Religions: they can't be all right, but they can all be wrong!
How is it all wrong to help widows and orphans in need while avoiding worldly corruption?
Religion... pure and faultless is this: to help widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27
Christians believe that certain people will burn in hell. When you dehumanize other people, and picture them as being unworthy, i.e. ("do not throw your pearls before swine" direct quote from their idol), "swine"? . . . that is clearly and unambiguously a form of hate. Why not seek what is best for ALL of mankind, the World as a whole, all races, all cultures, rather than being divisive? It's not harmless. . . .
@Archeus_Lore MUCH about evolutionary processes are not harmless. Predator/prey relationship is about - be eaten or starve to death. do you think their is a love relationship between rabbits and wolves? as you said, i think it true, ". . . that is clearly and unambiguously a form of hate."
The people-animal on people animal "hate" interaction is a lot like the predator/prey evolutionary relationship. The stronger/smarter survive, the "swine" perhaps go extinct.
"Why not seek what is best for ALL of mankind, the World as a whole, all races, all cultures ..." you say, and I can agree it is a great ideology. I think of planet of the apes, or lord of the flies but haven't seen them in years. Your "seek what is best for all" might require answering this question among others: as one branch of homo sapians perhaps evolves into homo superduperous and leaves some homo sapians to not evolve and to not be reproductively compatible, how would it be best and intelligently handled to provided lively hood for the 2 different intellegent capable animal species in ways that would not be harmful or killing each off for population control of either?
Religion is NOT pure and faultless. It never has been.
@Archeus_Lore Your definition of religion may not be "pure and faultless". For almost 2000 years the biblical text has defined religion as helping widows and orphans while avoiding worldly corruption.
illogical atheist comes along as says they want their own definition for religion and they say religion is defined along the lines of "sarcasm worship given to the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky god".
For a person to be religious according to biblical definition of religion, the person would help widows and orphans while avoiding worldly corruption. Where as if a person were to be religious according to the illogical atheist definition of religion they would make fun of, in a sarcastic way, those that are helping widows and orphans while avoiding worldly corruption.
So far your attempts to tangentialize the argument has failed to help you.
When you dehumanize other people, and picture them as being unworthy, i.e. ("do not throw your pearls before swine" direct quote from their idol), "swine"? . . . that is clearly and unambiguously a form of hate.
It is what it is, hateful.
@Archeus_Lore I am not tangentializing and not making any argument. Yes, it is what it is.
I can understand the point of not throwing 1000s of dollars cash to people that are homeless poor addicted to crack.
I manage a homeless shelter, so I can understand how some people can hate on the crack addict rather than hate the crack addiction the person suffers. I can be as fully respectful to a person homeless addicted to crack as I can anyone else. However, are there aspects that because of the nature of their addiction that they would be trust WORTHY to hold money for me? No, they wouldn't be worthy to hold large amounts of money for me.
Is it like unto an Ad hominem fallacy, where these "unworthy " are put down because of the nature of their addictions?
There is nothing wrong with hate when properly directed. For sure hate the crack addiction not the homeless crack addict and nothing dehumanizing about considering them unworthy to hand my large amounts of money.
There is a world of difference between a crack addict and a normal human being who just happens to be an Agnostic or Atheist and directing hate their way because of what they do not believe in.
@Archeus_Lore I just did a search on the phrase "casting pearls before swine".
It appears it is not considered a hate message the way these people see it.
What does it mean to cast your pearls before swine?
Do not cast your pearls before swine. Do not waste good things on people who will not appreciate them. This proverb is adapted from a saying of Jesus from the Gospels, “Cast not pearls before swine.” Jesus appears to be warning his disciples to preach only before receptive audiences.
It sounds like it would say, if people want to be eating food with out washing hands and not listen to you then don't waste time trying to teach them about hand washing before eating and such good things.
@Archeus_Lore AND if you read the last of that verse, it seems that the swine are the ones considered to be the violent haters.
nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."
"Seems" is the keyword here, and, the source is what is it, you cannot change that.