The exceptional man, he who wages an effective war on the lie of millennia: for the priest, such a man is wicked. His number includes amongst others those of Renaissance spirit. Here truth crosses swords with the lie- and triumphs. The Renaissance itself, the last age where such men proliferated, the last great age, found its bane in that despicable world-ruiner Luther, whose legacy may perhaps never be overcome.
tp://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
I was somewhat shocked to discover Luther was an inveterate anti-semite. Maybe this is not exactly what you were getting at but it’s still an interesting fact in regards to Luther.
Honestly, I think that religion would likely have found a way to disrupt any movement away from its authority. Luther just happened to be the “renaissance spirit” of Christian-religious traditions at the time. I certainly don’t blame him for our inability to overcome his legacy, as unfortunate as it may be.
We have only ourselves to blame for any furtherance, or evolution of his several-hundred year old dogma. He was the catalyst in a sense I suppose, but if not him it would have been some other religious nut that applied the renaissance air of reform to the Christian religion. One of the strongest characteristics of the Christian religion, in particular, is its adaptability to modernity. The traditions remain outdated and fairly useless in all practicality, yet they have found a place in popular culture for thousands of years.
The question is, do you blame the person that pulled the pin on the grenade or people who threw it?
If we wanna find out who’s responsible for the religiousness of the human species, i suspect we will be led to blame the genes, and nature can be blamed for those. Not every genetic trate is benificial to a being. Allot of people are addicted to narcotics too. Things like this just happen, the human being isn’t perfect.
You know what? I like this. Try to mentally go back to the first Christ-Incarnation within a group of monkeys (AKA the leader) and you got your first `religious’ leader 
Nice…
I don’t think the leader, strong healthy alpha-type would be the first religious leader. He has no need for religion, the rules would follow from the power of his rule. I’d suspect the first religious leader would be the limp powerless type, that sits there at the margin of the group, not getting laid, brooding, thinking of ways to gain controle.
Well that was my point. Luther may have been bias and ignorant in his own right, but no more than any one of us. I do think we have a natural curiosity regarding creation and a tendency to believe in some manner of “higher power”, but I wouldn’t say nature is responsible for religion. We are left curious about our origins, but the crap we formulate to fulfill that curiosity is our own fault. The adherence and advancement of these religious ideas that are so overtly harmful show that there is much psychology involved in the justification. In other words, these are not naturally occurring phenomena, rather a result of the initial phenomena of our origin.
I’m not sure I can think of another living organism that practices any kind of worship or religion.
If we’re going to blame people for religion, and not blame nature, then what kind of people are to be blamed?
Religion is very old, older than science. We could blame ancient ignorance? Would that make sense?
We accept the blame at this point - here and now. The state of the present contributes to what our future could be, the past we cannot change.
What kind of people are to blame? Religious people. By that i do not mean believers in some form of a “higher power”, or even necessarily ‘worshipers’; I mean the modern day evangelists and extremists that preach ignorance. Those that actively try to recruit for their “faith”, do so without justification, and profess “truth” without proof. Those that choose to believe are not guilty of anything, or even necessarily “wrong” by any means - that is everyone’s right to choose for themselves. However, the people that lobby for prayer in school, use faith as a weapon or source of pious arrogance, or the parents that force their children into religion are the kind of people who are to blame now – they are the ones keeping these outdated moral tenants and traditions alive today.
See, there is one vital piece of information that I left out of that metaphor: How are these “grenades” being used, or where are they being thrown?
The way I see it, Luther pulled the pin and those who perpetuated his ideas through history are the ones doing the throwing. It would be one thing if those followers chose to toss their religious ideals (grenades 
) back & forth, or into very particular places where like-minded people gather strictly by choice; they would be prepared and welcome the proverbial “grenades”. However, it is a different situation altogether when you have these religious ideal “grenades” being tossed everywhere, at all times, into open crowds of innocent people.
Like I said, I do think it is natural for people to question their origins and seek knowledge in that regard. But, playing on that desire by offering simple, convenient answers with no proof or justification - just “faith” - is undoubtedly a method of recruitment. At least “believers” are bold enough to take a stance and live by it. The “recruiters” on the other hand pose as having faith but operate according to some ulterior motive (this is, of course, a theory of mine). Strength in numbers speaks for itself – more members = more influence = more power. Plus, I would imagine that observing more like-minded “believers” would strengthen the justification of one’s faith even without the slightest bit of evidential proof. That in itself seems like motivation enough for someone to become a recruiter.
To put it simply: These believers that accept faith without justification are the ones accepting the live grenades (pins pulled by Luther or whoever else). Rather than tossing them into open space, out to sea, or burying them, we use them on each other: On innocent children, ignorant ‘have-nots’, and hopeless “loosers” in society. In other words, they are used on those who would make the most loyal soldiers.
There is a method to the process (and my metaphor - believe it or not) that goes well beyond simply choosing to believe. Those that have faith are only human, but those that use faith are quite ‘inhuman’, evil, and the ones that are to blame here and now.
But what does it really mean to believe? It means to behave as though something is true. Now, if you believe things that are not true, ie behave as though certain things are true when they’re not, I could have a fair gripe with you.
Absolutely you could. But, then again, you’d could have a gripe with 90% of the world by that logic.