Religion for the entire time of its existence caused a lot of harm, but is this harm typical or is it a foreign element for it?

The systemic historical approach questioned the statement that religion is the cause or root of all evils. Rather, the nature of man is such that absolutely all movements and ideology, regardless of whether they are religious or not, have the ability to inspire people on sometimes terrible actions. Of the events that occurred in the 20th century and earlier, where ideologies that sanctioning anti-religious cruelty were flourished, it is not permissible to conclude that atheism as a whole or atheists in particular are immoral or cruel. There are also some pathologically harmful and dangerous forms of religion, and it is necessary to clearly determine what is the norm for it, and that pathology, instead of sharp generalizing statements and accusations of religion in general. From this it would be possible to conclude that a real problem is not religion itself, but extremism and ideologies that provoke cruelty, if not one but. I do not need to judge religion by fundamentalists and extremists, it is enough to take its fundamental texts and statements of governing bodies, how to easily find that the sacred texts are full of absurd and immoral statements, looking at which it will be very difficult for someone to convince me that they were that they were that they were that they were that they were written in a metaphorical language.

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

21 Comments

  1. Medicine for its entire existence caused a lot of harm. Hundreds of people died on operating tables, thousands suffered from unscrupulous and incompetent doctors, millions, engaged in self -medication, spoiled their health and no longer believe doctors. Does this harm be typical of medical science or is this foreign element for it? Once I came across a directory called “Medicines”. The brain almost boiled from the abundance of chemical terms. I will no longer read it. If anything, I’ll go to the clinic. No wonder the people who are sitting there studied for 6 years.

  2. It does not seem to you that expressions like “religion have caused a lot of harm” or “science has caused a lot of harm” – this is an attempt to remove personal responsibility from specific people, including from itself, for their actions, decisions? In my opinion, the greatest harm occurs. It is from the unwillingness to be conscious and responsible, from attempts to find the guilty and extreme in the person of other people or organizations (public, religious), so that there was someone to blame and condemn, and to contrast themselves as correct and good. This is what generates all the troubles of mankind.

  3. It does not seem to you that expressions like “religion have caused a lot of harm” or “science has caused a lot of harm” – this is an attempt to remove personal responsibility from specific people, including from itself, for their actions, decisions? In my opinion, the greatest harm occurs. It is from the unwillingness to be conscious and responsible, from attempts to find the guilty and extreme in the person of other people or organizations (public, religious), so that there was someone to blame and condemn, and to contrast themselves as correct and good. This is what generates all the troubles of mankind.

  4. With a knife, you can cut bread, or you can cut or even kill a person. Does the knife actually make this a phenomenon evil or kind? Of course not. The religious question throughout history became an inspiration for various actions for a person: someone, driven by a religious feat, serves the good of others (the congregation of the “sister of mercy”, for example). And someone, guided by a religious question, pursues, sometimes cruelly, dissenters (I believe, everyone heard about Islamic fundamentalism). Is it permissible on this basis to condemn religion as a phenomenon? Rather, on the contrary: the evil committed by a person, even under a religious slogan, contradicts religion, and any. I’m not saying that state power throughout the history of mankind more than once or twice raised a religious banner to solve its, often very selfish, tasks.

  5. I do not need to judge religion on fundamentalists and extremists, it is enough to take its fundamental texts and statements by the leading orchanting error in the fact that the fundamental texts are written from 1800 (according to the most pessimistic estimates) to 3,500 years ago. And they are written not in the calculation of a modern educated person, but in the calculation of an illiterate peasant 2000 years ago of the non-Slavic people. Therefore, your “easily” looks pretty absurd. You won’t understand why the daughters of Lot wanted children from their father, Jesus drove merchants from the temple, and Herod ordered the Killeys to kill babies without a serious thoughtful study. And the fact that you do not understand does not look for you, even if it is not. Rovely you will not understand where the official position of the Church and why you cannot consider the official position of the religion of the statement of Chaplin or Kuraev. At the same time, you will not understand some statements of the same Chaplin, Kuraev or Osipov without understanding the context of their statements. Alas, for weakly acquaintances with the doctrine and internal way of the church, it is not always obvious what is considered an official position. And even more so no one really follows, as for some statements, the official person becomes unofficial. I am not even saying that a considerable part of the statements and texts of the sacred books, the bulk of people who do not belong to the doctrine know from the scraps of quotes and their overweighted In the press to variations, without raising the primary sources. Therefore, with all the good logic, you began at the end at the end. And – answering your question – just from such errors, from misunderstanding of the essence or from attempts to intentionally distort the essence and goes evil caused by religion.

  6. “It is enough to take its fundamental texts and statements by governing bodies, it is easy to find that the sacred texts are full of absurd and immoral statements, looking at someone very difficult to convince me that they were written in a metaphorical language.” Religion cannot be in religion governing bodies, they are only among organizations that are as imperfect as people themselves. It is not surprising that everything happens there. It would be amazing if it had not happened. As for absurd and immoral statements – even if they are there, is this a problem? It would be a problem if there was nothing there except them. Otherwise, a reasonable approach is to choose the best in everything, i.e. Do not splash water with the child. Moreover, the essence of the teachings of all monotheistic religions is not absurd and not immoral, it is love. If you forget that the essence of religion is in love, and to make something else to the forefront – the creation of the world, the principle of “eye for an eye”, sexuality, a privileged position of the clergy or anything else – then of course religion will easily become absurd, both immoral and harmful. But these are already our manipulations, as you correctly noted in your explanation at the issue.

  7. Harm and benefits are subjective concepts. For example, an antibiotic is the benefits for humans, as it destroys a millionvity bacteria, for example, when contaminating the wound. But for bacteria – death poison. Religion is a natural stage in human development. At the same time, it develops along with civilization: totemism, politicalism, monotheism. Each of the types of religions corresponds to a certain stage in the development of civilization. Today, taking into account the heyday of the scientific knowledge of the world, atheism takes more and more space, and psychology is responsible for the so -called spiritual component – emotions, psyche, etc. Religion for many is now a tribute to fashion now than the real leadership in life and takes the place of fencing 17-19 centuries so closely intertwined with superstitions that even from priests you sometimes hear the full heresy about saint prayers (you can only pray in Christianity to the triune god! – The rest refers to heresies and idolatry)

  8. It depends on what religion. If we talk about Abrahamic, then the immorality (and, therefore, harm) is sewn through the image of God himself, practicing genocide to the right and left. It is sewn through attitude to slaves and women, etc. etc. Infus, all these religions claim to their exclusivity and absolutability, which becomes a prerequisite for the development of religious fanaticism and extremism.

  9. … The sacred texts are full of absurd and immoral statements, looking at which it will be very difficult for someone to convince me that they were written in a metaphorical language. This is precisely in particular specific religions. If we talk about religion in general, then not just typical, but its universal harm comes from the very essence of religious thinking, from the very definition of what religion is. These are pathological, inside out relations between ethics and epistemology. Instead of forming ethical principles based on a picture of the world, religion proposes to form a picture of the world on the basis of ethical principles. Simply put, for religion, all people are small children who need to be scared by a woman to obey. The problem here is in the pronoun “all.” If there are no people who are not intimidated by a woman, then ethical principles have no connection with reality, the whole system closes itself in a vicious circle, in which faith is based on a certain absolute authority, which itself is invented by believers.

  10. And no one will convince you. You will remain unconscious until the end of your life. Just because you do not pay the one who will convince you. Pay a million to the responsible one, and let him convince you. Then pay a million to another, and let him convince you. Not convinced, well, okay. You will lose 2 million, and only. That is to convince a person of something, you must first figure out how much he is ready to pay for knowledge. If he is not ready to pay, then there is no point in talking. If he is ready to pay, then you need to see if this money is worth the time spent on the conviction. So there is absolutely no case in the world, before you personally, and to all the others, Those who are not ready to give something for this. The religion proved its solidity to its righteous – and this is more than enough. The presence of a result proves the viability of the methodology. Whoever this technique does not seem. And with a drunk, this can generally work, which is usually called white fever. And such a man sits with white fever and discusses with a damn insolvency of religion on the window. And he convinces him, and for free. But in fact, he simply spoke to himself. Atheism proved his non -solitude not only in spiritual terms, but also as a state form. That is, the full collapse of the state, and not one, occurred on the basis of atheism or sodomia, which is essentially the same neglect of righteous acts.

  11. The author actually answered himself to his question, indicating that in religion (more precisely – in religions) there are “governing bodies”. That is, religion is a public organization, not a counterweight to atheism. And, as one of the public organizations, each “pulls the blanket” in its direction.
    All this proves that the so -called “paganism” was the only true representative … Read more

  12. I would share faith, religion and church – faith, it is from fear, from powerlessness, misunderstanding, this is salvation for the weak. Religion is the use of faith for public purposes, and the church, these are people, for the most part – strong, self -confident – who use religion and faith for their own purposes – power, profit, and so on.

  13. From the beginning what religion is a deception of people for the sake of power over them. Parties are the same religion to know the same. And everyone who serves in religion and parties consider themselves above the rest of the people and can do everything they want without punishment since they are a higher society and the rest of the slaves. Therefore, religion cannot be said to be a lot of harm to leaders is paradise and for simple it is hell … Read more

  14. The real prophets and Jesus Christ brought the teachings to this world, conveyed knowledge about the world of spiritual and about spiritual development orally. They said the same thing, only associations chose the people where they preached, so that people would be clearer. They talked about unity, peace, about freedom and equality, about the reincarnation of man into a spiritual being through love. That God is one … Read more

  15. Comfortable to the contrary. Over the millennia, religion has created a sea of ​​good and positive. Read the Nagor Passion, Support. These are the primaryary society, so that the society is elementary surviving. And even now they are obvious, but are violated everywhere and everywhere, and 2000 years ago they were generally the only basis why it is impossible to violate (God will punish). And the Ministry of Internal Affairs was not in order to … read more

  16. Question of this type:
    – The knife, during its existence, stabbed a lot of people. Is it typical for a knife or is it alien behavior for him?
    – The firearms during its existence caused a lot of harm (many people killed). Is this harm typical of him or is it alien behavior for him?
    – For the entire time of its existence, the Criminal Code … Read more

  17. Well, religion, organizing the organization of people who profess faith in one or another deity through certain activities, really brought a lot of harm to people. And this harm is the product of the religion itself
    In the most global sense, harm is an suggestion to people of confidence in the existence of some supernatural forces, supposedly monitoring, controlling, punishing or … Read more

  18. Benefits and harm are evaluative categories. The same applies to “cruelty”. At the time of the Inquisition, it was considered quite useful, good deed and was not evaluated as cruelty. This also includes such phenomena as “martyrs”, or those old -runs that burned themselves – in the name of the good, soul, divine part of man. All sorts of entry into contradictions with the “material” world – suffering … Read more

  19. Pure atheism, which would exist in the absence of religion, we have not seen. Atheism is spinning around religious concepts and heritage. It is impossible to imagine the world without religion (this is the world of the future, another type of being, in which there will be neither religion nor atheism), so to argue that the future behind atheism is logically not wealthy. Currently submit a society without … Read more

What do you consider to be a transition to personality and in what communication (form, type and/or type) between people?

What makes the brand attractive?