Religion What does religion bring that nothing else can bring ?

[Kinsao]

I think in some sense, religious people never completely grow up.

That's a view that has been echoed by a number of people on the forum. e.g.

I do believe that it is a form of not taking full responsiblity for life.

or

I find it a bit pathethic that some people can't feel or think one way without having people telling them to do so.

I think that these kinds of statements are highly offensive to the large number of people worldwide who follow organised religions. I also think those sorts of views demonstrate as much closed-mindedness and belief in their own superiority as the religions they are putting down. Why can't we all practice Iron Chef's tolerance? Personally I couldn't give a toss about other people's religious beliefs and practices and I don't usually waste my time thinking about them.

btw I'm not getting at anyone in particular - just making a general point. :jama:

 

[kumo]

Well...the most important thing you said Maciamo is that even non-religious people believe in God without religion. This is because God is our Creator and it's in our nature to believe in Him. Anything other than that is an unnatural and forced thing. One atheist said before believing in God that it was such an effort NOT to believe in God. It's because that idea is going against our very own nature.

How can you explain the huge differences between nearby coutries such as Britain (31-44% atheist) and Ireland (4-5% atheist), or Czech Republic (54-61% atheist) and Poland (3-6% atheist)? Do you think there are huge biological and neurological differences between these coutries? Following your "logic" one can only assume Swedish people (50-85% atheist) are undercover aliens or something like that, since "it's human nature to believe in god".

Theism can only be attributed to cultural, historical, economical and political factors, certainly not "natural" ones.

 

[Maciamo]

Well...the most important thing you said Maciamo is that even non-religious people believe in God without religion. This is because God is our Creator and it's in our nature to believe in Him.

Two huge mistakes in what you said here.

1) Most non-religious people are Atheist, not Deist. In fact, I hardly know any Deist. Almost all Deists are former Christians that have realised that religion was man-made and harmful, and have just decided to still believe in god, but abandon the religion. People who "convert" relatively early to Deism tend to become Atheist with time. I used to be Deist until about the age of 15, just because I grew up in a Christian society and force-taught Christian dogmas as a child.

2) Deists always believe in an impersonal god, so you cannot call it "Him". In fact, most Deists refer to a Supreme Being, not a "God" - because the word "god" is masculine and has the feminine "goddess", and is therefore more suitable for personal gods like those of Greco-Roman, Hindu or Judeo-Christian religions.

Now the question of why do we belong to religious organizations. Don't get me wrong, if you believe in God at all, and the Oneness of God, no matter what religion you are, that's the MOST important thing.

Wrong. To Deist people, religion is the least important thing, and that is why they threw it away.

Say you buy the newest technological appliance and you know what it is but you have no knowlege of how to work it because it's new to you...what is the first thing that you would do? Look for an instruction mannual right? OR you can decide to throw it away and ignore it and try to figure it out yourself, this is your own choice. BUT you will have a very hard time AND you might even break it.

I hardly ever read the manual of new "technological appliances". I can find how to set it up and use it pretty intuitively. Maybe that's the difference between you and me, and why you are stuck believing in fairy tales.

 

[Maciamo]

I think that these kinds of statements are highly offensive to the large number of people worldwide who follow organised religions.

Why ? They can still decide to give it up and grow up. :lol:

I personally find is very offensive that some people should try to convince others that their religion is right when a bit of thinking can disprove it. If I tell someone that the earth is round and they find it offensive because they believe it is flat, well that's their problem. It remains a fact that it is round. And I would be irritated if I saw such people going around trying to convince other people that the earth is flat because it's written in their book. Now you understand why I cannot be tolerant of lies proselytised by organised religions. People are free to believe what they want, but they can't to to convince people of non-factual or irrational beliefs - especially if that religious organisation can profit from it.

 

[Mycernius]

Well...the most important thing you said Maciamo is that even non-religious people believe in God without religion.

Actually he talked about deist and panthesists who believe in a higher diety, but not God as you seem to think so. Note Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. Not at all, in any way, whatsoever

Edit: Maciamo posted whilst I was writing this. Must type quicker than I do

This is because God is our Creator and it's in our nature to believe in Him. Anything other than that is an unnatural and forced thing. One atheist said before believing in God that it was such an effort NOT to believe in God. It's because that idea is going against our very own nature.

It is not in human nature to believe in God. It is organised religion that instills at such an early age to believe in God. Children whose parents are atheists do not believe in God. In fact they are very indifferent to the fact. No god is natural to them.

Say you buy the newest technological appliance and you know what it is but you have no knowlege of how to work it because it's new to you...what is the first thing that you would do? Look for an instruction mannual right? OR you can decide to throw it away and ignore it and try to figure it out yourself, this is your own choice. BUT you will have a very hard time AND you might even break it.

This is the same thing for human beings. God sent down instructions on how to BEST take care of everything about our life. So belonging to a religious organization is following that set of instruction manuals. BUT people through time have corrupted those instructions, so God out of His Mercy, sent down those instructions time after time to every people so that no one is left out of the warning of what we should do w/our life and how to take care of it.

A cuople of questions here. Why did it not send its instructions down before 1200BC. Why did it only send his instructions to a small group of people, the Jews, and not to the larger empires ie:Egypt, whoses civilisation started circa 3200BC with the unification of upper and lower Egypt. Or the Chinese, circa 1600BC with the foundation of the first historical dynasty, The Shang. And why no instruction at all to the civilisations in the Americas. Instead just let the European missionaries destroy what they saw as a heathen people. Why only one God. Many religions past and present manage to follow a happy and productive life with more than one God

So it's up to us to look and search for the True word of God, so that we don't go off on the wrong path. This is why people follow a certain religion. BUT it will only bring clarity if you're following the true, uncorrupted religion. I hope this helps!

What is the true incorrupted religion?

 

[Revenant]

I kinda thought her post would produce a lot of responses. Although some of the theologies of some of the religions don't make a lot of sense, the idea behind religions is to take more responsibility. Some do this with fear of hell and hope for heaven, just as crude examples, but on a more deeper level, all do attempt to get people to see beyond themselves, and to be intimately connected to their environment, and the people around them.

I believe it is as my signature says. Some people get caught up in dogma and tradition, but others do see the true point of their religion, and everyday do their best to fulfil their responsibility. A Christian will picture Christ's love, and attempt to take on the same incredible love and pass it on to others, while a Buddhist will attempt to see the oneness of everything, and understand that all are part of one whole, and that they must do what they can to benefit others, or at the very least, not cause suffering.

I wouldn't call the Dalai Lama irresponsible, nor would I call some of the great people of some other religious traditions, such as Mother Teresa, or perhaps Gandhi (he's a bit contraversial to some).

 

[Kinsao]

Why ? They can still decide to give it up and grow up. :lol:

Hmmmm. I would have expected more maturity from you. kashii:

Do you really think that statements like you just made are a very good advert for the maturity of an atheist over a follower of an organised religion?

when a bit of thinking can disprove it.

No one can disprove the existence of a god purely on grounds of reason, logic and science. On the other hand, no one can prove it on those grounds either. It would seem to be a stalemate.
(That's a bit offtopic anyways - of me! - considering we're not discussing a belief in god but a following of organised religions.)

 

[No-name]

So many of you seem to view faith as a weakness- some sort of insecurity, immaturity or weakness- rather than a facet that meet a universal need and enriches one's life. It sounds overly simplistic and obvious to have to say that many of the greatest geniuses, world leaders, artists, humanitarians have been people of faith. I don't view Jesus, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, or Joan of Arc as particularly insecure, immature or weak people.

 

[PRIZMATIC]

:blush: In "time" of Jesus,he has told,that with death of last Apostle(the witness about "Light" (of the Christ)) in the world there will come "darkness" in which the world will stay before "the second coming"...
Similar statements are and in the Buddhism and the Islam...
We speak about what religions?...

 

[kumo]

Sabro, trying to establish a rule based on exceptions is neither accurate nor very honest, not to mention that your whole argument is a logical fallacy by itself. Besides, the people you cited can hardly be considered exceptions at all (especially mother Teresa).

 

[belle74311]

I haven't used the forums so they're still new to me

To Tsuyoiko...you said

"I can vouch for the effort - but nothing good comes without hard work. I believe that the desire and ability to go against our nature is one of the things that humans should strive towards."

I'm sorry...I read this over a few times and it just doesn't make sense. Why would you strive to go against nature? Sex is natural..do you strive to go against it? Breathing is natural..do you strive to go against it?

My point is that if you're trying SO HARD not to believe in God, it's probably because you believe in Him so much.

As for figuring out the instruction on your own...as i said..that's your choice. Hey it's your life. If you want to figure it out on your own, I hope it works out for you, but if you're on your way to distruction you will never know about it until you are destroyed so I hope you are careful about it.

As for you Maciamo...I think we can all talk as adults here. You asked a question...i'm answering it in the best way possible. If you disagree, which obviously you do, that's fine but it would be nice if we can respect each other about it.

You said i made 2 mistakes:

"Two huge mistakes in what you said here.

1) Most non-religious people are Atheist, not Deist. In fact, I hardly know any Deist. Almost all Deists are former Christians that have realised that religion was man-made and harmful, and have just decided to still believe in god, but abandon the religion. People who "convert" relatively early to Deism tend to become Atheist with time. I used to be Deist until about the age of 15, just because I grew up in a Christian society and force-taught Christian dogmas as a child.

What mistake are you talking about? YOU'RE the one that said some non religious people believe in God. Non-religious means they don't belong to a religion. And, like YOU said, that doesn't mean they don't believe in God. Your question was not about Deists, it was about why people belong to a religious organization so let's not forget that.

As for a lot of Christians turn to Deists because they believe that religion was man-made. I agree with you IF the religion you're talking about is Christianity because it's so obvious that it definately has human handiwork in it. Most Deists who become Athiests..well that's not my place to say anything. Everyone choses their own path.

2) Deists always believe in an impersonal god, so you cannot call it "Him". In fact, most Deists refer to a Supreme Being, not a "God" - because the word "god" is masculine and has the feminine "goddess", and is therefore more suitable for personal gods like those of Greco-Roman, Hindu or Judeo-Christian religions.

Again, this whole topic, because you made the thread is titled "what does religion bring that nothing else can bring?" it wasn't a question of what Deists believe. I say "Him" for a lack of a better word because God does not have a gender. You're absolutely right, the word God can have masculine and femine. It's just the english language which does not permit for a word to describe God w/out a gender.

And for Kumo...you've listed ONLY 5 countries out of how many HUNDREDS of countries out there with a topic that can not be put into percentages. You said "Britain (31-44% atheist)"...oh really? Do you know what's in the hearts of people? Have you surveyed every single one of them? And do not people convert or leave their beliefs everyday? There are Atheists who turn religious so how do you account for those people?

Look, I hope you guys find your way through life. But it's not a joke and I hope you all realize that before it's too late. I'm sorry if you've had bad religious experiences, but I hope you get over it and at least believe in God again if not following any relgion.

 

[belle74311]

Sorry about the double post guys.

I also forgot to answer Mycernius he said:

It is not in human nature to believe in God. It is organised religion that instills at such an early age to believe in God. Children whose parents are atheists do not believe in God. In fact they are very indifferent to the fact. No god is natural to them.

This is not true because that would mean that people who's parents are religious would always be religious. And the very good example is Maciamo. If children are able to turn to Atheism when their parents are religious, then what your saying is disproved. Some people with Atheist parents have definitely come to religion.

You also said:

A cuople of questions here. Why did it not send its instructions down before 1200BC. Why did it only send his instructions to a small group of people, the Jews, and not to the larger empires ie:Egypt, whoses civilisation started circa 3200BC with the unification of upper and lower Egypt. Or the Chinese, circa 1600BC with the foundation of the first historical dynasty, The Shang. And why no instruction at all to the civilisations in the Americas. Instead just let the European missionaries destroy what they saw as a heathen people. Why only one God. Many religions past and present manage to follow a happy and productive life with more than one God

The first prophet of God is Adam (peace be upon him) as in Adam and Eve. So the first instruction went to him, the first human being to exist. So it did come before 1200BC. As for sending down the message to larger Empires such as Egypt...I'm not sure if you know the story of Moses and Joseph (pbut), but they were both prophets of God who were sent to the Pharoah, the King of Egypt to warn them in 2 separate occasions, so they were sent to large Empires. There are a hundred and some THOUSAND prophets that were sent down to ALL groups of people. Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they didn't exist. Many people are not going to know if you existed or not, but that doesn't mean that you didn't exit does it?

What the European missionaries did is their own thing. They destroyed very important cultures in so many places in the world. And whoever is happy and can live believing in more than one God, again, that's their thing. I personally find it absurd to think, as in Greek religions, that gods can go to war with each other and turn one person against another. I mean try to work at a place where you have like 20 managers managing your work and all of them tell you different things. How can you work that way? You'll go nuts. I've had 2 managers and you can't work properly if you're being told different things by 2 different people that you're supposed to listen to. So how can you possibly REALLY worship more than one God?

And your last question...What is the true incorrupted religion?

Well God gave you something called common sense so I'm sure you're more than capable of researching about it. I can't convince you to believe in anything, it's only yourself out of your own intention to really find the truth.

 

[kumo]

And for Kumo...you've listed ONLY 5 countries out of how many HUNDREDS of countries out there with a topic that can not be put into percentages. You said "Britain (31-44% atheist)"...oh really? Do you know what's in the hearts of people? Have you surveyed every single one of them? And do not people convert or leave their beliefs everyday? There are Atheists who turn religious so how do you account for those people?

Why exactly this topic "can not be put into percentages"? If you ask people if they are atheists there's not much room for interpretation - it's either yes or no, there's no grey areas.
Of course no survey is perfect, that's why I included a (ridiculously large) margin of error. But anyway, that is completely ignoring my point. I was just pointing to the fact that there are many countries with high rates of non-forced atheism, which proves theism is not only no more natural than atheism, but also completely unnecessary. Actually, if you let someone come to their own conclusions about religion ,without any indoctrination, it's much more likely that they will remain being atheists for the rest of their lives. If anything, we can say atheism is MORE natural than theism. Of course, it's not like being natural has anything to do with a claim's veracity...

 

[bossel]

I say "Him" for a lack of a better word because God does not have a gender. You're absolutely right, the word God can have masculine and femine. It's just the english language which does not permit for a word to describe God w/out a gender.

"It" would be a good choice.

Have you surveyed every single one of them?

For representative statistics you don't need to ask every single person.

As for sending down the message to larger Empires such as Egypt...I'm not sure if you know the story of Moses and Joseph (pbut), but they were both prophets of God who were sent to the Pharoah, the King of Egypt to warn them in 2 separate occasions, so they were sent to large Empires. There are a hundred and some THOUSAND prophets that were sent down to ALL groups of people.

What does an omnipotent god need prophets for? Wouldn't a little voice put in everybody's head do the trick?

Many people are not going to know if you existed or not, but that doesn't mean that you didn't exit does it?

Then, what you're saying is "Since we don't know about them, they must have been there."?

What the European missionaries did is their own thing.

They did not act in the name of God???:shock:
But they most probably believed so. & they most probably believed that there was absolute justification for their behaviour.

I personally find it absurd to think, as in Greek religions, that gods can go to war with each other and turn one person against another. I mean try to work at a place where you have like 20 managers managing your work and all of them tell you different things. How can you work that way?

The old Greeks did several centuries quite well with their pantheon, as did the Romans.

 

[belle74311]

Haha bossel...it seems as though we are everywhere today! But I swear I'm not doing this out of the sake of argument, it's only because even if one person gets something out of what i'm saying, then i'll be really happy.

You would call a dog "it" or some object "it", that would be an insult to God to call God by that term.

A little voice put into everyone's head? Hey maybe it would work for you, but the people who claim to have voices in their head are usually termed insane pretty much everywhere in the world. And God doesn't NEED anything, He only sent prophets out of His mercy.

Why do parents warn their kids if they're doing something wrong? Why not leave them alone to fend for themselves and potentially get really hurt? Because they love and care for you. So multiply that by the billions and that's how much God cares for us. This is why He sent prophets.

"Since we don't know about them, they must have been there."?
What???? If I never talked to you on this forum does that mean that you never existed? It's just that I didn't know about you. I mean it's a pretty simple thing to understand.

As for European missionaries...I don't get your point.

If the Greeks and Romans did so well with their beliefs, it would still be prominent today...which it's clearly not because it's been termed a myth.

 

[Maciamo]

I believe it is as my signature says.

I am not sure that Dalai Lama is a reference for talking about world religions. After all, he is the leader of one particular religion (thus biased toward others), and Tibetan Buddhism is not as organised a religion as Christianity or Islam. The reason is that Buddhism is a "free religion", which means believers can do what they want (no strict rules), believe only in what they want, stop believing, mix their beliefs with other religious beliefs, etc. In fact, the original Buddhism was not even intended as a religion but an atheist philosophy (there is not god in Buddhism, apart from the Hindu gods of Mahayana Buddhism).

So my opinion is that the Dalai Lama is misleading the world because of his ignorance of what exclusive monotheist religions really are. Not a single convinced Christian or Muslim would accept Buddhist ideas if they conflicted with their beliefs. In fact, they would surely try to convert the infidel Buddhists to Christianity or Islam. The Muslims have killed Buddhist before in their jihad in South and South-East Asia. That's why in one country you have mostly Buddhist people (Thailand, Myanmar), but in the next only Muslims (Malaysia, Bangladesh). Originally they were all Buddhist or Hindu (Buddhism is a part of Hinduism anyway, if you believe the Hindus).

 

[Maciamo]

No one can disprove the existence of a god purely on grounds of reason, logic and science.

But it is extremely easy to disprove the existence of a personal god, with human-like feelings and personality (and even a gender, like sexual life beings !).

If you understand what life really is (a series of biochemical reactions), and that we don't have a soul (requires some knowledge of neurosciences and psychology), then you would understand that the very idea of god being "alive" is an utter nonsense.

But I was only talking about religious people (not Deists), and I do not know any religion that has a non-living (requires a body), non-emotional (requires a brain), non-thinking (requires a brain), impersonal god.

So yes, it is very possible to disprove the existence of any god of any religion just with the latest scientific knowledge and a bit of reasoning. If you doubt it, read the book by Antonio Damasio that I recommended in this post.

So, saying that we cannot refute the existence of the soul (and thus heaven and hell) and the existence of a personal god (and thus the veracity of religions) is just ignorance. I don't see why I should be tolerant of people who stand firm on their position because they don't want to learn (here about neurosciences). Those who do not have the capabilities to understand how our body and brain work, should trust those who do rather than criticise them.

I reproach to religious people to criticise me (big mistake ! I am not the kind of person who let himself be bullied), when they admit not knowing enough to be able to judge if I am right (while I know everything Christians should know about Christianity, for instance).

 

[Maciamo]

So many of you seem to view faith as a weakness- some sort of insecurity, immaturity or weakness- rather than a facet that meet a universal need and enriches one's life. It sounds overly simplistic and obvious to have to say that many of the greatest geniuses, world leaders, artists, humanitarians have been people of faith.

Depends what you call "genius". If it is about artistic genius, then it is unrelated to one's understanding of sciences and philosophy. What's more, religion has long forced the brightest artists to depict religious themes. Look at European history. During the Middle Ages, almost all the great pieces of art were about religious subject (of dubious quality). The Renaissance in Florence allowed a bit more freedom thanks to the Medici family who gave greater freedom to the artists they sponsored. Boticelli was a good example of someone who didn't like painting Christian subjects. He played with fire when he painted his pagan Birth of Venus and Primavera, and was criticised by the Church. Many of his other non-Christian paintings were lost, because the Church (under the infamous Savonarola) forced him to burn them.

Da Vinci was also more interesting in sciences and ancient arts than religious themes. But like most artists of his age, people who sponsored him wanted religious subjects. Michelangelo could not have painted non religious themes in the Vatican. But he was reportedly so annoyed by having to paint the Capella Sistina and St Peter's that he hated every minute spent on the first and chose a furious theme for the second : the Last Judgement. Another artist was commissioned to add clothes on the indecent nude bodies he had painted.

These are just a few famous example of how geniuses can be in conflict with religion. They painted religious themes not necessarily because they had faith, but because they were paid to do so. Until the 19th century, nobody painted what they wanted then sold them in a shop. Artists painted, sculpted, or constructed on demand, and so weren't free to choose the themes.

Anyhow, even nowadays many people lack a sufficiently rounded up education in sciences (esp. neurosciences and psychology), philosophy, critcial thinking and history to be able to understand the nature of religions and the human mind. Politicians or religious leaders are obviously not the kind of people who would wish to see religion disappear, as they can profit from it. More and more intellectuals are specialists, which mean they do not have a broad general knowledge of the above. It's easy to be fooled into believing in god when you know nothing about how the human brain works.

I don't view Jesus, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, or Joan of Arc as particularly insecure, immature or weak people.

Joan of Arc was mad. Mother Theresa is not my idol. Gandhi was just a leader, somthing religious people can easily become. Jesus may not even have existed.

 

[Mycernius]

Sorry about the double post guys.

I also forgot to answer Mycernius he said:

It is not in human nature to believe in God. It is organised religion that instills at such an early age to believe in God. Children whose parents are atheists do not believe in God. In fact they are very indifferent to the fact. No god is natural to them.

This is not true because that would mean that people who's parents are religious would always be religious. And the very good example is Maciamo. If children are able to turn to Atheism when their parents are religious, then what your saying is disproved. Some people with Atheist parents have definitely come to religion.

I think I might have to clarify. Religious people bring up their children in a religious environment, and visa versa in atheist families. For the first 10 to 11 years of life your perceptions of the world are formed by your immediate family. As you get older your own personality starts to form its own opinions. It is at this point that you will question your parents ideas and morals. You might become opposite to your parents beliefs. If blind faith keeps us always believing in God then we wouldn't be having this convesation and man would still be in caves for following blindly what our ancestors have said. Our ability to question and try new things have pushed the human race forwards.

The first prophet of God is Adam (peace be upon him) as in Adam and Eve. So the first instruction went to him, the first human being to exist. So it did come before 1200BC.

Your comment on the above about Adam probably means you are a Muslim, please correct me if I am wrong. If you work by strict biblical method by dates and lifetimes then Adam existed about 6000BC, as worked out by Rev. Usher (thanks Tsuyoiko san). That means by geological and biological remains that Adam was not the first man by a long shot. Jericho was founded Circa 8350 -7350BC and is noted as the first walled town in the world. So who built it if not man?

As for sending down the message to larger Empires such as Egypt...I'm not sure if you know the story of Moses and Joseph (pbut), but they were both prophets of God who were sent to the Pharoah, the King of Egypt to warn them in 2 separate occasions, so they were sent to large Empires. There are a hundred and some THOUSAND prophets that were sent down to ALL groups of people. Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they didn't exist. Many people are not going to know if you existed or not, but that doesn't mean that you didn't exit does it?

If the prophets sent down was to spread the message of one God to everyone, then why were there so many religions that follow more than one God?. The Incasa and Aztecs had a huge pantheon of Gods. As do Hindus and Shinto. Buddhism doesn't really follow God, being an almost atheistic religion. Many tribal faiths in Africa are more spirit based than an ominpotent God type. Plus, didn't Muhammad say he was the last prophet to be sent by God? That means that we haven't had any "Instruction" for the past 1500 years. Also why the Ba'hai faith are persecuted in Iran and other muslim countries. Another question is why does the message differ within the Abrahamic religions. Surely an instruction from God is infallible and should mean the same to Jews, Christians and Muslims. So why the violence and intolerance between the three?

What the European missionaries did is their own thing. They destroyed very important cultures in so many places in the world. And whoever is happy and can live believing in more than one God, again, that's their thing. I personally find it absurd to think, as in Greek religions, that gods can go to war with each other and turn one person against another. I mean try to work at a place where you have like 20 managers managing your work and all of them tell you different things. How can you work that way? You'll go nuts. I've had 2 managers and you can't work properly if you're being told different things by 2 different people that you're supposed to listen to. So how can you possibly REALLY worship more than one God?

That smacks of intolerance. After all they could be right. Greek, Roman, Egyptian panetheons predate Christianity and Islam. In fact Egyptian predates Judaism

And your last question...What is the true incorrupted religion?

Well God gave you something called common sense so I'm sure you're more than capable of researching about it. I can't convince you to believe in anything, it's only yourself out of your own intention to really find the truth.

And could you answer the original question? You cannot make the statement about an uncorrupted religion and then not say what it is. Or do you really know?

You would call a dog "it" or some object "it", that would be an insult to God to call God by that term.

Then what do we call it. To Christians and Jews God is primarly a male diety. In Islam God is genderless. I find the best term to use is it as seem to fit better with most peoples idea about an ominpotent diety in todays society. Can you think of a better term?

If the Greeks and Romans did so well with their beliefs, it would still be prominent today...which it's clearly not because it's been termed a myth.

Greek and Roman believes where very open to outside influences and changed over several hundred years to allow the believes of others to be incorporated into them. Plus when the Emporer decrees that the state religion should be Christianity, as Constantine did, the others will fade into the background.

As for European missionaries...I don't get your point.

What they did was genocide under the name of spreading Gods word. That is what Bossel san was getting at.

 

[Jack]

this is in answer to the thread question,

what does religion that nothing else can bring? WAR.....no religion no war,
simply put.