Religion - Salvation in adversity, a burden in prosperity.

While I was just sipping my post-iftar tea, a brilliant idea like a fart came to my mind. Just thought I'd share it with the residents of GS.

I was looking at this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

Hardly any of those mentioned wars were 'religious' in nature. With the exceptions of one or two probably, each war was political or tribal in nature. So, does that invalidate the most popular atheist opinion that religion has caused more bloodshed than anything in the history of mankind - let's delve in deeper first.

Sifting through wikipedia articles, you'll find that most religious countries are the most poor as well. Most people answer it with ''hope'' being the integral part of religion and the basic necessity of the poor. But I'm not satisfied with this answer. Taking a look at the nations that are 'religious' in today's world, there's something very interesting to be noticed here that almost all of these nations were once 'superpowers' or had seen their fare share of glory in the past. Whereas the non-religious states of today (majority of them) used to be the underdogs. For example, the Middle East. It might surprise you to know this, but ME was once the center of 'learning' and technological advancement. If not for the endeavors of the early Islamic scholars in the field of science, we would at least be half a millennium behind than where we are right now. But right now, it seems perfectly normal if one says ''ME should be just nuked!''. The current superpower - America - only rose to glory once it adopted the teachings of Christianity the way they're meant to be adopted. But now, its losing it values but lets save it for later.

So, why do the poor folks cling to religion?

The more appropriate answer is: Salvation. Not the type of salvation we read in the books, but rather they see it as their way out of their adversity. Cutting to the chase, I'll only talk about why people cling to religion in my country. I solicited a few people's views on why is religion our only exodus. The answer were, as expected, related to history. The Islamic empire rose because they adhered to their religion. 500 years later, they disputed and thus began their gradual downfall. Every time, some nation has to rise; they look for religion as their answer. Religion brings unification and a unified aim. Whether it promulgates conflict or not, is irrelevant. But throughout the course of the history, this notion has been testified and justified time to time. Mughal Empire for an instance - when it was hanging from its hinges in the late 1700s, the Emperor called for Muslims from all across the India to flock under his banner for the sake of 'Islam'. And it worked. It's other thing they failed laughably (ok, sorry ancestors).

The same goes for Persia - when it used to be the superpower before it was conquered by Umar ibn-al-Khattab. And the same goes for Rome, Byzantine and so on. Once nations reach their plateau of success, they slowly start deviating from what binds them together. The Christians of Byzantine started indulging in their luxuries and extravaganza neglecting the teachings of the Bible - this weakness was exploited by the Muslim Crusaders and down went the Empire. Islam laid emphases on unification, but Kharjites fucked it up after Uthman's rule and so began the gradual downfall of Muslims which was later utilized by the Christian Crusaders. In some cases, we even see history repeating itself. For example, the revival of Islam in East Bengal.

Most people will, at this point, argue that religion has caused nothing but unnecessary conflict. Conflict - I concede to that. Unnecessary - Hell no. This conflict was often a way to bring about scientific advancement. The reason why most scientific progress happened in the Middle Ages is these 'conflicts'. Most argue that religion only hindered scientific progress. Well, to them I say, list down the names of scientists who were hindered by 'religion' and then I'll list down the names of scientists who were motivated by religion. The results will get you pooping from your nose.

Considering everything I've written thus far, this new 'legalization of Gay marriages' stands where according to you?

For the religious people: Do you think this 'gay tolerance' is simply a result of the decadence that follows prosperity? Why and where exactly will it lead us?

For the non-religious people: America's first Constitution was based on Bible. Needless to say that America's independence was propelled by none other than 'Christianity'. ''Gay tolerance'' obviously goes against the teachings of the Bible. Now, how exactly do you think will this not lead to your downfall considering this has always happened that when nations put aside their religion, they fall.

inb4 'religion is the opium of masses'

If religion is the opium of masses then atheism is the marijuana of individuals. Calm thy mammary glands and stick to the topic for the sake of Obama.

The same thing exists here in the U.S. The higher the religiosity, the highest the poverty, gun violence, crime, teenage pregnancy, and the lower the education. We see this throughout the southern U.S.

Doesn't even matter. The question mate. The Question!

Why should I bother that which has already been stated? You have already answered the question in your post, the nonsensical belief in salvation.

The questions are these :

For the religious people: Do you think this 'gay tolerance' is simply a result of the decadence that follows prosperity? Why and where exactly will it lead us?

For the non-religious people: America's first Constitution was based on Bible. Needless to say that America's independence was propelled by none other than 'Christianity'. ''Gay tolerance'' obviously goes against the teachings of the Bible. Now, how exactly do you think will this not lead to your downfall considering this has always happened that when nations put aside their religion, they fall.

Whatever deep thing you are going for is lost on me.

What I know is in your book there is a vain, shallow, jealous nutjob that killed millions and one that does not want the universe run by a nutjob and of course you people worship the crazy dangerous homicidal one.

I don't believe in magic, so I ignored the first two here. The third is not a valid question as it is based on a false premise.

The hypocrisy....

Are you guys all this damn foolish?

Lol. Yep. The ones not in abject terror of the magic sky daddy are the foolish ones.

dem projections and ignorance....

Then again, who the **** am I arguing with? 'tis a lost cause.

@gwynnblade: it ok. Magic sky daddy make it aw betta. He get the bad people for you. Bad ol people. Bad bad.

We're fools for not believing in your imaginary magical friend, for which after 2,000 years none of you have been able to demonstrate that is even likely to be real?

Everything you see around you is simply the entropic decay of the universe in process.

You know The Constitution directly violates 7 of the 10 Commandments, right?

But religion is the opiate of the masses.

To answer your question with a question, which nation(s) have fallen because they set aside their religion? History class was a while ago but I don't recall any? I don't remember the Aztecs converting to Catholicism and then being conquered by the Spanish or Constantinople proclaiming Mohammed as the one true prophet before the Turkish cannon breached the walls.

As for gay tolerance going against the Bible, it goes against the old testament not the new. If someone claims to be a christian then that would mean they follow the teachings of Christ, I don't recall him saying much on the subject one way or the other. He didn't seem all that keen on a lot of the "laws" of the old testament actually. I'm guessing for a guy who hung out with lepers, prostitutes, and beggars he probably wouldn't have had that much of a problem with homosexuality. He generally seemed to have been worried more about actual problems like poverty and injustice.

@fenriz275: Aye, but most take into account all of the new testament, in which Paul proclaims homosexuality to be a bad thing. I also believe they could be going off the fact that, while Christ did fulfill the law of moses, there are several instances outside that law where it's mentioned that the pattern for partnership is man with woman. I'm not versed well on the bible, these are just the arguments I've heard.

Ps- argument of silence is a fallacy.

Do you think this 'gay tolerance' is simply a result of the decadence that follows prosperity? Why and where exactly will it lead us?

Not necessarily. You see, the problem with many of us religious people is that we often fail to distinguish between instances when religion is being used a political tool to push a certain agenda, and when it's genuinely religion being discussed.

In case of gay tolerance, I believe it's nothing more than a political agenda. You see, Christians had for long ruled the lands of Europe but nowadays they are being heavily challenged and criticized. The idea is to send them back to where they came from, to isolate them and to cut the ropes connecting them to the body of the society.

This whole gay dilemma in my opinion is nothing more than another political tool being used against Christians and religious folks in general. It exists to challenge their beliefs. Christians responded to it by claiming that they do not hate gays but in reality they fell right into the trap. They did manage to absolve their souls of the feeling of guilt but that's simply what was going on on the stage. In the background however, those who wanted to limit the Christians' influence managed to successfully execute yet another attack. You see the whole priests molesting children thing was getting old and the Christians were slowly recovering.

Some people want to believe that the West is unintentionally triggering its decadence, truth is it's all intentional. So don't expect the West to legalize pedophilia or marriage with animals UNLESS there's something in it for them.

'gay tolerance'

That phrase is exactly why we have a problem. If only the religious would stop "tolerating" others who are different, and start seeing people for who they are... and not who they want them to be.

Underlying causes - if your house burned because the gas valve was open, then the house burned because someone probably forgot to turn off the valve. The obvious cause however ; the house burned because the gas caught fire.

The Empires that fell due to deviation from their ideology have already been stated in the OP.

Isn't there already something in it for them, then?

If the 'gay tolerance' movement was set in motion to deter the Christian beliefs - then the same could be said about pedophilia and bestiality.

In case of gay tolerance, I believe it's nothing more than a political agenda. You see, Christians had for long ruled the lands of Europe but nowadays they are being heavily challenged and criticized. The idea is to send them back to where they came from, to isolate them and to cut the ropes connecting them to the body of the society.

This is an insightful excerpt. So, the expulsion of Christians as you put it, is driven by 'nationalism' or is it the ideology of 'irreligiousness' that propels it?

That's hardly even the point. But I'll bite.

Forget that its a book telling people to hate on gays. Forget that it was a Prophet who came to them and taught them to hate on this or that. Think of it as their psyche. Think of it as their fundamental identity. If you tolerate gays, you're not tolerating Christians. If you tolerate Christians, you're not tolerating gays. There's no such thing as a place for everyone. The harder you try to accommodate everyone, the less you'll actually achieve. Either expel Christianity wholly or get stuck in the see-saw.

Oh and don't get started with "then religion should never have existed" - relax, if it hadn't existed, you wouldn't be where you are right now. Besides, religion has only become a problem for people now. A few centuries back, it was their salvation. Now its trash. What goes around, comes back around.

Welcome to the 21st century. Deal with it.

It wouldn't be as beneficial to them as this whole gay thing was. For now at least.

It's the idea of opposing religion because let's face it. There's nothing stronger than religion when it comes to manipulating people's minds whether it's the correct version of religion or the distorted one. They knew the power that religion had so they had to get rid of it.

I'm still think its kind of comical how the far leftists who claim to be the most rational and 'advanced' have found their bearing in the opposition of religion. I mean, what exactly are they gaining from ousting religion?

Is it political power? then how did they reach the premise that opposing religion might suffice for starters?

Just go with the flow.

I say we include the inclusives and exclude the exclusives...as you said

Also, as someone else has said, "tolerating" people is very demeaning. Why does a person need to be tolerated just because their sex life is different from yours or pray to a God you don't?

All in all,

I am in no way an expert in religion but I know one thing: Jesus spoke of love for our fellow brothers and sisters. And oppresing people because of their sexual orientation, which is none of my business, just feels wrong. I see no decadence in allowing people to live the way they want when they aren't causing harm to you or me.

Religious people live up to and practice the teachings they say they follow? NO WAY

That´s exactly the grotesque part, you are douchebag and a prick every moment of the day, then pray to the sky dude asking for forgiveness just to become a douchebag and a prick a second later after your prayers.

@gwynnblade: He is assuming that the US is a christian nation. The 1st amendment clearly states that the US is not a christian nation. Is the law and constitution of the US founded on christian ideas? Yes but those christian ideas predate christianity. The core ideals of christianity can be found in buddhism and various pagan philosophies and religions that predate even judaism.

The other problem with arguing that the US is in trouble for abandoning biblical law is that we have ignored other biblical laws since our founding. It's never been legal to kill your children for disobedience or if someone works on the sabbath. When was the last time an adulterer was stoned in the town square? We've been eating shellfish and carving statues before we were even a nation and if we stopped coveting our neighbor's goods our economy would collapse. Our entire political system would fall apart if politicians stopped bearing false witness and ask the Native Americans how we feel about turning the other cheek or the golden rule in general. In fact if the early colonists and later American settlers expanding westward had adhered to biblical teachings we would never had been a nation at all.

What about the elephant in the room, slavery. Slavery is clearly condoned and encouraged in the bible. Since abolishing slavery at the cost of a lot of blood and death the US has only gotten stronger. Our country also did not collapse when we decided to stop treating women as the property of their fathers and husbands and allowed them to vote. Our country has gotten stronger when we include more people and stop using religion as an excuse the exclude and the argument that our country is founded on biblical law is undermined when we obviously pick and choose which of those laws we follow. I agree with the OP that nations get stronger when they are unified but disagree that religion is the way to unify a country.

Marriage plays a pivotal role in a Christian society. Homosexuality sucks the meaning out of 'marriage'. Their sexual orientation has got to do something with Christian beliefs. But I'll leave it up to the Christians.

Almost no one in this thread understood the OP. No surprises, this place is full of mentally challenged people.

Finally, a credible answer.

I wouldnt be pointing that finger if I were you . . .

Please enlighten us with your knowledge in the definition of "marriage".

I left it up to Christians on this site, apparently, all of them left when GS changed its logo.(pfft. chickens)

This thread is a lost cause now.

You didn´t answer to my request, please enlighten us with that so important definition of marriage you talk so much about.

I read a Christian guy's post (he's an orthodox Christian), let's see what definition you derive of 'marriage' from this:

In an age where having sex before marriage and going through a bunch of partners over the course of your life becomes commonplace, marriage becomes something people do to settle down, and it becomes a sacrifice with no reward in it for the man. This 'liberation' of women suddenly meant that marriage and sex had an inverse connection to what they had historically. You're more likely to be having sex outside of a marriage than in one!

Two changes that followed on, (or coincided with) from this and strike me as particularly destructive were the introduction of no-fault divorce and alimony. NFD was introduced as a way of saving women from domestic violence, and alimony - I have no idea how that even came into existence. Regardless, these two changes flipped the power dynamic of marriage from being man-led to woman-led, as they combine to form a Sword of Damocles: a woman can leave a marriage at any time and will be entitled to half of a man's possessions, just like that. This creates an environment where a man is supposed to lead a woman, yet has no legal authority or power to do so.

Then, because divorced single mothers were becoming a more common voting demographic, they have been given more and more rights by the state, have become more socially accepted, and are being given more and more (child) support. Being a married couple has become less of an advantage, and I suspect the trend will only continue in its current feedback-loop.

I don't think one random guy's post on marriage - who happens to be christian - defines the christian beliefs on marriage. The idea of marriage being "man-lead" is archaic. Most christian marriages are about a union of a man and woman on equal terms. The woman is not the man's property and they enter that union as joint partners, not as servant and master.

As for a woman leaving a marriage and being entitled to "half a man's possessions" that depends on the income and assets of each person. A man could just as equally take half the woman's possessions if she is the bread winner. The idea of a man having "legal authority and power" to a lead a woman sounds pretty much like a form of slavery. This person seems to suggest that divorce is purely because of a woman's role and denies any responsibility to the male. Divorces are more common because of many factors. Years ago, it was very difficult for a person to get a divorce. So a woman could often be stuck in an abusive relationship with no way out. The current laws are not perfect, but they're better than what existed before. Neither person should be forced to stay in an unwilling partnership.

@sonicare: beat me to it and much better worded than what I was going to reply.

Not that I disagree with you here, but I need some proof from the Bible that supports yours or his claim.

It definitely is political power. It doesn't suffice though really. They've been having similar fights on different fronts as well. The one that is obvious to the eye however is this clash that they're having with religion. The reason being that religion used to be the prominent thing just a few years ago but now is slowly losing its domain.

I think there may be a cyclical element. As a country gets more prosperous people become more concerned with the "things of the world" and their religious fervor fades, and then eventually the country declines. To me it looks like the U.S. is losing a lot of its geopolitical influence right now, and from what I understand Russia is undergoing a religious revival and is growing in its world influence.

As far as your point about "gay tolerance" I don't think "tolerance" necessarily is a result of decadence and prosperity, I think to some extent the AIDS epidemic of a few decades ago may have been a big catalyst towards gay marriage (in that it encouraged gays to be more monogamous and less promiscuous). I do however think the assertion of gay marriage as being a fundamental human right is derived from the prosperity and "decadence" of the West, I don't think people in countries where basic human rights are routinely violated (for example where the government imprisons, tortures or kills people for criticizing it) would talk of a marriage license for two people of the same-sex being a human right.

does it? Which 7?

You are asking if decline follows prosperity and you assert that prominence is that prosperity. This seems like looking for an answer before asking the question (What is the best society?).

Copy-pasta. This isn't the list I had in mind but close enough, I'm in and out ATM so busy.

1. I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt. You shall have no other gods before me.

The U.S. Constitution does not mention God, Creator, Jesus, or Christianity anywhere. Nor does Constitutional law require U.S. citizens to worship a God. Nor does it prevent anyone from worshiping other gods or no god at all.

2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain:

This commandment, to never take the name of God in vain, appears nowhere in the Constitution. We citizens can swear and curse any god, in any way we wish.

3. Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you

Not only can American citizens not keep the Sabbath, but we can ignore it entirely without out violating the Constitution.

4. Honor your father and mother...

Sorry, but the Constitution does not require anyone to honor fathers and mothers. We can even despise and hate our parents all we want (just as the alleged Jesus taught his disciples in Luke 14:26), without violating Constitutional law.

5. You shall not kill (murder).

At first this may seem Constitutional but it cannot possibly agree with it for the very reason that the Constitution allows the declaration of war, which of course kills and murders many innocent human beings. Murdering innocent human beings doesn't even seem to bother many Christians!

6. You shall not commit adultery.

The Constitution says nothing about adultery. A man or woman can have sex with as many married people as they like without violating the Constitution.

7. You shall not steal.

Although states have laws against stealing that remain consistent with the Constitution, the Federal government, by using "eminent domain," can rob and steal from its citizens all it wants (taking private property for "public use," for example), without violating the Constitution. Close but no cigar.

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Although one cannot lie in a court of law, while under oath, it says nothing about lying outside the court unless it constitutes slander. American citizens and sitting Presidents lie all the time without violating the Constitution. Moreover the Constitution specifically allows spying and countersurveillance, which guarantees lying to others. Close in some narrow cases, but not at all in most.

9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife..."

The U.S. Constitution says nothing against not coveting wives. You can desire your neighbor's wife all you want. Sorry.

10. You shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.

The Constitution does not prevent you from desiring anything in, on, or around your neighbor's house, or any other house or thing for that matter.

War is always built around one parties greed, and nothing more. When they mention "religious wars", it's usually a twisted form of that religion used as a weapon.

Here are my two pennies worth! - as a non religious person I do not think that the advent of gay marriage will bring about the end of life as we know it. Indeed, from nature, there are many animals that display homosexual behavior (foxes, penguins, dolphin, domestic cattle) and their populations seem to be doing fine (plus it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view). Gay tolerance is an interesting point as most of the major global religions (and Bill and Ted) teach the golden rule of reciprocity (ie 'love thy neighbor'). As for religion bringing about the fall of nations, I am not sure I agree with that either - there are many countries around the world (China, Sweden, Czech Republic, UK) whose populations are largely irreligious and they are doing fine as far as I can see. Again, only my opinion but for me many religions are leading to a downfall (certain wars/ internal conflicts aside) as many base a belief on a 'god' is all good and all powerful. If this is the case then (logically) god either allows evil to flourish (meaning god isn't all good) or god fights against evil (meaning god isn't all powerful) - but thats a little OT...

Could you elaborate on that?

@GazaAli I am not an expert and dont want to be drawn into the nature/ nurture argument, but as I understand it...

Whilst it seems to make no sense from a Darwinian view point, there are certain behavioral/ evolutionary advantages. For example in studies of identical twins it has been seen that certain things (height, musical ability) are the same. These studies have also shown the same is true for predicting sexual orientation so there must be a genetic component. This is not to say that there is a homosexual gene as such but maybe this gene in a certain environment. It also makes sense that it would be inherited as homosexuals would theoretically look after nephews and nieces, boosting their survival chance (who share some of their genes) and so the gene is passed on that way. Another theory suggests that 'dominant' adults with harems 'left' their children in charge of less 'aggressive' family adults as they went off to hunt making its origin this way a possibility. I dont have links to these studies but aint science great!

No offense, but this is malarkey. Science is great when it's actual science, not when it's the excrement of ideological penchants.

No offense taken, like I said, not an expert, just the information I have heard on the matter from studies at Northwestern University, Lethbridge U, U of Padova... whether it is sound science, I do not know, just that it seems to make sense to me.