Charity

Good one. Not so funny, though, is that the denials are resurfacing again through a recent podcast (and therefore continuing on in the news) with the blame for what happened in Germany being placed on Winston Churchill instead of Hitler. Stupidity is a far cry from what is behind such ideas.

I’m not advocating for there to be no more religion - I just wonder if religion was replaced with humanism one person at a time, would the world be actually worse for it. I don’t think so but many others might think differently because of the millennia-old Christian orthodox belief that humans are naturally wretched without the saving grace of a god. Believing you’re wretched can indoctrinate people to act accordingly. That's why it is sometimes said that if one deconverts from their religious beliefs, they will no longer have morals and, therefore, begin to behave more immorally. This religious bias-based logic is simply false. When humanism is encouraged instead of such beliefs, the idea of “the potential value and goodness of human beings” would help people to “emphasize common human needs” and promote “solely rational ways of solving human problems.” (Quotes are from the definition of humanism by the Oxford dictionary) In that sense, I think the world would be better off. One other thing, I often hear the point being made that unbelievers can do the good works that believers of all religions do, but in contrast, they will not do the harmful works that these believers can do to themselves and to others because of their beliefs.

Your post means a lot to me since I stopped believing in the existence of a god/s. Imagine what life would be life without any religions - I can only see it as being better.

I did take your comment "However, the problem-filled lives of teenagers trying to figure out how to become integrated into society IS a necessary burden for both sides to solve somehow." in the context of my post referring to different religious beliefs between parents and their children. You wrote "I believe we are millennia beyond blaming religious institutions for being part of the problem." Just checking for some clarification. Are you saying that religious institutions do not play as big of a role in today's worldly problems?

Thanks for sharing the song Waysider - love the lyrics. The link below gives info about the album this song was on and has an impressive video of Apollo launches. Here's a quote from the article, "The whole album is concerned with space travel, discovery and a better future for the human race." Reminds me of a definition of humanism: "an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems." Oxford Languages Listen, hear the sound The child awakes Wonder all around The child awakes Now in his life, he never must be lost No thoughts must deceive him In life he must trust With the eyes of a child You must come out and see That your world's spinning 'round And through life you will be A small part of a hope Of a love that exists In the eyes of a child you will see Earth falls far away New life awaits Time it has no day New life awaits Here is your dream And now how does it feel? No words will go with you And now what is real? To Our Children’s Children’s Children by The Moody Blues

I agree .

You bring up another reality, Rocky, of the harm cult-like religious doctrine causes those leaving those doctrines especially if they grew up in that culture. I hope your daughter and grandchildren find growing peace and inner strength. Concerning religion playing a part in helping teenagers and others cope, I have to honestly say that as long as they teach "we are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God and need saving," they continue to be part of the problem. Don't you think the words "God/Jesus loves you" are a bit hypocritical when he is the author of this shame-based doctrine?

This is why many Christians will say God does not send you to hell, you send yourself by not meeting that condition. Things are never God's fault but man's. How frustrating it is to see God get a pass when he is responsible for the problem to begin with - He's like the Teflon D*n John Joseph Gotti Jr.

Here is how I came to accept the doctrine of the bible. I was brought up in the Roman Catholic church. The combination of being told for years that I was a wretched sinner plus the unhealthy choices I made during my teens resulted in a desperate need for God's help when I turned 18 and ended up going to my first twi fellowship. Those two realities in my life made me ripe for wanting what Romans 2 taught – the goodness of God, eternal life, peace, etc., and I remained indoctrinated with those beliefs up until a few months ago. My point is that, for me, believing in God and the scriptures was solely because of what I was taught as a child and my emotional and mental needs later on in life. I knew nothing, however, about the secular history of their origins. Having now learned some things about that history, I’ve come to see the bible as a man-made religion and that much of its ideologies such as Romans 2:4-10 are simply not true. We are not “sinners” worthy of wrath, tribulation and anguish but human beings with strengths and weaknesses. The problem-filled gap between believing parents and their unbelieving teenaged and/or adult children is an unnecessary burden for either side to bear.

Well there's Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. And Rom 5:8 But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Believing these verses then means you have to believe that God is loving those whom he places "in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." A bit of cognitive dissonance is in order, I'd say.

Many times, I have heard that “God doesn’t send you to hell, you send yourself.” Romans 2:4-10 demonstrates this kind of blaming by teaching a strict dichotomy that we’re all bad and God’s all good in order to get us to choose God. Romans 2:4 Or despise thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leads thee to repentance? 5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasure up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that works good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: Is not this gaslighting and manipulation? Especially when you consider that our "evil" was by God's design according to the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. What makes people prone to accepting this doctrine hook, line and sinker?

My apologies Nathan, I decided not to add the scripture references in order to keep the post shorter - each of the phrases are directly from the KJV and can be googled and the chapter and verse will come up immediately. The one you asked about is Romans 2:8. Please post what you learn about it - it'd be interesting to know. The phrases were simply about describing and/or declaring God's wrath in the past, present and future. Sometimes they were against the pagan nations and unbelievers and sometimes they were against God's chosen ones who disobeyed him.

The following quote by TLC on the "Scripture interprets itself" thread has brought up some thoughts and feelings that I continue to wonder about even after my deconversion from Christianity. The post said, "Maybe it’s virtually impossible to believe in the resurrection if a soul doesn’t first recognize or in some way acknowledge that all men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God, and concede to the need to be saved. That provides an understandable reason for the resurrection, which continues on to makes sense out of a whole lot of other things written in the scriptures. At least, know that it did for me." Unfortunately, accepting the condemnation from an "all-powerful Creator" that we are all sinners and have fallen short of His perfect glory is the antithesis of having any sense of self-esteem or self-worth. What’s even worse is that because of this indisputable judgment upon us, we are absolutely dependent on His “perfect and unconditional love” in order to be able to love ourselves and others. The interesting part of holding these beliefs is that they appeared to work, and I’m wondering now why this was so. Was it simply the placebo effect and if so, how sound or healthy was that really? The challenging part of letting go of these once-held beliefs is how imperfect, weak and therefore discouraging human love appears in comparison to such a "perfect and unconditional love." Does it cause one to "settle" for second best or is it really about learning to live happily in an imperfect world? I'll share more as time goes on. I'm hoping others will also share their thoughts and experiences of dealing with these or similar questions.

God's wrath - you know like In the OT: his wrath was kindled; thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble; my wrath shall wax hot; the LORD turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath; God shall cast the fury of his wrath upon him; rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure; and In the NT: he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him; But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasure up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath; But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath; For which things' sake the wrath of God comes on the children of disobedience and In Revelation: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand; seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God; and he treads the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of almighty God Excuse my frustration, but giving a tyrannical, vengeful, threatening, pseudo-powerful "being" a pass or thumbs up (as many Christians give Yahweh) merely because HE claims his opponents are "evil" is - what shall you call it – sickening, insane, self-destructive, an incentive to oppress others, etc.

TLC, your post has brought up a curious concern I've come to realize over the last few months but rather than discuss it here, I am starting a new thread in the sub-forum of Matters of Faith: Atheism, non theism, skepticism: Questioning Faith. It's called "Sin and the Need for Perfect Love." I will be quoting your paragraph above in my opening post, and I'm hoping you will share more of your thoughts there. Charity

I don't have the intestinal fortitude to watch this right now - and most likely ever. Any word on how The Young Adult Rock 2024 went?

NaRd? So true when it comes to men writing historical accounts - not so when Jesus is leading and guiding us in perfect harmony w/ the Holy Spirit.

Paul wrote in Romans 5 about all men being sinners and falling short of the glory of God and therefore in need of salvation specifically as a result of what happened with Adam in Genesis 3. What evidence is there that these two people ever existed in a garden called Eden other than the Bible saying so? Do you really believe there was a talking serpent that tempted them, that the experiences of painful childbirth, women becoming subjected to men and the existence of thorns and thistles were really the consequences of their disobedience to God, that blood sacrifice became God's preferred choice of how to clothe them, and the deal of there being a tree of life which enabled them to live forever?

When it comes to the specific contradictions between John's account of the burial and resurrection of Jesus and the 3 synoptic gospels, I find it perplexing that your head isn't spinning. John has Joseph and Nicodemus binding the body in linen with a ton of spices before they lay him in the sepulcher. If true, the women in Mathew-Luke would have seen this but that is not what those gospels say. Luke even has them leaving the tomb to specifically go and prepare the spices and ointments. John writes about Mary Magdalene coming alone to the tomb (without spices and without giving any other reason) which again contradicts the other 3 gospels. How do you explain this? Guards were placed at Jesus' tomb for a specific reason (Matt 27:62-66) - it was not a common practice for all burials. If mourners came, they would have stood outside the tomb, not go inside and mourn the body there. The point of the video was that the common Jewish practice of preparing a body for burial was to use ointments to both wash the body and to keep the smell of decomposition away. Once the body was buried, there was no longer a need for such an anointing. Whether one Mary or 3 women came to the tomb (with the latter group wanting to wash a badly beaten body that had been decomposing for 3 days and 3 nights), the outcome was that the supposed resurrection of Jesus' body was made known (by one or two men or angels). It's a very convenient and necessary event in the plot of a story comprised decades after the death of Jesus.

Right, along with many other differences contradictions occurring between the 4 stories of the death and resurrection of Jesus. You really have to wonder what the perfect interpretation is according to "the Comforter [who] is come to lead us into all truth (since Jesus is still alive and well, and leading and guiding us in perfect harmony w/ the Holy Spirit)." What I have found important to understand is the history behind the gospels like how they were written decades after Paul wrote 8 of his epistles; how Mark is now considered to have been written first between 65–73 CE, then Matthew/Luke 80–90 CE and finally John 90–110 CE (which shows each one that followed had the previous one(s) to embellish upon), and that the authors were actually anonymous and most likely were not even eye-witnesses (still looking into this). Without the historical facts surrounding the creation of the bible, one is only left with what the bible claims about itself. Not only that, it requires faith to believe it is the actual word of God since there is no evidence that proves it is. Dating the Bible

It's difficult to believe in the resurrection if the Comforter inspired the writers to record events that don't make sense. The short video link below brings up such an event. Here's a summary of it. Jewish custom was that when washing a corpse and during the funeral and burial processions, specific spices strong enough to mask the smell of decomposition were present in order to cover up the odour. Once the body was buried, there would be no need to return 3 days later to put spices inside because no one would be near the body anymore. Mark, Matthew and Luke tell of Joseph wrapping Jesus’ body and placing it in the sepulchre without the spices and the women saw this. Luke, written last of the 3 gospels, adds the women going and preparing the spices. These gospels then tell of the women going to the tomb 3 days later to anoint Jesus with the spices when in reality, it was no longer necessary and therefore made no sense for them to do so. The point of the video is to show that this story was completely made up so the writers could have them discovering an empty tomb where an angel told them of a resurrected Jesus - an event which also never happened. John corrects this first nonsensical event by adding Nicodemus who took care of the spices before the burial. Then, only Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb the next morning without any mention of spices and sees the stone rolled away. I find the above to be valid points. Any comments? There was No Empty TombꟷGospel’s Resurrection Accounts Never Happened! -Rabbi Tovia Singer

Thanks for the new vocab "pericopes!" I love your last sentence. Other posters have written similar ideas to this. A hunger to gain spiritual insight as it relates to one's spirit defined as "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character" is a wonderful thing. A belief in a god is not required. In fact, after relying so long on mythical beliefs for your identity, such a hunger is necessary in order to avoid nihilism after deconstructing.

It doesn't work because it's based on myths, superstition and man-made concepts which explain why there are so many holes in the biblical story. Since God made death the penalty for sin according to the myth of Genesis 3, blood sacrifices of animals became necessary as a reminder to mankind of this judgment and as an atonement for their sins. (Weren't blood sacrifices already being offered to ancient "pagan" gods in order to obtain favor from them before the time Genesis was even written? If so, this idea was simply adopted by men who created their Hebrew god Yahweh. The NT writers then extended this concept to include the human sacrifice of Jesus.) The biological evidence concerning why human bodies eventually die heavily outweighs the superstitious/ignorant belief held back then that death was because of some mythical sin. It's hard to consider that the emperor Yahweh is wearing no clothes.

Another obstacle in being blinded by the gospel “truth” is believing the following lies about yourself: your heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; you are all as an unclean thing, and all your righteousnesses are as filthy rags; you’re carnal, sold under sin and you’re wretched, just to name a few. However, the fictional Dorothy learned a real human lesson which was to believe in oneself.

One of the attractions and perceived strength of being a bible-believing Christian is the idea of finding "truth." Doing so is building your house upon a rock and being rooted and grounded so you are no longer being tossed to and from with every wind of doctrine. Doubting, as Peter found out when his walk on the water with Jesus began to go south, is never a good idea. Fortunately for Dorothy and her 3 companions, it was the powerful sniff-and-hearing dog Toto who had the sense(s) to discover and reveal the lie about the great and powerful Oz