The Religion Thread

sepheronx wrote:No, we do not know if Dark matter exists, hence why we are trying to discover it (we assume it does). We also assume a black hole exists due to particles dissapearing quite rapidly, so it went from a black hole being believed to be a gateway to now a naked singularity.  A lot of theories have changed, even in my short existence.  Nothing wrong with thaylt really. But many people failed to acknowledge that it also requires a form of faith for a bliefe, even for a hypothesis.  So discounting one for the other is silly.  And as said before, god is a noun used to represent something.  Doesnt mean it is a bearded fellow in the sky.

Belief exists everywhere. But there are many kinds of belief and each kind is different from each other. Scientific belief is different from religious belief.

sepheronx wrote:As well, please do not be certain about yourself on history. As we barely even know various timelines of the last couple thousand years.  We are still discovering lost cities.  So dont act like you know, cause no one really does.  Which is even more pathetic on the lousy documentation of our past.

I didn't say that I know everything about history. What I say that we must use science and scientific methods to fix and improve our knowledge about the world.

Nobody knows everything about the past or the future. But they discover the unknown place by the mean of science.

Misunderstandings about the world has been fixed by science. It is scientific discoveries who change or refine the current theroies about the world.

Even the existence of afterworld, heaven, hell, God,... should be proven/disproven by scientific methods.

I disbelieve in supernatural beings because of the lack of scientific evidences. If there is sufficients evidences then I will believe in it. That is simple.
And if you believe in God or what ever, I will say "OK it is fine". I have no rights to change your belief and will never use force to impose my belief to you. It is my duty to respect the freedom of belief.

But of course there is some belief that humanity cannot accept, for example human sacrifice... then all the world put a ban on that belief because it is harmful. In this case freedom of belief cannot be applied.

Sorry    

sepheronx wrote:Saddam did use texts from the holy books to find parts of Babylon of Messopotania.  Not everything is a lie as one would pertain it to be.

Ancient myths, mythology and religious scriptures can be used as a means to study about the ancient world. Because these material somehow express the mindset, thinking, lifestyle of the ancient people, and some of the content was loosely built on the real events.

But it is clear that we cannot 100% believe in the content of the religious scripture. For example, world being created in 7 days, sky is a brozne dome, the sky windows open to let rain pour down... all these thing is bullshit and cannot be believed. Some content in the Holy Bible can be used, though, because these content loosely describe the history of Israel and we can use them to study about ancient Israel.

Just like I never believe that my nation was formed by the Dragon God Lạc Long Quân and Fairy Goddess Âu Cơ. These two are just mythical figures.

sepheronx wrote:Edit: dont get me wrong. I think Dark matter exists, or may exist.  But that doesnt discount the faith put into the theories.  Once again, it is theorie vs theories.  Was there a big bang? Was there a universe before? Was this always here? We do not know. It was a wheelchair bound guy who believes in extra terrestrial who thought of it.  He may be right, or he may be a great bullshitter.

In the battle of theories vs theories, win or defeat was decided by the logics and evidences.

If we would like to know which theories are better, we just have to look at the evidences and the logic used in them.

I do not plan to say ABCXYZ theory is right or wrong, but that is how things work.

The born and died of theories, the change/unchange of theories... all these are decided by new evidences which have been founded by scientists. If the new evidences contradict with the curent theories, then the theories died out and people build new one to replace. If the new evidences support the current theories, then the theories go on and are further reinforced.

So if new evidences support the existence of God or afterlife, then the theories of God will be further reinforced and become more reliable. On the other hand, if God-believers want the world to acknowledge their belief, they just only have to find proofs and evidences about God.

That is how things work.

That is how things work to us, and what is considered to our advantage. But doesnt mean it is correct. That is where you got it wrong.  We presume it to be right (religious or scientific belief) so we assume it is. But doesnt mean that it is. The universe and everything in it will exist long after we are dead, and thus, with each new person will come new beliefs and theories. Science is a concept of using roughly what we know to discover and create, but doesnt mean it is exactly correct.  Science though, or at least many scientists are pushing ideas of the far beyond and somethings completely out of our grasps, than what we truly know and capable of seeing/proving.  Example is, we have not even touched down on mars, gone to the center of the earth or even traveled to the deepest parts od our oceans, yet we think we know how the universe was created.  I see something horrificly wrong in that.  It is great that they are thinking of possibilities and looking, but saying that "is what happened" is no different than religious beliefs.

Then again, there is a clear difference between science and scientists where there are zealots on both sides.

at science we know for sure that in the back of all is a scientific law even if we didnt discovered yet while at religion you have just "faith in something that some people claims to exist" so is no true evidence for religion but for science we sure know universe is physics

sepheronx wrote:That is how things work to us, and what is considered to our advantage. But doesnt mean it is correct. That is where you got it wrong.

Indeed not all scientific theories are correct. In fact, a large number of current theories are considered just hypothesis and only a certain number of theories are considered as equal to facts.

But science is the right way to lead us to the truth. Because science always demand proofs, evidences and logic. Science strictly demands verification of claims.

Nonetheless, in real life and conversation, for the sake of convenience, we usually consider some hypothesis (usually the most logical and most famous ones) as nearly equal to the truth.

sepheronx wrote:We presume it to be right (religious or scientific belief) so we assume it is. But doesnt mean that it is.

That is the reason why many current scientific theories are just "theories" and hypothesis. Only a number of the theories are considered as truth.

It took a lot of time and efforts for theories to be tested, verified, adjusted, supported in order to be considered as truth. Also, many theories didn't pass that trial and were proven wrong. That means the results of scientific method are very reliable in general.

sepheronx wrote:The universe and everything in it will exist long after we are dead, and thus, with each new person will come new beliefs and theories. Science is a concept of using roughly what we know to discover and create, but doesnt mean it is exactly correct.

Not all the scientific theories are correct. But science in general and scientific way in general are correct. Because in science, people demand proofs, evidences and logic for any claims. Without sufficient evidences, a claim is just a claim and cannot be considered as a fact.

sepheronx wrote:Science though, or at least many scientists are pushing ideas of the far beyond and somethings completely out of our grasps, than what we truly know and capable of seeing/proving.

That is the reason why many claims of the scientists are just hypothesis, just theories, and need further verification. Only a number of scientific theories are considered as the truth - after a long period of test and trial and after people managed to achieve overwhelming proofs.

sepheronx wrote:Example is, we have not even touched down on mars, gone to the center of the earth or even traveled to the deepest parts od our oceans, yet we think we know how the universe was created.  I see something horrificly wrong in that.  It is great that they are thinking of possibilities and looking, but saying that "is what happened" is no different than religious beliefs.

You don't need to travel into the depth of the Earth or the Sun to know what inside it. You can use indirect evidences.

I don't know if my memory is wrong, but I remembered reading about Lomonosov once mentioned the "logical imagination" and he greatly praised the "logical imagination" in scientific researches.

The vital difference between "logical imagination" and religious beliefs is that, the former is based on EVIDENCES, PROOFS, and LOGIC. We can clearly see which is more reliable.

sepheronx wrote:Then again, there is a clear difference between science and scientists where there are zealots on both sides.

Of course all sides have crazy people. Science community also has mad scientists.

But a belief is a belief, regardless if one person calls it logical or not. I get what you are saying, but a logical explenation for something, that isnt correct, is still wrong (or unproven thus a belief). The rest is simply playing with words.

But, this is a topic that will be going on forever. Long after us. As it was going on long before us.

Reason why we need to physically see aomething in space to know, is because we are constantly discovering something new that can tell a different story - gas cloud in center of univers (or so we think) spits out planets. At least that is what some are saying.

Kinda interesting too. Wish I could live long enough for us to find out.

higurashihougi wrote:Belief exists everywhere. But there are many kinds of belief and each kind is different from each other. Scientific belief is different from religious belief.

A BELIEF is only a THOUGHT you keep thinking.

As the debate in this thread became something like "how religion and science are opposed", I want to intervene. Almost everyone, including those who consider themselves religious, have a misconception about faith, considering it to be a blind, even irrational, belief. It is not like this, for Catholics this conception is even a heresy called "fideism". Anyway, if anyone is interested, this is an e-mail I wrote to a US teacher of religion some time ago, about this issue:

I would like to comment about the first chapter of "Paths of Return", more specifically about the differences (and similarities) of science and religion. Let's consider modern physics, the most advanced of all sciences nowadays, and the one that moved furthest from the paradigms that dominated science until a bit more than one hundred years ago: it is radically different from what it used to be from the 18th to the late 19th centuries, with few in common with the "solid", "sensory" and "common-sense" aspects of Newtonian physics. Neutrinos, quarks, non-Baryonic matter, virtual particles, would seem absurdities and not scientific at all for a physicist two centuries ago. But of course it is not. Karl Popper, in my opinion, gave the most valid of all explanations for what is science: a hypothesis is scientific if it makes a falsifiable affirmation that can be proven right or wrong through an experiment. An ambiguous statement, or one that cannot be tested, isn't scientific, and though modern physics may seem highly speculative and mathematical, for a hypothesis to be accepted it must go through the validation of experiment. Those who didn't so far, like branes or multiverses, don't have the same status as those which did, like quarks or dark matter.
While I don't agree with New Age authors who believe that modern science, specially quantum physics, is in some way "mystical" or has "spiritual aspects", I do think there is a strong similarity between science and religion: that both are based on experimental and verifiable knowledge. Many nowadays would be astonished to think that religion is something that can be verified by experience. Probably this is one of the reasons why it lost much of its strength, excessive emphasis is given in faith as something opposed to reason and experience, as if the greatest virtue of a religious person would be to blindly believe even if facts contradict it. But as you correctly notice, belief and faith are only the first steps, experience and transformation being the most advanced ones. And I strongly admire the Orthodox church for still stressing this aspect. An Orthodox friend sent me the following link of an article by John Romanides, "Empirical Theology versus Speculative Theology":
"In the Orthodox partisan tradition, genuine spiritual experience is the foundation of dogmatic formulations which, in turn, are necessary guides for leading to glorification. Translated into the language of science, this would mean that verification by observation is expressed in descriptive symbols which, in turn, act as guides for others to repeat this same verification by observation. Thus, the observations of prior astronomers, biologists, chemists, physicists, and doctors become the observations of their successors.
In exactly the same manner, the experience of glorification of the prophets, apostles, and saints are expressed in linguistic forms, whose purpose is to act as a guide to the same experience of glorification by their successors."
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.02.htm
I don't deny that Scholasticism has its value, but it remained mostly a speculative intellectual exercise with few (if any) references to empirical facts. Orthodoxy has the great merit, which we Catholics should learn from, of emphasizing that faith (understood in its crudest meaning of "a pure belief not based on verifiable and experienced facts") or speculations about God, are worthless if they don't lead to a direct experience of the Spiritual Reality.
There is another similarity between modern science and religion: to fully dominate the first one, it is necessary a long and arduous training on many subjects, a work that lasts for a life. Scientists that deal with divulgation, like Carl Sagan or Michio Kaku, always stated that it is impossible to translate the highly technical and mathematical concepts into a natural language, and it is only possible to make some metaphorical approximations. The same for religion: except for some very uncommon cases, to achieve a direct experience of Spiritual Reality is a work for an entire life, requiring huge effort and discipline.
But despite the similarities, there are two essential differences between religion and science that can't be overcome, and that is why I can't accept claims that modern science is "spiritual" or "mystical". The first difference already appeared in the previous paragraph: it is impossible to express modern physics through natural languages, but by creating a synthetic and highly mathematical one it surely is, and that is the way fellow scientists communicate their discoveries and theories in specialized publications. Spiritual realities, on the other hand, are just impossible to be conceptualized, and thus can't be expressed through any language, be it natural or synthetic, and are fully ineffable. There can only be metaphors that point in a certain direction, trying to lead each individual to achieve his own experience.
But the second and biggest difference, and the reason why spiritual realities will always be beyond the reach of physics or any other natural science, was best explained, in my opinion, by Aldous Huxley in the introduction of his "Perennial Philosophy":
"Knowledge is a function of being. When there is a change in the being of the knower, there is a corresponding change in the nature and amount of knowing. (...) Or consider the change in his being which the scientist is able to induce mechanically by means of his instruments. Equipped with a spectroscope and a sixty-inch reflector an astronomer becomes, so far as eyesight is concerned, a superhuman creature; and, as we should naturally expect, the knowledge possessed by this superhuman creature is very different, both in quantity and quality, from that which can be acquired by a stargazer with unmodified, merely human eyes.
Nor are changes in the knower's physiological or intellectual being the only ones to affect his knowledge. What we know depends also on what, as moral beings, we choose to make ourselves. ‘Practice,’ in the words of William James, ‘may change our theoretical horizon, and this in a twofold way: it may lead into new worlds and secure new powers. Knowledge we could never attain, remaining what we are, may be attainable in consequence of higher powers and a higher life, which we may morally achieve.’ To put the matter more succinctly, ‘ Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.' And the same idea has been expressed by the Sufi poet, Jalal-uddin Rumi, in terms of a scientific metaphor :' The astrolabe of the mysteries of God is love.'"
To say in a few words: in order to master a natural science, it is needed a technical training and adequate instruments; to achieve the higher levels of religion, i.e. those of direct experience and transformation, it is necessary a moral modification of ourselves, basically by emptying of our egotistical self to let the Spiritual Reality act directly in us to the point that we become It.

I'm scratching my head - once Assad wins in Syria, could it open door for Russia to preach Eastern Orthodoxy there? Middle class Syrians may find this religion way more attractive than Islam and some Sunni tribes may even be bribed into converting.

Religion is actually a very important component of soft power capabilities - expansion of US influence over the world is associated with spread of Evangelical Protestantism. Even in Germany we have those damn creationist nutheads while just a few decades ago they were nonexistent.

As far as I know, Easter Orthodoxy (i.e., in communion with other Patriarchates, like Moscow and Constantinople) is already the biggest Christian denomination in Syria. Then there is the Syriac Orthodox church, non-Chalcedonian denomination, and Maronites which are in communion with Rome. Of course, considering the Russian involvement in the conflict (which is becoming clearer and clearer each day) I guess many Syrian Christians would feel better off being Orthodox than Catholic, seeing how the West not only abandoned them, but created the monstrous "opposition" who persecute them.

My sincere sorry for all of our religious friend in the forum but... WTH is this proposal ?

http://www.rt.com/politics/316172-chechen-lawmaker-proposes-legal-immunity/

I am sorry but NO religious scriptures should be immune from logical/analytical/rational judegment. Buddhism, Christinanity, Muslim, Judaism, Hinduism,... all the same, if people see that they have some errors or mistakes, they are free to criticize them as long as they use logic and evidences to back their arguments.

Freedom of religion and belief is mutual. People are free to believe in a religion and are free to broadcast that belief; but people are also free to NOT believe and to broadcast their non-belief.

People are free to express their love to a religion; but people are also free to express their disagreement about a religion.

As long as all these things happen in a civilized way and nobody is killed/hurt/harmed.

Agreed. The Chechens are pushing their luck regarding this. Belief/faith is one thing, religion is another. And being so, doesnt give them a right to impede on others or force leway in various dangerous and harmful text. There is a reason why Russia limits on where the Qaran can come from.

Seems like a reasonable proposal - why should any holy scriptures of any religions be treated as extremist material?

The Council of Mufti's head is quite right - you can find the same 'extremist materials' in many other religions too - there is more than enough in the Old Testament for instance.

I've known more than enough pious Muslims who behave as peaceful, tolerant people, and who reject violence and terrorism and other wrongdoing as incompatible with Islam - so I know that the fault lies not in the religion.

What should be outlawed as extremist are extreme interpretations of religious texts, and calls for violent action.

flamming_python wrote:The Council of Mufti's head is quite right - you can find the same 'extremist materials' in many other religions too - there is more than enough in the Old Testament for instance

a handful of verses from the oldest part of the Old Testament, telling Jews to fight tribes that no longer exist... truly horrible that book is.

Or maybe you're arguing that passages such as "wipe out the seed of Amalek" constitute a threat to world peace?

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:
a handful of verses from the oldest part of the Old Testament, telling Jews to fight tribes that no longer exist... truly horrible that book is.

Or maybe you're arguing that passages such as "wipe out the seed of Amalek" constitute a threat to world peace?

Jewish religious texts are equally horrible. The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals.

Modern day evangelical presbyterian church is also suggesting the same thing: that Protestants are humans and all others are animals.

What passage(s) from the Talmud are you refering to?

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:What passage(s) from the Talmud are you refering to?

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: "Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave."


Have a nice day.

Ok. Thanks.

Another of my ideas - we can also help Syria by replacing people who died or fled during the war with settlers from Russia - 200,000 would do. Kinda Stalinesque though I'm certain that many would go if there's enough economic growth.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:

flamming_python wrote:The Council of Mufti's head is quite right - you can find the same 'extremist materials' in many other religions too - there is more than enough in the Old Testament for instance

a handful of verses from the oldest part of the Old Testament, telling Jews to fight tribes that no longer exist... truly horrible that book is.

Or maybe you're arguing that passages such as "wipe out the seed of Amalek" constitute a threat to world peace?

**sigh**

If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters."(Leviticus 26:27-30)
i.e. kill your children if you disobey god

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."(Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
i.e. if a woman grabs her husband's attacker by the balls, cut off her hand

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
i.e. put them to death if they curse their parents

"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deuteronomy 22: 20-21)
i.e. stone non-virgins to death

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." (Mark 9:43)
i.e. if you sin with your hand (e.g. steal), cut it off

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18
self-explanatory

He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them…. He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD’s Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since. 2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT
i.e. it's OK to kill pagans

You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
i.e. it's OK for Jews to have slaves, but not for those slaves to be other Jews

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT
i.e. it's OK for Christians to have slaves, and for those slaves to be Christians too

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
i.e. have a problem with a disobedient kid? it's OK to have him killed, you know

Whoever utters the name of the Lord must be put to death. The whole community must stone him, whether alien or native. If he utters the name, he must be put to death. 3. Leviticus 24:16
i.e. if someone says god's name - kill him

And it just goes on like that..
More here:
http://www.owl232.net/biblequotes.htm
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/31/11_kinds_of_bible_verses_christians_love_to_ignore_partner/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl3.htm

Abrogation of Old Covenant laws - ever heard about it?

This stuff is basics of Christian theology... of every denomination.

Catholic priest suspended for defending pedophilia

“Unfortunately there are children who seek affection because they don’t receive it at home and I understand that some priests can give up,” Flaim said.


“Pedophilia is a sin, and like all sins has to be accepted, also,” while homosexuality is “a disease,” the priest said.

https://www.rt.com/news/318334-italy-priest-pedophilia-tv/

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Abrogation of Old Covenant laws - ever heard about it?

This stuff is basics of Christian theology... of every denomination.

Walther, I learned a long time ago, it's pointless to discuss "religion" with anyone who is antagonistic towards Judaism or Christianity.

Jesus said no one comes to the Him unless the Father who sent Him draws them.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

What I think about is that Orthodox Christians (& any and every other denomination) in Russia and Christians in America all have the same Saviour and are brothers and sisters. The same goes for Christians in Donbass.

Lu 2:11 for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.

Persons in governments, persons who are not Christians, attack and divide Christians world over. & it's only going to get worse. It's worse in America than it was...so we just might as well get ready.

Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.


There are persons who follow religion (legalism) (the law) and there are persons who follow a person- Jesus Christ.

Mt 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone.

Cowboy's daughter wrote:Walther, I learned a long time ago, it's pointless to discuss "religion" with anyone who is antagonistic towards Judaism or Christianity.

As a devout Christian (albeit Orthodox) what I can tell you is that you need to separate Judaism from Christianity.

Unlike Judaism, Christianity is not saying, that if you are not born a Jew you are an animal.

Cowboy's daughter wrote:Persons in governments, persons who are not Christians, attack and divide Christians world over. & it's only going to get worse. It's worse in America than it was...so we just might as well get ready.

YES! Christians are not united and therefore individuals who practice all these disgusting religions like Islam, Hindooism, Buddhism, Judaism etc are hell bent on destroying Christianity.

As of now only Putin is making an effort to unite Christians in Russia, Europe and US.

jhelb wrote:

Cowboy's daughter wrote:Walther, I learned a long time ago, it's pointless to discuss "religion" with anyone who is antagonistic towards Judaism or Christianity.

As a devout Christian (albeit Orthodox) what I can tell you is that you need to separate Judaism from Christianity.

Unlike Judaism, Christianity is not saying, that if you are not born a Jew you are an animal.

Cowboy's daughter wrote:Persons in governments, persons who are not Christians, attack and divide Christians world over. & it's only going to get worse. It's worse in America than it was...so we just might as well get ready.

YES! Christians are not united and therefore individuals who practice all these disgusting religions like Islam, Hindooism, Buddhism, Judaism etc are hell bent on destroying Christianity.

As of now only Putin is making an effort to unite Christians in Russia, Europe and US.

Respectfully,
I will not call other religions, and especially not Judaism "disgusting".

Jesus was a Jew(Israelite, or Hebrew) from the tribe of Judah.

The first Christians were Jewish people.

A lot of persons who claimed to be Christians have persecuted, and committed murder and genocide and cultural genocide against persons of other faiths/ spirituality they considered "heathens'.

Romans 2:9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;

Ro 2:10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:

Ro 2:11 for there is no respect of persons with God.

and

Ro 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?

Ro 3:2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.

Ro 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin;

Ro 3:10 as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one;

Our righteousness comes not from works, but from Jesus Christ.

Even in Russia there's a difference between persons who are Russian citizens and practice Islam, and persons who are jihadists, committing terrorist attacks against Russia.

Cowboy's daughter wrote:
Respectfully,
I will not call other religions, and especially not Judaism "disgusting".

I am not sure if you have gone through the Talmud(I have provided some excerpts above, as to what Jews thinks about non Jews) but if you do your views about Jews might change.

Re other religions like Hindooism, Islam etc I see that they do not like each other and are more than happy to kill one another.

Cowboy's daughter wrote:A lot of persons who claimed to be Christians have persecuted, and committed murder and genocide and cultural genocide against persons of other faiths/ spirituality they considered "heathens'.

Mostly people in Africa & Asia who never really understood Christianity.

In my personal experience White Christians are some of the most loving,caring people on the planet.