Firstly, is it not better to ignore the lot and follow your conscience?But is that not better than religions that advocate violence towards others?
Firstly, is it not better to ignore the lot and follow your conscience?
Secondly, that's no help to two young children whose parents become strict Buddhists and cut all ties and attachments to them.
Buddhism doesn't advocate non violence to a greater extent than any other religion so the question is pointless. In any case the answer is no, the answer is that stupidity in any religion should be ignored.I agree, that’s why I’m an atheist. But you can be an atheist and say some religions are worse than others. Would you not agree that a religion that advocates non-violence is, in the main, better than one that advocates violence?
Buddhism doesn't advocate non violence to a greater extent than any other religion so the question is pointless. In any case the answer is no, the answer is that stupidity in any religion should be ignored.
Slightly amended for accuracy.One of the things that massively annoys me about religious spokespeople is when they spout such nonsense as "Well, Jesus said......". Quoting as if it is an actual fact, when in reality it's just a bad translation of a 2000 year old fairy story.
How tolerant of you ;) Having said that, what you quoted does seem to directly contradict one of the basic tenets of 'christianity's' teachings as found in the beatitudes - 'blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy' - kinda suggests that intolerance, hatred, cruelty etc are not the way. Maybe this has something to do with how it was interpreted/rewritten/used by the romans.to such an extent that the original meaning came to hidden at best, warped at worst. In essence it speaks of the interconnectedness of all beings - is that so different from attempts to find a unified field theory. In other words is it possible that the original message was one of Unity and Peace but this message has been twisted to serve a purpose of division and war? ps that morality stuff does seem a bit nuts to say the least...
I would say that that the original message of Jesus was one of peace and unity, yes. That is to say that there is a state of peace beyond that which can be known by the conflicted mind in which one can experience a felt sense of unity. However, that is not to say that this is the message that is necessarily conveyed through the bible. But then again there is an easy argument to make that states that those who brought together the bible 'as is' today had a pretty heavy investment in war - so would not want for christianity's message to be seen as one of peace. Done quite a good job of this in fairness - at least on an outer, superficial level...and if that's as far as people want to look, then that's the only message they will receive.are you really trying to say the bible(as that where all Christianities teachings come from) original teachings were unity and peace?? you cannot be serious
Deuteronomy
God really lays down the law in Deuteronomy. And he insists that you follow it, exactly as written without adding to or subtracting from it. The law applies to everyone for all time. No excuses. (See 28:15-68 for a list of things God will do to you if you refuse to obey.)
Of course the first thing you'll have to do is kill people. Lots and lots of people.
Revelation
Everything in Revelation should probably be highlighted, because it's all violent, cruel, or absurd in one way or another. But that would make it too hard to read, and it's hard enough as it is.
Revelation has my vote for the worst book in the Bible. And since the Bible, Quran, and the Book of Mormon are the three worst books ever written, that's saying something.
Almost as if the New message was meant to be different from the Old message? So, yes in that way it's not such a surprise that they clash. It does amuse me that there is a way of thinking that effectively says that ' God sent his only son' to get beaten, imprisoned and crucified just so as to deliver the same message. Why bother? Unless God's a bit dense.Is it that surprising that the quotes clash with the Beatitudes?
The quotes made are Old Testament quotes, with Exodus/Deuteronomy thought to be from around 500 BC, not 1st century AD. 15th century morals were rather different from 21st century morals.
From recollection, there isn't a lot of compassion in the Old Testament, and the earliest books dictate/prophecy how rather than why (Deuteronomy is pretty much a video nasty for the time).
All religion IMO is a -
Although I could be tempted to join the church of Magicpole, providing i'm blessed with Bells holy water and communion tattie scones : )
I would say that that the original message of Jesus was one of peace and unity, yes. That is to say that there is a state of peace beyond that which can be known by the conflicted mind in which one can experience a felt sense of unity. However, that is not to say that this is the message that is necessarily conveyed through the bible. But then again there is an easy argument to make that states that those who brought together the bible 'as is' today had a pretty heavy investment in war - so would not want for christianity's message to be seen as one of peace. Done quite a good job of this in fairness - at least on an outer, superficial level...and if that's as far as people want to look, then that's the only message they will receive.