The point is that every religion has problematic shit, because when they were made up society was less developed then now.
And back then when a new religion showed up, the major one usually tried to stamp it out with violence. So any new religion that wasn’t also violent, got wiped out pretty quickly.
The problem with religion is the tiny percentage who are far right extremists insisting that rules from over a thousand years ago need to be followed by everyone, and exactly by their interpretation. Not the vast majority who take the general message but understand shits changed since it was written.
Like, you get that right?
I thought I was being clear, but lots of people don’t seem to be getting it…
That’s crazy how Jainism is still around then with tenets like non violence.
Anyway, I wonder if you realize you just implied that the far right extremists of any given religion are interpreting their religion correctly (i.e. closer to the original author’s intent) by virtue of being violent.
Like I said, it’s fine to just say a religion is morally bankrupt.
Society was no less developed 3000 than it is now. When you look at “modern society” they are no better than the Nazi’s in 1940 standing right behind another genocide for decades. Our society is morally bankrupt.
Humans are humans. Humans have not changed. We have funny phones and clothes now, but our hands brains and eyes are exactly the same as 3000 years ago.
Its quite blatantly obvious nobody who comkits atrocities in the name of the text actually reads the texts. If they did they wouldn’t find time to do the atrocities or generally spread chaos.
Reminds me of what happened to the teacher who shared the cartoon of mohammed.
The problem isn’t any of the religions, it’s the far right extremists.
That’s why their actions are so similar, the religion honestly doesn’t matter at that point
Religion is just one of the tools used by fascism. Another lever of power to be bent and broken to ensure absolute control.
religion itself is a fire accelerant
Have you… read any of the texts?
It’s okay to say some of the shit in these religions is morally reprehensible on its face and not just because someone is interpreting it wrong.
The point is that every religion has problematic shit, because when they were made up society was less developed then now.
And back then when a new religion showed up, the major one usually tried to stamp it out with violence. So any new religion that wasn’t also violent, got wiped out pretty quickly.
The problem with religion is the tiny percentage who are far right extremists insisting that rules from over a thousand years ago need to be followed by everyone, and exactly by their interpretation. Not the vast majority who take the general message but understand shits changed since it was written.
Like, you get that right?
I thought I was being clear, but lots of people don’t seem to be getting it…
That’s crazy how Jainism is still around then with tenets like non violence.
Anyway, I wonder if you realize you just implied that the far right extremists of any given religion are interpreting their religion correctly (i.e. closer to the original author’s intent) by virtue of being violent.
Like I said, it’s fine to just say a religion is morally bankrupt.
Society was no less developed 3000 than it is now. When you look at “modern society” they are no better than the Nazi’s in 1940 standing right behind another genocide for decades. Our society is morally bankrupt.
Humans are humans. Humans have not changed. We have funny phones and clothes now, but our hands brains and eyes are exactly the same as 3000 years ago.
Its quite blatantly obvious nobody who comkits atrocities in the name of the text actually reads the texts. If they did they wouldn’t find time to do the atrocities or generally spread chaos.