Perhaps this is what religions are all about.

I was looking through the quote section for The Bible and found this quote:

I'm pretty sure that all the major religions in the world promotes those values or something close to that.

I guess they are not so different after all.

Most religions seek exactly that: peace and purity. At purity they're always successfull, and at peace they tend to be successfull if they get to rule the country.

Whereas their notion of peace and purity is enjoyed by you is a different matter.

True that. So the crashes between religions because how they perceive such values I can understand, but calling the religions, others' or them in general, bad is just asinine and uninformed.

It's obvious that religions are all about stealing men's souls and making them their slaves. I know, because a videogame said so.

Actually, most religions have some form of "Golden Rule."

Judaism /Christianity: You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
—Leviticus 19:18 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them
Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31

Baha'i: Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.
—Bahá'u'lláh

Buddhism: Comparing oneself to others in such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill.
—Sutta Nipata 705

Wicca: An it harm none, do as ye will
-Wiccan Rede

Taoism: The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.
—Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49

Islam:...and you should forgive And overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.
— Qur’an (Surah 24, "The Light," v. 22)

I can understand the very notion of atheism; the fact that there's a deity just might not be for many people. I can even tolerate those people saying things like God doesn't exist and what have you, because honestly, I don't find the concept of a completely omnipotent/omniscient being that logical either. However, it really gets on my nerve when those people denounce Christianity, or religions in general, for lacking morals or teaching bad ones. Religions do not work that way.

tl:dr - any religion that promotes The Golden Rule is a good religion.

Uhr, I don't understand the Wicca one, can you explain it to me?

edited 3rd Oct '11 1:28:36 AM by dRoy

However, it really gets on my nerve when those people denounce Christianity, or religions in general, for lacking morals or teaching bad ones

Only an idiotic imbecile thinks Christianity has no morals. Christianity can have, however, bad morals. There are sufficient verses tolerating all kinds of disgusting behaviour in name of faith, although most are in the Old Testament, so they can presumably be ignored.

edited 3rd Oct '11 1:33:29 AM by Gannetwhale

"As long as you don't hurt anyone (some include "yourself" as a part of it), do whatever you like."

This is up for debate in some parts of the Wiccan community because some believe that a Witch who can't harm can't heal. Mind you, Witch =/= Wiccan. Not all Witches are Wiccan, but all Wiccans are Witches. Same thing as "All Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Catholic."

edited 3rd Oct '11 1:41:33 AM by Sakan4k

A religion is not just a moral system, although of course a moral system is an important part of a religion.

And it is true, most religions' ethical principles agree with one another. But this is not surprising, I think; most secular philosophies also do so, at least when it comes to principles such as the Golden Rule, and the ones who don't seem to do that more for the shock value than for anything else.

When there are disagreements over whether an action is moral, it seems to me, the point of contention is not usually the abstract principles (e.g., "is it morally acceptable to kill a child to save his mother's life?") but, rather, their practical applications (e.g., "does a single-celled embryo count as a child?").

As I see it, that's because morals are, in a certain sense, innate, and are written in the conscience of any human being — we might disagree on whether a certain rule is applicable to a certain situation, but it's quite rare that we disagree on what the rules are.

But in any case, a religion is more than the morals it advocates. A devout Christian and a devout Hindu would probably be in full agreement on what is and isn't right to do, most of the times, and both of them would be in full agreement with a Secular Humanist; but that does not mean that Christianity, Hinduism and Secular Humanism are basically the same.

edited 3rd Oct '11 2:19:01 AM by Carciofus

I'm not so sure about that, Carciofus - morality being completely innate, I mean. Enough old-fashioned cultures of many religions don't seem to have a problem with marital rape, for instance.

You could argue that they always thought nonconsensual sex was wrong, and just saw marriage as a permanent consent. But did the women in those cultures every actually have a choice in marriage?

I can agree that much of what passes as "morality", both in older cultures and, I presume, in ours, is nothing but a social construct.

But I think that there exists a kernel of innate morality, somewhere in the human mind; and that social influences can mask or distort it, yes, but never destroy it altogether.

It is true, people have advocated, and still advocate, as the "right thing to do" acts which I consider abominable; and, on the other hand, they have dealt with ones I consider harmless as if they were the pinnacle of immorality. But if one looks beyond the appearances, I think that there is much that is common of all humankind, in potency if not in act.

I certainly hope that it goes without saying that what these religions purport to teach and what they actually do don't always align. Sure, "treat others as you would have them treat you" is a good idea for the most part, but how often do the leaders and followers of those religions actually live that out?

And then of course, what about how major religions in the past have supported any number of atrocities? Take slavery for example. There was a time when every major Christian denomination and leader believed slavery was instituted by the will of God. Few people would suggest bringing it back, but that doesn't change the fact that many churches have a history of supporting slavery.

Not true: Quakers were the main people campaigning for the freedom of the slaves.

dude@Also one big thing is that GOD told the Israelites to take good care of their slaves and to not partcipate in the slave trade.He also told them to release their slaves after they have served a couple number of years.

@Jimmy: Yes, the Quakers and Mennonites did uniformly denounce slavery for their entire history. But they were much smaller than the big denominations. Which is why I said, "many" churches did support it.

@Joy: While there are parts of the Old Testament prescribing proper treatment for slaves, it still supports the institution itself, and those passages were held out by pro-slavery people as proof that God wanted slavery to exist. No matter how "well" slaves are treated, slavery is still slavery.

edited 3rd Oct '11 7:49:06 AM by Lawyerdude

dude@God allowed divorce to exist but he still dissaproved of it.Besides the slavery in biblical times was more different than American slavery in that slavery in American was very much racially targeted.Biblical slavery had more of the chance that your master can free from bondage.Also slave trade GOD very much told the Israelites not to partake in and so the pro-slavers messed up their argument because most of their slaves came from the slave trade.

edited 3rd Oct '11 7:53:08 AM by joyflower

@Joy: Those are the justifications that people use today. But 200 years ago, every major church pointed to those same passages to defend slavery. Times change and people's beliefs change. But those who have inherited the churches' power today can't fairly deny that their predecessors supported things that they today wouldn't.

Using those passages to defend slavery was stupid, because slavery in the bible was a completely different thing than slavery today. In fact, I'm not sure you could even define it as slavery: it was working for someone, usually to pay off a debt, and every 7 years, every slave would be set free.

The seven year thing was only for enslaved Hebrews. Foreigners captured and enslaved would be slaves for life and could be passed down as inheritance. (Leviticus 25:44-46). Also, if a man sold his daughter into sex slavery, then she would also be a slave for life unless the buyer married her. (Exodus 21:7-11) If a man beat his slave to death, he could be punished, but if the slave lived a day or two and then died, then he wouldn't be punished. (Exodus 21:20-21)

Also if a Hebrew slave married and had children while enslaved, then the wife and children remained his master's property. But the slave could refuse manumission and the master could then take him to the temple, pierce his ear, and the man would be a slave for life. (Exodus 21:2-6)

edited 3rd Oct '11 4:04:59 PM by Lawyerdude

Pretty much all religions, when you strip all the mythology and ritual away, has the same message - don't be a dick.

Golden rule has been mentioned, so I'll add the silver rule. But yes, almost all religions have one or the other or BOTH, and it tends to be the core thinking of their morality systems.

Well, the mythology and the rituals are not irrelevant. They are a huge part of what a religion is.

edited 3rd Oct '11 4:05:56 PM by Carciofus

Pretty much yeah.

edited 3rd Oct '11 4:07:31 PM by dRoy

Certainly, I am in full agreement with your sentence here "A religion is not just a moral system, although of course a moral system is an important part of a religion."

So, it's probably important to point out the golden/silver rule is not what they are "all" about, but it's undeniable that it's an important part of religion, their moral systems, and even secular moral systems as well.

Oh...you weren't talking to me... *sob*

edited 3rd Oct '11 4:08:40 PM by Justice4243

Yeah, I am in full agreement with you too.

A moral system is an important part of a religion, and it is true that religions which differ wildly with respect to other aspects are often in substantial agreement when it comes to moral principles; and as I said, I think that this is the case because moral principles are, at least up to some degree, innate.