Why has God allowed religion to be so tribal?

[Jason118]

There is so much solid teachings in religious dogma and so many warm and kind people who practice. Why has it all come to this, or was it ever thus?

How we view abortion and homosexuality is as much a core belief as Jesus being the son of God or just a prophet. At least in my eyes it is. Yet believing he was the son of God doesn't make everything else ok. Most religions actually share a lot of common views. So I'd argue the core is actually amazingly similar, it's just the premise they hang those beliefs on that differs.

I think that shows your ignorance.

How we view abortion and homosexuality is as much a core belief as Jesus being the son of God or just a prophet. At least in my eyes it is. Yet believing he was the son of God doesn't make everything else ok.

Not sure what your getting at here?

So I'd argue the core is actually amazingly similar,

Some similarities but the theology is still very different.

You're perfectly entitled to think that views on abortion and homosexuality are core issues. But it's incorrect. They are cultural issues.

That's just rude.

I certainly never accused anyone of arrogance.
But I repeat. How we each lead our lives, how we treat each other, our views on sexuality, gender, race, morality and more are the real core of a religious teaching. Not if Jesus was a prophet or part of a trinity.

Lets us not forget, homosexuality is still not fully accepted in Christianity, nor are women at the top of the church. So whilst we might not stone homosexuals does it give us a right to cast the first stone at other religions who show even less tolerance?

I am far from ignorant on these matters. But I won't resort to jibes of that nature, and you have no clue about me own beliefs as I have declined to actually express them. One can present a view without holding that view.

@lucydogz I'm the one that calls people arrogant.

Throws a stone@rebel

But I repeat. How we each lead our lives, how we treat each other, our views on sexuality, gender, race, morality and more are the real core of a religious teaching. Not if Jesus was a prophet or part of a trinity.

Err I think ul find Jesus is well the whole basis of christianity

"cast the first stone at other religions who show even less tolerance?"

In what way are we being intolerant here? By saying we believe our religion but not another? No more intolerant than an atheist not believing? I'm puzzled by what you mean. Who's casting stones at anyone?

Don't think lucy was rude at all,
You seem to be saying that merely holding a religious belief and therefore disbelieving another religious belief is arrogant.

And in that logic, atheism surely is most arrogant because they don't believe any religion, how very arrogant to think they're right and all others are wrong.

Absolutely ridiculous

Not believing in something there is no evidence for cannot be classed as arrogant - logical,Myers, but arrogant never

*maybe

And by your own argument all religions can't be right, so it's reasonable to deduce that some are wrong, which is not being arrogant at all

I'm not saying atheism is arrogant- My point is, that pp has said how arrogant to believe that your religion is right but no one else's.... well it's no more arrogant than atheism which says all religious belief is wrong and they're right.

Why is it arrogant for me to think Christianity is true and other religions are not
BUT NOT
Atheists believe no religions are true, they're right and everyone else is wrong.

I'm saying, you call someone arrogant for holding a belief and therefore rejecting another belief.

Meant to say * you can't call someone arrogant for holding a belief, and in so, rejecting another religious belief

@Missymoo100 actually it is since believing in God(whichever one you choose) is based on faith and not much else, whereas atheists have science(evolution,big bang,dinosaurs etc) and a complete lack of physical proof on their side.

Atheists - this thing that I can't touch,see,hear etc is not real

Religions: this thing that I can't see,touch,hear etc is real, but only mine is.

Rebel-
That depends what you call evidence-
Most historians believe Jesus existed as a historical figure.
There are the gospel accounts written within the lifetime of the disciples.
There are accounts of Jesus in the talmund, and other Jewish writings. I.e. Talmund stated Jesus was a sorcerer and was leading the people astray as a reason for execution.
The Jews themselves acknowledge Jesus existence but believe he was a false prophet- surely if they wanted to discredit Christian belief they would deny his existence.
The fact the apostles and early Christians were executed, in the most horrendous ways, for something that they made up is improbable to me.
Among other reasons.

So you saying my belief is based on nothing- is incorrect.

Likewise I have reasons why I believe other religions are incorrect.

And anyone has the right to believe anything they choose without being called arrogant just because they don't think the same as everyone else.

It is quite possible for religious people to politely disagree on their beliefs without being "arrogant" or "intolerant"

Simply saying something is true/untrue is not intolerance

What I think is ignorant is saying that believers don't have the right to not accept other religions as equally valid- because this doesn't show respect for any religion and demonstrates a lack theoretical knowledge.

Tbh right now I'm baffled so many people taking offence at "arrogant".

I'm not offended- but I find it ridiculous that people tell me what my faith is based on, and tell me that unless I give equal belief to all religions- I'm being intolerant, arrogant, whatever...
I think it's just a stick used to gleefully bash believers with, using labels like intolerant.
As is said why is being of one religious persuasion arrogance but being of no religious persuasion (atheism) not- it's nonsensical. You have your reason for not believing and i have my reasons to believe. I don't have to believe anyone else's religion that I disagree with.
As I said my belief is not based on faith alone, but I have considered it and come to a conclusion.
I am entitled to hold theses beliefs as anyone else is entitled to theirs.

whereas atheists have science(evolution,big bang,dinosaurs etc) and a complete lack of physical proof on their side.

Oh and atheists don't own science either. Many scientists are and historically we're religious believers.

I think you're misunderstanding.
It's not a critique of people who choose to follow religion, it's of the religion itself.

Most religions promote peace and love, but in Christianity and Islam there's a fair amount of retribution too. Some denominations of Christianity tend to put the Old Testament in a very historical context and no longer subscribe to those teachings - mostly because they seem very draconian and give rise to a whole world of difficulty in a modern society, whereas the New Testament is a lot more palatable (though still controversial in parts).

Islam offers the same love and peace and call to prayer, except it's stricter (much like Christianity USED to be). Some muslims choose to interpret parts of the Koran in a very literal and often controversial way, but it's not worse than many of the Old Testament teachings.

To say that the 'core' of a religion is about who is the head of that religion (e.g. God or Allah) is misleading, as the actual core of both religions is about prayer, a relationship with God or Allah and the way you live your life. Day to day behaviours as a practical Christian or Muslim are very similar - adherence to teachings, prayer and 'doing good' in the eyes of the relevant god.

Criticism isn't about which flavour you're choosing, it's about the belief that the other religions are fundamentally wrong, when in my opinion, they are fundamentally similar.

I haven't criticised a person here (although you have). I've critiqued the arguments being put forward, and offered my own. I don't presume my own arguments are correct - they are just arguments.

Torn
Thank you, the crux of my OP was to try and get a handle on why god would allow such enmity when it serves no purpose other than to destroy parts of his so called creation

That always comes down the paradox of free will.

The premise is that God creates the world, creates a perfect couple, then tempts them (for what reason?). They fall into temptation and sin.
He then punishes them for that sin.

Already off to a bad start.

They continue to sin until he decides enough is enough and sends his only son down to earth to offer mankind salvation - but there's a catch, you have to ask for forgiveness, which, providing you mean it, will be granted. Quite why it Jesus to die, I do not know, but providing you accept Jesus, you'll have a channel to God, and hopefully some guidance in life.

Now, that 'guidance' is supposed to be an ongoing relationship with God, but God's message isn't always very clear. Arguably that's down to human error 'cos they don't listen or understand his word properly, or they are also tempted by yet further sin (being forgiven for sin doesn't mean it's the end of temptation, you'll be asking for forgiveness regularly).

Does God create all the bad things? well, there's an argument that mankind carries out wars, not God, and that we have enough resources in the world to avoid starvation. It's our greed that sees half the world growing fat, and half the world starving. It's our greed that sees people in poverty as well as incredible luxury.

However, it's very very difficult to comprehend why a Tsunami is the result of our failings, or why a baby must suffer for other people's sins. I have never yet heard a justification for those kinds of sufferings, and a loving / just God is very hard to believe in whilst those things happen.

There are some very difficult and beautiful things that most of us feel - like love, and sorrow, and grief... something 'spiritual' in those things that seem way deeper than science. Is that a sign of a greater purpose? a God? maybe, maybe not.

Is a baby born to suffer the sign of a just God? Sorry, I can't believe in that.

Evolutionary theory contradicts Genesis as Adam and Eve cannot be true. Therefore there was no garden, no serpent and temptation, no original sin. So what was Jesus saving us from ?

"Criticism isn't about which flavour you're choosing, it's about the belief that the other religions are fundamentally wrong, when in my opinion, they are fundamentally similar"

This is where I disagree- they are very different religions. Granted they may have some similar teachings- some because they are based on the abrahamic god of the Old Testament, Islam, Christianity, Judaism- but there are obvious differences.

Judaism and Christianity both follow the teachings of the Old Testament - the Jewish Torah is the Old Testament, they're one and the same book- thus have the same teachings. I don't think Jewish people who practice, consider their holy book "draconian" and neither do I discount it- it's an important part of my religion.

Some religions such as Buddhism do not follow a deity thus are not like the abrahamic religions.

If you find the Old Testament, New Testament, Koran unpalatable- then fair enough, no ones forcing you to approve/believe.