So how is your religion evil?

[Phier]

One of the constants I've heard both in the press, in conversation, and on these boards, is that when someone does something barbaric in their religions name we are quickly told that said person wasn't really following the religion and that the religion is not evil, just that person(s).


Fair enough.


So really then, what does it take to make a religion evil? If it is easily interpreted in such a way as to become evil, is it evil? If it advocates rape, murder, slavery, and genocide in past situations, is it evil?


Now to look historically, it would be easy to call the Moche religion, or almost any of the major meso-American religions as evil. Human sacrifice, cannibalism, war who's goal was both terror and to capture people to have their hearts cut out, child sacrifice, well not pleasant stuff. If you were a original follower of such a religion though would you have thought it evil? These sacrifices were considered critical to the survival of the people and of the world itself.


So what evil do you see in your religion currently?


Being an atheist I can claim immunity to this question, but I was raised Catholic so I have an opinion there.


Current evil in Catholicism is denial of homosexuals a place if they are practicing. Being there is an obvious genetic link, and sexuality is tied to happiness, to be a good Catholic they need to force themselves to be unhappy. This is connected to the priest pedophile scandals in the US though I don't think of them as a Catholic evil as the evil done there is in no way supported by doctrine, no matter how you interpret it. Likewise up to a few years ago when officially you could 'believe' in evolution, the Catholic persecution of science which conflicted with its view of the universe would be evil, but it seems to be over that one. I won't argue about birth control or anti-abortion stances as being evil, as while you can easily make a situation where it is, the West is slowly killing itself with a low birth rate, so maybe they arn't so dumb after all.


So, anything evil in your religion?

[Hilarion]

Religion isn't evil; but some people are. They may use religion as an excuse to perform evil deeds, taking advantage of a few statements in holy books. I'm only truly familiar with Christianity, so I can't speak for the other religions here, but direct interpretation of the Bible is just plain silly; some of the statements relevant hundreds (thousands) of years ago are hardly applicable in our modern and culturally evolved society. Every sane and good person is able to realize this and follow only the still-relevant guidelines (respect, goodwill, etc.). The ideas questionable today presented in the book were understandable and generally accepted to those living in that era, and so I don't believe the authors or followers of the Bible of 2,000 years ago should be considered "evil." Hell, people of the world two millennia from now will no doubt think of this era's moral standards as barbaric, but that doesn't mean we are all evil.

Again, the only one who is evil is the one who twists religion to his advantage, applying outdated concepts in today's society.

[Phier]

Religion isn't evil; but some people are. They may use religion as an excuse to perform evil deeds, taking advantage of a few statements in holy books. I'm only truly familiar with Christianity, so I can't speak for the other religions here, but direct interpretation of the Bible is just plain silly; some of the statements relevant hundreds (thousands) of years ago are hardly applicable in our modern and culturally evolved society. Every sane and good person is able to realize this and follow only the still-relevant guidelines (respect, goodwill, etc.). The ideas questionable today presented in the book were understandable and generally accepted to those living in that era, and so I don't believe the authors or followers of the Bible of 2,000 years ago should be considered "evil." Hell, people of the world two millennia from now will no doubt think of this era's moral standards as barbaric, but that doesn't mean we are all evil.

Again, the only one who is evil is the one who twists religion to his advantage, applying outdated concepts in today's society.

So who decides what gets cut from your religion because its now no longer acceptable? Who decides the mind of god has changed and now something once acceptable is now evil?

[Oldgamer]

I would say that no religion is evil. It is some of its adherents who turn to ... shall we say? ... the dark side.

Do Islamist terrorists, or "Christians" who shoot abortion clinic doctors, render Islam or Christianity evil, respectively? I don't think so.

No matter how I sound in other threads, that is! ...

[Rich86]

I would say that no religion is evil.

Even if a religion promotes homophobic attitudes, discriminatory behaviour, and encourages the murder of 'heretics' ?

[Visna]

My ethno-religion, Judaism, has had it's nose (no pun intended) in things for centuries. I think it started when we "killed Jesus". We have progressed since then, though. So now we're behind such things as the New World Order, WW2 and the Holohoax, 9/11 (obviously), Hollywood movies, and many more too numerous to list.

Religion is what people make it, and no religion, no not even Catholicism, is "evil". People who interpret it and act upon their interpretation for their own, often unrelated real world, agenda can very well be, though.

[Hilarion]

So who decides what gets cut from your religion because its now no longer acceptable? Who decides the mind of god has changed and now something once acceptable is now evil?

I'd say the many cultural, political, religious, and technological revolutions of the last millennium have played a rather significant part.

Again, the basic underlying principles of the Bible remain, but some things have naturally become obsolete and unacceptable as society has evolved.

[Exarch]

as an ideology, christianity, judaism and islam are inherently 'evil' the same way Nazism as a political philosophy is 'evil' in that they all advocate abuses of human rights and genocide

[Chaigidel]

the faith of atheism is evil in that though it was meant to free one from bondage, it has only lead you into a new bondage; since most are simply meant to be slaves.

[Exarch]

the faith of atheism is evil in that though it was meant to free one from bondage, it has only lead you into a new bondage; since most are simply meant to be slaves.

the fallacy that so many christians make in thinking 'atheism' is a 'religion' still resounds today.
is this the only way christians can relate and comprehend atheism? as a religion?

atheism is merely the lack of belief in a religion. for eg, buddhism is considered an atheistic religion

[Playfishpaste]

the fallacy that so many christians make in thinking 'atheism' is a 'religion' still resounds today.
is this the only way christians can relate and comprehend atheism? as a religion?

atheism is merely the lack of belief in a religion. for eg, buddhism is considered an atheistic religion

NO. We are really not going to get into the three billionth discussion on this, we know what both sides or going to say, let's not lolligag back and forth. Here's the OED:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk

belief that god does not exist. This is a belief, it also lacks any kind of verifiable evidence. That makes it a faith. Period end of story. Strong and weak atheism can be differentiated, yes that is the case, and I assume you are a weak atheist. But anyway, the deal is, atheism is a faith, not a religion, but a faith. If you are an agnostic or a weak atheist, then you are a special exception.

[MaximiIian]

So, anything evil in your religion?

In my religion itself? Not much, really. It doesn't have a claim of exclusivity that would cause it to become intolerant (the main "evil" perpetrated by any ideology; not just religions).

Now, people in my religion? Too many idiot kids who have no clue what they're doing or what the religion means, and refuse to learn from experience or the mountain of literature on the subject. Not evil per se, but really ing annoying. And embarrassing, because it often causes people to have a horrifically skewed misconception of what my religion is.

[Pious Agnost]

Oooh, mine leads to Nihilism which leads to suicide.

Lock me up before I hurt someone by spreading my lies.

(I wouldn't really class it as a religion, just wanted to get that out there)

[Manco]

I sometimes wonder why if a man commits an 'evil' act supposedly motivated by his religion, that the man is considered evil and not the religion.
But when a man commits a 'good' act, suddenly the religion is also responsible?

Either we accept that religion is inherently neutral, and thus a good act comes from a good man and not a good religion; or we have to accept that those evil acts are an undeniable part of that religion.

[AdamWeishaupt]

The music that is played pleases because the artist does well on the instrument and it's ugly when skilled fingers and an understanding for what one does are lacking.

[basics]

" So really then, what does it take to make a religion evil? If it is easily interpreted in such a way as to become evil, is it evil? If it advocates rape, murder, slavery, and genocide in past situations, is it evil?"

Phier,

If a man or a woman is born again, that is made regenerate, thus indwelt by God according to the promises of God, he or she belongs to Him that saved them and acts accordingly as proof of their regeneration. This means that their primary function from that point on is to promote the name of Jesus Christ who saves sinners.

If you mean what I think you mean by religion in the actions of the Israelites, I have to say that none of what you mention above was ever advocated to them or for them. They were to be a separated nation because in type they were a Holy nation. Why, so that they would carry the Oracles of God and when these Oracles were fulfilled, they themselves become in reality what they were the type for.

We now know that didn't happen and didn't because by the curse their Holiness was restricted, being covered for short spells, meaning most died in their sins. Did they do any of what you suggest? Perhaps some did but if they did they paid dearly for it. Can it therefore be said that those that perhaps overstepped the mark did so because their religion demanded it? I would argue on that one.

But, assuming for a moment that you do not speak of Israel in particular but religion in general, one can see even in these modern times that religion has evil overtones. In the name of religion do the Roman Catholics and the Muslims not seek world domination and have done almost from their inception? I would contest that these two religions alone have shed more blood than any other that has sprung up from the days of Nimrod.

I could accept one or the other if that was what God authorised in His word, the Bible, but it never was. Indeed the very principal is to evangelise in a peaceful manner that which God the Comforter inspires, yet I have never seen or heard of a Roman Catholic or a Muslim doing that around the doors of any community. Indeed I have never heard a Roman Catholic or a Muslim declare to the world what God the Son has done for them.

So when Jesus Christ says that man must obey every word that comes from out of the mouth of God, that being the real bread of life, and we see that the above as well as others don't, are we to assume that they somehow escape the condemnation of the Law? No, it means that they are still condemned and if so are then still under the curse that is evil, without doubt the reason that they spread by the sword, not the word.

[Daeger]

" So really then, what does it take to make a religion evil? If it is easily interpreted in such a way as to become evil, is it evil? If it advocates rape, murder, slavery, and genocide in past situations, is it evil?"

Phier,

If a man or a woman is born again, that is made regenerate, thus indwelt by God according to the promises of God, he or she belongs to Him that saved them and acts accordingly as proof of their regeneration. This means that their primary function from that point on is to promote the name of Jesus Christ who saves sinners.

If you mean what I think you mean by religion in the actions of the Israelites, I have to say that none of what you mention above was ever advocated to them or for them. They were to be a separated nation because in type they were a Holy nation. Why, so that they would carry the Oracles of God and when these Oracles were fulfilled, they themselves become in reality what they were the type for.

We now know that didn't happen and didn't because by the curse their Holiness was restricted, being covered for short spells, meaning most died in their sins. Did they do any of what you suggest? Perhaps some did but if they did they paid dearly for it. Can it therefore be said that those that perhaps overstepped the mark did so because their religion demanded it? I would argue on that one.

But, assuming for a moment that you do not speak of Israel in particular but religion in general, one can see even in these modern times that religion has evil overtones. In the name of religion do the Roman Catholics and the Muslims not seek world domination and have done almost from their inception? I would contest that these two religions alone have shed more blood than any other that has sprung up from the days of Nimrod.

I could accept one or the other if that was what God authorised in His word, the Bible, but it never was. Indeed the very principal is to evangelise in a peaceful manner that which God the Comforter inspires, yet I have never seen or heard of a Roman Catholic or a Muslim doing that around the doors of any community. Indeed I have never heard a Roman Catholic or a Muslim declare to the world what God the Son has done for them.

So when Jesus Christ says that man must obey every word that comes from out of the mouth of God, that being the real bread of life, and we see that the above as well as others don't, are we to assume that they somehow escape the condemnation of the Law? No, it means that they are still condemned and if so are then still under the curse that is evil, without doubt the reason that they spread by the sword, not the word.

Oh gee.. this "regenerate" pagan stuff again.. >_>

The thing is, bible god is evil only because we exist. If he existed he would have made us just for the heck of it, he has no reason to make anything and he still causes suffering which makes him an . He throws people to hell because he is a dickwad which makes him an and thus evil. Bible god is one of the most ed up god images ever. Period.

Why do pagans always come up with weird like that?

[Phier]

If you mean what I think you mean by religion in the actions of the Israelites, I have to say that none of what you mention above was ever advocated to them or for them. They were to be a separated nation because in type they were a Holy nation. Why, so that they would carry the Oracles of God and when these Oracles were fulfilled, they themselves become in reality what they were the type for.

We now know that didn't happen and didn't because by the curse their Holiness was restricted, being covered for short spells, meaning most died in their sins. Did they do any of what you suggest? Perhaps some did but if they did they paid dearly for it. Can it therefore be said that those that perhaps overstepped the mark did so because their religion demanded it? I would argue on that one.

Well for example.

27 But Manasseh did not drive out the people of Beth Shan or Taanach or Dor or Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that land. 28 When Israel became strong, they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor but never drove them out completely. 2930 Neither did Zebulun drive out the Canaanites living in Kitron or Nahalol, who remained among them; but they did subject them to forced labor. 31 Nor did Asher drive out those living in Acco or Sidon or Ahlab or Aczib or Helbah or Aphek or Rehob, 32 and because of this the people of Asher lived among the Canaanite inhabitants of the land. 33 Neither did Naphtali drive out those living in Beth Shemesh or Beth Anath; but the Naphtalites too lived among the Canaanite inhabitants of the land, and those living in Beth Shemesh and Beth Anath became forced laborers for them. 34 The Amorites confined the Danites to the hill country, not allowing them to come down into the plain. 35 And the Amorites were determined also to hold out in Mount Heres, Aijalon and Shaalbim, but when the power of the house of Joseph increased, they too were pressed into forced labor. 36 The boundary of the Amorites was from Scorpion [f] Pass to Sela and beyond. Nor did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, but the Canaanites continued to live there among them.

So the early Israelis forced the natives into slavery of some kind, but.....

1 The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, 2 and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.' Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? 3 Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you."

That wasn't good enough for God, who sends an angel directly to scold them for not finishing the job.

As I'm sure you know it goes on and on after that.

So I'm confused, how do you reconcile that sort of thing?

[basics]

" 1 The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, 2 and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.' Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? 3 Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you."

Phier,

The important thing about Scripture is making sure that the cart never comes before the horse. Israel were chosen to be a Holy nation, and, some of them actually, by the hand of God, were, but the others were not, being sinners. This is seen by the introduction of sacrificing that for periods they actually were covered enough to be regarded as such.

Having been chosen, in accordance to the plans of God, it was given them to occupy a land for themselves in which all could be Holy. And, provided they obeyed God nothing was more sure. God Himself declaring that He Himself would drive out the inhabitants before them. But we know that didn't happen because some of the inhabitants deceived Joshua and having given his word would not go back on it.

Therefore what should have been an easy conquest became more than that as punishment. Their new land should have been Holy but as it turned out it wasn't being tarnished by the religiosity of the nations who should have been long gone. What should have been done by God now rested in themselves and many were to pay the price.

The consequence has been ever since that their God-given land has had to be fought over even up unto this day. They have been invaded more often than I feel I have had hot breakfasts, some they won and others they lost, but what is important is that never have no Israelis been on the land so that particular promise is still intact.

As regards slaves, I would question that these were ever in the category that we associate slavery to be and what they themselves once were. Why, because their Laws demanded of them what was different from other nations. For example it is written that the people must always be clean so that they could make sacrifice. To touch anything unclean meant they had to repeat the cleansing process and the unclean were the aliens, as God puts it, that dwelt among them.

This meant that these aliens had to go through the same procedures as that of the people so that in the eyes of God by the sacrificial elements they could be deemed Holy for those days until the next ceremony came along. So can we assume that those held as slaves were that bit better off than the people when they were slaves to the Egyptians or anyone else? I think we can.

[Dr. Croccer]

Religions are not ''evil'' or ''good'', those perceptions are relative but that's not the point. Religious books have passages which can be viewed as both good and bad. It's got more to do with the followers, seeing as they often follow the passages that they view as best, which leads to horrible things when fundies take a few sentences and think they mean ''kill the unbeliever'' or whatever.

Then again, there are also ones that are ''good'', such as Christian Communists, that interpret certain texts as signs to be good to other people, for example.