patrick.net

My problem with all three is that they explicitly approve of the ritual murder of your child when you hear voices telling you to kill. Not good.

God tested Abraham by asking him to kill Isaac. The right answer would have been "A just and merciful God would not make such a request."

But no, instead Abraham said "Yes sir, right away sir, where's my dagger?"

So Abraham failed the test in the most spectacular way, and billions of people have been been worshiping the wrong God ever since.

Matt.BayArea says

Just to make the topic a little more specific, let's not discuss current practices - instead, let's just talk about the religions as documented by their most holy books.

Wrong approach. What the "holy books" say doesn't mean squat. All that matters is what is practiced.

And what is practiced changes a lot from century to century and from culture to culture. Christianity in the Middle Ages was a lot worse than it is now. Sure it sucks now, but at least not too many priests own a Judas Cradle.

Ultimately, I'm not sure your question is particularly meaningful. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam aren't actually religions. They are families of religions. A religion is a coherent hierarchical power structure built around mysticism. It is the nature of religions to grow and fragment as different parties try to wrestle control.

For example, Christianity was once a religion. Then it split into two religions: Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox. Catholicism split into many other religions during the protestation reformation period. The Catholic Church got to keep the "Catholicism" trademark. The new religions took on new names. Similarly, Judaism and Islam grew and fractured repeatedly.

One could even make the case that Christianity was just a splinter group of Judaism originally and Islam was just a copy cat religion based on the two most popular religions at the time of its formation. So, basically, all three families of religions are just splintered power structures that have been carved out by ambitious men from the same area wanting control over others.

In any case, if your question is which original mythology is the best basis for morality, it's pretty much a question of which sucks the least. They are all ultimately derived from the same pro-slavery, anti-women, xenophobic, desert culture that dominated the Middle East and later the Greco-Roman area of south Europe and north Africa. It's not surprising that the major religions all stem from the same area, which was a major trade route and hub. But it's hardly a basis to take any of them seriously.

They're all basically the same, which shouldn't be a surprise since they come from the same place and have the same roots in Abraham.

Islam and Christianity are basically interchangeable from a crazy shit standpoint. If Islam had taken root in the west and Christianity in the Middle East you'd see radical christian terrorists living in caves and Billy Graham (now devout muslim) would still be blaming homosexuals for it.

That said, religion was a useful tool during humanity's dark ages, when people would do all sorts of bad things if they weren't worried about being punished for it after they die.

My problem with all three is that they explicitly approve of the ritual murder of your child when you hear voices telling you to kill. Not good.

God tested Abraham by asking him to kill Isaac. The right answer would have been "A just and merciful God would not make such a request."

But no, instead Abraham said "Yes sir, right away sir, where's my dagger?"

So Abraham failed the test in the most spectacular way, and billions of people have been been worshiping the wrong God ever since.

Yeah, but if it wasn't for that one of the greatest songs of all time never would have been written.

Kevin says

That said, religion was a useful tool during humanity's dark ages, when people would do all sorts of bad things if they weren't worried about being punished for it after they die.

Except that the worst things were done by the Church and its minions. Evidently religion didn't stop them. If you want the gory details, go here.

My problem with all three is that they explicitly approve of the ritual murder of your child when you hear voices telling you to kill. Not good.

Kinda like abortion, eh? I thought you were OK with this practice.

Dan8267 says

If you want the gory details

Go here: http://www.abortionfacts.com/techniques/techniques.asp

EightBall says

Kinda like abortion, eh? I thought you were OK with this practice.

Why would you think I was OK with abortion?

It's obviously murder to kill a baby just before it's born. It also obviously not murder to destroy a recently-fertilized egg. The question to ask is at what point of development it becomes murder. I say when the baby has consciousness, and for that, you need a somewhat developed brain.

Why would you think I was OK with abortion?

Pardon my assumption.

The question to ask is at what point of development it becomes murder.

Slippery question, indeed.

EightBall says

Slippery question, indeed.

Here's a genius explaining more on the slippery slope:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/AvF1Q3UidWM

No one religion has a lock on being best or worst. All religions are equally as good or bad, when compared to one another, because they are practiced by people. Strip a religion down to its initial beliefs and core doctrine at the time of the religions formation and they all almost look identical.

Religion, unfortunately, is too often used as a way to divide or separate people. Typically at the birth of a religion they are very egalitarian and inclusive, profess tolerance of their fellow man and freedom of religious practice for others. Only later do they tend to split up into little sub groupings and get diluted and specific regional and cultural inclusions. Add in a dose of human fear and stupidity and you get ugly things.

This story sticks with me ...

A few days post the 9-11 attack my father was in downtown San Francisco. He witnessed some completely ignorant person shouting ugly things at a man wearing a turban. The man receiving this verbal assault was obviously a Sikh. The man shouting things at him was saying things my father wouldn't repeat, but were anti-Islamist and Arab in nature.

In America, land of the free, founded on principals of freedom of religion, and home to religious refugees, this has to stick with you. The verbal abuser was attacking a person whose religion was founded on the principals of religious freedom and actually was initially a warrior cast that stood to defend the weaker so that they could practice whatever they chose. Additionally, one must never forget who stupid and dangerous your fellow man can be. We should all seek ways to educate and mediate when things like this occur.

I like to learn about all religions, try and understand them, take what I like from them, and actually formally practice/belong to nothing. By denying all I gain everything. Very zen. ;)

EightBall says

My problem with all three is that they explicitly approve of the ritual murder of your child when you hear voices telling you to kill. Not good.

Kinda like abortion, eh? I thought you were OK with this practice.

Dan8267 says

If you want the gory details

Go here: http://www.abortionfacts.com/techniques/techniques.asp

The issue of abortion is orthogonal to the atrocities committed by the Christian (and other) faiths throughout history. Even if Christianity is correct on the abortion issue, it fails at so many other moral issues that it's a no go.

When I get time I'll address the subject of abortion in its own thread. This weekend went way too quickly. I didn't get done half the things on my very long To Do list.

Kevin says

Yeah, but if it wasn't for that one of the greatest songs of all time never would have been written.

What song?

Kevin says

If Islam had taken root in the west and Christianity in the Middle East you'd see radical christian terrorists living in caves and Billy Graham (now devout muslim) would still be blaming homosexuals for it.

Actually, Christianity did take root in the Middle East and was the dominant religion for hundreds of years before Islam.

I think Islam is fundamentally different from Christianity because Jesus didn't kill anyone, but Mohammed killed lots of people.

Totally agree with you about Billy Graham though.

Kevin says

Yeah, but if it wasn't for that one of the greatest songs of all time never would have been written.

What song?

Maybe he means Abraham, Martin, And John, but I don't think that has anything to do with the Abraham of the Bible.

Kevin says

Yeah, but if it wasn't for that one of the greatest songs of all time never would have been written.

What song?

Highway 61 Revisited.

Actually, Christianity did take root in the Middle East and was the dominant religion for hundreds of years before Islam.

Poor choice of words perhaps, but I think you understand what I meant.

I think Islam is fundamentally different from Christianity because Jesus didn't kill anyone, but Mohammed killed lots of people.

How does that make the religions "fundamentally different"? The outcome of both martyrs was the same: Their followers decided that they had to kill or convert anyone who disagreed with them.

It certainly makes the men different, though it's hard to say much about the real Jesus, since the real man's life was poorly documented by people who mostly had favorable things to say about him, and the Church simply discarded large parts of the writing.

By the time Muhammad is as old as Jesus (~600 years to go), I wouldn't be surprised if the less positive aspects of his life are also whitewashed.

To me, the only real difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity absorbed European culture and Islam absorbed Arabic culture. The European culture has evolved substantially in the last thousand years, but Arabic culture is far less enlightened.

Using the Abraham and Isaac story to discount religion is silly. No Christian I know would ever condone murder.

By killing Isaac, the son of the Promise, Abraham would essentially be killing himself. It is sacrificing everything most dear for what is most important.

It is also a foreshadowing to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Also, "religion" has been a huge scapegoat to explain conflict. Also, while it has been used used to control unthinking people, religion does not have a monopoly on war or controlling people.

ChristianGuy says

By killing Isaac, the son of the Promise, Abraham would essentially be killing himself. It is sacrificing everything most dear for what is most important.

Don't you think it's odd for an allegedly all-good God to even ask this of somebody?

In most cases, religion won't stand up to logical scrutiny (except Taoism, and its daughter, Zen Buddhism). And those are only logical if you allow yourself to understand paradox.

But, in fairness to the "people of the book", the Abrahamic faiths make sense to a variety of people.

Some, WANT to believe so badly that they perform logical cartwheels trying to make them appear factual and logical.

Some try to extoll the essence of these religions and make a logical error: i.e. "People have done great things as Christians, therefore Christianity has made them good."...."My friend was an alcoholic who beat women and then found Jesus and changed his life", etc.

But I think that, as stated above, the essence is mystical. It shouldn't make conventional sense.It defies logic and your instincts.

Does psychoanalysis work? Instinctively, we don't want to relive our childhood trauma, nor admit our failings to our friends or family...yet, many find relief in moving TOWARDS their pain rather than away from it, n'est-ce pas?

This is the essence of all religion, when you strip away the rites, rituals and storybooks. Understand yourself and your place in the universe---understand that you are insignificant, one of trillions, quadrillions, gazillions of organisms---that all live and all die.

Those who realize this are right-minded. The right-minded are freed from the cycles of fortune and misfortune, happiness and despair.

And by proper placement of the ego, you become wiser, happier, well-adjusted and what you were meant to be.

To quote Lennon: Who on earth do you think you are? A superstar? Well, right you are!

ChristianGuy says

No Christian I know would ever condone murder.

Go to any red state. You'll find lots of Christians rejoicing when someone gets the death penalty.

Dan8267 says

ChristianGuy says

No Christian I know would ever condone murder.

Go to any red state. You'll find lots of Christians rejoicing when someone gets the death penalty.

Those people do not consider killing any of the following "murder":

- Anyone who isn't white.
- Anyone who isn't christian.
- Anyone who does not speak english.
- Anyone who has ever voted for a democrat.
- Anyone who has ever been convicted of any crime, regardless of questions about the trial.

Dan8267 says

Go to any red state. You'll find lots of Christians rejoicing when someone gets the death penalty.

Go to any blue state and you'll find lots of people supportive of allowing little girls to obtain certain surgical procedures and specific drugs without their parents consent. Go figure - they are more concerned with complete strangers than their own children.

The OP's question is rather silly. Religions arise in a time, place and context. The story of Abraham and his son is an example while looking at it from today it seems on face to be an insane demand. But in the context of the times when blood sacrifice was the rule and there was an need to impose law upon tribes to create some semblance of order it makes more sense. For those that believe that there is or was no need for religion then they should ask the question is there an inherent objective morality with in man? That is, where does /do the the guidelines of life we take for granted i.e. thou shall not kill, steal, commit adultery etc. come from? I am no defender of religion and the heinous crimes done in its name but for the masses of humanity, when not too distorted, it does provide some fame work directly or indirectly
(through laws) to keep human society marginally functional

I do not celebrate the death sentence being issued. I celebrate when it is carried out in a timely fashion. We need to speed it up!!

Below is something or the liberal leftists to read and enjoy. Please share some comments! And to really get a feel for the case, try youtube. It might help some of you grasp reality. Maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

Bap33 says

I do no celebrate the death sentence being issued. I celebrate when it is carried out in a timely fashion. We need to speed it up!!

Below is something or the liberal leftists to read and enjoy. Please share some comments! And to really get a feel for the case, try youtube. It might help some of you grasp reality. Maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

Bap here is something for you to read and enjoy. Perhaps it may help you grasp reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

And lets not forget Dr. Sam Sheppard, who's "crime" would probably deserve a speedy death in your dream world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sheppard

The question is not whether there are people who deserve to die. There are many examples of way worse crimes than the one you cited.

The question is how many innocent people you think should die so we can kill the guilty ones, and how much more money are we willing to spend to kill someone rather than keep them in prison for life.

Would you be willing to die in-order to assure the execution of a guilty person? How about 10 or 100 guilty people?

note the differences , please:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/ann-coulter-fans-didnt-murder-anne-pressly-it-was-the-usual-suspect-but-no-ones-apologizing

http://newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html

""In Table 42, entitled "Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender," we learn that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape.) In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.

The table does not gives statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear:

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man. ""

Here is a site with some detail to the first case I posted. A recent parolee ... hmmmm ... whoever turned him loose should be held responsible too. And, had the proper punishment been executed in the first place, these two kids may not have had to go through this hell. Right?

http://floppingaces.net/2007/05/13/rape-mutilation-and-murder/

innocent lives sacrificed for the lives of monsters?? is that your arguement? look around, read the story, THAT is already happening!

Bap33 says

innocent lives sacrificed for the lives of monsters?? is that your arguement? look around, read the story, THAT is already happening!

Yes, that is the argument, and it would be additional innocent lives beyond the original victims. If you want to kill people for committing crimes you have to be willing to execute innocent people as well. The harder you try to filter out the innocent the greater the cost. How many additional innocent lives lost makes execution no longer worth it for you?

I did notice that you did not answer the question. Are you willing to die in-order to assure the execution of a guilty person? How about 10 or 100 guilty people?

You must not be familiar with Charles Ng because he was involved with a crime much worse that your example (my gift to you is a more horrific crime to use as an example of people deserving execution). Anyway Ng is on death row in California, and his trial has cost the state somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

If Charles Ng had life in prison he would have to live about 424 years to cost the state $20 million.

Richard Allen Davis should have been put to death the first time ... and now he will die of old age before Cal finally kills him ... ask Polly Klass how she feels, she was innocent and was destroyed by Davis (by the way, he's white).

Would I give my life so as to make sure every convicted gangster and rapist and child molestor and sexual deviant and murdering thug was hung by the neck until dead? Absolutly. They go first.

Would you?

Bap33 says

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man. ""

Fucking racist rapists.

Bap33 says

Would I give my life so as to make sure every convicted gangster and rapist and child molestor and sexual deviant and murdering thug was hung by the neck until dead? Absolutly. They go first.

Absolutely, but I wouldn't give my life so that 1 or 2 of them died. I certainly wouldn't give my child's life for 5 or 10 of theirs.

That's really the point here. A disturbingly large percentage of death row inmates are exonerated by DNA evidence. It is a mathematical fact that we have, as a society, murdered hundreds of innocent men in the name of serving justice.

I'm not completely against the Death Penalty, but I think the standards for such a sentence must be very high.

I also have little issue with killing a murderer just because they might be crazy; if someone is crazy, dangerous, and provides nothing for society, they should just be killed to save everyone the trouble.

Kevin says

I'm not completely against the Death Penalty, but I think the standards for such a sentence must be very high.
I also have little issue with killing a murderer just because they might be crazy; if someone is crazy, dangerous, and provides nothing for society, they should just be killed to save everyone the trouble.

good points

Bap33 says

hung by the neck until dead

Is there any other way?

"Let's hang him by the neck until he's mighty uncomfortable."

Just a thought.

thunderlips11 says

Bap33 says

hung by the neck until dead

Is there any other way?

"Let's hang him by the neck until he's mighty uncomfortable."

Just a thought.

Homo Economicus. Like Bigfoot, reported to exist in fantasy books, but never seen in the wild.

Actually it can take a while to die when hanging by the neck.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/woman-accidentally-hangs-herself-at-haunted-house_n_1066259.html

Bap33 says

Would I give my life so as to make sure every convicted gangster and rapist and child molestor and sexual deviant and murdering thug was hung by the neck until dead? Absolutly. They go first.

OK, the problem here is convicted does not necessarily = guilty (Oh, yeah and BTW when you die you are also a convicted: gangster,rapist,molester,sexual deviant and/or murdering thug). As stated by Kevin...
Kevin says

A disturbingly large percentage of death row inmates are exonerated by DNA evidence. It is a mathematical fact that we have, as a society, murdered hundreds of innocent men in the name of serving justice.

And your death does not mean all of them die, just an unknown percentage.

Bap33 says

Would you?

No, I would not. Why would I sacrifice myself when they can be removed from society through life in prison. Who would take care of my kids? Would I abandon them just so I could kill someone who would otherwise spend their life in prison?

I am not sure that you understand that in this hypothetical scenario your death is not saving any innocent lives. The innocent have already been victimized, your death just changes a life in prison sentence to an execution. I am sorry that you feel your life holds so little potential and value that you would feel the need to spend it on this type of vengeance.

So... I am going to call your bluff here... I don't think you would really die for this cause...

If you do feel that strongly about using your life to assure the death of Richard Allen Davis types it is something you can do. While being an internet tough guy is all well and good, you simply lack the conviction of this man:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Oi3Hyxuf5AE

Anyway, on to the next question then, as brought up by Kevin, would you sacrifice your child's life to see a murderer executed? I am assuming that you are more than willing to sacrifice the child of another, but you can correct me if I am wrong there.

Bap33 says

Kevin says

I'm not completely against the Death Penalty, but I think the standards for such a sentence must be very high.

I also have little issue with killing a murderer just because they might be crazy; if someone is crazy, dangerous, and provides nothing for society, they should just be killed to save everyone the trouble.

good points

I am not against the killing of "monsters" in and of itself, but I am against the death penalty -- only because the cost to society is significantly more than life in prison, and it assures that innocent people will be mistakenly put to death by the state. Why would I want these people, who have already done so much harm, to increase there burden on society?

The insanity is a difficult defense, and truly crazy people is a whole other issue. BTW, they get removed from society often more effectively than a "sane" criminal.

Depending on how it was setup I might be for state assisted suicide for certain convicts. One requirement would be that it must decrease the overall financial burden to the tax payer when compared to the cost of life in prison.

the "cost" is easily dropped as soon as the recurrence that is now the norm goes away. Dead guys do not do these crimes ever again.

I think that currently islam seems to be the most "barbaric" for religious reasons: stoning, honor killing, etc. However, they are not doing anything that christians or jews haven't done or probably will do in the future.

Ahh-hemm... I do say this in-spite of working with a practicing muslim and he is one of the nicest guys you would want to know. Also, I have traveled to muslim countries that have been the most hospitable friendly places I have been.

But, I don't know is judaism worse because it started christianity and islam?

I think Patrick sums it up well though.

My problem with all three is that they explicitly approve of the ritual murder of your child when you hear voices telling you to kill. Not good.

Islamic Barbarism is something you find mostly in Arabic countries*. This points to the culture of the region rather than the culture of the religion as being the problem.

* Yes, there are barbaric acts committed in more reasonable countries with religious motivations, too, but I'd wager that the occurrence of such acts is no higher than abortion clinic bombings by Christians or shocking homosexuals to deaht.

Kevin says

* Yes, there are barbaric acts committed in more reasonable countries with religious motivations, too, but I'd wager that the occurrence of such acts is no higher than abortion clinic bombings by Christians or shocking homosexuals to deaht.

You are assuming that muslims don't also commit religiously motivated bombings, and murder of homosexuals. *Hint* some honor killings are because of homosexuality.

One of the big differences between an honor killing and a bombing or murder of a stranger is that the killing is of someone who should be loved and protected by the killer, and for no reason other than the victim had acted "immorally". Also, a period of torture will usually precede the killing, and when the torture fails to control behavior killing is the last resort.

I would agree that the barbarism is primarily found in Arabic countries/cultures -- where it can be codified through sharia law.

Almost all religions practice honor killings to some degree. I looked for a while and could not find a good data set on honor killings per capita by religion. Part of the problem in the US is that what may be an honor killing may be filed as a domestic abuse killing. That said it seems that countries where honor killings are more common also happen to be countries that have primarily converted to islam. Coincidence? Is there something about islam that is appealing to those cultures?

Judaism and christianity seem to have evolved away from wide spread barbarism, perhaps someday islam will do the same.

Bap33 says

the "cost" is easily dropped as soon as the recurrence that is now the norm goes away. Dead guys do not do these crimes ever again.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I think you are trying to say that if we kill the offenders they will not commit more crimes or have to pay any up keep costs? Therefor reducing crime and lowering costs?

yes, that, plus the fact that new offenders will have some very good negative-reinforcement for doing such crimes also.

I understand what your point is about the cost of carrying out a proper execution. But, the largest part of that cost is the fraudulent ALCU/Defense lawyers taking actions to delay the process and tie-up courts. That is the largest reason for the high cost of an execution, I think. And, that is a reason that can be adjusted.

Here's something I would like to add to this part of the topic: The person that comes forward with an accusation should be serve the penalty of the crime if they are found to be a false witness.