But these days, cult are more like satanism, nazi, and KKK.........
National Socialism is not a cult. It was a political movement (Himmler's SS could, I guess, be considered a cult, but beyond that, people were either Catholic or Protestant, with few atheists and misc. religions mixed along the way.)
Satanism is a cult, I'll grant you that, because they have a completely separate set of actual religious beliefs as popularized by Anton LaVey and his Church of Satan, etc. The KKK, however loathsome they may be, are not a cult--they are Protestant Christians. What makes them the KKK is their social/political views, but religion-wise, the majority of them identify as Christians. I'm not even going to attempt to rationalize the KKK, though.
Krshna28 said:
A person who commits murder for ones own greed cannot never be religious.........despite what they say........
Perhaps not by your own interpretation of what it means to be religious, but by objective standards, they certainly can be. They can believe in a god/gods, and still do the stuff they do, if they believe they are doing it for some sort of "greater" purpose--but then we get into the realm of grandiose delusions/mental illness, etc. Some politicians are greedy leeches who only pay lip service to religion to appease the masses....but there are others who genuinely with all their hearts believe that what they are doing is good, even "god's will."
Krshna28 said:
These days we have more murder and child abuse then there as ever been.........
These days, we have more people and better weapons than ever, therefore--it is only natural that the rate would rise. Moreover, in previous centuries, the deaths of people such as the poor, orphans, prostitutes, etc. were sometimes not even recorded, so it is difficult to truly grasp what the death rates were. That's why more often than not, it would be a pauper or a prostitute who found him/herself the victim of a murder--authorities were far less likely to investigate something like that than they would be the murder of an aristocrat or member of the bourgeoisie. Thus, it would seem to me as though nothing at all has changed, as far as motive is concerned. The only thing that's changed is efficiency.
As for child abuse...I would say the opposite is true. In this day and age, even so much as looking at your child "the wrong way" could get you in the slammer. In the good old days of long ago, it was not considered child abuse to hit one's child, in fact, it was generally seen as a positive thing (teaches discipline, etc.) It was common practice to pinch, hit, slap, or spank children, even teachers could do such things--imagine that nowadays! LAWSUIT! So, I would say, there was actually more child abuse back then than there is today.
In regards to child sexual abuse, the only reason why it appears as though there is more of that today is because our attitudes towards sex have changed--that is, we discuss sexual matters, even sexual deviances like pedophilia and bestiality, openly now. Back in the 19th century and prior, especially with prim and proper Victorians, any talk about sex (socially appropriate sex) would be severely looked down on--imagine raising allegations of sexual abuse--a young child speaking of such things! It would be madness. Thus, since things of this sort were seldom discussed, the levels appear to be lower than they are today. The level of authority an adult had over a child was also considerably higher back then--nowadays we have child protection services, etc. to back up the child. Back then, the child had basically no one who would believe him, especially if the child happened to be female (sexual inequality, anyone?)
Krshna28 said:
And the middle ages only refer to western europe..........the rest of the World at that time was in a better shape........
It is true that the Middle Ages only refer to Europe, however, these were notably a dark time for Europe, brought on by the misuse of religion by popes of various sorts to get people's money and amass political power.
However, the peaceful states of most of the world can be attributed to its isolation rather than whatever religious beliefs they hold--they still hold the same religious beliefs today, and some of the areas which prospered during Europe's dark ages are in the most turmoil modernly. Therefore, it would seem to me as though religion has nothing to do with the prosperity or lack thereof of these areas, and their state as being largely undisturbed is to be accountable. Moreover, it is important to note that the influence of organized religion (i.e. Popes, etc.) during pre-Renaissance times wasn't as strong in the Middle East or Asia as it was in Europe. They didn't suffer from as many diseases as the Europeans, due to cultural habits (bathing in the Middle East protected them from much of the bacterial illnesses which would devastate Europe at the time.) Therefore, they were free to prosper due to relative isolation, superior hygiene, wider territory (crowding was a huge problem in Europe, and that's how diseases spread.)
It's no coincidence that these areas stagnated after Europeans took control of them.
Krshna28 said:
but soooo much science has come from religion...........look up ancient Hindu scientists..........they founded astronomy, Pythagoras Theorem (before Pythagoras discovered it), even Charles Darwin's Theory of evolution was known thousands of years before Darwin discovered it..............and there is so much more they discovered.......
And Hindu's also figured out that the World is round and the universe does not revolve around Earth..........that's part of our religion.........
It would be interesting to see all of that. I will have to look it up later.
Krshna28 said:
When Christianity was founded, there were no leaders and no pope............that came when somebody assumed that they were the closest thing to God and that they are the only authority when it comes to God.............again nothing to do with the religion.........just corrupt people..............
I don't believe in religious leaders..............and I never will..........
It seems, in that regard, you and I are more in agreement than not. I never said there was anything wrong with religion per se, in and of itself, although I do not ascribe to any particular faith. What seems to be amiss, in my observations, is the way religious leaders manipulate text to suit their own agendas, and the way some followers attempt to violate other people's freedom by continuously attempting to share their "message" when it's not wanted. That's it.