What is religion ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the existential pains and angsts are inherent and always there as programmed in the DNA and expressed accordingly.
That means that all human has experienced this existantial pain and angst i guess.

Has a DNA sequence been identified responsible for existential pain and angst ?

No DNA sequence been identified "yet" I am optimistic it can be done and it is likely to come in a set of sequences, not one long continual sequence.
Given that there had been religions since the emergence of humans up to the present and the existential pains and angsts are its root cause, we can infer it has to be is embedded in the DNA to be passed on to future generations.

So existential pain and angst leads to many ways to inhibit it. If i sum up the list of ways you mentioned, there is :
- drugs
- religions
- secular activities
So if existential pain explains religious behaviours, it doesn't explain it specificity, right?

The above are the 3 main ones with a long lists of its subs.
My hypothesis, if there is no existential pains and angsts in humans, there would be no religion [typically defined], especially those with soteriological promises.

So religions can't be reduced as a psychological reaction of existential pain. It doesn't help us to clearly understand what religion is.

As above religions can be reduced to existential pains an angst - the ultimate root cause.
There are other aspects of religion, e.g. tribalism and its rituals.

At present and the present phase of humanity, the Abrahamic religions are the most effective natural ways with their soteriological promises [just believe and one is saved!] BUT it has its side effects which will be a hindrance for the progress of humanity in the future.
For the future, we have to find foolproof [no side effects] ways to modulate the inherent pains and angsts from the existential crisis on the basis of its neural grounds.

That is an interesting point of view, if abrahamic religions are the most effective natural ways to inhibit existential pain, does that mean that we are naturally induced to believe in the abrahamic God ?
Shouldn't we prescribe it as a therapy for those who suffer for existential pain ?
How do we measure the efficiency of abrahamic religions ?

Yes at present due to the psychological state of the majority, they are naturally inclined to believe in the abrahamic God which promise soteriological reliefs which are immediate in soothing the existential and angsts, i.e. just believe and viola! one is saved.

Yes, we can prescribe it as a therapy for soothing existential pains, but only the benign ones, not that evil laden malignant 'religion of peace'.

It is very obvious, the abrahamic religions were efficient, at present the Abrahamic Religion represent appx 75% of theists; prior to that it was more. There are other valid reasons for this high percentage, and efficiency is one of them.
However, the efficiency of the Abrahamic religions are slowly wearing off at present as shown by the trend in its % as compared the secular.

Should we convert countries that don't believe in abrahamic religions to release them from their existential pain, because that stays the best remedy in the market for it ?

It is not to release but rather suppress, inhibit and soothe and inherent and unavoidable existential pains and angsts.

At the present, it would be optimal to convert non-Christians [not countries] who are effected [subliminally] by the existential pains to be Christians where Christianity is in the more moderate positive form i.e. without fundamentalists.

However, at present humanity need to take steps to wean off the Abrahamic religions and eventually ALL religions in the FUTURE* and replace them with secular ["spiritual," moral] alternatives that are 100% foolproof to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential pains and angsts.
* it may take another 100, 150, 200 years or more to do the job.

[godelian]

At the present, it would be optimal to convert non-Christians [not countries] who are effected [subliminally] by the existential pains to be Christians where Christianity is in the more moderate positive form i.e. without fundamentalists.

Christianity is not a scriptural religion. It is a clerical one. So, believers are subject to the manipulations of the clergy, because the clergy's opinions are the ultimate source of truth in Christianity. The Bible is certainly not the source of truth for Christianity.

Christianity creates an organization, the "church", and even an entire social class of people who keep grabbing more and more power, and are happily willing to collude with the ruling mafia to do so. In other words, you are just asking for another French revolution or another Russian revolution.

There is a need for a scripture to thoroughly constrain the clergy and prevent them from inventing self-serving doctrines. Judaism and Islam have that. Christianity does not.

The clergy should have no power beyond an advisory role. The clergy should especially not have the power to authorize marriage or divorce. We do not need that kind of land grab. The ruling mafia should not have that power either.

The Christian clergy and their hunger for power are a nightmare. That is why Christianity is a nightmare.

However, at present humanity need to take steps to wean off the Abrahamic religions and eventually ALL religions in the FUTURE* and replace them with secular ["spiritual," moral] alternatives that are 100% foolproof to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential pains and angsts.
* it may take another 100, 150, 200 years or more to do the job.

Pie in the sky. Vaporware.

[Veritas Aequitas]

At the present, it would be optimal to convert non-Christians [not countries] who are effected [subliminally] by the existential pains to be Christians where Christianity is in the more moderate positive form i.e. without fundamentalists.

Christianity is not a scriptural religion. It is a clerical one. So, believers are subject to the manipulations of the clergy, because the clergy's opinions are the ultimate source of truth in Christianity. The Bible is certainly not the source of truth for Christianity.

Christianity creates an organization, the "church", and even an entire social class of people who keep grabbing more and more power, and are happily willing to collude with the ruling mafia to do so. In other words, you are just asking for another French revolution or another Russian revolution.

There is a need for a scripture to thoroughly constrain the clergy and prevent them from inventing self-serving doctrines. Judaism and Islam have that. Christianity does not.

The clergy should have no power beyond an advisory role. The clergy should especially not have the power to authorize marriage or divorce. We do not need that kind of land grab. The ruling mafia should not have that power either.

The Christian clergy and their hunger for power are a nightmare. That is why Christianity is a nightmare.

I agree institutional Christianity is very negative.
At present it appear the trend of Christianity is moving away from the clergy and institutional, organizational form of Christianity to a more personal relationship with Christ/God.

The essence of Christianity is the contract [new covenant] between Christ/God and the believer, where the believer has to comply with the terms of agreement within the sole and only the Gospels of Christ. The Acts, Epistles, and OT are merely guides.

So all Christians should move toward a direct personal contract [covenantal relationship] with Christ/God for a promise of soteriological salvation with assistance for positive fellowship where necessary.

However, at present humanity need to take steps to wean off the Abrahamic religions and eventually ALL religions in the FUTURE* and replace them with secular ["spiritual," moral] alternatives that are 100% foolproof to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential pains and angsts.
* it may take another 100, 150, 200 years or more to do the job.

Pie in the sky. Vaporware.

10,000 years ago, if a chattel slave were to say to his fellow chattel slaves that he is optimistic chattel slavery will be banned all over the world someday in the future, he would have faced with "Pie in the sky. Vaporware" wishful thinking.

But at present it is reality, chattel slavery is banned in all sovereign nations, i.e. it is illegal to own chattel slaves. In time, all humans will naturally not be inclined to own chattel slaves.

As with secular ["spiritual," moral] alternatives to replace ALL religions, it is already happening on a smaller scale with an increasing trend of non-theism and non-religiosity since 500 years ago to the present.

[godelian]

I agree institutional Christianity is very negative.

Look at how the Christian clergy carried out a massive land grab. At first, the only thing that existed was marriage according to the customs. The only authorization required was from the family, if and when applicable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage

In medieval Europe, marriage was governed by canon law, which recognized only those marriages where the parties stated they took one another as husband and wife as valid, regardless of the presence or absence of witnesses. It was not necessary, however, to be married by any official or cleric.

Next, the Church carried out a land grab. Henceforth, Church also had to give permission:

In 1566, the edict of the Council of Trent was proclaimed denying Catholics any form of marriage not executed in a religious ceremony before a priest and two witnesses.

Of course, the ruling mafia did not want to stay behind. They also wanted to grab some of that undue power:

The Protestant pastor and theologian of Geneva, John Calvin, decreed that in order for a couple to be considered married they must be registered by the state in addition to a church ceremony.

In 1792, with the French Revolution, religious marriage ceremonies in France were made secondary to civil marriage.

Napoleon later spread this custom throughout most of Europe. In present-day France, only civil marriage has legal validity.

Next, the neo-colonial powers of the West insisted on spreading and imposing their Christian depravity onto the rest of the world, by using their neo-colonial instrument of choice, the United Nations:

Countries maintaining a population registry of its residents keeps track of marital status,[2] and all United Nations (UN) Member states except Iran, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Tonga have signed or ratified either the United Nations Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages (1962)[3] or the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) which carry a responsibility to register marriages.[4]

The Christian clergy is an utterly detestable institution that tries to impose its views onto the whole world, Christian or not. That is why complete decolonization will require numerous new wars against the West. War against the West is inevitable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree institutional Christianity is very negative.

Look at how the Christian clergy carried out a massive land grab. At first, the only thing that existed was marriage according to the customs. The only authorization required was from the family, if and when applicable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage

In medieval Europe, marriage was governed by canon law, which recognized only those marriages where the parties stated they took one another as husband and wife as valid, regardless of the presence or absence of witnesses. It was not necessary, however, to be married by any official or cleric.

Next, the Church carried out a land grab. Henceforth, Church also had to give permission:

In 1566, the edict of the Council of Trent was proclaimed denying Catholics any form of marriage not executed in a religious ceremony before a priest and two witnesses.

Of course, the ruling mafia did not want to stay behind. They also wanted to grab some of that undue power:

The Protestant pastor and theologian of Geneva, John Calvin, decreed that in order for a couple to be considered married they must be registered by the state in addition to a church ceremony.

In 1792, with the French Revolution, religious marriage ceremonies in France were made secondary to civil marriage.

Napoleon later spread this custom throughout most of Europe. In present-day France, only civil marriage has legal validity.

Next, the neo-colonial powers of the West insisted on spreading and imposing their Christian depravity onto the rest of the world, by using their neo-colonial instrument of choice, the United Nations:

Countries maintaining a population registry of its residents keeps track of marital status,[2] and all United Nations (UN) Member states except Iran, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Tonga have signed or ratified either the United Nations Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages (1962)[3] or the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) which carry a responsibility to register marriages.[4]

The Christian clergy is an utterly detestable institution that tries to impose its views onto the whole world, Christian or not. That is why complete decolonization will require numerous new wars against the West. War against the West is inevitable.

What you stated had happened, is happening, and will happen in the future BUT the above evil acts has nothing to do with the essence of Christianity grounded solely on the words of Christ/God in the Gospels.

The significant contractual terms of the contract between a Christian and Christ/God is to love all - even enemies, give the other cheek, etc.
Thus it is very evident, the hating, violence and killing of humans is a violation of contractual terms, thus it is a sin.
Those who committed the above sins are either ignorant and/or forced by circumstances to do so; they have sinned and their option is to ask for forgiveness subject Christ/God's judgment and mercy.

[godelian]

What you stated had happened, is happening, and will happen in the future BUT the above evil acts has nothing to do with the essence of Christianity grounded solely on the words of Christ/God in the Gospels.

The significant contractual terms of the contract between a Christian and Christ/God is to love all - even enemies, give the other cheek, etc.
Thus it is very evident, the hating, violence and killing of humans is a violation of contractual terms, thus it is a sin.
Those who committed the above sins are either ignorant and/or forced by circumstances to do so; they have sinned and their option is to ask for forgiveness subject Christ/God's judgment and mercy.

Christian doctrine only exists to confuse the masses and to hide from them that in reality it is all about power. The true nature of Christianity is that it is a social system with three classes: clergy, nobility, and commoners. The clergy shares power with the nobility, and in exchange for their privileges, the clergy bamboozles the commoners into believing that Christianity is about some vague pacifist doctrine in which you give the other cheek. It obviously isn't. Nobility never gives the other cheek. They slaughter the enemies of this social arrangement with great conviction. If you are a commoner, Christianity will teach you what your true place is. You obey the nobles and the clergy, you pay taxes to them, and when the feudal lord slaps your cheek, you give the other cheek. The feudal lord will never give the other cheek, but you surely must.

Seriously, it is a gigantic scam.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What you stated had happened, is happening, and will happen in the future BUT the above evil acts has nothing to do with the essence of Christianity grounded solely on the words of Christ/God in the Gospels.

The significant contractual terms of the contract between a Christian and Christ/God is to love all - even enemies, give the other cheek, etc.
Thus it is very evident, the hating, violence and killing of humans is a violation of contractual terms, thus it is a sin.
Those who committed the above sins are either ignorant and/or forced by circumstances to do so; they have sinned and their option is to ask for forgiveness subject Christ/God's judgment and mercy.

Christian doctrine only exists to confuse the masses and to hide from them that in reality it is all about power. The true nature of Christianity is that it is a social system with three classes: clergy, nobility, and commoners. The clergy shares power with the nobility, and in exchange for their privileges, the clergy bamboozles the commoners into believing that Christianity is about some vague pacifist doctrine in which you give the other cheek. It obviously isn't. Nobility never gives the other cheek. They slaughter the enemies of this social arrangement with great conviction. If you are a commoner, Christianity will teach you what your true place is. You obey the nobles and the clergy, you pay taxes to them, and when the feudal lord slaps your cheek, you give the other cheek. The feudal lord will never give the other cheek, but you surely must.

Seriously, it is a gigantic scam.

You keep deviating from the fundamentals

When Christ first spoke in the Gospels he did not advocate for the bastardized clergy, institutional or politicized Christianity. Maybe it was optimal then and now, but there is a need to get back to basic in the present and the future.
What is fundamental with Christianity is the contract [covenantal relationship] between the believer and Christ/God with the terms of contract confined within the Gospels.

What had happened in the past and even now with organized Christianity in many ways is evil.
However, at present, there is trend moving toward the original intention of Christ's message and complying with the terms of the contract [covenant].

[godelian]

You keep deviating from the fundamentals
When Christ first spoke in the Gospels he did not advocate for the bastardized clergy, institutional or politicized Christianity.
What had happened in the past and even now with organized Christianity in many ways is evil.

In all practical terms, Christianity comes with at least two rules that are unacceptable to me (and unacceptable to lots of other people).

(1) They want to control your private life by grabbing control over marriage and divorce.
(2) They keep the system of personal income tax afloat in the West by insisting that you "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar".

I do not want the clergy (nor the ruling mafia) to control my private life.

There is no system of personal income tax outside the West. It may sometimes be on the books, but they do not enforce it. Personal income tax was invented in the USA in 1913 to prop up the Federal Reserve. I do not want to pay that crap. I do not want to hold my assets in fiat money. I keep it in crypto. Therefore, I do not want to prop up the fiat money system.

Christianity is not good for my private life and not good for my finances.

[Belinda]

Christianity is not good for my private life and not good for my finances.

Each religion is composed of a moral code either written or oral, a basic story to explain human life and its direction, and a set of rituals.

If your tribe or nation does not don't have a religion it must either have a substitute such as Communism or Humanism, or eop0le could not live together. For instance how could you manage to live if honesty were not enshrined in religious and civil law?
Religion includes theism, animism, and polytheism ; religion is not alone Christianity as you seem to presume.

[Dr Faustus]

Note the existential pains and angsts are inherent and always there as programmed in the DNA and expressed accordingly.
That means that all human has experienced this existantial pain and angst i guess.

Has a DNA sequence been identified responsible for existential pain and angst ?

No DNA sequence been identified "yet" I am optimistic it can be done and it is likely to come in a set of sequences, not one long continual sequence.
Given that there had been religions since the emergence of humans up to the present and the existential pains and angsts are its root cause, we can infer it has to be is embedded in the DNA to be passed on to future generations.

So existential pain and angst leads to many ways to inhibit it. If i sum up the list of ways you mentioned, there is :
- drugs
- religions
- secular activities
So if existential pain explains religious behaviours, it doesn't explain it specificity, right?

The above are the 3 main ones with a long lists of its subs.
My hypothesis, if there is no existential pains and angsts in humans, there would be no religion [typically defined], especially those with soteriological promises.

So religions can't be reduced as a psychological reaction of existential pain. It doesn't help us to clearly understand what religion is.

As above religions can be reduced to existential pains an angst - the ultimate root cause.
There are other aspects of religion, e.g. tribalism and its rituals.

At present and the present phase of humanity, the Abrahamic religions are the most effective natural ways with their soteriological promises [just believe and one is saved!] BUT it has its side effects which will be a hindrance for the progress of humanity in the future.
For the future, we have to find foolproof [no side effects] ways to modulate the inherent pains and angsts from the existential crisis on the basis of its neural grounds.

That is an interesting point of view, if abrahamic religions are the most effective natural ways to inhibit existential pain, does that mean that we are naturally induced to believe in the abrahamic God ?
Shouldn't we prescribe it as a therapy for those who suffer for existential pain ?
How do we measure the efficiency of abrahamic religions ?

Yes at present due to the psychological state of the majority, they are naturally inclined to believe in the abrahamic God which promise soteriological reliefs which are immediate in soothing the existential and angsts, i.e. just believe and viola! one is saved.

Yes, we can prescribe it as a therapy for soothing existential pains, but only the benign ones, not that evil laden malignant 'religion of peace'.

It is very obvious, the abrahamic religions were efficient, at present the Abrahamic Religion represent appx 75% of theists; prior to that it was more. There are other valid reasons for this high percentage, and efficiency is one of them.
However, the efficiency of the Abrahamic religions are slowly wearing off at present as shown by the trend in its % as compared the secular.

Should we convert countries that don't believe in abrahamic religions to release them from their existential pain, because that stays the best remedy in the market for it ?

It is not to release but rather suppress, inhibit and soothe and inherent and unavoidable existential pains and angsts.

At the present, it would be optimal to convert non-Christians [not countries] who are effected [subliminally] by the existential pains to be Christians where Christianity is in the more moderate positive form i.e. without fundamentalists.

However, at present humanity need to take steps to wean off the Abrahamic religions and eventually ALL religions in the FUTURE* and replace them with secular ["spiritual," moral] alternatives that are 100% foolproof to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential pains and angsts.
* it may take another 100, 150, 200 years or more to do the job.

No DNA sequence been identified "yet" I am optimistic it can be done and it is likely to come in a set of sequences, not one long continual sequence.
Given that there had been religions since the emergence of humans up to the present and the existential pains and angsts are its root cause, we can infer it has to be is embedded in the DNA to be passed on to future generations.

I don't share your optimism. I am very skeptical about the idea that genetics could explain each character of our being, particularly behavioural character such as intelligence, immorality, religions, etc. This is too complex to find a specific relation with DNA. So i don't think that there exist such thing as a gene of religion.
I think that this conception of life as a genetic program will be called into question in the future. This is a process that is already underway.

My hypothesis, if there is no existential pains and angsts in humans, there would be no religion [typically defined], especially those with soteriological promises.

As above religions can be reduced to existential pains an angst - the ultimate root cause.
There are other aspects of religion, e.g. tribalism and its rituals.

If there is no life, there would be no religion, but religion can't be reduced to life. It is not sufficient to explain religion. Reduction implies a specific explanation. Otherwise, we speak about two ontologically different things.

It is very obvious, the abrahamic religions were efficient, at present the Abrahamic Religion represent appx 75% of theists; prior to that it was more. There are other valid reasons for this high percentage, and efficiency is one of them.
However, the efficiency of the Abrahamic religions are slowly wearing off at present as shown by the trend in its % as compared the secular.

So you measure the efficiency by the spread of abrahamic religions around the world. But the spread of religions does not mean that people does not suffer of existential pains and angsts while they believe on these cults.
So the spread of theism could be linked to many other things than existential pain and angsts, but as a simple effect of the spread of empires.

However, at present humanity need to take steps to wean off the Abrahamic religions and eventually ALL religions in the FUTURE* and replace them with secular ["spiritual," moral] alternatives that are 100% foolproof to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential pains and angsts.
* it may take another 100, 150, 200 years or more to do the job.

This is the point I wanted to come. How do you define secular and distinct it from religion ?

[Dr Faustus]

I understand that you hate nazism and communism, but what about the others : socialism, liberalism, anarchism, nationalism, monarchism, cesarism, mondialsm, pacifism, ecologism, etc.

Do they all have an object of hatred ?

They become a powerful social movement when they clearly designate an enemy. For example:

Liberalism is anti-clerical.
Nationalism is anti-immigrant.

Anarchism is never a powerful movement because that would be contradictory. Same for pacifism. They get beaten up and coerced by adversaries perfectly willing to use violence.

Antifa has an object of hatred: the demographic perceived as "fascist".

At the core of socialism, you always have extremists who are in reality something else, such as communists.

Monarchism is typically weak. They are no match for their more extremist adversaries.

An ideology without an enemy is a weak ideology. Either they have something more radical at their core, or else they will fail to galvanize the masses into action.

For example, when the gloves come off, there are no real socialists. Something much more extreme will lead the pack and use violence against the competition.

Actually, why can't we extend that to spreading religions such as christianism or islam which often also have an object of hatred, gentiles.

[godelian]

Christianity is not good for my private life and not good for my finances.

Each religion is composed of a moral code either written or oral, a basic story to explain human life and its direction, and a set of rituals.

If your tribe or nation does not don't have a religion it must either have a substitute such as Communism or Humanism, or eop0le could not live together. For instance how could you manage to live if honesty were not enshrined in religious and civil law?
Religion includes theism, animism, and polytheism ; religion is not alone Christianity as you seem to presume.

Judaism and Islam are perfectly fine.

Their clergy are just influencers. The Jewish Rabbis and Islamic Ulema may or may not be influential. However, they do not have the authority to compel you in any way. They certainly do not subject marriage and divorce to their permission. Furthermore, they cannot substantially deviate from what their respective scripture says. You cannot compare a scriptural religion, such as Judaism or Islam, where the authority rests in the scripture, to a clerical religion such as Christianity, where the authority resides in the whims and inventions of the clergy, that are -- adding insult to injury -- even their own social class with their own privileges.

Just look at this monstrosity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage

The Protestant pastor and theologian of Geneva, John Calvin, decreed that in order for a couple to be considered married they must be registered by the state in addition to a church ceremony.

So, both the Christian clergy as the Christian ruling mafia want control over your private life. Seriously, where did they find the temerity to invent that? There is clearly no religion more detestable than that.

[godelian]

Actually, why can't we extend that to spreading religions such as christianism or islam which often also have an object of hatred, gentiles.

In religion, it is never the essence of the idea. Worship of God is the essence of religion. The moral code is the essence of religion. Hatred of people of other religions is not, if only, because it is unproductive. Sometimes, episodes of religious strife may occur, but it peters out rather quickly. It never remains at the forefront for long.

[Belinda]

Christianity is not good for my private life and not good for my finances.

Each religion is composed of a moral code either written or oral, a basic story to explain human life and its direction, and a set of rituals.

If your tribe or nation does not don't have a religion it must either have a substitute such as Communism or Humanism, or eop0le could not live together. For instance how could you manage to live if honesty were not enshrined in religious and civil law?
Religion includes theism, animism, and polytheism ; religion is not alone Christianity as you seem to presume.

Judaism and Islam are perfectly fine.

Their clergy are just influencers. The Jewish Rabbis and Islamic Ulema may or may not be influential. However, they do not have the authority to compel you in any way. They certainly do not subject marriage and divorce to their permission. Furthermore, they cannot substantially deviate from what their respective scripture says. You cannot compare a scriptural religion, such as Judaism or Islam, where the authority rests in the scripture, to a clerical religion such as Christianity, where the authority resides in the whims and inventions of the clergy, that are -- adding insult to injury -- even their own social class with their own privileges.

Just look at this monstrosity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage

The Protestant pastor and theologian of Geneva, John Calvin, decreed that in order for a couple to be considered married they must be registered by the state in addition to a church ceremony.

So, both the Christian clergy as the Christian ruling mafia want control over your private life. Seriously, where did they find the temerity to invent that? There is clearly no religion more detestable than that.

Unlike yourself, I have encountered only liberal Christians and Unitarians. From what I have heard of authoritarian Christianity, Calvinism, and so-called fundamentalism I would not agree with them.

[godelian]

Unlike yourself, I have encountered only liberal Christians and Unitarians. From what I have heard of authoritarian Christianity, Calvinism, and so-called fundamentalism I would not agree with them.

All Christian denominations have copied the horrible idea to get the church to grab control over marriage and divorce, and to require control by the official ruling mafia as well. So, they have created a system in which people's private lives is under both clerical and official mafia control. In that sense, Christianity is simply the absolutely worst religion on earth. I don't want clergy to control my private life. I don't want the ruling mafia to control my private life. No other religion does this. It is a Christian invention! That is why I spit, pee, and shit on the Christian clergy. These people are utmost detestable. They are outright evil.