= new reply since forum marked as read
1) To control the masses with fear.
2) To explain that which cannot be explained to simple people.
- /fixed
...I have a problem with using a broad brush to try and explain religion. It never works and one always ends up closing as many ears as one opens. The concept of ''religion'' encompasses too much to be defined so arbitrarily.
I would agree that conceptually most religions use FEAR as the basis for its existence or is the main hold it has upon its adherents.
In particular the TRIPLE-THREAT middle-eastern religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam would all be classed as FEAR-BASED RELIGIONS in my opinion.
Many however, would just as easily try to lump philosophies such as Buddhism, Maya, Hopi, Tao and many similar life/reality perspectives into the same category as religion -- and they would utterly wrong.
Likewise, I have a problem with lay persons who've not taken the time to thoroughly examine religions making statements about it, particularly if they fail to admit that they aren't conversant nor expert with the texts they're criticizing. Likewise I have a similar problem with theologians making pronouncements about religion because they're biased.
For example, many things that are promoted by so-called Christians are thoroughly against its teachings. Christianity is contrary to Capitalism. Christianity is contrary to making judgments about others and how they live their lives. Christianity is contrary to war. Christianity is contrary to poverty. And yet their are examples in the various sects of the abovementioned ''middle-eastern fear religions'' that demonstrate the exact opposite behavior by their so-called believers.
Why? Because they're beliefs and that's how beliefs work.
Some might even argue that Mike's speech could be viewed as terroristic, as it besmirches the beliefs of others by calling them terroristic.
- I suppose in the end what I'm saying is, ''Everyone should make up their own mind.''
