Religion must fix what it breaks

Following GOD is not the same as following religion. All religions are corrupt beyond recognition. All religions claim to be "GOD's chosen" and yet all of them completely disregard GOD's laws

Do these "believers" believe that GOD does not see?

A few examples...

If GOD said do not commit Usury, then don't do it. How can people simply accept this and continue to continue to claim they believe in GOD?

If GOD ordered charity then give to charity. Not to build bigger and more elaborate mosques, churches or temples.

If GOD says do not kill then don't kill. Look at all of the wars in the world. Most of them are conducted by people who claim to believe in GOD against people who claim that GOD is actually on their side...HOW IRONIC... Also look at all of the "religious" killings everywhere. These people kill for nothing and they do so in the name of GOD. The same GOD who commanded THOU SHALL NOT KILL!!!...Am I the only one that sees this?

if GOD forbade idolatry then quit creating idols... (Idols can be: people or their names, crosses, stars of david, crescent moon (moon and star), Muhammad, Jesus, Ezra etc... If people would simply obey GOD's COMMANDMENTS and not create idols and not worship people then all religion would become one since there would be nothing to distinguish them... All people would simply worship GOD instead of all this idolatry and tradition our ancestors created...

How can they claim to believe in GOD when they are so blatantly breaking even the basic rules?

Some references that support the claim above include: Exodus 20:3, 34:17, Deuteronomy 4:15,16, Quran [2:22], 2:135-136, John 14:23-24, Quran 57:27, John 14:15-17.... There are many more examples of people completely disregarding gods laws...)

This is my attempt to educate anyone and claim back "religion."

Those who do not follow GOD's commands should not have the right to lie and call themselves believers or followers of GOD. All they are following is their own opinions and crazy tradition.

Anyone that actually reads ONLY scripture can easily counter their lies by the truth taken directly from GOD (Torah, Gospels and the Quran).

My goal is to convince at least one person to read all 3 of the scriptures for themselves so they can start believing in GOD and quit blindly following religion.
Whoever blindly follows religion will end up earning hell eventually. Sad thing is they will think they are righteous while doing it.

Religion is nothing but stubborn hypocrites at this point. GOD despises hypocrites... READ "EACH OTHERS BOOKS" FIRST THEN TALK!

Following GOD is not the same as following religion. All religions are corrupt beyond recognition. All religions claim to be "GOD's chosen" and yet all of them completely disregard GOD's laws

Do these "believers" believe that GOD does not see?

A few examples...

If GOD said do not commit Usury, then don't do it. How can people simply accept this and continue to claim they believe in GOD?

If GOD ordered charity then give to charity. Not to build bigger and more elaborate mosques, churches or temples.

If GOD says do not kill then don't kill. Look at all of the wars in the world. Most of them are conducted by people who claim to believe in GOD against people who claim that GOD is actually on their side...HOW IRONIC... Also look at all of the "religious" killings everywhere. These people kill for nothing and they do so in the name of GOD. The same GOD who commanded THOU SHALL NOT KILL!!!...Am I the only one that sees this?

if GOD forbade idolatry then quit creating idols... (Idols can be: people or their names, crosses, stars of david, crescent moon (moon and star), Muhammad, Jesus, Ezra etc... If people would simply obey GOD's COMMANDMENTS and not create idols and not worship people then all religion would become one since there would be nothing to distinguish them... All people would simply worship GOD instead of all this idolatry and tradition our ancestors created...

How can they claim to believe in GOD when they are so blatantly breaking even the basic rules?

Some references that support the claim above include: Exodus 20:3, 34:17, Deuteronomy 4:15,16, Quran [2:22], 2:135-136, John 14:23-24, Quran 57:27, John 14:15-17.... There are many more examples of people completely disregarding gods laws...

This is my attempt to educate anyone and claim back "religion."

Those who do not follow GOD's commands should not have the right to lie and call themselves believers or followers of GOD. All they are following is their own opinions and crazy tradition.

Anyone that actually reads ONLY scripture can easily counter their lies by the truth taken directly from GOD (Torah, Gospels and the Quran).

My goal is to convince at least one person to read all 3 of the scriptures for themselves so they can start believing in GOD and quit blindly following religion.
Whoever blindly follows religion will end up earning hell eventually. Sad thing is they will think they are righteous while doing it.

Religion is nothing but stubborn hypocrites at this point. GOD despises hypocrites... READ "EACH OTHERS BOOKS" FIRST THEN TALK!

davivman Part I

You wrote, "but you must be aware that such things are not a part of the normal scope of experiences that people have on this earth."

I would say that this is quite the understatement.

You then wrote, " If your experience was not supernatural in origin or if it was of a supernaturally evil origin (i.e., demons), then using that experience as a component for supporting your faith could be very dangerous."

Not using it would be spitting in God's Face.

By the way, besides God revealing to me that God is a Trinity, I believe that God wanted me to know, without a doubt, that satan is real and that is why, only a few hours after the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus that God allowed satan to come down and attack me, not in a physical way, for 24 plus hrs and during this "attack" all knowledge of Jesus was removed from me, so to speak, it was almost like being thrusted into the Old Testament.

You then wrote, "When I pointed out the scripture, you acknowledged that that hell is eternal, but then stated that this does not mean everlasting."

What I quite simply pointed out is that "eternal" does not necessarily mean what people seem to naturally think of it as.

You then wrote, "Later you described the biblical passage of “eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” as being “the consuming fire of Pure Love”."

Just trying to get people to think.

You then wrote, "Then like some sort of math equation you added parts of 1 Timothy 2:4 to parts of Matthew 6:10 to come up with the new concept that regardless of anything that a person thinks, says, or does, that person will end up in the Kingdom of God."

Have you ever thought that "dissecting the bible" can be analogous to "dissecting an animal" where you might have all of the parts but the life might just be squeezed right out of it?

I never said that people will not be judged, I never said that some might not go to hell and/or spiritual death, what I said was that God has a Plan and has had a Plan since before creation that truly is GOOD NEWS FOR ALL.

davivman Part II

You wrote, "The assertion that hell, as a permanent condition, does not exist and that all potential occupants of hell will eventually be relocated into the Kingdom of God conflicts with scripture and has never been the teaching of the Church."

The Church is not God.

You then wrote, "Accordingly, such an assertion cannot be accepted into the Christian faith."

You can believe what you want, I am here to speak for God and tell the world that the captives (those in hell) will be released and the dead (physical and spiritual) shall rise, isn't this what the bible says about the captives and the dead?

You then wrote, "Additionally spreading such ideas can be damaging to those struggling with their faith in that, despite your intentions, they may mistakenly assume that the decisions that they make in this life do not matter."

I have stated very plainly, quite often, that "It is important What one does and Why one does it and What one knows", you don't seem to realize that if one goes to hell and/or spiritual death for a microsecond, a nanosecond, whatever, one could say the "eternal moment", that it is beyond horrible, to put it very mildly and I have also pointed out that if one goes to hell and/or spiritual death that the aforementioned person custom-built their destination.

I am actually pointing out that God's Plan is something to be "thankful for".

When Jesus said, "It is finished", this translates as "PAID IN FULL".

I am also pointing out that it is God's doing and that God asked us to "PROCLAIM THE GOOD NEWS".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas, I think you may be letting whatever experience(s) that you may have had influence your understanding of scripture. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but you should probably proceed with caution and be aware of certain dangers.

You described having personally experienced things that you are calling “hell” and “spiritual death”. I’m not going to say that you didn’t have whatever experience that you say that you have had, but you must be aware that such things are not a part of the normal scope of experiences that people have on this earth. If your experience was not supernatural in origin or if it was of a supernaturally evil origin (i.e., demons), then using that experience as a component for supporting your faith could be very dangerous. I don’t know you or your life story, so for the sake of argument, I will assume that you did have these experiences and that they were of a supernatural origin.

“Throughout the ages, there have been so-called ‘private’ revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept ‘revelations’ that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such ‘revelations’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church 67)”.

I’m a little bit concerned at the degree you seem to be willing to stretch and in some cases even alter the meaning of scripture to conform with the experiences that you have had. When I pointed out the scripture, you acknowledged that that hell is eternal, but then stated that this does not mean everlasting. Later you described the biblical passage of “eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” as being “the consuming fire of Pure Love”. Then like some sort of math equation you added parts of 1 Timothy 2:4 to parts of Matthew 6:10 to come up with the new concept that regardless of anything that a person thinks, says, or does, that person will end up in the Kingdom of God. The assertion that hell, as a permanent condition, does not exist and that all potential occupants of hell will eventually be relocated into the Kingdom of God conflicts with scripture and has never been the teaching of the Church. Accordingly, such an assertion cannot be accepted into the Christian faith. Additionally spreading such ideas can be damaging to those struggling with their faith in that, despite your intentions, they may mistakenly assume that the decisions that they make in this life do not matter.

davivman

You wrote, "To truly know the mind of God and his plan for creation is beyond our capability (see Isaiah 55:8-9).

Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.

As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.

You ever think that that might be why God sends messengers every now and then.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

davivman Part I

You wrote, "A lot of the things you described that you have labeled as “hell’ or “spiritual death” sound somewhat similar to the Christian concept of Purgatory in that what you are describing is not a permanent state for an individual."

Purgatory if it is real, the person knows they are getting out, in hell and/or spiritual death the person does not know they are getting out, big difference.

You then wrote, "If you are attempting to argue that transitory experiences such as these exist while a permanent experience (i.e., as hell is traditionally understood to be) does not exist, then I think you may be mistaken (see Matthew 25: 41-46)."

I am NOT "attempting to argue", I am flat out saying that God, thru the cross, won the "keys" to hell and death and WILL use them in due time, God's Time.

This is the whole "mission" of Jesus's Church on earth as He so plainly and straight-forwardedly stated.

You referenced Matthew 25: 41-46, by the way, this is not the only verse in the bible.

41
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
44
Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'
45
He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

I am not saying that hell and spiritual death are not eternal, and for that matter also heaven, what I am saying is that they are not everlasting, I look past heaven, hell and death to the Kingdom.

God created time, God did not create eternity, it just Is, God is turning eternity into time.

The seventh day will arrive, the day on which God Blest, Rested and made Holy.

We have been in the sixth day ever since we have been, remember what Jesus said, "My Father has been busy even until now...", which flat-out says Dad has not rested yet.

It states that God Blest and made Holy, not partially blest and made somewhat holy, doesn't it?

You then wrote, "As I have pointed out before, the existence of hell permits us to be free."

You speak of hell as if you think God created hell whereas God lets us custom-build our own hell with our free will.

As far as the "eternal fire" mentioned in verse 41 have you ever thought that this could be the "consuming fire" of God, in other words, the "consuming fire of Pure Love.

davivman Part II

You then wrote, "If it is as you say, that God will use his “keys” to bring all people into his presence whether they want to be or not, then we are not free because we would be compelled to be with God regardless of our desires."

Is it not written, "All knees shall bend...", is it not written, "It is God's Will that ALL BE SAVED", is it not written, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done..."?

Our free will may end with our physical death but that does not mean that God's Salvific Plan is limited to what we determine that God's Plan should be limited to.

You then wrote, "The opportunity for salvation is there for all, but some people may choose to reject that opportunity. Because we are free to make this choice, God allows hell to exist."

As I have said before, you don't have a clue about what hell is and that God allows us to custom-build our own hell and seeing as God, being omniscient, knew that some would never, in this life, repent or accept God, God came up with God's Plan before creation.

You then wrote, "One major problem whenever one discusses subjects like these is that it is hard to describe things that are indescribable."

It is like when I tell people that God is a Being of Pure Love, I say this since I have met God, it makes not a bit of sense to most but it is a simple fact.

You then wrote, "To truly know the mind of God and his plan for creation is beyond our capability"

Then why do you think that God is a loser and that God's "Plan for creation" is such a two-bit plan?

You then wrote, "When we use human language to describe things of this nature, limitations of that language and of those who use it, ensure that human understanding on the subject is incomplete, imprecise, and often inaccurate."

I agree, even calling God our Father is misleading because so many then think that God is a Male, whereas God is neither a Male, a Female nor an It even tho God-Incarnate was a Male.

You then wrote, "So, while we can argue about how we want to describe the indescribable, God may be enjoying a chuckle at our expense."

Do you think that God would "chuckle" over the fact that many seem to think that God asked us to be more forgiving, more merciful and more loving than God?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas, I think we are arguing semantics. As I mentioned in another post, when I speak of the acceptance or rejection of God, I am talking about a choice that every human makes with the totality of their being. This includes thoughts, words, and actions. Living a life in accordance with the Beatitudes, as you mentioned, goes towards a decision of accepting God into your life as opposed to rejecting God.

A lot of the things you described that you have labeled as “hell’ or “spiritual death” sound somewhat similar to the Christian concept of Purgatory in that what you are describing is not a permanent state for an individual. If you are attempting to argue that transitory experiences such as these exist while a permanent experience (i.e., as hell is traditionally understood to be) does not exist, then I think you may be mistaken (see Matthew 25: 41-46). Of course there is nothing to say that transitory experiences such as Purgatory do not exist. I’m just pointing out that a hell as a permanent experience does exist.

As I have pointed out before, the existence of hell permits us to be free. If it is as you say, that God will use his “keys” to bring all people into his presence whether they want to be or not, then we are not free because we would be compelled to be with God regardless of our desires. The opportunity for salvation is there for all, but some people may choose to reject that opportunity. Because we are free to make this choice, God allows hell to exist.

One major problem whenever one discusses subjects like these is that it is hard to describe things that are indescribable. To truly know the mind of God and his plan for creation is beyond our capability (see Isaiah 55:8-9). When we use human language to describe things of this nature, limitations of that language and of those who use it, ensure that human understanding on the subject is incomplete, imprecise, and often inaccurate. So, while we can argue about how we want to describe the indescribable, God may be enjoying a chuckle at our expense.

Sara121, when I speak of the acceptance or rejection of God, I am talking about a choice that every human makes with the totality of their being. This includes thoughts, words, and actions. The concept of obedience is a separate issue that we can save for another discussion. What I meant to point out by this parable was the concept of how we as people respond to God in a positive way. Thus, who would be responding to God in a more positive way: (i) a person who devoutly goes to mass every week, maintains an outward appearance that many would identify as being “religious”, but is judgmental of others and will not lift a finger to help anyone but themselves; or (ii) a person who does not go to church and might not be considered very “religious”, but occupies their life with behavior that shows a deep level of compassion and mercy toward their neighbors? As seen from the parable I mentioned before, it is clear which one Jesus prefers.

As for your question about respect, you stated that, “In my conception of respect, if I make a decision about something and I am told my decision is respected, I expect not to be punished for it.” Just because a decision is respected, does not mean that there are no consequences for that decision. In fact, it is the consequences that define a decision as a decision. Think of the timeless fable about the Ant and the Grasshopper. The Ant diligently gathers food for the winter during the warmer months while the Grasshopper chooses instead to spend his time in idleness. When winter comes, the Grasshopper goes hungry. Nobody forces the Grasshopper to prepare for winter (i.e., his choice to be idle was respected) but the consequence of no food for winter could not be changed.

If there were never any consequences for our decisions, then did we really have a choice to begin with? If choosing between two alternatives A and B resulted in the same outcome then there is no choice because you were never free to alter the outcome. Likewise, the existence of hell allows the choice to be with God to have meaning, because regardless of what God wants for us, if we choose to not be in his presence, we are given the freedom to do so. But like I mentioned before, meaningful decisions have consequences and an existence devoid of God’s presence is hell.

You also mentioned the possibility of a third choice which does not seem to be applicable in this circumstance. If you can either be in God’s presence or not be in God’s presence, how does one do neither?

Davivman,

Is the parable supposed to equate obedience with good character? Obedience to whom? Sometimes good character requires disobedience.

Furthermore, you've not satisfactorily answered my comment on respect. I don't know how you think of respect. In my conception of respect, if I make a decision about something and I am told my decision is respected, I expect not to be punished for it. Hell, then, should not be a punitive affair, not painful or tortuous. If it is, then my decision has actually not been respected.

Your response also presupposes only the two choices, go with god or shoot myself in the head, without even the consideration of the existence of a third choice, to do neither. If such a god as you proclaim truly respects me and my free choices, my third choice should be both available and respected.

If such a god "grants" free will (which implies it could take that away too), and ostensibly respects the choices made with free will, then it makes no sense to provide only the two choices. Even if the choice is mine, it would still be that god that provided the choices in the first place. Presumably, that god can make the choices be whatever it wants. To provide only two choices, go with it or punitive action (hell), is still coercive. Moreover, providing only those two choices shows an unbelievable (or, perhaps, totally believable?) arrogance on god's part to "grant" free will and then immediately begin coercing it.

Even presupposing such a god's good intentions in providing only those two choices, it is still coercion, that is, manipulating you - through the content of the choices - into choosing what that god would choose for you if it were to overtly choose for you.

davivman

You wrote, "God gives each of us a lifetime to learn and grow, but if we are resolute in our rejection of God so that even on our deathbed we are obstinate in this rejection, then we ourselves have pulled our own trigger."

You speak of "rejection of God", have you ever noticed that in the Beatitudes, Jesus never said anything about "rejection or acceptance" of God when He said, "Blessed are the...", "Blessed are those...", did He?

You also wrote, "Which of the two did his father's will?" They answered, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you."

Jesus did say "tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you" but He did not say that they would not enter, only that the tax collectors and prostitutes were entering before them.

Do you know that the words Jesus spoke on the cross, "IT IS FINISHED" translates as "PAID IN FULL"?

One could say that God has all of the bases covered so that we all make it home, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

davivman

You wrote, " Certain individuals are said to have been permitted to see a glimpse of hell (e.g., St. Faustina, the Fatima children, etc.) and the vision terrified them."

I did not "see" hell but I experienced hell and hell is not seperation from God but is seeing yourself and your actions and their repercussions from the "point of view", so to speak, of Pure Love, in other words, if one were to wake up in hell they would come to the realization that not only do they not have anyone else to blame but that they built it themself.

You then wrote, "Particularly, I don't believe that Hell is a spiritual death in the sense that a conciousness would cease to exist."

Spiritual death is not a cessation of consciousness but is a seperation from God, hell and spiritual death are two different things.

I have experienced both hell and spiritual death.

You then wrote, "I do believe that a substantial amount of the suffering in Hell is the continual awareness of a permanent separation from God."

As I have said, hell is not a seperation from God but as far as "a substantial amount of the suffering", this comes from the realization that one has custom built their own hell and not knowing that God won the "keys" and will use these "keys".

As far as "a substantial amount of the suffering of spiritual death" is not knowing that God won the "keys" and will use these "keys".

You then wrote, "As for whether there is a "solution" to avoiding this Fate, Christians believe that the death and resurection of Jesus Christ has saved mankind."

I said a "solution" not "a solution to avoiding this Fate".

Do you believe that Jesus has saved mankind?

God's Plan does not mean that some will not go to hell and/or spiritual death but that God has won the "keys" to the netherworld (hell and death, spiritual and physical) and will use them in due time, God's Time.

Jesus said, "Repent and believe in the gospel".

Many people "repent" and might not even realize that they have repented but God knows, there is no "set formula", so to speak, for repenting.

As far as "believe in the gospel", the word "gospel" means GOOD NEWS and if the Good News is, ultimately, not for ALL than it would not be GOOD NEWS but would only be 'good enough news' for some.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Sara121, I understand the criticism that you make, but I think what you are describing is a common misunderstanding about Christianity held by a number of both believers and non-believers.

Many people see the existence of hell as a coercive or manipulative concept as opposed to what in actuality is a necessity to allow for true freedom. If there were no real possibility of going to hell, then God would ultimately be forcing all people to be in his presence regardless of what they individually had chosen. The existence of hell needs to be real, if our choice to either want to be with God or to reject God is to be the result of a true free will and not a farce.

I think your analogy of a gun to the head is a good one, with one subtle modification. That modification being, the identity of individual holding the gun. Imagine that instead of God holding a gun to an individual's head, that particular individual is holding a gun to their own head with God pleading for them not to pull the trigger. God gives each of us a lifetime to learn and grow, but if we are resolute in our rejection of God so that even on our deathbed we are obstinate in this rejection, then we ourselves have pulled our own trigger.

I want to add one other point. You referred to the “wrong” choice as “meaning the rejection of Jesus as a divine savior, nevermind what the actual content of one's character might be.” If this were true, then I wonder what you would make of Jesus’ parable of the two sons (Matthew 21: 28-32):
"What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, 'Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.'

He said in reply, 'I will not,' but afterwards he changed his mind and went.

The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, 'Yes, sir,' but did not go.

Which of the two did his father's will?" They answered, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.

Thomas, I think that neither I nor anyone else can comprehend the true nature of hell in this lifetime, but we may be able to understand certain aspects of it. Certain individuals are said to have been permitted to see a glimpse of hell (e.g., St. Faustina, the Fatima children, etc.) and the vision terrified them. Particularly, I don't believe that Hell is a spiritual death in the sense that a conciousness would cease to exist. I do believe that a substantial amount of the suffering in Hell is the continual awareness of a permanent separation from God.

As for whether there is a "solution" to avoiding this Fate, Christians believe that the death and resurection of Jesus Christ has saved mankind.

And herein is one of my biggest problems with Christianity, this business of who gets saved and who gets smited.

"God gave us the free will to decide whether we want to be with him or not. If we choose to reject God’s love, God respects our decision and allows us to depart from his presence. God is the source or all life, the nourishment that sustains us. Thus by choosing to remove ourselves from his presence, we send ourselves to hell.

How does that work? If such a god actually respected someone's decision to reject it, then there would be no need for that person to end up in hell. To give lip service to freedom of choice and then condemn with eternal hell fire if the "wrong" choice is made - and wrong meaning the rejection of Jesus as a divine savior, nevermind what the actual content of one's character might be - this is not freedom or respect, this is coercion on the grandest scale. You might as well put a gun to my head.

davivman

You wrote, "Thus by choosing to remove ourselves from his presence, we send ourselves to hell."

Do you believe that hell is seperation from God?

Or might that be spiritual death?

You then wrote, "God does not want that fate for us"

Do you think that "maybe" God came up with a "solution"?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I’m glad I could make you laugh eesmamata. I don’t who you are, so I won’t make any inferences about the nature of your background or your motivations for insulting the faith I hold dear. However in the defense of that faith, I want it to be known that when Jesus walked this earth, he did not come here to condemn us or to punish us. He came here to save us because he loves us all and we are unable to save ourselves.

Our lives are limited in this world. We enter this life much in the same way that we exit it, having nothing. We have no power to alter that. In some sort of incredible miracle, we are self-aware and can marvel at the beauty of the world that we are born into. We have been given the freedom to make choices, choices to create or destroy, to love or to hate. We did not earn these gifts. They were given freely to us by the God who created us. As an almighty creator, God could have created us so that we could do nothing but love him back. But God did not do that. God gave us the free will to decide whether we want to be with him or not. If we choose to reject God’s love, God respects our decision and allows us to depart from his presence. God is the source or all life, the nourishment that sustains us. Thus by choosing to remove ourselves from his presence, we send ourselves to hell. God does not want that fate for us and so despite all human weakness and forces external and internal, God’s Church endures some 2000 years after it was founded to act as a voice to call God’s children to God.

eezmamata, If you think that a basic premise of Christianity is that you do what God says or are eternally tortured, then you are severely mistaken.

POSTED BY: DAVIVMAN

Yeah, right! Hah!, That's the best laugh I've had today.

USA, this is a Christian Nation, O Rabbi, Christianity says, «one wife to a customer», so it is written, so it shall be done, Christians do not care that the Prophet (PBUH) allows Muslims up to four wives, they impose «one man, one woman»rule on all, ¿do you call that religious freedom? Huh??

Posted by: abu_ibrahim
---------------------------------
Although the Christians celebrate one child sacrifice, they do not permit it today. Does that prohibition represent limits on religious freedom?

Posted By Brad Hirschfield | January 4, 2011; 2:54 PM ET

«Only when people believe that religious freedom for all is itself a mandate from within whatever particular tradition they hold dear, will this condition improve.»

O Rabbi, ¿«religious freedom for all»? Chickens, maybe religious freedom for all to sacrifice harmless, feathered chickens to their syncretistic «Santerías cult in Florida, sure, but religious freedom for a Somali Muslim to bring his four wives to Florida and stay married, ¿where is that religious freedom? Huh??

USA, this is a Christian Nation, O Rabbi, Christianity says, «one wife to a customer», so it is written, so it shall be done, Christians do not care that the Prophet (PBUH) allows Muslims up to four wives, they impose «one man, one woman»rule on all, ¿do you call that religious freedom? Huh??

THE BAD NEWS: Christianity & Islam are the 2 religions always involved in religious violence on one side or both. Their supremacist beliefs bring out the worst in everyone as well. Not an impressive record of spiritual development for these religions.

THE GOOD NEWS: The majority of the world is not Christian or Muslim. Most are Hindu, Buddhists, Sikh, Jain, Confucianist, Taoist, Atheist, etc. These other "religions" do not promote religiously motivated violence.

Islam is impressive for a "religion" in terms of the violence and hatred. Just look at Pakistan today and the so-called moderate clerics celebrating the murder of an innocent. The killer is showered with rose petals, and the victim is blamed. The victim did not even commit blasphemy, which should be a capital crime anyway. He just spoke against blasphemy laws.

Where are the usual apologists for the Islam as the religion o' peace?

Awesome article! I think the middle paragraph about people either disregarding religion altogether or falling into apologetics is dead on.

Reposted on the World Faith blog:
http://worldfaith.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/brad-hirschfield-on-faith-religion-must-fix-what-it-breaks/

Posted by: abu_ibrahim

"Religious people, they have LOTS of children, Eric Kaufmann is right, Samsara15 is wrong, secular feminism tends to the «extinction of humankind», Abrahamic religion tends toward «Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth», ¿who do you think has the better odds in their favor? Huh?"
------------------------
But massive religious wars can people off faster than they can be replaced. These conflicts and huge death tolls will end the species much, much faster than secular feminism (i assume you mean have fewer children) ever could.

PayNoAttentionToTheManBehindTheCurtain, I agree with your comments, but until moderate Christians stand up and denounce the hatred and division stirred up by their radical extremist theocons in the US via Fox, they suffer the same fate of moderate Muslims who do not denounce their murderous terrorists.

Both are classified as intolerant, hostile and insufferable.

The Christians took the notion of Justice, of law, of Tikkun Olam and turned it upside down, tortured it, mangled it, shelved it.

Substituted for it human sacrifice, deifying a Child Murderer, and divinely reinstating human sacrifice, a practice the Christians continue to this day, and for which they are forgiven in advance by their murderous God's murdered son.

Absolutely, the blogger is right. Christianity is about the "New Testament" than Tanakh. Sexually abusing children, genociding Jews, Muslims, native Americans, et al. And they are forgiven (by themselves, for theirs is the Religion of Love).

Re: AreYouSaying

I rebelled against the Church as a young kid, and spent the majority of my adult life being "anti-Christian." During this time, I would have likely agreed with you. Returning to Christianity 8 years ago, I realized that my problem wasn't with the Gospel, or with Christianity itself; my problem had been with (some) Christians themselves for their misuse of the Word. It came from both my misunderstanding what Christianity was, and more importantly, (some) other Christian's dire misunderstandings.

Sadly, there are many who identify themselves as "Christian" yet behave anything but. These are the type that use God's Word to judge and condemn, control, or promote an "I'm right, you're wrong, us-against-them" mentality. Many cherry-pick scriptures to justify either their political ideology, personal worldview, or both. They spend considerable time mining the Old Testament in an effort to support this self-righteousness.

If they truly understood, they'd understand that Christianity isn't a religion, but a way of life. It's about a Father/child relationship with God and was never intended to be a "religion." Jesus Christ eschewed religion, and was quite critical of the Pharisees (who bear a strong resemblance to the modern-day Right Wing, legalistic "Christians" I'm speaking of).

If Christ were to be around in 2010, he'd be branded a socialist by Limbaugh; a dangerous, radical progressive by Hannity; and Glen Beck would use his chalkboard to undoubtedly link Him to Karl Marx, or 1939's Nazis. Telling rich people to pay taxes and "open up their storehouses" to share their wealth with the poor, and to love your enemies, would have Him vilified faster than you can say "founding fathers."

Christianity is more about the NEW Testament than Old, with Christ's death and resurrection making the Law of Moses irrelevant for true, practicing Christians (or at least unnecessary). It promotes love, faith, charity, forgiveness, humility, and service.

"Judgmental Christian" is an oxymoron, but unfortunately, thanks to this type of "Christian," Christianity has suffered a very unfair reputation. That Christianity has Abrahamic roots, does not mean it should be compared to religions that contain condemnation as a precept. The New Testament expressly insists that we not condemn those of different faith, nor judge people outside our faith. In fact, we Christians will be judged without mercy if we do not demonstrate mercy, ourselves.

Modern-day, organized religion, runs the risk of creating God in it's own image. And mistaken people misuse God's Word by trying to shape it into their own theology. Fortunately, there are some awesome churches out there that promote the Gospels the way they were intended; by its authors, and Jesus Himself. Unfortunately, Christianity is viewed unfavorably, and unfairly, because of the abuse, and unfair bigotry displayed by Puritan-esque, "religious," self-identified "Christians."

eezmamata, If you think that a basic premise of Christianity is that you do what God says or are eternally tortured, then you are severely mistaken.

force is marching raping maiming force is causing mass starvation for greed and lack of empathy for man Force is evil when it comes against a goodly crown

there is religion and then there is God God is active deeply wholly in the heart of receptive man God says seek peace and pursue it Jesus did not send for an army when he was arrested and his distiny afforded to us a unbelievable peace and rest in our spirit when we abide in fellowship with him his war was not with flesh his war was what mangled flesh into unrecognizable humanity seek peace and pursue it whoever you are and God will light your path

Ultimately, God respects the decisions his creations choose and thus does not force us to love him.

What kind of crap is this? You and abu_ibrahim, in both of your religions, tell us that we're going to be tortured for eternity if we don't do exactly what your gods tell us we have to do. This isn't force?

Your stories, both of them, are hideous, ugly, brutal, and that's why both of you are essentially the same.

abu_ibrahim, religious tollerance does not require you or anyone to condone idol worship. Regardless of faith, we are all human beings with God given free will. The fact that we have this free will permits every individual at a basic level to accept or reject God. Ultimately, God respects the decisions his creations choose and thus does not force us to love him. We should immitate this behavior in how we treat each other. You can hate the the chicken sacrifice without hating the person making the sacrifice. Indeed, you can disagree with with a person's choice while acknowledgeing that God created them with the free will to make that choice. Where there is religious intollerance, there is a human attempt to force others to love God via intimidation. Forced love is not love at all. So think carefully the next time you feel like bashing religious tollerance.

I agree with SAMSARA15, if we don't free ourselves from our primitive, barbaric religious past we will destroy ourselves.

All of these religions, particularly christianity and islam, each insists with uttern certainty it has the absolute truth. The managers of each religion simply can't allow another absolute truth to exist.

It is not possible for these two religions to co-exist. Either we get rid of both of them, one loses to the other, or we're all dead.

Thanks, you stupid morons.

Samsara15 wrote:

«Religion will be the primary cause of the extinction of humankind.»

And Eric Kaufmann just wrote a book, «¿Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?»

O you irreligious, you go on taking your «birth control pills» every month, ¿where do you think your replacements will come from? Huh??

Religious people, they have LOTS of children, Eric Kaufmann is right, Samsara15 is wrong, secular feminism tends to the «extinction of humankind», Abrahamic religion tends toward «Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth», ¿who do you think has the better odds in their favor? Huh?

Religion will be the primary cause of the extinction of humankind.

O Rabbi, ¿do you mean to tell us, religious people should tolerate idol worship in their land?

America, USA, «separation of church and state», this works here because this land, it is not holy. Arabia, it is holy land, many a hard fight did the Prophet (peace be upon him!) and his Companions (peace be upon them!) fight with the Quraysh and the infidels to stamp out infidel worship in the holy land of Arabia, and now, ¿do you want the King of Arabia to sit still while infidels bow down to statues of the Great Gawd Budd?

Your Bible, O Rabbi, ¿what does it say about idol worshippers, they pass their children through the fire to honor their idol Molech? «And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech» The Zionists, they have their holy land in Palestine, it is not Arabia, but it is holy, ¿should the Zionist government let people pass their children to the fire for the sake of this stinking heathen idol? The punishment for tolerating idolatry, O Rabbi, ¿do you know what is the punishment for tolerating idolatry? Canaanites, they passed their children to Molech, the land «vomited them out», Allah warned the Israelites, do not let anyone in your holy land do these abominations, not your own home born people, not even the stranger who «sojourneth» (a King James word!) among you, or else the holy land will vomit your people out as it vomited out the Canaanites, Israelite prophets warned Israelites to cut out the idol worship, lay off Baal and Astarte and the «Queen of Heaven», Israelites would not listen, and SURE ENOUGH: the holy land vomited them out for two-thousand-odd years, now Zionists have occupied the land again, if they tolerate passing children through the fire to Molech, BAM! the land will vomit them out too, back to Golders Green, back to Brooklyn, back to Olympic and Fairfax where they will have to ride in taxicabs driven by Israeli emigrants.

USA is different, USA is not holy land, Florida idol-worshippers sacrifice chickens, harmless feathered birds, killed as sacrifices to «Santería», a syncretism between Christianity and the sub-Saharan African religions, Florida tried to outlaw chicken sacrifice to Santería, Florida lawmakers, they got their head handed to them by USA Supreme Court. USA can tolerate chicken sacrifice, USA must tolerate chicken sacrifice, this is because USA is not holy land, do not worry, America will not vomit you out back to Europe for allowing even idol worship, because this is not a holy land.

A good first step is for Religious leaders to acknowledge that Religion itself is the most violent and destabilizing influence on earth.

"THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A WITCH TO LIVE."

--Exodus 22:18

~~When it comes to religious conflicts and religion-inspired violence, most people need religious solutions. ~~~

At least you agree that religion is the cause of conflicts and inspires violence....that's a step in the right direction.

"When it comes to religious conflicts and religion-inspired violence, [MOST] people need religious solutions."

Aye - - there's the rub - - - most people are Superstitious, i.e. "Ignorant".

Religion = Mankind's Bane!

Common denominators of the uncompromising Abrahamic religions are ¨it´s-my-way-or-the-highway,¨ ¨my-god´s-better-than-your-god¨ and ¨your-people-are-worse-than-my-people.¨

With this mindset, how can these religions ever be an answer to peace and interfaith harmony? On the contrary, they are the very core of hatred, war, torture, violence and discrimination.

A Spanish proverb says show me who you are with and I will tell you who you are.

Abraham was the original Satan and Priests, Rabbis and Pastors are his handmaidens. (nothing personal, Brad)

This represents a horrible level of naïveté on your part, Brad. The Abrahamic Three have proven time and again that they are willing to cherry-pick their own religious texts to further a "Me First" agenda, and not just the fringe crazies are doing it. Sitting back and hoping that the majority of the current religous leaders of these three religons are going to suddenly decide to cherry pick the "good" or "friendly" parts of their texts is scary.

You're on a roll, rabbi. Another good article

I'm having trouble with this paragraph:

“Religion will be part of the solution when those who call themselves religious embrace a vision of the world which accords full dignity and equality to all people, regardless of the faith they follow, including no faith at all. They can keep on believing such people are fools, if they must, but they must imagine that suffering such "fools" with full equality is itself a mandate of their faith.”

How can you get religious people to accord full dignity to all people regardless of their faith? Unheard of. Every club will naturally give an edge to their own team.

Also, if one believes others are fools, is it reasonably possible to imagine any kind of authentic equality?

At the end of the day, is it reasonable to expect religion to fix what it breaks?