Violence is the Natural conclusion of Religion.

[Spooky]

This is the basic statement I made while in a discussion with a friend. He identifies as Agnostic.

He disagrees with my statement.

With the exception of strictly pacifistic such as maybe Buddhism, I believe the logical conclusion of most major religions is Misogyny, Repression, and Violence.

Now I believe most Americans (at least many of the one's I've met) have a fair bit of Xenophobia and disdain for most things middle eastern. Sharia law and the like are pretty shocking compared to what most are used to. But when some "good christian" derelict starts in with the holier than thou BS, my first though is always: "Wait a minute!, isn't Christianity just as violent and ignorant as Islam?"

Forgive me for using their name and repeating something that deserves to be buried (than pissed on):
The westboro baptist bastards. Are they not simply Christianity taken to the same extreme?

I don't care about being "right". I respect my friend's opinion and he makes good arguments. I just want to see what the opinion here is.

[robvalue]

To me, by far the most influential part of any religion is the oral myths. Without it, nothing else matters. If there is no myth that the bible is the word of God, it would sit harmlessly in the fiction section and not hurt anyone.

But yes, while such a myth prevails that a book is somehow magically true, the contents of that books represent the kind of thing believers could do in the name of that religion and accurately describe themselves as justified from a religious perspective.

Comparing the bible to the quran is a close competition, they are both sickeningly evil. Both are equally capable of justifying violence as well as all manner of other unspeakable acts.

I would expect that a christian theocracy today would not be much different from the islam ones we have. Luckily for us, secularism and human laws are able to trump religion on the whole.

[downbeatplumb]

Violence is the Natural conclusion of Religion.

It depends on the religion.

The Abrahamic ones though are steeped in blood and vengeance.

[RobertE]

This is the basic statement I made while in a discussion with a friend. He identifies as Agnostic.

He disagrees with my statement.

With the exception of strictly pacifistic such as maybe Buddhism, I believe the logical conclusion of most major religions is Misogyny, Repression, and Violence.

Now I believe most Americans (at least many of the one's I've met) have a fair bit of Xenophobia and disdain for most things middle eastern. Sharia law and the like are pretty shocking compared to what most are used to. But when some "good christian" derelict starts in with the holier than thou BS, my first though is always: "Wait a minute!, isn't Christianity just as violent and ignorant as Islam?"

Forgive me for using their name and repeating something that deserves to be buried (than pissed on):
The westboro baptist bastards. Are they not simply Christianity taken to the same extreme?

I don't care about being "right". I respect my friend's opinion and he makes good arguments. I just want to see what the opinion here is.

Indeed, whenever there is a terrorist act committed by Muslims in the West, it is shocking and I must admit, I do comment on the story along with others. However, then I bring up the fact that Christians, especially Catholics were exactly the same over the last two millenia, yet they reply with "but that was a long time ago, we are talking about today." This is what gets my goat in fact that most, if not all Christians just don't want to acknowledge that their religion was exactly the same.

To me, by far the most influential part of any religion is the oral myths. Without it, nothing else matters. If there is no myth that the bible is the word of God, it would sit harmlessly in the fiction section and not hurt anyone.

But yes, while such a myth prevails that a book is somehow magically true, the contents of that books represent the kind of thing believers could do in the name of that religion and accurately describe themselves as justified from a religious perspective.

Comparing the bible to the quran is a close competition, they are both sickeningly evil. Both are equally capable of justifying violence as well as all manner of other unspeakable acts.

I would expect that a christian theocracy today would not be much different from the islam ones we have. Luckily for us, secularism and human laws are able to trump religion on the whole.

The Qu'ran and the Bible are the same. There is no doubt about that. Mohammed was in fact an Arab whose family probably followed Judaism or paganism, until he decided that he had enough and start his own, taking some documents with him and thus creating the Qu'ran. Well, that is my theory anyway, I am not saying it is correct but there is a strong possibility that I could be.

[Mudhammam]

With the exception of strictly pacifistic such as maybe Buddhism, I believe the logical conclusion of most major religions is Misogyny, Repression, and Violence.

How could there be any logical conclusion to a set of beliefs that are counter to logic?

Now I believe most Americans (at least many of the one's I've met) have a fair bit of Xenophobia and disdain for most things middle eastern. Sharia law and the like are pretty shocking compared to what most are used to. But when some "good christian" derelict starts in with the holier than thou BS, my first though is always: "Wait a minute!, isn't Christianity just as violent and ignorant as Islam?"

Is Christianity really just as violent? Are you making that judgment by assessing the teachings of Jesus and his early followers in comparison to Muhammad and his early followers? Are you comparing the history of Christian theocracies with Muslim theocracies, or the actions of Christians in the world today with their Muslim counterparts? What's the basis for your claim?

Forgive me for using their name and repeating something that deserves to be buried (than pissed on):
The westboro baptist bastards. Are they not simply Christianity taken to the same extreme?

I'm willing to bet quite a few Christians would vehemently disagree. Personally I don't see much similarity between the Westboro Baptist Church and the teachings of Christ apart from their superstitious condemnations of those they dislike (but at least give Jesus the benefit that he was a first-century peasant and not a crudely ignorant American in the twenty-first century).

I don't care about being "right". I respect my friend's opinion and he makes good arguments. I just want to see what the opinion here is.

I don't think religion naturally results in violence. I think that comes pretty naturally to animals in general, especially those among our species that haven't learned to discipline their passions with good judgement; and good judgement more often than not follows from a balanced education that involves cultivating an appreciation for sound reasoning---the disregard of which so often makes religion culpable for the monstrous ideas that people find acceptable.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I recall a similar conclusion, though arrived at via a different chain of thought, by an author whose name escapes me (Alvaro? Alvarez? sorry). If I recall correctly, this fellow took the economic principle of scarcity and extended it to religion as an explanation of why religions almost always include violence as part and parcel of their metric.

The argument runs more or less as follow:

Human beings are intrinsically sensitive to the scarcity of necessary resources, such as food, water, shelter, etc. It doesn't matter if the scarcity of such is real, artificial or even imagined. The perception of scarcity tends to make people twitchy.

Religion automatically creates artificial/imagined scarcities of salvation, afterlife, divine blessings and so forth. So, just as when scarcity of water may lead human beings to fight, so the scarcity of salvation can do the same. If your tribe worships god A who promises salvation while the neighbouring tribe worships god B who promises salvation, the perception is that god B and his followers are lessening your tribe's access to salvation. Since you can't get at god B to destroy him, your options are to either convert or to destroy god B's followers. Destruction is generally the easier path.

Since religious people tend to view divine favour as an exceedingly important resource, the perceived scarcity of it has almost no options but to lead to violence. The notion of 'We're right and you're wrong' is virtually universal, especially when it comes to religion. (it is an open question as to whether religious people resort to violence because of or in spite of their specific religious tenets, but I don't think that matters much - the end result is identical).

And - for the record - Buddhists don't get a pass.

Boru

[AFTT47]

I'd say it more naturally leads to ignorance. Repression and intolerance also for dogmatic religions like Christianity and Islam which will often lead to violence.

[Ignorant]

---

This is the basic statement I made while in a discussion with a friend. He identifies as Agnostic.

He disagrees with my statement.

With the exception of strictly pacifistic such as maybe Buddhism, I believe the logical conclusion of most major religions is Misogyny, Repression, and Violence.

Now I believe most Americans (at least many of the one's I've met) have a fair bit of Xenophobia and disdain for most things middle eastern. Sharia law and the like are pretty shocking compared to what most are used to. But when some "good christian" derelict starts in with the holier than thou BS, my first though is always: "Wait a minute!, isn't Christianity just as violent and ignorant as Islam?"

Forgive me for using their name and repeating something that deserves to be buried (than pissed on):
The westboro baptist bastards. Are they not simply Christianity taken to the same extreme?

I don't care about being "right". I respect my friend's opinion and he makes good arguments. I just want to see what the opinion here is.

Indeed, whenever there is a terrorist act committed by Muslims in the West, it is shocking and I must admit, I do comment on the story along with others.

---

However, then I bring up the fact that Christians, especially Catholics were exactly the same over the last two millenia, yet they reply with "but that was a long time ago, we are talking about today." This is what gets my goat in fact that most, if not all Christians just don't want to acknowledge that their religion was exactly the same.

---

To me, by far the most influential part of any religion is the oral myths. Without it, nothing else matters. If there is no myth that the bible is the word of God, it would sit harmlessly in the fiction section and not hurt anyone.

But yes, while such a myth prevails that a book is somehow magically true, the contents of that books represent the kind of thing believers could do in the name of that religion and accurately describe themselves as justified from a religious perspective.

Comparing the bible to the quran is a close competition, they are both sickeningly evil. Both are equally capable of justifying violence as well as all manner of other unspeakable acts.

I would expect that a christian theocracy today would not be much different from the islam ones we have. Luckily for us, secularism and human laws are able to trump religion on the whole.

The Qu'ran and the Bible are the same. There is no doubt about that. Mohammed was in fact an Arab whose family probably followed Judaism or paganism, until he decided that he had enough and start his own, taking some documents with him and thus creating the Qu'ran. Well, that is my theory anyway, I am not saying it is correct but there is a strong possibility that I could be.

---

So life under Catholic (later Orthodox) Byzantium or under the Western Roman Empire of Charlemagne or under the Holy Roman Empire of Otto etc. was "exactly the same" as life under ISIS or in Iran? Really?

[RobertE]

---

Indeed, whenever there is a terrorist act committed by Muslims in the West, it is shocking and I must admit, I do comment on the story along with others.

---

However, then I bring up the fact that Christians, especially Catholics were exactly the same over the last two millenia, yet they reply with "but that was a long time ago, we are talking about today." This is what gets my goat in fact that most, if not all Christians just don't want to acknowledge that their religion was exactly the same.

---

The Qu'ran and the Bible are the same. There is no doubt about that. Mohammed was in fact an Arab whose family probably followed Judaism or paganism, until he decided that he had enough and start his own, taking some documents with him and thus creating the Qu'ran. Well, that is my theory anyway, I am not saying it is correct but there is a strong possibility that I could be.

---

So life under Catholic (later Orthodox) Byzantium or under the Western Roman Empire of Charlemagne or under the Holy Roman Empire of Otto etc. was "exactly the same" as life under ISIS or in Iran? Really?

You are taking my point out of context. Please tell me that the indigenous people wanted to be converted by catholic missionaries. Please tell me that catholics weren't involved in the Atlantic slave trade, please tell me that Catholics weren't responsible for the lie that could have wiped out the whole of Europe in that cats were the cause of the plague? The pope in history is no more different to what Osama Bin Laden, or the Ayatollahs are. They are equally as sick.

[Ignorant]

---

So life under Catholic (later Orthodox) Byzantium or under the Western Roman Empire of Charlemagne or under the Holy Roman Empire of Otto etc. was "exactly the same" as life under ISIS or in Iran? Really?

---

You are taking my point out of context. Please tell me that the indigenous people wanted to be converted by catholic missionaries. Please tell me that catholics weren't involved in the Atlantic slave trade, please tell me that Catholics weren't responsible for the lie that could have wiped out the whole of Europe in that cats were the cause of the plague? The pope in history is no more different to what Osama Bin Laden, or the Ayatollahs are. They are equally as sick.

-emphasis mine

Well, I was willing to grant that I may have taken your point too literally and out of context, but then that last sentence is just a bit to generalizing for me to grant.

Did Catholics do some messed up stuff? Sure.
Were some Popes "equally" as terrorizing or despotic as Osama Bin Laden or the Ayatollahs? Not quite as sure, but I'm willing to listen to specific comparisons.
Was Western Civilization united by Catholic principles "the exact same" as ISIS and modern Iran? I think you have a lot of work to do before I assent to that hyperbole.

Look, I get it, Christian civilization has done things in the past that resemble things that modern Islamic theocracies do as well, but to claim that the two are "exactly the same" is not something I am going to accept just because you have provided a few examples of shameful Christian action and then say, "Seeeeee?!" Nestor pointed out the same thing and he isn't even a Christian. Think about it.