There are so many different views regarding this issue,but I still cling on to the fact that it might be a certain sect, that has malafied intentions, and to fulfill those whims, they give personal motives the cover of religion.They bring that bad name and bad taste too.

A very good point and I do agree, It is in the eye of the person. I guess I was basing it all on my morality, but I do hope most of you agree with me when I say that "Satanism is bad"

__________________
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.

i think i would not agree with this. for me, all Religions are not good. It is because yes, some use animals for offerings and people as well. i just have not researched about it but i heard it from a friend.

Hi Mei,

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that you heard from a friend that religions use animals and/or people for offerings, or that you heard from a friend that all religions are not good?

Some religions do indeed use animals or people for offerings. Some others do not. Do you hold all religions as bad because some of them do this?

It seems odd to me that you would say that all religions are not good because of the actions of some of them. That is like saying that all of a certain ethnic group are bad because of the actions of a few of them (this leads to racism and bigotry). Perhaps we can say that all farmers are bad because some of them grow coca plants (to produce cocaine)?

I'm really interested in your point of view, but I just can't believe that I am reading your post correctly.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Well said Zteccc, you have a point.

The idea of religion is nice.

__________________

A good faith is often nicer.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

When it comes to good and bad, it's all about culture and perspective. I mean, I don't have a problem with bigamy, and pedophillia is also about perspective. In some countries with ridiculously short lifespans, a girl might be considered good-to-go once she has her first period.

Love the religion, hate the believers. That's all I can say now.

Much of what you said here is true. It is said that the biggest difficulty with anthropology is that it is impossible to view another culture without that view being affected by one's own culture. One may see that other culture as better, worse or equal, but nonetheless cannot distance oneself from one's own culture.

Religions are man made organizations that attempt to codify the rules that humans should follow to help alleviate the cultural questions that may arise. For example, Jesus is not documented as saying anything about the number of wives a man should have (or number of husband's a woman should have). Nonetheless, the Apostles and early church leaders made decisions on these topics because by doing so, it gave the early followers of the Christian religion(s) answers to questions where they saw many contradictory practices in their cultures. Certainly, the predominant cultures in the world agree that polygamy is not an acceptable practice, and certainly this agreement is founded in the tenets of the predominant religious practices at the time that the laws were made, but that isn't to equate those religious practices with the faith that spawned them (a faith is not the same as a religion).

Similarly, age of consent laws are a recent adaptation, not founded in religion, but rather in cultures. In some cultures today, a female is indeed able (and expected) to marry and have children as soon as they hit puberty. In most cultures, however, the idea, based in medical science, is that a pubescent girl's body is not yet mature enough to bear children and the child can therefore suffer lasting damage if forced to do so at a young age. Further, psychology asserts that a pubescent girl (or boy) is not ready mentally to deal with parenthood. Note that nothing is said about good or evil, but the cultures have accepted these explanations despite them not being founded in religion and equate practices violating these mores as "bad".

Therefore while you are correct that some things are about perspective; one must also accept that these perspectives come from many sources, not only religion.

I am thoroughly confused, however about your last sentence and I'd like for you to clarify it if you have time.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

What I meant on the last sentence was this.

Even though a religion can have brilliant ethics, means of loving your brother and honoring your father, those that take the finer details of the holy book and contort it to a blasphemous translation are the ones that cause the trouble.

Basically, religion isn't the problem, it's the followers.