Throughout human history, has religion done more good than harm or is it the other way around?

I don’t really think religion harms anything to be honest. I just think of it as something people worship or believe in, but it doesn’t really affect how an individual lives? It’s just this extra thing in life.
Think of it. Three people, all of them have different beliefs. They’re friends, they meet, go out and act very similar in public. They go home and that’s pretty much the only difference.
So it probably just affects the way people think, or judge wrong from right,but really, most of us live normally nowadays no matter what our religion is.

Just to preface, I am no fan of religion. In fact, I often have said that although I believe in God, I do not subscribe to religion as I believe that it is an institution created by man in a vain attempt to codify the unknowable and more often than not degenerates to self-serving piousness.

That being said, the church has, and still does, many things that are quite beneficial to society. For example, they have consistently been one of the largest patrons of the arts, both visual and musical. Some of the greatest master works ever produced were commissioned by the church.

On a social level, churches are heavily involved in charitable works ranging from running soup kitchens to running homeless shelters to providing youth programs. Additionally, regardless of your personal beliefs about God, churches provide a sense of community that is something that has been somewhat pushed aside as our cities become ever larger and more impersonal.

Actually there is one thing that has caused so much grief and misery throughout human history; ignorance. Now we have to tackle what causes this and there is one particular thing that comes to mind; authoritarianism and the conformist mindsets that allow this monster to be continuously fed.

The answer to your question can be found in basic human psychology because authoritarianism (and ignorance) can be either theistic or nontheistic. There is a strong correlation between authoritarian mindsets and ignorance.

The reason this argument can never be settled is because no one will agree on what the “blame” can be placed. People will say “it’s not the religion, it’s the people who follow the religion”. But these people’s ideas don’t come from nowhere—they come from the religion. Still, some argue that the religion doesn’t support these things and is just twisted by its followers. But I say religion is too easy to twist.

For example, the Crusades. What do we blame for the Crusades? The religion or the people who followed the religion? Was it both? Was it religion indirectly? Was it misinterpretation of religion?

By far religion has caused more violence and human suffering than any other social institution over all the millenia of human history. “My invisible guy is better than your invisible guy” has justified a lot of antisocial behavior. To quote an atheist slogan, religion “hardens hearts and enslaves minds,”

All of the humanistic values that seem to commend religion (art & music, community & charity, etc) are present with secular humanism as well. In other words, belief in a supernatural deity is not required in order to feel spiritualistic, creative, confident, optimistic, and altruistic. Secular humanism suffices, plus (bonus!) it includes scientific rationality.

Human nature being what it is, I don’t foresee the demise of religion in the future.
Never underestimate the power of ignorance and shared delusional systems.

As with many things, it’s a mixed bag.
The 6 on one hand/half a dozen on the other.

Is it true that more people have been killed in the name of “God” than any other war, pesticlence or natural disaster combined?

Yes.

Is it also true that love, forgiveness, doing unto others as one would have done unto them are, obviously, indisputable “truths” for living a decent life?

Yes again.

Hey…everything in life is a dichotomy.

Antibiotics save lives as well as contribute to resistant strains of bacteria….pick your poison I always say. ;-)

Alas, more ”..harm..”.
Distinct religions divide by their very nature. When one says that “I am this.” one denies that one is that. Hence a division.
What’s more – every religion (That I know of) claims to be the true way, and therefore implies that all others are false!
So, although well meant, the idea of a religion is doomed to always fail as a unifying force.

Unless one religion can convert all others to its way.

Or exterminate all competitors.

I’d say that what has caused the harm is tribalism and intolerance. To whatever extent religion plays into those instincts, then it’s a force for harm (as is nationalism or gangs or partisan politics or any other form of tribalism).

Some religions are more tribal and intolerant than others. Some aren’t at all. But I suspect that tribalism is a pretty deeply ingrained feature of humanity, and it will tend to appear in some form, whether religious or not. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that people who are rabidly nationalistic also tend to gravitate to the most tribal and intolerant forms of religion.

It’s impossible to answer this question. Religion is one of the great unifying forces of human history. I’m not sure there would be human history—that is, recorded knowledge, passed down from generation to generation—without religion. Not to say that religion is necessarily a cause, but it’s likely a necessary side effect.

To put it another way, this is a bit like asking, “would the evolution of primates be better or worse without the appendix?” Obviously, in modern human society, the appendix causes lots of problems and we would probably be better off if nobody had one. But there’s evidence that the appendix played a major role in storing good germs, which then spread around early human communities. How would those early communities function if there never were any appendixes? Well, I imagine they would had to have evolved something very similar to appendixes regardless.

I guess another way to look at my point: religion is probably a necessary consequence of the way the human mind and social organization developed. Just like how our brains make us susceptible to certain optical illusions, our society and psychology makes us susceptible to charismatic cult leaders and the authoritarian political systems they establish, along with the “just so” stories and magical thinking common to every religion.

It’s easy to pin the litany of violence done in the name of God over the course of our history on religion. But that would be lazy and incorrect.

The truth of the matter is mankind is a violent, possessive, greedy species by nature. Religion has simply provided an excuse for mankind to carry out his natural urges.

I mean, I think we could have done without the Dark Ages.

I saw a tally of deaths caused by religion and by secular groups like Stalin thoughout history. I think religion caused more death and unneeded suffering.

I see Stalinism as a close cousin religion. Stalin’s regime was a cult of personality. It enforced a world-historical, a-factual “theology” and political establishment and punished apostates.

It’s not religion because there’s no gods, but it’s pretty close, and a lot different from the freethinking “reason” that the vast majority of atheists promote.

With all the wars and whatnot in the name of religion, my opinion is that it’s done more harm than good.

@Qingu

You mean kinda like the regime that “Dear Leader” Obama is pushing? : )

The Pilgrims came here for religious freedom. There have been atrocities in my lifetime because of intolerance. If its not religion, its the color of ones skin. If its not the color of ones skin, its ones sexual orientation. If its not…........I could go on and on. People just have to learn how to accept the differences in others as long as it causes no harm.

@CaptainHarley, please be more specific.

Do you have any of those wonderful and honest chain e-mails to back up your claim that Obama is pushing a Dear Leader personality cult?

@Qingu

No, I just see clearly. : )

Let’s see…. What does Jihad mean? ... Let me check my dictionary – “Holy War….”
Let me look up “the Crusades” – “Holy War….”

During most of those wars, religion was just a convenient subterfuge.

@Qingu I agree.

@Qingu What is it about the human psychology that it needs to have faith in something in order to, it seems, have a reason to go on living, creating societies which led to present day modern ones? I tend to agree with your statement that communities ( of ancient past ) may probably not have flourished if religion didn’t play a part in it.

@CaptainHarley Reallllyyy? I really like you as a poster here, and think you bring a lot to the table. But some of your apparent beliefs about Obama are downright frightening to me, and certifiably false.

I thought jihad simply meant “struggle.”

Obama is an egoist with messianic delusions. He puts this on display almost every time he speaks. That there are still people who are in denial about this only goes to show that some of the people can be fooled all the time.

@CaptainHarley with all due respect, ridiculous just ridiculous. : )

@ANef_is_Enuf It does.

@mazingerz88, I wouldn’t characterize it that way. I think the concept of “faith” has less to do with the desire to go on living, and more to do with authoritarianism. The things we are encouraged to have “faith” in tend to be gods, kings, or cult leaders, or the rewards we are promised will be doled out by them.

Also, I wouldn’t even characterize many early religious beliefs as faith-based so much as proto-science and magical thinking (as in “like begets like” and other reasonable-sounding ideas). The Bible, for example, says the sky is a solid dome that holds up an ocean. We know that this is nonsense today. But if you were a desert nomad in the bronze age, this idea would make a great deal of sense. The sky is blue, like the sea, so there must be an ocean up there. But oceans don’t float, so something solid must be holding it up. And since rain falls from the sky, the dome must have windows to let the water through.

Another example: the Bible says God created humans from clay. Sounds stupid, right? Well, in the bronze age, clay was relatively advanced technology. It looked like flesh, too. And in Mesopotamian culture, the function of a king’s statue is to serve as his representative, like a reminder of his presence in faraway cities where statues are built. When Genesis says God creates humans in his “image,” it’s the same Hebrew word for “statue.” It’s magical thinking—like begets like, clay is like flesh, so flesh comes from clay; statues are like king’s representatives, so God’s clay statues of men are like his representatives on earth. It’s not really faith-based, in fact it’s almost sensible and logical.

Now where does “faith” come in? Well, why do Christians today believe that God created humans from clay instead of humans evolving from primates? Because they have “faith” in their cult. It’s a form of political allegiance: the Bible must be true, its authority must be valid.

I’m a theist but I believe that religion, in general, has done more harm than good because humans have a tendancy to become fanatics. People that take any holy book literally scare me. I agree with what @YoBob said.

All of humanity’s greatest achievements have required human beings to act collectively. As Qingu said, religion is a great unifying force. Religion allows people to be part of a “we” that goes beyond the small bands that our earliest ancestors lived in. In order to have civilization, people have to have some sort of basis for living harmoniously and cooperatively with more fellow human beings than they can possibly form personal relationships with. Of all the ways in which this has been successfully achieved—other ways include tribalism, nationalism, imperialism, capitalism—religion is arguably the least violent, on balance.

The problem is that once you draw a circle around “us”, anyone who for whatever reason falls outside that circle becomes a “them”. All the great world religions aim at bringing the entire human race into one fold, but none have achieved this in practice, and have thus contributed to conflict between groups. But usually such conflicts are primarily based on other considerations, and religion is merely the frosting on the cake. Northern Ireland is a case in point. The BBC would like us to believe that this conflict is about Protestants vs. Catholics, but even a superficial investigation of the causes of this conflict will reveal that religion is not the driving force of it.

Incidentally, the “lig” in “religion” is etymologically the same as the “lig” in “ligament”. It’s about what links us together.

I would argue that Judeo-Christian religions are more violent than imperialism, at least theoretically. When the Romans conquered a culture, they incorporated that culture’s gods into their own pantheon. When the Hebrews conquered, they put everyone to the sword because that’s what their religion commanded them.

I would also say that religion is inextricably linked to politics, trives, and imperialism anyway. The Babylonians and Romans had an imperial religion. The Hebrews were the “chosen” tribe. The Muslims spread the “Islamic Empire.” Manifest Destiny, the genocidal policy of the United States, was nationalistic, racist, and religious.

Religion has done great things throughout history. Extremists have done horrible things and painted a bad name for religion.

No true Scotsman!

^^ No anything at all ^^

What @digitalimpression said. The no true Scotsman piece is a cop out for those who would like to characterise all followers of a religion the same way. There is true religion, which is peaceful and unifying, and there is false religion, which is narrow and bigoted. Unfortunately, anecdotally it would seem that the majority of those who claim to follow religion are in the “false” category, and have caused undoubted violence and suffering through the millenia, which is where the thought that religion is responsible for violence comes from.

That seems really convenient. Bad things done by religious people or in the name of religion are all of a sudden not a part of that religion? This implies that only “good” people can be christian, muslim etc.

@Blackberry

Not necessarily. It may imply that adherants of that religion become good because of their devotion TO that religion.

As with most discussions of religion, this one seems to be conflating “religion” and “faith” and some other words, like “spirituality” and “belief.”

@Harold, everything you’ve just said is an example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Let me try to make this clearer.

If you want to argue that all Scots are peaceful and loving, and then I point out that actually many Scots throughout history have been bad people… it would be dishonest to simply assert that those folks aren’t “real Scots,” right?

Similarly, if you want to argue that all religious folks are peaceful and loving, and then I point out all of the religious people who have called for and carried out genocide, supported slavery, hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings, etc… it would be similarly dishonest to simply say that those folks aren’t “real” religious people.

Especially when I can point directly to verses in the Bible and the Quran that support just those actions.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to believe that all the good things in religious texts and traditions really do motivate people to do good things… but all of the bad things in texts and traditions are somehow not “real” and people who follow them aren’t “true” believers. What a bunch of hooey.

It’s very easy to resolve this. Just made a determination whether any individual is following the admonition to love God with all your heart and mind and strength, and to love your neighbor at least as much as you love yourself. If they are, they’re christian. If they’re not, they’s something OTHER than christian.

@Qingu – No, not at all. The definition of a Scotsman is someone born in Scotland. The definition of a person who is representative of a particular religion is one who follows the teachings of that religion. If someone claims to be a Scotsman but is proven to be born in Lithuania, they are not a real Scotsman. If someone claims to be a Hindu, for example, but doesn’t follow the teachings of Hinduism, they are not really a Hindu. I thin that is a simple enough concept, but one you apparently don’t grasp.

There is nothing in Christianity that promotes violence. Violent people who claim to be Christians simply are not. The texts in the bible that promote violence are under the old covenant, which was done away with at the advent of Christianity.

@Harold Does this mean then that the Catholic pope for example who ordered the Crusades and the knights and those Christian soldiers who heeded the call to do war were not Christians? How about Roman Catholic soldiers around the world who has killed in battle particularly, are they not Christians as well?

@Harold, Jesus says “I have not come to bring peace but the sword.” He says we should follow OT laws so we can be called “greatest” in heaven (Matthew 5:17). In the same passage he also explicitly says he has not done away with the old covenent but rather fulfilled it. And the entire book of Revelation is an orgy of violence.

Are you saying those statements by Jesus, and the final book of the New Testament, should not be included in the religion of christianity?

@mazingerz88 – I don’t believe Catholicism itself to be a Christian religion, although there are many good Catholic people who are Christians in themselves because their lives reveal Christian principles. The Catholic soldiers around the world are not fighting as a directive of their faith- it is their employment. There are also atheist and agnostic soldiers fighting- does that make atheism and agnosticism vehicles of violence too? Of course not!

@Qingu – The sword He was referring to was that there would be division because some people would accept His teachings, and some reject them. The law He refers to in Matthew 5:17 in context is the 10 commandments, not the old covenant. Revelation is symbolism, and is a prophecy of the end times. To suggest that it is God’s actions is naive indeed- the events symbolised are the end consequence of man making wrong decisions.

(I can’t believe I’m doing this, but here I go.) @Harold, one example to consider. Why did God raise Pharaoh up?

@Harold, in Matthew 5:17 Jesus takes pains to say he is talking about even the “least” of the laws. You really think he just means the ten commandments? That’s absurd.

Let me put the question to you this way. Would it be morally wrong to follow the Old Testament commandments today? I mean, I understand you don’t have to (because Jesus’ sacrifice saves you from punishment for not following the law)—but that’s very different from saying it would be wrong to. Before you answer, read Romans 7:12, and Deuteronomy 4:2.

And I agree Revelation is symbolism. It’s also incredibly violent and symbolically describes the bloody comeuppances of nonbelievers. Whether you think nonbelievers will literally be tortured for days on end by giant poisonous scorpion horse women before being killed en masse and tortured again forever in hell, or if that imagery is symbolic of some other gruesome punishment, there is nothing particularly loving or compassionate about the text and the promise (and threat) of end-time punishment underlies all of Jesus’ teachings.

Lol…..

@Harold Thanks for making it clear that you don’t believe all Catholics are Christians, to support your statement that Christianity does not promote violence. I think it’s likely some Catholics would argue otherwise.

@Qingu- You haven’t justified why you think it is absurd to say that Matthew 5:17 is only referring to the 10 commandments. The old covenant and the 10 commandments are two entirely different things. The old covenant was a set of rules that were meant to point forward to the death of Jesus. The 10 commandments are an eternal set of rules that are the foundation of God’s government. It is obviously the 10 commandments that are referred to in Romans 7:12. That God saw them as different is evidenced by the fact that the 10 commandments were kept inside the ark of the covenant, and the old covenant (the rules that ancient Israel were to live by) were kept in a special spot on the side of the ark.

Deuteronomy was written to guide the Israelites in living under the old covenant. They were not to add to nor to subtract from the laws God had given them to live by. Would it be morally wrong to live by the OT commands today? Well, I would have a problem with pointlessly sacrificing lambs, etc, when the sacrifice that they were symbolic of has already been made. God doesn’t order people to be stoned for breaking the Sabbath any more. etc, etc. God DOES require us to follow the 10 commandments today, and as you correctly point out, His sacrifice makes up for when we fail in this. I defy you to find one instance of violence in the 10 commandments, which as I stated, is what Romans 7:12 is referring to. The error comes in when we fail to see the distinction between the two laws.

The majority of Christian denominations teach terrible things about God’s punishment that just aren’t true. I was in a Christian bookshop recently and picked up a book called “23 Minutes in Hell”, and read the first three chapters before putting it down in disgust. If I believed that this was the picture of God painted in Scripture, I’d join you in atheism this instant. I don’t believe that God will torture unbelievers in any way. I think that He will simply allow the dead who have rejected Him to remain asleep/unconscious when others enter heaven. The violence symbolised in Revelation is indicative of the battle between God and Satan, not the torture of mankind.

@bkcunningham – I believe that this is a mistranslation, and should read “God allowed Pharoah to be raised up.”

@mazingerz88 – I agree that many Catholics would argue otherwise. They promote a whole lot of beliefs that are anti-Christian, particularly being the origin of the teaching of eternal hell, which most Christians accept like sheep. However, I must stress that I personally know a lot of great, Christian Catholic people. I guess Christianity is a state of mind, not being part of a denomination.

Because obviously the ten commandments are not the “least” of the law.

You’ve also invented this distinction between the 10 commandments and the other ~600. No such division exists in the Bible.

Also, you said: “God doesn’t order people to be stoned for breaking the Sabbath any more. etc, etc. God DOES require us to follow the 10 commandments today”

LOL, did you actually forget that “do not break the sabbath” is one of the 10 commandments?

And the punishment for breaking the ten commandments is death. Speaking of violence. Now you’re saying that God abolished that aspect of the law. Please cite where God said so. I’ve already cited where God says the exact opposite of what you’re claiming.

“The violence symbolised in Revelation is indicative of the battle between God and Satan, not the torture of mankind.”

So what does all of the richly described scenes of mankind being tortured for being unbelievers symbolize in Revelation?

To say nothing of Jesus’ explicit threats of violence and torture (“wailing and gnashing of teeth”). You think that Jesus actually meant “asleep and unconscious” when he said this?

Funny how in your mind, Jesus has this tendency to say one thing, like “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it,” and actually mean another thing, like “I have come to abolish the law.”

I think you need to ask yourself what is more important: believing that your religion is nonviolent, or being honest.

@Qingu- OK, so now I’ve invented an argument because you have no answer for it. If you read the Old Testament, the distinction between the 10 commandments and the rest of the old covenant is clear.

The 10 commandments do NOT order the stoning of people for breaking the Sabbath. The old covenant did. Yet another example of the distinction. What is the reference for breaking the 10 commandments being punishable by death? The 10 commandments do not anywhere state death is a punishment. I can’t cite where God said that aspect of the law is abolished because you haven’t shown where He said it, and you can’t abolish something that doesn’t exist. Classic straw man technique…...........

Exactly what parts of Revelation are you referring to? I can’t write a commentary on the whole book here. The “Wailing and gnashing of teeth” Jesus referred to are what people will do when in distress they realise that they have rejected God. There is no reference to punishment here. How can you say this is referring to post death? There is no evidence for this.

Your debunking of the reasoned answer I gave above is because you have accused me of inventing the distinction between the laws without checking the facts. The fact that there are two distinct laws in the Old Testament answers all your objections, but you refuse to accept or even examine it.

I think you need to ask yourself what is more important: honestly examining the facts as presented, or just throwing the logical argument back because it does not fit your pre-conceived ideas of Christianity.

I know that my beliefs are non-violent. I would suggest that you don’t even know what my beliefs are, so are in no position to say that I have not honestly assessed them.

I’ve read the Old Testament. Please show me where it says “the ten commandments are for all time” but “these other 600 laws are just for you guys and it would be wrong for others to follow them.” In fact Yahweh explicitly says that the other laws will be a light unto nations for all eternity (Deuteronomy 4:2): “And what other great nation has statutes and ordinances as just as this entire law that I am setting before you today?” I think it’s pretty odd that you would answer this rhetorical question with something like “The United States of America, Australia, Canada, pretty much everyone in Europe…”

Although I will admit that your other point makes sense if you do believe there are two “separate” sets of laws. Because the punishments for breaking the commandments are usually included elsewhere (see Deuteronomy 13, Leviticus 24:16, Exodus 31:15, Exodus 21:15).

I just don’t see any such division in the Bible. The fact that the rest of the Law intersects with the Ten Commandments so much, elaborating on their details and giving explicit punishments for breaking them, them would seem to bolster my point.

As for Jesus’s “wailing and gnashing of teeth,” this statement is also occasionally accompanied by the more visceral threat of being “cast into the fire” (Matthew 13:41–50). Do you still believe this is just a symbolic metaphor for sad sleepytime?

Finally, about honesty: I am glad you are nonviolent. I am glad that you are uncomfortable with the Old Testament. But I do not think you have an honest interpretation of the Bible. Similarly, if someone read the works of Aristotle and concluded that Aristotle’s four elements were actually talking about solid, liquid, gas and plasma, that would be a dishonest reading of that text. You may be Aristotle’s biggest fan and want him to be right about everything to do with physics, even when he appears to be wrong. You may be Jesus’ biggest fan and want his religion to conform to your modern, secular beliefs about nonviolence, even when he appears to be sanctioning violence. But you cannot twist a text to mean anything you want it to.

@Qingu – Thank you for a more reasonable reply. I am happy to debate with reasonable people.

Let’s do a comparison of the two laws:
1. God spoke the 10 commandments to Israel (Deut 5:2–24), and then God Himself wrote them on the tablets of stone, and gave them to Moses. After Moses broke the first table, God commanded Moses to hew out two tables, and God Himself wrote the 10 commandments a second time on them. (Deut 10:1–4). On the other hand, the ceremonial law or old covenant laws, were written by Moses in a book (Exodus 24:4; Deut 31:9).

Let’s do a thorough comparison of the two laws:

The Writing of God

1.On what did God write? Ex 31:18; 34:1
2. What did God write? Deut 5:22 (see vs 7–12); 10:4
3. Where did Moses put God’s writing? Deut 10:4,5
4. What is the character of God’s law? Psalm 19:7,8
5. What was the purpose of God’s law? Ecclesiastes 12:13
6. How long was God’s law to continue? Psalm 111:7,8; 119:89,144; Matthew 5:17,18

The Writing of Moses

1. On what did Moses write? Deut 31:24
2. What did Moses write? Ex 24:4; Deut 31:9
3. Where did Moses put his own writing? Deut 31:25,26
4. What is the character of the law of Moses? Leviticus 7:37,38
5. What purpose did Moses law serve? Colossians 2:14,17; Hebrews 9:9; 10:1
6. When did Moses’ law terminate? Colossians 2:14

To quote a famous author:

” The ritual or ceremonial law, delivered by Moses to the children of Israel, containing all he injunctions and ordinances which related to the old sacrifices and services of the temple, our Lord did indeed come to destroy…. But the moral law, contained in the 10 commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away.”

I take your point that the seeming threat of being cast into fire seems like eternal punishment, but I believe it to be symbolic, as the teaching of hell is foreign to the rest of scripture. The bible is very clear that death is a state of unconsciousness (see Ecclesiastes 9:5), so suffering of souls is foreign to scripture.

I agree that the bible cannot be twisted to suit convenient interpretations, but I believe mine to be consistent. I hope that you’ll honestly examine the evidence I have presented. I am not trying to convert you, but I do not want anyone to believe that true Christianity teaches violence, because that is simply not true. I respect the atheist point of view. I have a very much loved son who is an atheist, and we maintain an open dialogue and mutual respect. I also respect your viewpoint, and your right to hold it.

The author you quoted is not in the Bible, however, and asserts something that is not found anywhere in the Bible.

The fact that God physically wrote the 10 commandments on stone with magic and only spoke the others to Moses who acted as a stenographer does not automatically imply that the 10 must be followed for all time, and the other 600 must only be followed by ancient Hebrews. Jesus doesn’t say that, Paul doesn’t say that, and God himself says the exact opposite, saying that other nations will look on the ~600 and marvel at their justice and wisdom. Why aren’t you marveling?

Also, there are laws that are neither part of the Ten or the so-called “ceremonial laws” that your author is defining. Many of the laws in Deuteronomy, for example, have nothing to do with sacrifices or temple maintenances and are clearly “moral” in nature. Those scare quotes around moral are necessary because these include some of the most repugnant laws in the Bible (or in history, I’d argue), ordering the stoning of nonvirgin brides and the genocide of nonbelievers and apostates. Are you arguing that there is something “ceremonial” in how, for example, God’s law says that rape victims in cities who do not scream loudly enough must be stoned to death alongside their rapist—unless they are unbetrothed and virgins, in which case they must marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22)? Because I’m not seeing it.

More importantly, let’s look at the quote that sparked all this, from Matthew 5:17:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,* not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks* one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Your whole argument here is that Jesus only meant “The Ten Commandments” when he says “law” here. But the word “law” is never used to only mean the ten commandments. You yourself use it to refer to the other 600, the so-called “ceremonial laws.” Paul uses it to refer to the other 600.

And in the context of Jesus’ speech I simply don’t think you can honestly interpret it to only mean the ten commandments. He says “law or prophets.” The prophets refers to entire Hebrew texts (Ezekial, Isaiah, Daniel) that form a major portion of the Bible… why would not the “law” also refer to the entire text of the law portion of the Bible? And I’ve already pointed out that Jesus is even more explicit, saying not to break “even the least.” You’ve argued over and over, and I’d agree, that the ten commandments are extremely important. So why on earth would Jesus use the very broad term “the law” and then elaborate that he’s including even the “least” of the law?

I would appreciate an honest answer to this question: if you were an atheist or someone from another faith reading this passage, would you interpret it as Jesus meaning the Ten Commandments and not the whole law?

Finally, I think I should try to explain where I’m coming from, because obviously there are a lot of Christians like you who are good, loving, thoughtful people and believe that nonviolence, peace and love are the highest morals. I agree with this moral stance. I simply don’t think it makes sense to base it on the Bible, because the Bible is the most hateful and violence-condoning book ever written. It sanctions rape, it condones slavery, and it is the only religious text in history to actually command genocide.

More personally, I come from a Jewish family, who I love, and who I share many moral values with… but it boggles my mind that Judaism has become the face of opposition to ethnic cleansing and genocide while the Jewish religion so clearly and repeatedly celebrates genocide as a god-ordered war tactic. I think Judaism’s ties to the Bible compromise and poison the religion’s moral stance against genocide.

I think Jesus was an important moral thinker, and he did much to advance this way of thinking as compared to the Jews and Romans of the time. But he was, like every moral thinker, flawed, and he failed to break with the worst aspects of the religion he was trying to reform.

Basically, I think your morals and beliefs about peace and nonviolence are too important and too precious to be held down by ties to such a despicable text, a text that belongs in the dustbin of history.

@Qingu – Thank you for the comprehensive reply. I guess the answer lies in what references to law refer to what law. The fundamental difference is that the ceremonial law pointed to the sacrifice of Jesus, which was, of necessity, gory and violent. The gore and violence of the ceremonial law was to remind the Jews of what their disobedience cost. The necessity for this law ended when Jesus died. The 10 commandments are quite different, in that they speak of respect for God and man, and have nothing to do with sacrifice.

To honestly answer your question is difficult, as I find it hard to divorce myself from what is obvious to me. I am really not sure how they would see it. I will ask my son when he comes home for Christmas, and see if it seems obvious to him.

I was brought up as a protestant Christian, but rejected it in my early teens, although I went to church occasionally because I didn’t want to hurt my mother, who was a wonderful person. However, a personal crisis a few years later led me to re-examine the faith I’d been brought up with, and I found the strength I needed in it. My journey has been up and down, and much to my shame, I was for many years a nasty, narrow “Christian”, eager to pass judgment on others. A trip to India in 1996 put my life into perspective, and opened my eyes to how narrow I was. I think that I am a better person than I would be without my faith, although I make no claims to being perfect!!!

I guess what I am trying to say is that although I don’t see the bible the way you do, I do understand why you see it that way. If your path to being a peaceful non-violent person is different to mine, I won’t stand in judgment on your position. If the end result is the same, I guess the method doesn’t matter that much.

By the way, I saw a TV program the other night about the Westboro Independent Baptist Church in the US http://www.godhatesfags.com/ . I really can understand why a lot of people think that Christians are bad news with idiots like them around.

Hope you have a great holiday season.

Many, I’ll even say most, of the religious Christians I know personally and who I’ve talked to on the Internet, are kind and wonderful people; I certainly don’t judge Christians by the Westboro folks, and in general I don’t think there’s any good way to lump all Christians together in judgment to begin with since we’re talking about almost 2 billion people with wildly divergent views.

What I do think needs a good judging, however, is the Bible.

Are you getting soft, @Qingu? You almost sounded kind for a second there. ; )

I think this question is fundamentally unanswerable. “More” is a quantitative term, while “good” and “harm/evil” are qualitative terms. The destruction of even one life in the name of any cause is unacceptable, and it is debatable whether strict numbers of lives helped or harmed should even enter into the calculation.

In the book The Negotiator by Ben Lopez (a PhD psychologist), he references the violent elements of certain groups as being “a pathology in search of a cause”. I think religion is an easy cause to take up if you are of a pathological mindset. Joseph Kony is a prime example – once a militant fighter with a politico-religious cause, he is now a dangerous man with eyes only for destruction and pillage.

However that is not to say that religions are innocent of the crimes committed in their name. I am saying that, as with any judgement of a population, behaviours exhibited by a select few are largely irrelevant. The behaviours of the bulk of the population are more accurate indicators. Even if the words of the religion’s holy book or creed are less than moral, the effect in the people is what matters. For example, if the kindly words of Jesus to Mary Magdalene are enough to make a Christian overlook the numerous immoral commands elsewhere in the Bible, so much the better.

So if this question is to be answered, I think the best way is to pass judgement on the behaviour of professed adherents. This is also difficult though, as there is no way to separate a person’s actions as the result of religious belief, political attitudes, family circumstances, and a myriad of other contributing factors. I also believe that the vast majority of religious people derive their moral attitudes from secular sources anyway, so isolating the morality of the beliefs themselves (and therefore their product of good vs. harm) is practically impossible.

I recently came across this report on the distribution of Christians throughout the world. An interesting read.

I am an atheist not because I think religion is bad, which as I have said is debatable and potentially not even a useful judgement to make, but because I think it is factually inaccurate.

As is generally true when discussing religion, most answers are guesses or opinions. Here are actual numbers RE THE WARS and here is honest historical research.