Religion: A Uniter or a Divider?

Most of the world's religions teach things like peace and loving your neighbor.

But for the past 2000 years, many of the bloodiest wars involved religion. Even now, there are religious conflicts in many places of the world.

Why is this the case?

 

2000 years? Not 3000 or 2100 or 1900? An interesting assertion, to say the least.

I seem to recall that one of the world's major religions was founded 2000 years ago. Is someone trying to pick out one religion and slander it?


Why do wars involve religion? Not because of any inherent evil in religion, but in man: we are imperfect and we humans tend to look for any excuse we can find to justify immoral behavior.

In the past two centuries, quite a bit of blood has been shed in an attempt to rid humanity of religion, too.

Wars also involve money -- I would argue more often involve money (and the wealth it represents) as the actual root cause.

And yet I don't see you posting a thread suggesting money's evil.


Your post is a pretense for badmouthing religion. That's fine (I suppose), but there are already plenty of threads already devoted to religion. I'm no moderator, but I for one don't think this particular topic necessitates another thread.

 

^^^

I see your point and I will restate my original statement to *throughout human history* as opposed to just 2000 years ago. (side point: 2000 makes a nice, round number as opposed to 1394 years ago) I hope it adds to the conversation.

From a Marxist viewpoint, I can see how money plays a large part in wars and revolutions as well.

Yet, money and wealth does not necessarily teach peace and loving your neighbor. But religion no doubt has some sort of role in wars.

 

If you're gonna pick an arbitrary number, I'd recommend 5,000 years, since that's about the edge of recorded history.


From a Marxist viewpoint, I can see how money plays a large part in wars and revolutions as well.

But only a very simplistic individual would suggest that money is inherently bad as a result. A simplistic individual, or a Marxist. But I repeat myself.


Yet, money and wealth does not necessarily teach peace and loving your neighbor. But religion no doubt has some sort of role in wars.

Yeah, but its role in wars is rarely about teaching peace, etc. And those rare occasions where "love thy neighbor" is invoked, it is possible that a nation can wage war against some tyrannical government to liberate its people and protect those in its shadow. And that brings us to the "just war" doctrine.

Agree with the doctrine or not, but there are those of us who believe that there are moral causes that can be fought in moral ways. War is not inherently contradictory to the belief in love, especially in a fallen world such as ours.

 

don't get me wrong, i don't think money in itself is bad. Rather, the love of money (or greed) brews a lot of corruption.

Nor would I think that Marx was against money. perhaps the pursuit of money and/or the disparity between the rich and the poor (the proverbial Haves and the Have-Nots) causes a lot of class conflicts.


P.S. I am a very simplistic individual

 

Why do wars involve religion? Not because of any inherent evil in religion, but in man: we are imperfect and we humans tend to look for any excuse we can find to justify immoral behavior.

I think that's a cop-out. Doesn't make religion a very effective tool does it? Of course, the issue here is religious institutions rather than religion itself (after all, the latter is just a concept)

In the past two centuries, quite a bit of blood has been shed in an attempt to rid humanity of religion, too.

I'd love to hear what wars you're referring to.

Wars also involve money -- I would argue more often involve money (and the wealth it represents) as the actual root cause.

You'd be wrong though. Wars are not fought over money, but over resources. Crucial difference.


Your post is a pretense for badmouthing religion. That's fine (I suppose), but there are already plenty of threads already devoted to religion. I'm no moderator, but I for one don't think this particular topic necessitates another thread.

Well maybe if you actually addressed the thread topic then you'd be more receptive. Instead of... say... having a knee-jerk reaction because it's your darling that's being called to the bench.


Anyway... a uniter or divider?

It's quite simple really, religion acts as a uniter for those believing in the same thing, but a divider between those believing in different things. It's not religion's fault per se, just the way humans are, we're tribal.

 

I think that's a cop-out. Doesn't make religion a very effective tool does it? Of course, the issue here is religious institutions rather than religion itself (after all, the latter is just a concept)

"Of course"? beajedi didn't refer to religious institutions. He referred to religions.



I'd love to hear what wars you're referring to.

Not wars, per se, but the attempts during the French Revolution and in the Soviet Union (and to a lesser degree, China) to purge the respective region of religion.


You'd be wrong though. Wars are not fought over money, but over resources. Crucial difference.

Ahem: "and the wealth it represents."


Well maybe if you actually addressed the thread topic then you'd be more receptive. Instead of... say... having a knee-jerk reaction because it's your darling that's being called to the bench.

I DID ADDRESS THE TOPIC. When I did so, you called it a cop-out.

Maybe if you weren't attempting to question and contradict every single sentence I wrote, you would have noticed.

 

ITs a divider becuase man has selfish wicked hearts. Most people that try to push religion usually don't have a complete understanding on what it really means.

dkt

 

"Of course"? beajedi didn't refer to religious institutions. He referred to religions.

what I say can be open to interpretation-- just as long as it adds to the conversation!

 

My problem wasn't his inferring "religious institutions" from what you wrote or expading the topic to include institutions.

My problem was his use of "of course," as if I was obviously wrong for limiting myself to religion.

 

Religion is a divider and uniter.

Religion can unite people through peace and understanding or being of the same religion as the other person.

Religion can divide by causing people to hate other religions because they believe they are better.
ie. Christians killing Muslims, Muslims killing Christians.

 

The answer to this question (Uniter v Divider) depends heavily on the religion. There are many world religions that unite within themselves (by fact of association alone) without dividing among the rest of the world populus.

There are others, however, who believe that only thebir way is correct, and seek to convert or destroy those who do not follow their faith.

And there are still other religions who teach love for all, yet are divisive in action. These are usually cases not of a religion being divisive, but of a people misusing their religion.

 

"Religion: A Uniter or a Divider?"

Depends on the Religion.

 

And on the people practicing the religion.

 

If you look closely, like I have done, all the major religions of the world (Christianity, Islam, Judhaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) ARE the same religion, with the SAME God, and have the same universal message.

I'll leave you all to figure out what the universal message is, to see if you are true believer of your religion, or not.

 

When I was a kid, there was this Christian family who lived next door. When I was a child, I hung out with their youngest son and daughter a lot, they were my good friends. THey went to Christian schools and lived differently than I did, and were devout Catholics. But they were good people, good neighbors, and even though they were all religous, I remember the son telling the sister to not dwell on Christianity beliefs (all non Christians go to hell) because his mother had taught him to respect other people's religion.

I was like five, but I'll always remember that.

 

If you look closely, like I have done, all the major religions of the world (Christianity, Islam, Judhaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) ARE the same religion, with the SAME God, and have the same universal message.

I'll leave you all to figure out what the universal message is, to see if you are true believer of your religion, or not.

No. You have not understood the message of christianity if you believe that. Unless you are also willing to argue "A" can be both "A" and "not-A."

 

ElfStar: Then I guess you don't understand Jesus' message. Which is the same as Mohammed's, Buddha's, etc. Open your eyes, open your mind, they all give us the same message. The EXACT same. A=A

 

ANYTHING whereby one group thinks they are "right" and others are "wrong" is a divider. Religion thus is an obvious example.

 

It's too bad they don't have the brains to realize all religions preach the same message.
All the major religions are right.

 

I dunno, Jesus Himself said, "I have not come to bring peace, but to bring war."

He didn't mean militarily, IMO, but as he says, "To set Father against son, brother against brother."

My take on that is He knew some would believe and some wouldn't, and that would divide nations, towns, and families.

 

ElfStar: Then I guess you don't understand Jesus' message. Which is the same as Mohammed's, Buddha's, etc. Open your eyes, open your mind, they all give us the same message. The EXACT same. A=A

Did Mohammad teach that Jesus was the only way to God? Did Buddha teach that Jesus was the only way to God?

 

Did jesus teach the only way to god was through him? or was this added later by the institution?

 

What "institution" are you talking about? And if you're going to make that argument, then anybody can claim whatever they want about Christ. It is a pointless argument.

 

The institition being the church. The teachings of chirst are not first hand accounts so yes people can conjure up many a thing