, kill then kill some more.
How is that the god of love and peace?
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)There's your answer, and it's the one that is most often given. Apparently the omniscient deity has had a change of heart. Perhaps it didn't anticipate just how fractious and contrary its human creations would be. Once, it killed all of them off in a fit of pique, but relented and let one family survive. But, that didn't work. Humans got all uppity and sassy again. Eventually, Jesus. Omnipotent deity couldn't fix humans so it decided to forgive them for being fractious and contrary, but only if they did their due obeisance to Jesus.
We don't know what the deity thinks these days, but there's a warning about some sort of end times, when it all comes to an end in an ugly way. But if you follow Jesus, you'll be spared all that and go to somewhere else where you can worship the deity without ceasing. Meanwhile, it will get really, really ugly for the rest of those troublesome humans.
No more has been written about any of this since that last book in the Bible - "Revelation." The deity has apparently gone silent. Hasn't been heard from for many centuries now. Perhaps it has moved on to some other activities. Humans? They didn't work out all that well, apparently.
That's the story we have, anyhow...
lunasun
(21,646 posts)which was a continuation of the abrahamic religion whether a Christian chooses to recognize it or not, thier belief is the deity did speak after the time of Jesus through Mohammed's prophecies
In Islam, the end of the world is referred to as the Hour and involves Jesus returning to Damascus to slay an anti-Christ who has put the planet in peril. With the anti-Christ out of the picture, a period of perfect harmony will ensue. Jesus will later die a natural death, which will usher in a time of destruction that leads directly to the Hour. This is in the Quran
In Judaism, there is no term for Armageddon, but there are references in the Hebrew bible to events that could be compared with Armageddon, including the Day of the Lord (in which God causes death and destruction to people who deserve to be punished)
and the War of Gog and Magog (in which Israel and its god fight their own enemies, rather than an anti-Christ because , well , no Jesus)
In Hinduism, there is the story of the god Vishnu coming back in the last cycle of time as a figure called Kulki, who rides a white horse, carries a sword that looks like a comet and destroys the forces of evil.
In some Buddhist prophecies, the equivalent of Armageddon is Shambhala, in which good triumphs over evil; however, the planet is restored rather than destroyed so people can pursue enlightenment.
That at least seems the most positive if you are gonna believe in something, how about restoration of the planet and enlightenment ?
Hey according to teachings of Jehovah Witnesses we should already be goners !!