What would the world be like without religion

[Irish Zionist]

In my few it would be even more evil, with people not fearing G_D the world would become more gay, they would go around raping and killing innocent people. I fear G_D I'm not gonna lie. I try to do everything right and help people. I don't think non-religious people would go around helping people. What are your opinions on this matter?

[Yonah]

No. I get the impression that in mentioning "religion", you have a few in mind, and do not refer generally to all religions. The behavior of individuals (and conscious animals, for that matter) can be chalked down to basic game theory. People generally decide whether or not to commit crimes on the basis of the certainty of punishment.

[muman613]

No. I get the impression that in mentioning "religion", you have a few in mind, and do not refer generally to all religions. The behavior of individuals (and conscious animals, for that matter) can be chalked down to basic game theory. People generally decide whether or not to commit crimes on the basis of the certainty of punishment.

What a pathetic understanding of Hashems world... Everything in this world is created for a purpose and it is to reveal the truth of G-d. Human beings are not animals because we have the intelligence and free will to decide to do right or wrong.

[✡ Hindu Zionist ॐ]

as a hindu i think that without believeing in G-d, not much would change materialistically(u can confirm this by looking around at some very rich self hating businessmen). but the next birth would put the soul in lower stratas of life, like mentally disabled human,animals,insects....etc. Human birth is to serve G-d.

i also dont believe in miracles through prayers, like some religions claim to cure diseases,illness by prayers. Prayers do not make an amputate person grow their limbs back, but stem cell research does!

[Rubystars]

Being disabled does not put you on a lower strata! Disabled people are just as worthy as the rest of us, they just have different challenges! Anybody can become disabled at any time.

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

 

[✡ Hindu Zionist ॐ]

Being disabled does not put you on a lower strata! Disabled people are just as worthy as the rest of us, they just have different challenges! Anybody can become disabled at any time.

mentally challenged persons are not able to server G-d. to get birth in this condition is very hard on the soul. there is very little scope for him/her to elevate him/her on a spiritual scale. hence its in the lower strats of life. their condition is not very different to animals. they cant understand,speak properly and are always dependent on others.

[Rubystars]

Being disabled does not put you on a lower strata! Disabled people are just as worthy as the rest of us, they just have different challenges! Anybody can become disabled at any time.

mentally challenged persons are not able to server G-d. to get birth in this condition is very hard on the soul. there is very little scope for him/her to elevate him/her on a spiritual scale. hence its in the lower strats of life. their condition is not very different to animals. they cant understand,speak properly and are always dependent on others.

First of all, there's a huge range of mental impairment. Someone who is midly retarded (like the guy who played Corky on the tv show "Life goes on") can indeed serve God and understand basic religious concepts. Those who are severely retarded can serve God by allowing those around them to better serve God.

Every human life is precious, and I think it's absolutely EVIL that you would refer to them as being like animals.


Young children and the elderly are often dependent on others too even if they are normal for their age, would you compare them to animals too?

[Dr. Dan]

The world started with Gd and one rule: "Don't eat from that tree".

As time as passed on everything is much more complicated because of those who use religion and Gd incorrectly and those that use Gd and religion correction..and those that don't use Gd or religion's name but do things correctly while other do evil and don't use Gd or religion's name.

A correct religion will reveal rules that people should follow and furthermore examine as the world changes and people understand things better.

Without religion, we have nothing.  Those who use Gd and religion's name in vain don't know what religion and Gd is.

[✡ Hindu Zionist ॐ]

Being disabled does not put you on a lower strata! Disabled people are just as worthy as the rest of us, they just have different challenges! Anybody can become disabled at any time.

mentally challenged persons are not able to server G-d. to get birth in this condition is very hard on the soul. there is very little scope for him/her to elevate him/her on a spiritual scale. hence its in the lower strats of life. their condition is not very different to animals. they cant understand,speak properly and are always dependent on others.

First of all, there's a huge range of mental impairment. Someone who is midly retarded (like the guy who played Corky on the tv show "Life goes on") can indeed serve G-d and understand basic religious concepts. Those who are severely retarded can serve G-d by allowing those around them to better serve G-d.

Every human life is precious, and I think it's absolutely EVIL that you would refer to them as being like animals.

Young children and the elderly are often dependent on others too even if they are normal for their age, would you compare them to animals too?

every life is precious. the state of consciousness is same of a totally mentally disabled person and that of animal. If the people around a mentally disabled person are not serving G-d. where does the question of allowing them to serve comes from? Even a dog allows you to pray to g-d, does that mean the dog is serving G-d too?.

 I'm not saying they should be treated as animals. i'm only comparing social aspects.

[Yonah]

No. I get the impression that in mentioning "religion", you have a few in mind, and do not refer generally to all religions. The behavior of individuals (and conscious animals, for that matter) can be chalked down to basic game theory. People generally decide whether or not to commit crimes on the basis of the certainty of punishment.

What a pathetic understanding of Hashems world... Everything in this world is created for a purpose and it is to reveal the truth of G-d. Human beings are not animals because we have the intelligence and free will to decide to do right or wrong.

I noted "conscious" animals because they too can determine between right and wrong, withing a game-theory framework.

The question is not whether or not the truth of G-d could be revealed without G-d, but rather the behavior of individuals would differ greatly without Hashem. And I say Hashem and not religion, because I think Irish Zionist had the Abrahamic religions in mind, or at the very least, the accepted modern religions, and not Greek and Roman paganism, etc...

[Rubystars]

Being disabled does not put you on a lower strata! Disabled people are just as worthy as the rest of us, they just have different challenges! Anybody can become disabled at any time.

mentally challenged persons are not able to server G-d. to get birth in this condition is very hard on the soul. there is very little scope for him/her to elevate him/her on a spiritual scale. hence its in the lower strats of life. their condition is not very different to animals. they cant understand,speak properly and are always dependent on others.

First of all, there's a huge range of mental impairment. Someone who is midly retarded (like the guy who played Corky on the tv show "Life goes on") can indeed serve G-d and understand basic religious concepts. Those who are severely retarded can serve G-d by allowing those around them to better serve G-d.

Every human life is precious, and I think it's absolutely EVIL that you would refer to them as being like animals.

Young children and the elderly are often dependent on others too even if they are normal for their age, would you compare them to animals too?

every life is precious. the state of consciousness is same of a totally mentally disabled person and that of animal. If the people around a mentally disabled person are not serving G-d. where does the question of allowing them to serve comes from? Even a dog allows you to pray to g-d, does that mean the dog is serving G-d too?.

 I'm not saying they should be treated as animals. i'm only comparing social aspects.

I think there is a huge spiritual divide between members of the human species and members of other species. I'm glad that you dont' think they should be treated as animals. I guess that's all I can really hope for from you. I don't want to get into a big argument but I don't like it when disabled people are dehumanized in any way.

To answer your question, profoundly disabled people allow a moral choice on the part of others, whether to treat them with dignity and respect or not. This allows other people to do what's right by those people and treat them with dignity and respect and meet their needs. I think God is pleased when any people are treated with love.

[✡ Hindu Zionist ॐ]

Being disabled does not put you on a lower strata! Disabled people are just as worthy as the rest of us, they just have different challenges! Anybody can become disabled at any time.

mentally challenged persons are not able to server G-d. to get birth in this condition is very hard on the soul. there is very little scope for him/her to elevate him/her on a spiritual scale. hence its in the lower strats of life. their condition is not very different to animals. they cant understand,speak properly and are always dependent on others.

First of all, there's a huge range of mental impairment. Someone who is midly retarded (like the guy who played Corky on the tv show "Life goes on") can indeed serve G-d and understand basic religious concepts. Those who are severely retarded can serve G-d by allowing those around them to better serve G-d.

Every human life is precious, and I think it's absolutely EVIL that you would refer to them as being like animals.

Young children and the elderly are often dependent on others too even if they are normal for their age, would you compare them to animals too?

every life is precious. the state of consciousness is same of a totally mentally disabled person and that of animal. If the people around a mentally disabled person are not serving G-d. where does the question of allowing them to serve comes from? Even a dog allows you to pray to g-d, does that mean the dog is serving G-d too?.

 I'm not saying they should be treated as animals. i'm only comparing social aspects.

I think there is a huge spiritual divide between members of the human species and members of other species. I'm glad that you dont' think they should be treated as animals. I guess that's all I can really hope for from you. I don't want to get into a big argument but I don't like it when disabled people are dehumanized in any way.

To answer your question, profoundly disabled people allow a moral choice on the part of others, whether to treat them with dignity and respect or not. This allows other people to do what's right by those people and treat them with dignity and respect and meet their needs. I think G-d is pleased when any people are treated with love.

i agree, i am sorry if my earlier post was not clear enough. Of course the disabled deserve all the care and love from the normal one's. I just meant that we normal human beings are gifted and fortunate without any defects and disability, and should do our duty righteously,and serve g-d as much as we can.

[Yonah]

Hashem forbids the blemished from entering the Tabernacle, no?

[Rubystars]

Ok Hindu Zionist sorry I misunderstood you.

[Minuteman]

With more and more people turning away from religion these days, it isn't a coincidence that the world is becoming more and more evil.

[Raulmarrio2000]

Hashem forbids the blemished from entering the Tabernacle, no?

That's an anti-Torah and anti-Semitic  misguiding statement.
H" does not forbid sick people to enter the Tabernacle or the Temple. It is only forbidden for Priests who had a blemish to offer the sacrifices on the altar. To be a priest, one has to be descendant of Aharon, of the tribe of Levy. A priest who had certains blemishes is a still, a priest and can eat from the sacrifices, only that he cannot offer them by himself, someone who is not descendant of Aharon is not even a Priest, and so can never enter the Holy Place, no matter if he has blemishes or not, and he cannot eat from the sacrifices reserved for the Priests.
It is people who haven't underwent the rites of purity that are forbidden to entter the Temple, not the sick.

[muman613]

Hashem forbids the blemished from entering the Tabernacle, no?

That's an anti-Torah and anti-Semitic  misguiding statement.
H" does not forbid sick people to enter the Tabernacle or the Temple. It is only forbidden for Priests who had a blemish to offer the sacrifices on the altar. To be a priest, one has to be descendant of Aharon, of the tribe of Levy. A priest who had certains blemishes is a still, a priest and can eat from the sacrifices, only that he cannot offer them by himself, someone who is not descendant of Aharon is not even a Priest, and so can never enter the Holy Place, no matter if he has blemishes or not, and he cannot eat from the sacrifices reserved for the Priests.
It is people who haven't underwent the rites of purity that are forbidden to entter the Temple, not the sick.

For those interested in this facet of our incredible religion I will post the following:

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/261,2130141/Why-can-t-a-priest-with-a-blemish-serve-in-the-Holy-Temple.html

One reason for this is that the Honor Guard for a king consists of the most good looking and strong soldiers. So too the priests who worked in the Holy Temple had a special immaculate uniform, and physically, would need a certain uniformity in appearance.

On a deeper level: the priests who served G-d in the Temple simultaneously served as an example for the myriads of people who frequented the Temple on a regular basis. The priestly behavior personified dedication, proficiency, and efficiency. Similarly their perfection in physical appearance stood as a quick and constant reminder that in our service to G-d we must aim for perfection as well.

Needless to say, the inability for a priest with a blemish to serve in the Temple didn’t make him less of a person or less of a Jew, just as the inability for the Israelite to serve in the Temple didn’t make him less of a person or less of a Jew. Also, even though he could not participate in the "service" he did take a share/portion of the sacrifices alongside his brethren who did serve.

The priesthood was a unique job for specific individuals, and if G-d created him with a blemish G-d obviously knew that this particular individual was created for another purpose.

The sacrificed animal also must be free from blemishes...

http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1293

Blemishing the Blemished

An animal must be without a physical blemish in order to qualify as a sacrifice. It is forbidden to inflict a blemish upon an animal consecrated as a sacrifice since this renders it unfit for the altar.

This prohibition raises an interesting problem in regard to one such consecrated animal the male firstborn of cows and sheep that must be given to a kohen who will offer it as a sacrifice and eat its meat. If such an animal suffers the blemish of a serious condition that requires the surgery of bloodletting to save it, is it permissible to perform this surgery even though it means inflicting it with a disqualifying blemish? Or must caution be taken to limit such surgery to a place that will heal and not cause a blemish?

The crux of the question is whether there is a prohibition against inflicting a blemish upon an animal that is already blemished. The answer depends on the interpretation of two parts of the same passage dealing with this prohibition.

"Unblemished shall it be to be acceptable, no blemish whatsoever shall be in it."
(Vayikra 22:21)

Rabbi Meir saw in the prohibition against causing a blemish to a sacrificial animal that is implied in this passage a sweeping ban on doing so even if a blemish already exists. The word kol used to insist on "no blemish whatsoever" is all-inclusive.

The other Sages, however, point to the earlier part of that passage which limits the prohibition to an animal that is still unblemished, allowing us to conclude that if it already has a blemish, such as in the bloodletting case cited above, there is no ban on inflicting an additional blemish.

Neither of the two parties to this debate is oblivious to the source cited by the other. Rabbi Meir, however, interprets the exclusion cited by the other Sages as applying only to a blemished sacrificial animal that has been redeemed from the Sanctuary, allowing for another blemish to be inflicted on it. The other Sages, in turn, interpret the all-inclusive word kol as a ban on indirectly causing a blemish such as placing some sweet foodstuff on the animals ear so as to invite a dog to bite it off and wound the animal.Menachot

http://www.aish.com/tp/b/lp/48945011.html