That's why I wanted to separate Religion, which is a creation that man can make whatever he wants it to be, from plain Bible believing/following.

I think the distinction is important.

If only "religious people" caused world suffering then we could pin it all on them. But it's not that cut and dried.

Someone who is really following the Bible won't be able to do those atrocities. The actions always speak louder than the words. I think you get that.


I think you could/would add or substitute "hypocrisy" for intolerance. Seems hypocrisy drives most of us mad.

For me to use "hypocrisy" would insinuate that I have a working knowledge of the bible... Which I don't, so intolerance it is.

Hypocrisy would also suggest that regardless what an individual does, a true follower of the bible (using your distinction), would just accept it and not judge. I have yet to encounter a heavily religious person, including two intense Christians I work with that have that quality.

I could give an example, but it's too close to home. Hypocrisy, I can handle. Intolerence is something that can be ignored for only so long. Funny how the atheist in my example is the one that takes the high road. So much for divine enlightenment.

Agreed on the cut and dried part. However the point never was about religion causing all the suffering in the world, but more so the negative things done in God's name (aka religion), that out weight the positive. According to mcn779 that's arguing semantics, to me it's heavily siding on the value of life.

to each their own...