Hm...Think about it, almost every religion(Excluding Buddhism) has both Good and Evil members.
But since there are several people who have their morals set differently through experiences, most wouldn't tell the difference.

Christian (Pentecostal)

Although I don't show it anymore...

I'm now the black sheep of my family.

Wait... are you saying that all Buddhists are good or all Buddhists are evil?

Also I think it's a bit more than several.

Buddhism is pretty much just about being as far away from Evil as possible, what did you think I meant?
Several, doesn't that establish most of them can't tell the difference?

Please stop making blanket statements on Buddhism. Buddhism itself comes in many forms, three of which are prominent, and by prominent I mean, easily identified due to their attachment to a particular location such as my country. There are, er, very strange forms out there.

I know that no religion is simple, but I'm starting to believe it's just comfort for the weak.

So do practically all religions.
No, the experiences change the moral concepts, just because they are not immediately obvious, the differences are there.

...I don't even care about religion anymore, good luck with your religious Discussion.
*Leaves*

Wh.. what? Confort for the weak? *You've just unlocked Villerar's anti-Nietzsche/anti-fascist/anti-nihilist rant*

Honestly, if anybody is weak at all, then the consumerists, neo-liberals, nihilists are. They are immersed in a deep indifferent relativism. They heavily depend on material circumstances.

In general, labelling people as weak is a rather subjective and not justifiable method of lumping people together. In most cases, the author classifies himself as strong in contrast, often with shoddy reasoning. For instance, Nietzsche regarded himself as strong, because he rejected religious values and adopted his own (unlike most unreligious people, who do adopt generally Christian values). Independent people were strong in his views, while people who did depend on eachother would be weak.

Aside being a very arbitrary construction, the notion of independence is a falsehood. No person can be independent of anyone, as various sciences have established (for instance sociology, but also biology, psychology). Humans have an inherently dependent stage in their lives. You could blame other for being relatively dependent on eachother, but that seems rather hypocritical to me.

It is a very dangerous notion, a notion of weak and strong, a belief in the Übermensch, that is closely related to fascist and national-socialist superiority. (This relation is quite ironic, since Nietzsche was a staunch opponent to Hegel, while fascism was constructed by one of the most valued scholars of Hegel of the twentieth century.) Any notion that states other people as inferior to others (aside morally inferior, which is the basis of jurisdiction) is a possible justifiation for the horrors of the previous century. It is completely tantamount to notions as human rights.

Further more, religion is a bit more than just "comfort for the weak". In particular religions that have developed from Zoroastrianism, like Islam, Judaism and Christian there is a strong commitment to reforming the world and to abolish evil. These ask for hard commitment, that are fairly radical in nature; just read the Sermon on the Mount, for instance. Eastern religions are also not comfort for the weak, but generally adopt a high level of mysticism in a good or neutral world order, that also invokes to charity.

Except that he said he left

But I do agree, it is comfort for the weak, but is also comfort for the strong (and let's face it, mankind is weak)

I believe evolution never happened and that you will all go to Satan for believing in it, repent.

Satan's a good buddy of mine.

so your jewish?

You're wrong on that account.

So you're Mick Jagger/Bon Scott/Anton LaVey/Alestor Crowley/Lafayette Ron Hubbard?

Anyway, my point was that it is often regarded a comfort for the weak while there's also a very uncompromising side to religion; and I see that as a good thing. If you want to be complacent, be a bleeding heart liberal!