If the following religious figures Abraham Buddha Krishna Jesus Muhammad were all born today in their respective regions (according to their respective religion's holy texts), and began carrying out the events of their live's (according to their respective religion's holy texts), which of these individuals would you tolerate? Which of these individuals would you not tolerate? Or, would you have the same "all religions are bad" tolerance for each?
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad Did any of the other dudes murder someone or order people to be killed? I know Jesus did not.
Abraham and Muhammad would be the two that would be most morally reprehensible. One because he would murder his own son because of voices and the other because he ****ed children and was a war Lord.
That's what is so baffling about "Christians'" support of so much killing. Jesus was killed by the death penalty, for Christ's sake. Jesus never killed anyone, so WWJD? Moses did kill people. Certainly the Judaic "eye for an eye" philosophy is idiotic. Abraham ready to murder his son? No thank you. Jesus would not be married and would not have a job. I really don't see your point, unless you are advocating unemployment. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." Christians do not kill. Killers and death penalty lovers are against Jesus.
They would all be ignored as crazy people or, if they became known, their supernatural feats would be easily disproved a la Uri Geller. I would pay them no mind.
I would say that what the founder of the religion has to say has very little relevance to the goodness or badness. The problem is this - Case 1: Person 1:"I, big muckty muck social leader, command you to do something horrible." Person 2:"Lulz. I don't want to do something horrible. Why do you think you could command me to do that." Case 2: Person 1: "I've got a special hotline to God. He commands me to tell you to do these horrible things." Person 2: "zOMG. That sounds, horrible, but its for the glory of God. Who am I to question God's will? Better get on raping, murdering, persicuting, suicide bombing, etc!!!" In other words, people seem to have a problem differentiating between what God's supposed interlocutor wants, and what God might actually want, and they like to scede that authority to whatever person sounds most sure of themselves. That person also usually happens to be the craziest. To quote a dirty smelly liberal, "The medium is the message." The actual content in every religion that I know of has been twisted a thousand different ways at different times in history. I guaran-damn-tee you that none of the 5 mentioned would recognize what is practiced in their name today. The problem with religions are that they are the greatest tool ever invented for manipulating people to act horribly.
All religion is bad is just not really an argument, it's just a deflection that does not address the current issue in any shape or form. Also the "Muh crusade" crowd, in the modern world there's only one religion that systematically oppresses people on a national scale, there's only one religion that have "radicals" all the world that are murdering in the name of said religion.
Would "tolerate" Buddha I guess. Today he'd be more a conscious self-loathing oddball with a lame cult of Twitter followers than some omnipresent all-knowing deity watching our every move. His influence would be more emo self harm than righteous holy wars Everyone else would be a nutjob. Jesus would have some sick powers, and yeah IF true he'd make a believer out of me. But since he'd be in PRESENT world form, he'd exist in normal physics laws of the universe which dispels his magic. I dont think anything even CLOSE to a "holy book" would be created today, or maybe itd be even more valid today, with how we can DOCUMENT and RECORD everything without 99% of the mythical fabrications.
I hear a lot of "they are all nut jobs" rhetoric, which doesn't exactly answer the question in the original post. This seems to be an extension of the "all religions are bad" rhetoric. And Buddha certainly had his faults: he abandoned his family. Literally snuck out during the middle of the night, never telling them where he was at. Kind of a dead-beat-dad thing to do. However, I'm not sure if the criticism of Buddha's is on par with someone who raided caravans or someone who wanted to murder his child.
Why does everyone in these threads always forget how many people America kills??? Then they say, "Oh, America's not a religion." Well guess what: some religions, such as Buddhism, do not presume that they know enough to go killing people with drones and helicopters. The real issue here is: the abrahamic religions all believe killing is justified. Judaism has the idiotic "eye for an eye" philosophy. Christians, Protestants in particular, think it is possible to know who deserves to be killed, thanks to their special hotline to God. And Muslims, you can supply your own generalizations there. In short, Jews, Christians, and Muslims can all use their religions to justify killing other people. And they do it every single day. So look in the mirror! It's ****ing pathetic how you're always acting p***y about other religions. Hypocrites! Religious or not, you--and I--sleep on killings performed everyday by the USA.
You just can't ignore the fact that in Islam, the most venerated figure other than Allah is a warlord who held sex slaves and is considered the best represtantion of Islam. You can't say that about Christianity. Jesus was a sexless hippie.
OK. I'll agree with you there. Jesus never supported killing anyone. Nevertheless, we westerners think we can actually know who deserves to die. For Christians, that is the sin of pride, for which many Christians will not be going to heaven.
And Jesus preached love and forgiveness and look how Christianity acted for essentially 1800 years. I don't see the point of this question when you look at the big picture.
And how did Christians act for most of their history despite Jesus's assumed non violence preachings? What do you know about the dark ages in Christiandom or the imperial times of 16th to 19th century?
