what do u think

[justugh]

hey

i spent the last 20 years thinking about this

1 religion is the worst invention of all times
a) more deaths has been done in god's name then anything else
b) a sane man can be convinced to do horrible things in gods name
c) ppl avoid taken responsibility (it is in gods hands/will)
d) most religions are a convert or kill (except jewish)
e) all 3 major religions are the same god but everyone looks at the diffs instead of what is the same
f ) church knew they had kiddie fuckers and they protected them not the children
g) the amount of money the church currently has is unknown(they have own banking system)
h) all religion open to interpretation making it mean anything u want (so now and 100 years from now are 2 different things based off daily life)


at one point and time it might of add something to the world (if u really think about it the church is the first world control) it crossed national lines and all .....the church had more power then kings and queens in olden days

but at this point and time it has caused more misery in life then anything else ......look at isis they want us to convert or die .......what gives them the right to force their views of what god is on others .....and it is never going to stop someone out there will always take a korah/torah/bible and twist it into something perverted to fit their view of the world

u kill one group and another starts up (only good news is they are to dumb to learn from history so almost always doomed to fail )

 

[reddan1981]

its our psychology which differentiates those who would cause atrocity from those who couldn't. Religion is just one of many hierarchal systems to filter wealth from us. However religion is used as a pseudonym for paramilitary in most cases mostly by historical editors deliberately painting their own filtered interpretation of 'our' history.

 

[Johnny1120]

Religion started as an attempt to explain what we did not understand. The universe does not always make logical sense, and the human mind has a need to make sense of its environment, thus religion was born to explain that which is beyond us. Myths and stories were created to explain how nature works.

Then came organized religion. Organized religion preyed on this need and used it to control the masses. Charismatic leaders set down dogma and rules in the name of religion to dictate the actions and morality of their subjects using fear of some future punishment or promise of a future boon as a motivator. This proved to be extremely effective and the same pattern is followed to this day. People found it easier to be told how the world works instead of going out and discovering it for themselves. Humans have a tendency to follow the path of least resistance. Education was strictly controlled in order to assure that the only source of answers to the workings of the universe are in religious doctrine.

Religion will always be around because that NEED to understand is built into the human condition. Science will always be the enemy of religion because it competes with it to explain the universe, but it requires a level of effort most are not willing to expend.

Religion serves to comfort billions of people and in that respect it serves a valuable purpose. It is only when people use religion as a manipulative tool to accomplish their own ends that religion has a negative aspect. The fault is within ourselves, not with religion.

BTW, in the old testament there are a number of accounts where Jews killed every man, woman and child in entire cities because God told them to. The story of the Passover is (to my knowledge) the first recorded use of terrorism to accomplish a goal, ending with the deaths of many Egyptian children. Although this type of activity hasn't been practiced recently, I wouldn't exclude Jewish from the list of "convert or kill" when it comes to religion.

 

[justugh]

its our psychology which differentiates those who would cause atrocity from those who couldn't. Religion is just one of many hierarchal systems to filter wealth from us. However religion is used as a pseudonym for paramilitary in most cases mostly by historical editors deliberately painting their own filtered interpretation of 'our' history.

no wealth but power ...........it was is the man form of moral control rules of conduct .....but they are flawed allowing a sub sect of ppl to control the masses lives ........think about the dark ages all that time no work was allowed to be done but in secret think what would have happen if we had those years back (hate to say it but thanks to the Muslims during that time they India and China keep working and most of the basic science and math we have started from there {not counting the golden age}and the secret groups )

Religion started as an attempt to explain what we did not understand. The universe does not always make logical sense, and the human mind has a need to make sense of its environment, thus religion was born to explain that which is beyond us. Myths and stories were created to explain how nature works.

Then came organized religion. Organized religion preyed on this need and used it to control the masses. Charismatic leaders set down dogma and rules in the name of religion to dictate the actions and morality of their subjects using fear of some future punishment or promise of a future boon as a motivator. This proved to be extremely effective and the same pattern is followed to this day. People found it easier to be told how the world works instead of going out and discovering it for themselves. Humans have a tendency to follow the path of least resistance. Education was strictly controlled in order to assure that the only source of answers to the workings of the universe are in religious doctrine.

Religion will always be around because that NEED to understand is built into the human condition. Science will always be the enemy of religion because it competes with it to explain the universe, but it requires a level of effort most are not willing to expend.

Religion serves to comfort billions of people and in that respect it serves a valuable purpose. It is only when people use religion as a manipulative tool to accomplish their own ends that religion has a negative aspect. The fault is within ourselves, not with religion.

BTW, in the old testament there are a number of accounts where Jews killed every man, woman and child in entire cities because God told them to. The story of the Passover is (to my knowledge) the first recorded use of terrorism to accomplish a goal, ending with the deaths of many Egyptian children. Although this type of activity hasn't been practiced recently, I wouldn't exclude Jewish from the list of "convert or kill" when it comes to religion.

give u some credit on that one ......knuckle bump

did u know that in the begin there were factions of the church if i recall right 8 of them and for the first 300 years or so they were killing each other off until only one had enough power to claim right to the bible/holy city/ divine rights/dogma with god ....roman catholic church ........and they run it more like a crime ring then a holy thing (think about ww2 half helping nazi half helping jews....the only one to profit was the church)

jewish military at the time (they were the first gorilla warfare experts ) ......if u compare some of the history of the tactics used in the battlefields they are set in u will see so much of the art of war before it was written .....as i understand it passover worked for them they held out the oil lasted all the days tho they had one day (that was the miracle ) they were under seize by someone at the time

i think u are thinking the exodus ...........the death of first born to force the pharaoh to say yes u can leave ....and if u want to get down to it was not them that did it since they could not cause all those effects it falls under the act of god there for not terrorism since not man created

and yes i knew about killing of whole cities and cultures .......i also know the rights that they must under go before they were allowed to reenter daily jewish life afterward....but none of those acts were ever carried out on christans or musliums only pegan gods and tribes that left the jewish culture

 

[reddan1981]

The etymology of “religion” is indeed disputed. This is not, of course, the case when it comes to English, which clearly inherited the word from Latin religio. Rather it applies to Latin itself, in which it is not clear what the component parts of the noun religio are or mean. The ancient Romans disagreed about this. Cicero, for example, thought that religio derived from the verb relegere in its sense of “to re-read or go over a text,” religion being a body of custom and law that demands study and transmission.

On the other hand, the Christian writer Lactantius, writing in the early fourth century, opted for religare, a verb meaning “to fasten or bind.” “We are,” he said in his book “ Divinae Institutiones ,” “tied to God and bound to him [ religati ] by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful study [relegendo], that religion has received its name.” Lactantius’s greater contemporary, Augustine, preferred this etymology to Cicero’s while suggesting yet another possibility: re-eligere, “to choose again,” religion being the recovery of the link with God that sin has sundered.

It may be that Lactantius and Augustine rejected Cicero’s etymology because it made religio seem too close to such Jewish terms as torah, mishnah and talmud, all Hebrew words having to do with teaching and studying. Since unlike the practice of Judaism, the Christian religion, as they saw it, was a matter of binding faith and commitment rather than of accumulated knowledge, the religare etymology may have appealed to them for the opposite reason than that proposed by Rappaport: as a way of distancing Christianity from Jewish concepts rather than of adopting them.

In any case, however, the “binding” of tefillin on an observant Jew’s arm and the “binding” of Isaac in Abraham’s aborted sacrifice of his son on Mount Moriah have never been, to the best of my knowledge, closely associated with each other in Judaism. Nor do they share the same word. To put on tefillin in rabbinic Hebrew is, as Rappaport refers to it, le’haniah. tefillin, to “lay” them on one’s arm, a term that does not in itself imply submission to God’s will, although the biblical verb for the same act, kashar, “tie,” might seem more suggestive of this. The verb for what Abraham did to Isaac, on the other hand, is akad, which generally refers to the trussing of an animal prior to its being slaughtered, sheared, neutered, etc. Although the Akedah, as Isaac’s binding is known in Judaism, has always functioned there as a powerful symbol of the Jewish willingness to sacrifice all for God (as well as functioning in Christian theology as a prefiguration of the Crucifixion), it has never served as a symbol of the overall Jewish relationship to God, which was certainly not pictured as one of being trussed upon His altar.

To return to the word “religion,” it is a curious fact that, although all the ancestors of today’s Europeans had (like the ancestors of all the world’s inhabitants) what we would call religions, no ancient Indo-European language had a specific word for religion, Latin having been the first — which is why the great majority of modern European languages have some version of religio as their term for it. Probably this was because, precisely since religion was everywhere in the ancient world and no activity was divorced from it, it never struck anyone as a distinct aspect of life calling for a name of its own. There were names for specific gods, ceremonies, rituals, forms of worship, cults, sects, etc., because all these were discrete things; religion itself was the unnamed totality of them all, the forest that couldn’t be seen for all its trees.

It took the Romans, who in conquering the world were forced to become its first anthropologists, to realize that behind all this multifariousness was something about which it was possible to generalize. From its original meaning of “punctilious respect for the sacred,” religio came to denote any comprehensive human system of organizing and expressing such respect. Religio was, Cicero wrote, cultus deorum, “the worship of the gods.” Whether he was also right about where the word came from would appear to be anyone’s guess.
My point is, religion is just a word brother. It was always the RICH that organised the poor, history describes it as religion.

Isis is not religion. Its beginnings in 1950's by two businesses partners named Sheik Mahmoud Halabi and Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

[reddan1981]

Isis is a paramilitary extension of politics.

 

[reddan1981]

The word Religion has different interpretation's. You might believe death, control and wealth grabbing is the embodiment of religion, I don't. I also don't subscribe to any particular faith. Most if not all faiths have been corrupted throughout history but the essence of faith is people WANTING to live righteously.

 

[justugh]

The etymology of “religion” is indeed disputed. This is not, of course, the case when it comes to English, which clearly inherited the word from Latin religio. Rather it applies to Latin itself, in which it is not clear what the component parts of the noun religio are or mean. The ancient Romans disagreed about this. Cicero, for example, thought that religio derived from the verb relegere in its sense of “to re-read or go over a text,” religion being a body of custom and law that demands study and transmission.

On the other hand, the Christian writer Lactantius, writing in the early fourth century, opted for religare, a verb meaning “to fasten or bind.” “We are,” he said in his book “ Divinae Institutiones ,” “tied to God and bound to him [ religati ] by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful study [relegendo], that religion has received its name.” Lactantius’s greater contemporary, Augustine, preferred this etymology to Cicero’s while suggesting yet another possibility: re-eligere, “to choose again,” religion being the recovery of the link with God that sin has sundered.

It may be that Lactantius and Augustine rejected Cicero’s etymology because it made religio seem too close to such Jewish terms as torah, mishnah and talmud, all Hebrew words having to do with teaching and studying. Since unlike the practice of Judaism, the Christian religion, as they saw it, was a matter of binding faith and commitment rather than of accumulated knowledge, the religare etymology may have appealed to them for the opposite reason than that proposed by Rappaport: as a way of distancing Christianity from Jewish concepts rather than of adopting them.

In any case, however, the “binding” of tefillin on an observant Jew’s arm and the “binding” of Isaac in Abraham’s aborted sacrifice of his son on Mount Moriah have never been, to the best of my knowledge, closely associated with each other in Judaism. Nor do they share the same word. To put on tefillin in rabbinic Hebrew is, as Rappaport refers to it, le’haniah. tefillin, to “lay” them on one’s arm, a term that does not in itself imply submission to God’s will, although the biblical verb for the same act, kashar, “tie,” might seem more suggestive of this. The verb for what Abraham did to Isaac, on the other hand, is akad, which generally refers to the trussing of an animal prior to its being slaughtered, sheared, neutered, etc. Although the Akedah, as Isaac’s binding is known in Judaism, has always functioned there as a powerful symbol of the Jewish willingness to sacrifice all for God (as well as functioning in Christian theology as a prefiguration of the Crucifixion), it has never served as a symbol of the overall Jewish relationship to God, which was certainly not pictured as one of being trussed upon His altar.

To return to the word “religion,” it is a curious fact that, although all the ancestors of today’s Europeans had (like the ancestors of all the world’s inhabitants) what we would call religions, no ancient Indo-European language had a specific word for religion, Latin having been the first — which is why the great majority of modern European languages have some version of religio as their term for it. Probably this was because, precisely since religion was everywhere in the ancient world and no activity was divorced from it, it never struck anyone as a distinct aspect of life calling for a name of its own. There were names for specific gods, ceremonies, rituals, forms of worship, cults, sects, etc., because all these were discrete things; religion itself was the unnamed totality of them all, the forest that couldn’t be seen for all its trees.

It took the Romans, who in conquering the world were forced to become its first anthropologists, to realize that behind all this multifariousness was something about which it was possible to generalize. From its original meaning of “punctilious respect for the sacred,” religio came to denote any comprehensive human system of organizing and expressing such respect. Religio was, Cicero wrote, cultus deorum, “the worship of the gods.” Whether he was also right about where the word came from would appear to be anyone’s guess.
My point is, religion is just a word brother. It was always the RICH that organised the poor, history describes it as religion.

Isis is not religion. Its beginnings in 1950's by two businesses partners named Sheik Mahmoud Halabi and Ayatollah Khomeini.

\holy shit .........u must have a iq over 140 and at least 2 years of college at this point i am willing to say a history major or religion major ( that or you have family that is in the church)

at this point ISIS is a new sect of Muslim they do not fully fit into any of the 5 sects so they have to be thought of as a new 6th sect .....hell they are killing off other muslims that do not agree 100% with their viewpoints and the way they read the Koran.....and what they did to that jordan airman using fire to kill him is one of the biggest no no in Muslim culture

as for them wanting to learn ......they do not want that they are destroying sites that does not fit into their view of the world (isis alone is the worst Culture robbers ever) if it not their way it is lost forever or sold to pay for their war ........comparing ISIS to USA early treatment of Indians(native americans) ISIS makes us look like sweethearts

 

[justugh]

on a side note

what is the thought on China
1 kung fu life style and view points........if u think about it a master could be using more of his mind then others resulting skills they have ......i honestly think psychic skills are just possible just the understanding to use them is lacking with only using a avg 4/5% of total brain power (movie lucy) ........i been looking into the old masters legends and if only 25% of what is told is right they were showing signs of psychic skills precog/remote viewing/telekinetic/6th sense/and several others
2 medical field and the basing it on the idea the human body is a bio engine so early on (not to forget their catalog of herbs and other materials ) the legend on how the original book was made the author is a good tale
3 the mythology and old god structure

i know the politics of the culture is just a another variable of waring city states to monarchy to dictator to commie ....seen this story play out in history