We'd Be Better Off Without Religion

Tell that to Friedrich Neitzche. He is the one who declared that God was dead and that the modern world had killed him.

 

Isn

How strange! What I noticed is the complete opposite, that the devout are the most respectful and considerate towards others, and the least critical and judgmental. Are you sure it's not projection because you seem to be highly critical yourself?

Anyway don't judge from the average church goer, because many times they're either searching for something, or are using their membership for personal reasons. I've met the worse. Then there's also the fundamentalists, who are spiritually immature and can't relate to anything outside their own traditions and upbringing.

Best you don't take your anger out on God, it's not worth the outcome.

 

The Christians refused to worship the idols, and the Romans considered it a threat to their 'State'. That's why they were dealt with harshly. Regardless, Christianity grew as it always does during persecution.

Not really, because you can't impose Christianity on people. It comes about through the sacrifices of the Saints and miracles. That's why there were shrines - which still exist by the way. The one at Lod to Saint George is attended even by Muslims.

What Constantine did was to allow the crypto Christians to practice their faith in the open.

I don't know of Saint Constantine creating anything other than his New Rome on the Bosporus. There were and still are 5 main bishoprics or patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria.

Rome was the first in prestige. Later on the Vatican became more Germanic because of the Franks cultural influence, and in consequence the Pope became more imperialistic. This is why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are in schism.

Constantine's mother Saint Helen was a Christian and very devout, so she must have had an influence on her son.

What I do know about Saint Constantine, is that he eliminated heresies such as Arianism, by calling all the bishops of the Church to an Ecumenical Council so they could establish a Creed. Constantine didn't establish it, the bishops did. He only presided over it.

The other is that that he moved the capital to a new Rome on the Greek city of Byzantium. According to the writings at the time, when he was outlining the city, someone said: "Don't you think it's big enough," and he replied: "I will stop when the angel in front of me does."

 

I only describe Constantine the same way the great Edward Gibbons does in his famous Decline and fall of the Roman Empire.
The storied historian reports after the vision at the Bridge was fulfilled where he won the battle, he stopped persecuting Jews or Christians.

 

I still think getting rid of religion entirely is impossible, and maybe I'll advised. You may get rid of the current religions, but others will rise up in their place. Some people need religion.

The human mind likes to imagine illusions of grandeur and of control. If there is no God to pray to, who can control everything in our lives, then we don't have agency over everything around us and things can happen that aren't as they should be, or aren't controllable. And that is too terrifying for some to accept.

The authoritarian mind also needs a leader to follow and worship, and God fulfills that while also allowing these people to question their earthly leaders.

 

Did Constantine not kill some of the Bishops?

 

I do not remember that happening. I suggest all the curious read the fabled books by Gibbons on that era of the Romans.

 

I think we are better off with spirituality, not necessarily religion.

 

Didn't that guy die in 1900? That hardly qualifies as being the age of the modern world.

 

It was modern to him. It was post enlightenment era. Neitzche was questioning whether the Enlightenment was delivering what it had promised. With growing urbanization, increasingly industrialized economies and the elimination of many sovereign rulers it was a whole new Europe. The Protestant reformation had left many disillusioned by religion. "Nietzsche used the phrase to express his idea that the Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God."

 

Let's say: "We would be better off with some kinds of religion."

 

Let's not. They are all evil.

 

um....can't even spell the word "Jew"?

lol. Your bigoted OCD strikes again.

 

you dont even understand what I was talking about LMAO
you already have big problems to deal with in your new thread aimed at attacking me that appears like you abandoned it after my first post because your attempted argument is so weak!

 

Imagine

 

Hitler was born and raised Christian - just like any other religion, or even atheism, there are some bad apples in the bunch

 

Forget "religion" and follow the Way, the Truth, and the Life. I am not religious, I am a servant of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

Indeed.

"Gott Mit Uns" wasn't just a friendly reminded for the soldiers to keep their hands warm.

On the other hand, Mao killed more people, and Mao was atheist.

There is no guarantee that absent religion, you won't get a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mao. Atheism isn't their cause, but it also doesn't prevent them.

 

I don't understand why Hitchens was considered so "brilliant." His philosophical reasoning was shallow & sophomoric. I'd apply the same sentiment to Richard Dawkins. I guess anyone can get a big following by denouncing crazy religions, especially if they have a British accent.

And no. Religion is not the problem, but rather people filled with fear & hate, coupled with ignorance, that have always posed a dilemma. Organized religions, like governments, cleverly exploit the use of fear & hate in the ignorant masses as a means to impose their political will/control over them, creating dangerous mobs that will do their bidding. Brainwashed people are just as likely to kill unnecessarily for their "flag" as they are for their "God" --- just two sides of the same coin.

And to note: BOTH the religious & scientific institutions rely on human ignorance to promote their propaganda & influence. So think for yourself, and question everything & everyone.

 

You had me until "scientific institutions rely on human ignorance to promote their propaganda & influence."...which is rubbish.
Hitchens is indeed pretty shallow. You can put a negative spin on any human construct which would be as superficial and unbalanced. Any institution can be corrupted and can cause harm; governments, big pharma, law enforcement, the family. If all you consider is the harm done and not the good, it is not a true picture of reality, which is what Hitchens does. He seems to have no knowledge or understanding of the importance of religion in many lives. How most all religious are attempting to be good people who want to live good lives. What they consider good and how they may try to get others to conform to their good may be debatable, but that is only human.

 

Scientific institutions don’t seem particularly malicious but the media and the corporate world’s attempts to relay scientific information can range from accurate and informative to naive and misinterpreted to deceptive and manipulative.

 

all effin nut jobs

 

I knew you got it!!

 

not all people are Christians the follow , Just like all Muslims are not terrorist

 

totally agree, good and bad apples in every bunch