Religion is Child Abuse

[Oleg Bach]

No it's not. General Motors was invented to fill a demand for transportation, but the motivation behind its invention was to create wealth for its owners. Relgion was invented to fill a demand for existential comfort, but the motivation behind its invention was to create wealth and power for its clerics.

But I suppose it's just my opinion that the owners of GM wanted to generate wealth. Perhaps their motivation was to create a means to transport mankind to paradise—who am I to say? But based on my rational observation of human nature, I feel comfortable assuming their interest was in making a buck.

I believe you have that wrong - "transport manking to paradise" - I could have sworn the great teacher Christ said that "the kingdom of heaven (paradise) is at hand" and also that "there are violent men that try to take heaven (paradise) by force"...sounds like he was saying that we are in paradise already and this is heaven...but delluded and confused us suggest that this is not a heaven...also - I really don't recall Jesus saying that - I have come to create a religion or an institution or a system of control through false hope.

Christianity our primary religion - was actually a very pragmatic system of belief. "I am the truth the light and the way" - TRUTH ... Which I would most certainly translate to the word REALITY..It was the worship and adherence to reality in order to maximize the human quality of life and avoid problems caused by deception and common bad behaviour based in human animalistic nature that is to be overcome. So it was man who made religion and God had nothing to do with it..now getting back to the issue of calling it child abuse to teach or inform a child that there is or may be an infinite consciousness that guilds the universe - I would say that crazed and aggressive atheists who have never had an original thought are more of a danger to children. To instil hopelessness or to attempt to teach a child that mankind can solve mankinds problems is folly and is the real child abuse.

It is better to believe in something and the principles and doctrines contained in that something - then to believe in secularism and the great nothing...the best way I can put it is what a wise old lawyer once said to me regarding God. We were discussing the charter - and the preamble to the document..eg - Rule of law and and the supremeacy of God - to para phrase...what he said was useful..He said "it's better that the concept of God exist in a court room then not..because it forces the participants into a state of higher mindedness..meaning that all were dirt and equal under God - much like "in God we trust" on American money - it was as what I mentioned a safety mechanizm - if we do not put God above all in a lawful manner - THEN some human will play god and bring us harm...so ultimately secularism and atheism is a believe system and a relgion and one that those who embrace once empowered - will surely play God...and not just abuse children but all of us.

[BubberMiley]

It is better to believe in something and the principles and doctrines contained in that something - then to believe in secularism and the great nothing...

On the contrary, I think it has been well proven that secular humanists are capable of behaving in an equally moral fashion to religious people—often even more so. And perhaps it's more important to act morally for its own sake than to do so in anticipation of reward from the creator.

Edited February 23, 2008 by BubberMiley

[Oleg Bach]

On the contrary, I think it has been well proven that secular humanists are capable of behaving in an equally moral fashion to religious people—often even more so. And perhaps it's more important to act morally for its own sake than to do so in anticipation of reward from the creator.

I understand that fully...when in deep debate with atheists - I was stunned that most adhered to what Christianity origninally was prior to it becoming a statish system of control. The early movement was revolutionary and was immediately hyjacked by the state of Rome etc. What I found was that humanist and common atheists were actually more Christian than so-called mainstream and fundamentalist. Most of these so called non-believers were very naturally moral in deed! - also - the "creator" does not expect anything from us..and only a fool waits in anticipation - this would be akin to a microbe trying to get the attention of you or I...the God concept has been humanized and religious fanatics in some cases say they hear God's voice - which is absurd - God does not have a voice - why would he need one? The other preversion is contained in radical Islam which is an insult to God.

Those that say kill in the name of God supposedly assisting God are actually saying that the almight has no might and needs help - I am off track here but I am trying to show you that Christianity was originally a movement based in logic and truth - Much like the Platonic movement. God really does not give a damn and is a cold and distant partner and is NOT human...but a covenant with this force is important because it supplies us with the other half of our physical and spritual selves - the idea is contractual and is by design meant to maximize our power and make up half God and half human - or demi-gods - or Christ like - half human half spirit. What has taken place in the mainstream Christian church can only be called anti-Christism - for they do exactly the opposite of what the great rabonni taught..only fools and crazy people hear the voice of God..or anticipate gifts for the asking - if you hear God - say like Mr. Bush - I suggest you see a doctor immediately - God is goodness and not a religion..atheist are not bad people...most Islamics - Christians and Jews are part of a system that is evil - most are shocked by my statement - but that is the way I see it.

[Guest American Woman]

On the contrary, I think it has been well proven that secular humanists are capable of behaving in an equally moral fashion to religious people—often even more so. And perhaps it's more important to act morally for its own sake than to do so in anticipation of reward from the creator.

While secular humanists do behave in an equally moral fashion, I'd like proof of the "often more so." That's a pretty strong statement, so I'm assuming you can back it up.

As for it being more important to act morally for it's own sake than to do so in anticipation of a reward from the creator, I'd also like proof that religious people only act morally because of the so called "reward" that you refer to. I'd like some proof that they don't act morally because they think it's the right way to act just as you claim secular humanists do. Because here's the thing: if you beat your child/neice/neighbor, you will be arrested, but I don't believe that the only reason you don't beat your child et al is because you'd be arrested. By the same token, I don't believe the only reason the religious behave morally is because they want to be rewarded in the afterlife. In both instances I credit the people's actions to their morals; to doing what they know is morally right in spite of the consequences involved were they to behave otherwise.

So unless you can provide proof of your statements, again, they are nothing more than your opinion; an opinion you appear to be as grounded in as the fundamentally religious are. You are just as judgemental when you say religion is abusive, when you say the religious only behave morally for a reward in the afterlife, when you say those who don't believe "often" behave in a morally superior fashion than those who do believe.

[Oleg Bach]

While secular humanists do behave in an equally moral fashion, I'd like proof of the "often more so." That's a pretty strong statement, so I'm assuming you can back it up.

As for it being more important to act morally for it's own sake than to do so in anticipation of a reward from the creator, I'd also like proof that religious people only act morally because of the so called "reward" that you refer to. I'd like some proof that they don't act morally because they think it's the right way to act just as you claim secular humanists do. Because here's the thing: if you beat your child/neice/neighbor, you will be arrested, but I don't believe that the only reason you don't beat your child et al is because you'd be arrested. By the same token, I don't believe the only reason the religious behave morally is because they want to be rewarded in the afterlife. In both instances I credit the people's actions to their morals; to doing what they know is morally right in spite of the consequences involved were they to behave otherwise.

So unless you can provide proof of your statements, again, they are nothing more than your opinion; an opinion you appear to be as grounded in as the fundamentally religious are. You are just as judgemental when you say religion is abusive, when you say the religious only behave morally for a reward in the afterlife, when you say those who don't believe "often" behave in a morally superior fashion than those who do believe.

Very good points. - Repeadly as a person who has given religion a great deal of thought and some study..it appears to me at the end of the road that religion has nothing to do with what God is. You are correct when you say that not all believers do things in anticipation of a reward - where as secularist always do things in anticipation of a reward - It's called a paycheck..as a friend said - "They will do anything and say anything for a paycheck" _ that's the way of the world I suppose. Preturbs me greatly when non-believers blame God - or the belief in God for all the worlds problems and wars..it was humanity that caused the problems - God had nothing to do with it - nor did the so-called devil. Atheist are of limited intelligence - atheism is a belief system and it is a religion..I had an atheist fly across the dinner table and grab me by the throat for uttering a statement concerning God - I would say that fanatical and aggressive behaviour is not just reserved for the religious.

[Shady]

I certainly believe that raising children in an Islamic environment can be abusive. Especially when they're sent out to blow themselves up in the name of Allah. However, most religion is not child abuse.

Now, if we want to talk about practices being abusive to children, I'd bring up gay adoption as the biggest culprit. That to me is real child abuse. Putting politics above the best interests of children is disgusting. :angry:

[Oleg Bach]

I certainly believe that raising children in an Islamic environment can be abusive. Especially when they're sent out to blow themselves up in the name of Allah. However, most religion is not child abuse.

Now, if we want to talk about practices being abusive to children, I'd bring up gay adoption as the biggest culprit. That to me is real child abuse. Putting politics above the best interests of children is disgusting. :angry:

On the contray..when my daughter was deathly ill it was a Muslim boy who brought her water - I met the father who was caring for his dying wife in hospital. This family would never think of blowing anything up...and only fools do things in the name of Allah - like I said - stupid people are in every religion - and stupidity and evil are brother and sister. To murder in the name of God makes no logical sense. God has been birthing and naturally murdering billions of people for eons - to insinuate that he needs help is saying that God has no power to do things on his own - this is logic..intelligent Christians, Jews and Muslims are not the problem..it is the ignorant and stupified who perhaps are errors of nature and do not have the capacity to think are the monsters....I repeat - evil and stupidy are the same entity. Force interbreeding within the Jewish faith is child abuse because it creates weak offspring...Jehovah's Witnesses insist that we are hopeless and are not to depend on our God given intellect...Muslims that hate - would hate you no matter what religion they were...to be a hater is a family trait - and may even be genetic.

[Drea]

So in other words, you can't back up your accusations. :angry:

click the link! click the link! click the link! click the link!

I am trying to stop the goddamn arguing.

I am reaching out in order to do so... are you able to do the same?

[Oleg Bach]

click the link! click the link! click the link! click the link!

I am trying to stop the goddamn arguing.

I am reaching out in order to do so... are you able to do the same?

There is no argument. All the clicking and linking in the world will not solve a debate that is unending and has been going on for a thousand years...is there a God or not..no one can prove one way or the other...the discusion here should perhaps be - or the real question - Is brain washing your child with dellusion abuse - I say yes..it's a question of the quality and sophistication of the so-called religion...so far most religions have deterorated into the land of the looking glass....or put plainly - all have lost sight of the truth - teaching your kids the truth will cause them suffering but in the end will make them more empowered..to say that Christ's father yelled out the window to the scribes and towns folk - "I do not have sex with my hot young wife" is looney - Christianity was NOT based on virgin birth or water being wine...It was based on the truth - the miracle of birth and the miracle of water...

[Drea]

I certainly believe that raising children in an Islamic environment can be abusive. Especially when they're sent out to blow themselves up in the name of Allah. However, most religion is not child abuse.

Now, if we want to talk about practices being abusive to children, I'd bring up gay adoption as the biggest culprit. That to me is real child abuse. Putting politics above the best interests of children is disgusting. :angry:

I agree, it is much better for a child to be raised by foster care parents or an orphanage than in a household of two people of the same sex.

I cannot imagine anything more detrimental to a child's welfare than seeing two samesex people love one another.

It's incredible how some people can think that it would be a safe environment for children because gay people don't save sex for the bedroom after the kids are in bed! Oh no! They do it right there in the open on the living room couch during Oprah, or in the middle of dinner, one of them will throw the other on the table (right as the kid is eating his/her KD!) and go at it. They are shameless, utterly shameless!

They are sexcrazed maniacs who cannot control their lust -- unlike opposite sex partners who only have sex after the children are in bed, in silence, in the dark -- those gays are horrid, they ooze sex and as a result cannot hide it from chilren.

Because SEX is the worst thing humans do. It's worse than blowing people up, worse than street racing, worse than cop killing, worse than shooting everyone at your work or school. And seeing a penis, breasts or vulva will certainly turn good children into wanton killers/sex maniacs... Seriously, it's true!

Edited February 23, 2008 by Drea

[Oleg Bach]

I agree, it is much better for a child to be raised by foster care parents or an orphanage than in a household of two people of the same sex.

I cannot imagine anything more detrimental to a child's welfare than seeing two samesex people love one another.

It's incredible how some people can think that it would be a safe environment for children because gay people don't save sex for the bedroom after the kids are in bed! Oh no! They do it right there in the open on the living room couch during Oprah, or in the middle of dinner, one of them will throw the other on the table (right as the kid is eating his/her KD!) and go at it. They are shameless, utterly shameless!

They are sexcrazed maniacs who cannot control their lust -- unlike opposite sex partners who only have sex after the children are in bed, in silence, in the dark -- those gays are horrid, they ooze sex and as a result cannot hide it from chilren.

Because SEX is the worst thing humans do. It's worse than blowing people up, worse than street racing, worse than cop killing, worse than shooting everyone at your work or school. And seeing a penis, breasts or vulva will certainly turn good children into wanton killers/sex maniacs... Seriously, it's true!

Gay people don't have sex. This is a misnomer...sex means opposite - gays just have tons of selfish fun and create nothing...gayness is simply secular hedonism at it's best. I just hope that they don't leave a mess in the bathroom afterwords and teach the kids that human waste and sperm are both life giving and creating substances...hope I offended someone. The term same sex marriage should actually be no sex marriage...and for my interest...where do these non-breeders get the kids? - oh yah - they have lots of disposable income..and can get great lawyers who can steal them from poor people and "give them better homes and LOVE" - they should do as the femine men and masculine woman of old did - do their duty and have real sex and have their OWN kids - instead of stealing them from the stupid and disadvantaged - I am sure they do not adopt ugly kids - that would be like getting a non-fashionable pet..heaven forbid the kid does not match the sofa.

[Guest American Woman]

click the link! click the link! click the link! click the link!

I am trying to stop the goddamn arguing.

I am reaching out in order to do so... are you able to do the same?

I have no interest in your link! I have no interest in your link! I have no interest in your link! I have no interest in your link!

I'm not arguing with you. I'm asking for proof of the accusations that you made about me. Got that??

I'm not interested in "reaching out" to someone who made accusations then didn't have the decency to apologize or offer proof. I'm not interested in blowing off your accusations to look at your link. Instead of "reaching out" with some link, why not admit you were wrong or offer up the proof?

Until you are able to do that, I'm not interested in anything you have to say, nor am I interested in 'discussing' anything with you since my idea of an honest discussion requires that both particpants be honest. Is that clear enough for you?

Edited February 23, 2008 by American Woman

[Drea]

Oh, so masturbation is not sex?

Oral pleasure is not sex?

Using one's hands is not sex?

Tell that to your 15 year old daughter -- it's okay hon, you can give him a blowjob, it's not sex anyway...

The nonbreeders get their kids by holding their noses and either a.) using a real penis from a real man or b.) turkeybaster c.) adoption.

But of course, unwanted children are much better off raised in orphanages as I stated before -- raising children in institutions has been proven to be much better for them than raising them in a same gender household. This has been studied for the past 750 years. We have seen 10 generations now, who have been raised by gays and the proof is in those studies -- those who were raised by gays turned out badly. We know that kids do better when raised without individual interaction. They do better when treated like yesterday's garbage.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Drea

[Guest American Woman]

General Motors was invented to fill a demand for transportation, but the motivation behind its invention was to create wealth for its owners.

Of course it was. Unless it's a non-profit organization, any business is started for the purpose of making money. That's a given; a fact. It's not an opinion or a belief. When people start a business, it's with the intent of making money.

Relgion was invented to fill a demand for existential comfort, but the motivation behind its invention was to create wealth and power for its clerics.

That's your opinion. Unlike General Motors, religion isn't a company.

But I suppose it's just my opinion that the owners of GM wanted to generate wealth. Perhaps their motivation was to create a means to transport mankind to paradise—who am I to say? But based on my rational observation of human nature, I feel comfortable assuming their interest was in making a buck.

That conclusion isn't based on your observation of human nature. It's based on facts. We only have to look at General Motors' goals and what they tell their stock holders to know that their desire is to make money. You don't have to "observe human nature" to figure that out. Now if you can find similar proof that religion was started to create wealth and power for its clerics, I'd love to see it. And until you can do that, your belief is your opinion. And again, insisting that your opinion is fact makes you cut from the same cloth, etc. etc.

Edited February 23, 2008 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

Oh, so masturbation is not sex?

Oral pleasure is not sex?

Using one's hands is not sex?

Tell that to your 15 year old daughter -- it's okay hon, you can give him a blowjob, it's not sex anyway...

The nonbreeders get their kids by holding their noses and either a) using a real penis from a real man or turkeybaster c) adoption.

But of course, unwanted children are much better off raised in orphanages as I stated before -- raising children in institutions has been proven to be much better for them than raising them in a same gender household. This has been studied for the past 750 years. We have seen 10 generations now, who have been raised by gays and the proof is in those studies -- those who were raised by gays turned out badly. We know that kids do better when raised without individual interaction. They do better when treated like yesterday's garbage.

My daughter are 21 - the other is 22...and no - what you mention is not sex - look at the original meaning of marriage - the old Greek - uncannily it was the combination of egg and sperm - that's the core of breeding and the eccense of sex...masterbation is just a release of fluids for health reasons..blowjobs and the female version of it - is simply pure pleasure...the reason why orgasm feels so good is that at that moment you are being God like and creating humans - the pleasure is the drive...gays for the most part are devided into two groups - the eunuch that are created by nature that do not have a sex drive - these are the submissive ones - and the top guys are usually lazy hetro sexual sodomist who secretly are capable of sleeping with woman..but have bailed out of the system out of sheer spite and selfishness. sorry lady if I am not politically correct.

There is no such thing is un-wanted children - only those in want or need of money who are harrassed by a materialistic society and have the children pried from their hands by liberal do-gooders out of sheer spite..and hate for the poor and struggling....men and woman are powerful together and create empires...the promotion of gayness in those that are not naturally born that way - is some silly Trotskish modernization of population control - very few people are gay - most are conditioned - most were abused and converted by abusive jerks and supported by fools like you.

[Drea]

AW you are afraid to read the link -- understandable.

But really, it's a nice site with info on all religions, creeds, non creeds etc.

But I don't blame you for your fear -- it is not your fault as it's been indocrinated into your mind since childhood to fear what "goes against god".

Cheers!

edited to add: and God Bless!

Edited February 23, 2008 by Drea

[Drea]

...the reason why orgasm feels so good is that at that moment you are being God like and creating humans

Ah but there's the rub! Conception depends on the male having an orgasm it does not depend on the female's orgasm. While the male orgasm indicates a possible creation of life, the orgasm of the woman does not. So we women can rub and tickle all we want (penetration not required) and not worry about "wasting" god's precious seed.

[Guest American Woman]

AW you are afraid to read the link -- understandable.

But really, it's a nice site with info on all religions, creeds, non creeds etc.

But I don't blame you for your fear -- it is not your fault as it's been indocrinated into your mind since childhood to fear what "goes against god".

Cheers!

Once again you can't respond to what I actually said, leaving me to wonder if you're able to understand what's said. Instead you once again make something up, projecting feelings and beliefs on me that aren't true.

There's either something drastically wrong with your ability to comprehend what's said, or you are as dishonest as the day is long.

[BubberMiley]

While secular humanists do behave in an equally moral fashion, I'd like proof of the "often more so." That's a pretty strong statement, so I'm assuming you can back it up.

The numerous atrocities that have been done in the name of religion, from the Spanish Inquisition to suicide bombings in Iraq, are proof enough for me that religion often makes people act in inhumane ways. However, there has been the argument that, despite all these atrocities, religion is ultimately a positive force because it encourages moral behaviour. But I agree with you that many religious people are moral simply because it's the right thing to do, not because of their religious beliefs. Therefore, religion is unnecessary, and ultimately does more harm than good, when it comes to guiding moral behaviour.

That's your opinion. Unlike General Motors, religion isn't a company.

You haven't adequately explained your opinion that religion is different from a corporation, other than your statement about how it demands its customers to suspend their reason and have "faith" that what it says is correct.

Now if you can find similar proof that religion was started to create wealth and power for its clerics, I'd love to see it. And until you can do that, your belief is your opinion.

"Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,833509,00.html

And again, insisting that your opinion is fact makes you cut from the same cloth, etc. etc

Again, for the third time, why are you not cut from the same cloth as fundamentalists if you have the opinion, and believe it to be fact, that sacrificing virgins to the Sun-god is not the creator's will?

[Drea]

When you refuse to read a link to a relatively unbiased (nothing is completely unbiased) site, I can only conclude that you fear some type of retritbution for doing so.

Curiosity would've gotten the better of me and I would've read it...

Religiousness by it's nature, tries to squelch curiosity, so I understand how you, raised under the thumb of religion, would be reluctant.

[Guest American Woman]

When you refuse to read a link to a relatively unbiased (nothing is completely unbiased) site, I can only conclude that you fear some type of retritbution for doing so.

Curiosity would've gotten the better of me and I would've read it...

Religiousness by it's nature, tries to squelch curiosity, so I understand how you, raised under the thumb of religion, would be reluctant.

Link

Link

[Drea]

I will try to answer.... please rephrase the question(s) and I promise I will have an answer for you.

Those posts you linked to don't really have a "question" and as far as I can tell you have not asked me a direct question so I am wondering what on earth you are talking about...

Sorry.

[Guest American Woman]

The numerous atrocities that have been done in the name of religion, from the Spanish Inquisition to suicide bombings in Iraq, are proof enough for me that religion often makes people act in inhumane ways. However, there has been the argument that, despite all these atrocities, religion is ultimately a positive force because it encourages moral behaviour. But I agree with you that many religious people are moral simply because it's the right thing to do, not because of their religious beliefs. Therefore, religion is unnecessary, and ultimately does more harm than good, when it comes to guiding moral behaviour.

When atrocities are done in the "name of religion," that is man using religion for their own purposes. If they didn't have religion, do you think they wouldn't want the power they are seeking in the name of religion? Do you honestly believe it's religion that drives them? Look at Mao. He didn't need religion to seek power. That's just one example.

You haven't adequately explained your opinion that religion is different from a corporation, other than your statement about how it demands its customers to suspend their reason and have "faith" that what it says is correct.

As I said, a corporation will list "making money" as its goal. A corporation has stock holders. A corporation pays taxes because it's purpose is to make a profit.

"Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,833509,00.html

I didn't realize the Vatican "invented" religion. I also didn't realize the Vatican was representative of all religion. As such, I'd appreciate proof that it did invent religion and that it's synonymous with "religion." I'd also like to see a tax return so I know how much "profit" they've made.

Again, for the third time, why are you not cut from the same cloth as fundamentalists if you have the opinion, and believe it to be fact, that sacrificing virgins to the Sun-god is not the creator's will?

Could you please cite a source that says "sacrificing virgins to the Sun-god is the creator's will" is part of "religion?"

[Drea]

AW, I went back through the whole thread...

Looking for that elusive question.

Post #34

AW Wrote:

Since you feel free to mock people's religious beliefs here, that says all that needs to be said about you and how you feel about religious people. In other words, your attitude is the same as the woman's who you claim is shunning you. Perhaps she can see through your 'pretend tolerance.' At any rate, she's being honest about her feelings towards you while you are secretly mocking her. In other words, even though you don't feel free to say in person what you say, you are intolerant. That makes you a fundamentalist and you are no different from her.

This is your first response to my postings in this thread… you called me a fundamentalist. Heck you called the woman in my office a fundy and you don’t even know her. I said she was a lovely human being and you called her a fundy!

This was my response:

Post #38

I wrote:

and what do you know about my real life?

Religion rarely comes into our conversations.

Do you seriously think atheists are running around burning crosses, destroying effigies of Jesus? Usually we are just silent. The internet has finally given us a voice -- the only voice we have.

Living in the bible belt as I do.... I would lose clients if I didn't pretend to believe. So I pretend. *shrug*.

As Chrisitans they CANNOT have ESP (devil stuff!) so I have no worry about people reading my mind and finding out I am only pretending.

As far as that goes, it doesn’t seem to me that I was insulting you at all…

Then in post #39 you wrote:

As for your silence, you aren't silent here, so I know that you think you're right to the extent that you have no tolerance for anyone who doesn't believe as you do.

Good for you. Keep on pretending. But "pretending" doesn't make you any more tolerant than the fundementalist religious are, especially when you're only pretending to earn a buck.

To which I responded with: Post #40

I

don't mean to come across 'pissy' but I resent being called a fanatic. It's a ridiculous assumption that has no merit.

And I am not asking people to give up their beliefs -- I am asking only that govt and the public be spared from religious interference. Is that too much too ask.

*ideally I would LIKE for the whole world to give up the notion of religion and concentrate on the life we have rather than "the next one" which may or may not be real.

You then wrote:

In other words, the truth hurts. Anyone who feels the need to mock people's beliefs anywhere-- whether it's online or in person-- is not a tolerant person. You have no tolerance for any beliefs that contradict yours. You are, by your actions and beliefs, a "fanatic" as truly as a fundamentalist Christian et al is. How else would you describe someone who wants the whole world to believe as they do?

I repeat from an above post : And I am not asking people to give up their beliefs -- I am asking only that govt and the public be spared from religious interference. Is that too much too ask.

*ideally I would LIKE for the whole world to give up the notion of religion and concentrate on the life we have rather than "the next one" which may or may not be real.

So I waded through the first four pages.... for the rest you have to do the copying and pasting!

Now, do you have any direct questions? I would be happy to give you a direct answer to a direct question. So far the only question you have asked is "How else would you describe someone who wants the whole world to believe as they do?"

[BubberMiley]

When atrocities are done in the "name of religion," that is man using religion for their own purposes. If they didn't have religion, do you think they wouldn't want the power they are seeking in the name of religion? Do you honestly believe it's religion that drives them?

Yes, religion often drives the atrocities, but those who seek power in the name of religion are using religion as a tool to achieve it.

As I said, a corporation will list "making money" as its goal. A corporation has stock holders. A corporation pays taxes because it's purpose is to make a profit.

Yes, it's my opinion that most corporations are simply more upfront about their motivations.

I didn't realize the Vatican "invented" religion.

Its members invented the Catholic sect of the Christian religion.

I also didn't realize the Vatican was representative of all religion. As such, I'd appreciate proof that it did invent religion and that it's synonymous with "religion." I'd also like to see a tax return so I know how much "profit" they've made.

I didn't say it was representative of all religion. I used it as an example, but it is one of many.

Tax returns are unavailable because their power and influence has been so successfully utilized, they don't have to pay taxes. Financial documentation is hard to find because they feel it's necessary to operate a very private organization, but it's common knowledge they hold tremendous assets.

Could you please cite a source that says "sacrificing virgins to the Sun-god is the creator's will" is part of "religion?"

Trying to divert from answering the question by making me do a quick google search?

Okay, answer it now before trying to call me a fundamentalist again.

"Similarly, the Aztec religion also had priests called chachalmecas. One main job of the chachalmecas was to offer human sacrifices to the gods."

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/co...tec31011208.htm