religious names

[WhyCantIuseTheNameIWant]

Would you call a child God or jesus?

Lots of cultures do.

Jesus is common in spain/Portugal.

Lots of Indian cultures call boys Muhammad.

Never really seen it in England though.

Never met a Muslim Jesus though. That would be interesting.

"So that happened" Christians believe Jesus is God, part of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not a prophet.

Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet and Muhammad was God's final prophet.

And the fact that they are all wrong and it's all total bunkum hasn't stopped them all trying to kill each other (and everyone else) over it for the last 1300 years or whatever. Madness.

I have met many children in India named after Hindu Gods and Godesses; Vishnu, Rama, Lakshmi, Krishna, Sita etc are not uncommon.

A huge number of traditional British names are biblical - Mary, Joseph, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Samuel, Rachel, Ruth, Hannah, Elizabeth etc etc. It's true that in British culture we don't have a tendency to name our children Jesus but this is common in some Christian countries (eg: much of South America). I have met a Jesus born in the UK but it was pronounced Hey-Zeus as his family were Hispanic.

"Never met a Muslim Jesus though. That would be interesting."

That's because they'd be called Issa. Just like a Muslim Abraham would be Ibrahim, or David Daoud.

And the fact that some people believe they are all wrong and it's all total bunkum hasn't stopped them all trying to kill each other (and everyone else) over it for the last 1300 years or whatever. Madness.

Fixed that for you.

So that happened" Christians believe Jesus is God, part of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not a prophet.

Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet and Muhammad was God's final prophet.

I dont give a shit anyway. Misguided beliefs and wars over who's imaginary friend is better than the other

Nope

And the fact they are all wrong and it's all total bunkum hasn't stopped them all trying to kill each other (and everyone else) over it for the last 1300 years or whatever. Madness.

Fixed it back.

If you want to disagree, use your own words.

Fine if you don't give a shit - just clarifying what people in different world religions believe.

I know Francis, that wasn't a dig at your post, I was using it unaltered to make a different point.

I neither agree nor disagree.

But when talking about matters which are not susceptible to proof, then it is right to preface with "some people believe" (standard MN advice when dealing with different belief systems).

Yes, the world would be a different (and some think a better place) if everyone was a tolerant agnostic. But belief systems, whether monotheist, polytheist or atheist exist, and not everyone is tolerant.

Well, when we start to have radical atheists bombing and killing and knocking on doors trying to convert people and having atheist cults and telling people what they can wear and what they can read and say then I'll be happy to stand on an equal footing with those of religion.

But for sure, yes I maybe could be more tolerant.

Like China or the Soviet Union then? Yup aethiesm workef out well there then...

They may have been atheists but they weren't fighting/killing in the name of atheism. That was a political ideology not a faith (or lack thereof) based one.

Well they did their fair share of invading foreign countries, whatever their excuses.

I'm sorry what is confusing you? Nobody is saying certain atheist countries have not conducted violences for political causes. But more mass violences of the world have been fuelled by religion than the lack of it. To then pick out two atheist nations and point out that they conducted political violences is - not the point.

but that's got nothing to do with religion and believing or otherwise in a god or gods which is what we were talking about.

Not confused at all. How very kind of you to enquire after my my mental capacity. 3 years of modern and industrial history at uni hasn't gone completely to waste.

And communism in those 2 countries didn't run like a religious cult? Deify the 'great leader', create mythologies around them, publish rules and exterminate your 'enemies'. So yes, I do see a similarity with religious brainwashing.

People don't need an excuse to be shitty to others. It boils down to land, politics, power, natural resources and money.

Kim K called her kid Saint...

I've met a Santa (not Claus).

Saint North? That doesn't exactly have a 'ring'. I worked in a place were there were some good old cathic names - like Assumpta.

I think Tara Palmer Tompkinson's sister is a Santa.

No the first one is called North.

The second one is called Saint

I do see what you are saying mavis but as you've noted yourself there are actual physical things at stake that those countries were about. To me those are things you could ultimately resolve via negotiation. You can never resolve anything involving religion as it's about blind faith so technically there is nothing to negotiate. I also think though that sometimes faith is used as a cover for issues involving all the stuff you've listed, so maybe the lines aren't always that clear.

Anyway. Brainwashing is brainwashing I guess regardless of the motivation.

My son had a Santa in his class at school. I think she was Latvian.

Oh but the cult of personality is just mind boggling.

I met old ladies selling tin badges in Moscow teary eyed over Stalin (a while ago now) and my Russian isn't brilliant but yes, they were almost idol worshipping this man and it reminded me of worshippers in St Peters square fit to burst when the Pope appeared at the balcony.

I had a slightly obsessive interest in the politics and social history of both countries and have read a fair bit - especially in the early days of regimes - you cannot negotiate as it has to be all or nothing for them to establish rule. A bit like Iran.

Of course any zeal can make a zealot. No need for degree brandishing - you could be speaking to an academic at a leading British university with degrees up to a PhD ;-)

The point is hardly about zealous fanaticism occurring anywhere and everywhere motivated by any force be it political or religious.

The point is that over the history of time, religion fuelled violence (and not all violence occurs across boundaries of nation states or on mass scales) by far outnumbers violence fuelled by atheist belief. Yes some atheists can become violent at individual to mass scales following other zeals. That still doesn't negate the basic principle that more crimes are committed in the name of religion than in the name of religion-is-crap. I truly can't state it any clearer.

My country used to practice Sati. Massive massive triggers so won't describe here - Google at your own risk. Religion has driven pretty much every mass massacre there that I can think about. It's India by the way. The years 1992 and 2002 in particular will never find justice for those murdered. Yes the non religious thoroughly useless communist party in a state there mass massacred some monks - on entirely different "reasons", but that does not change the basic point that religion fuelled violence outnumbers violence not fuelled by religion.