Bible, Talmud, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.

[James E. White]

If all religions were created by an omnipotent (and good) god then why aren't they the same? Exactly! You've hit the nail on the head. Any god that was all powerful (and good) would certainly have made sure to get the correct word out to everyone. Hence, it should be obvious, the religious books no matter what they say were all written by humans with whatever purposes the author(s) had in mind. Some of the authors may have wanted goodness to emerge from all their readers but some very likely (if not obviously) had more nefarious purposes in mind. (A piece of that tithe sound good?) Not just control of "good" (as opposed to "bad") behavior but to more certainly put readers/believers into a tighter control than what would clearly benefit society.

Want women to be under your thumb? Put some constrictions on them into the book you're writing (or at least your interpretation of someone else's book). Want government to have more power than everyday people? Then put some ambiguity into the book so that the government people (and/or the priests) can make arbitrary decisions (with no recourse until "God," supposedly, evens the score after death). Hence the need to throw into the book promises that the author doesn't have to deliver on, ones that everyday people cannot verify are true or not (they're not), and ones that are so, if true, beneficial to believers (albeit long term) that it seems to make sense to hang on to them as real.⁴ After all, if everyday people cannot win on rightness alone when going up against the "power" classes, belief in whichever (human written) book might and does (along with the forever damnation threat) keep the people from rebelling (for the most part).

But how far can the book authors go? I would suggest you, you, you, and you not let them go very far. I don't and that's why the Founders of the United States Constitution made sure the USA was a secular country, not one that would swing to the book/interpretation whims of any temporary majority. As soon as the author's (or their interpreter's) actions start hurting anyone they have gone too far. Believe what you want about (non-existent) spirits (3 are 1, or Hinduism's many united as one, whatever) but "kill others that won't agree to your beliefs" is way, way too far. Tolerance of other people's beliefs is essential and must be reciprocal. Tolerance of any intentionally inflicted injury to others or violation of their rights without the reasonable sanction of the whole of "the People" is not acceptable. Period.

There are places where "control" of people and/or their behaviors might get fuzzy but it should not, with the current level of science understanding, be on the basis of religion whether from a book or personal belief. For example, in the time when trichinosis was a serious health issue the banning of eating pork was all-in-all a good thing. Science would have favored it and obviously some ancients (at least 2,000 years and likely more ago) connected the dots but now we know the cause and how to prevent most Trichinella infections (and we can cure them when they occur). Proper cooking of meats is effective for prevention. Circumcision is semi-effective in limiting transmission of a variety of venereal diseases but abstinence, better cleanliness, and various barriers also can help as can cure by modern medications. Vaccinations against a variety of viruses and bacteria can substantially limit the spread, death, incapacity, and other hurts of disease.

Aside from a priesthood or benevolent dictator how can we decide what "control" at the individual level for the greater good of all should be the rule?

⁴ E.g., eternal life of the soul? A place called heaven? Endless damnation for anyone not adhering to the author's intent?