Trying to understand

[Knott]

1 hour ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

Well, we are all human and humans tend to fall into the trap of making things overly black-and-white.  I think many ex-Christians would agree with me that not everything religious is evil.  Good things are done in the name of the theistic religions.  For me personally, the worst thing about theistic religions is their insistence on indoctrinating children so they grow up often unable to think objectively about these issues.  That is evil enough for me to oppose them.  But we all need to check our biases regularly.  I do think that the ex-Christians in this community do that better than the average  person. 

 

I would agree

[Knott]

31 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

The profit of deconversion from Christianity:

 

How about the elimination of fear that some very judgmental God is keeping account of every thought and action you have.

Then there's elimination of guilt because you did some sin like say "Goddammit!" or looked at porn.

And reduced stress because of these things.

Not wasting my money on church is a good thing.

Not wasting my Sunday/Wednesday on church is a good thing.

Not going to men's Christian cult programming retreats is a good thing.

Not listening to highly programmed Pentecostal douches chastise me for some bible nonsense I'm ignoring is a good thing.

Being free to think how one wants to think is profit.

Living my life the way I like if profit.

Being different is profit. Christianity is being a robot. Conforming to scripture sucks. I prefer to write my own scripture.

 

There is more profit for me in being a non-Christian. If there wasn't , I might still be a Christian. The bennys of Christianity became overshadowed by the negatives.

 

Profit means different things to different people.

 

 

 

Thank you, yes that was what I was asking and not just " you said I say" roundy round.

[Knott]

22 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I'm agnostic. I like the pagan and eastern religions. Christianity doesn't bother me anymore now that I let it go. What I dont like is JWs knocking on my door or Mormon kids on bicycles asking me to talk about joining their religion. Then there is the bullshit Christian crap I read on Facebook. Then I come here and there's another Christian pushing Jesus. Little Christian robots all saying the same bs over and over and over. Yawn.

 

Christians need to take a lesson from the Wiccans when it comes to door-to-door tactics.

 

Yes absulutely, the typical things that get under the skin

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Knott said:

 

And the finger poining is the same, so where is the action of what the understanding of deconversion brings. We all stand for what we believe, that is easy, where is the bennys. Is there a less of anything? such as ego and so on. What profit if any has it given?

What profit if any? I have my mental health back. I don't live in fear. I don't grieve for people I thought were lost forever to eternal damnation. I don't live my life trying to fit in with a very narrow conception of what is allowed and what isn't. I don't have to live with the censure of others who are trying to ensure I stay in line. I am free to associate with whoever I want. I don't have to isolate myself from people. I can belong to the  wider community, not only my church. And most of all, I don't fear a place of eternal torture that a so called loving God created. 

Do you wonder I still have bitterness and anger regarding the lost years? Don't expect me to have platitudes for Christianity. Yes, there are good things in religion. However in my opinion, it is not worth the suffering. I am finally free. 

[Knott]

10 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

Please study the term "false equivalence" before you respond.

 

Ok I did look at it, you know what I need to look at is the proofs that the bible is not the inspried word of god. That is the stumbling block for me now, as far as looking and listening to the different arguments. 

[Knott]

3 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

What profit if any? I have my mental health back. I don't live in fear. I don't grieve for people I thought were lost forever to eternal damnation. I don't live my life trying to fit in with a very narrow conception of what is allowed and what isn't. I don't have to live with the censure of others who are trying to ensure I stay in line. I am free to associate with whoever I want. I don't have to isolate myself from people. I can belong to the  wider community, not only my church. And most of all, I don't fear a place of eternal torture that a so called loving God created. 

Do you wonder I still have bitterness and anger regarding the lost years? Don't expect me to have platitudes for Christianity. Yes, there are good things in religion. However in my opinion, it is not worth the suffering. I am finally free. 

 

Ok thank you, but with due respect is that not something you were taught. I do understand that kind of torment and it drove me out of religion. But what about your father that birthed you (spirit), he didn't teach you that, that was all mans interpretation. For me it was never an issue with my father it was the institution of religion. It doesn't matter what man says the truth remains the same, it's an inner thing not outer. Man will always be ignorant of these things. It is the nature of the beast if you will. Practically no one believes in anything as ever being absulute. 

[TABA]

2 hours ago, Knott said:

 

And the finger poining is the same, so where is the action of what the understanding of deconversion brings. We all stand for what we believe, that is easy, where is the bennys. Is there a less of anything? such as ego and so on. What profit if any has it given?

 

I would echo what midniterider and TruthSeeker0 had to say above, but I’ll add my own two-cents’ worth…

 

Deconverting is not the result of a cost-benefit analysis but rather the result of realizing that you can simply no longer believe; I think you know that.  Some of us here – like myself - would never want to go back while others still mourn what they have lost, at least to some extent. 

 

That said, the biggest benefit for me is maybe the hardest one to describe:  the exhilarating feeling that I have come home to my true self with my deconversion.  I was indoctrinated from childhood into Christianity/Catholicism, so I grew up using reason and evidence in most every area of my life, but with this walled-off area of my mind that simply believed what had been imprinted on it.   Since “scratching the itch” of my doubts in middle-age and arriving at agnostic atheism, I have felt  the indoctrination being reversed, a feeling of my head clearing.  In fact it’s a lot like having lived with severe sinus congestion for years and then finally being able to breathe freely at last!  I feel like I am close to being the man I would have been years ago without the indoctrination.

 

What have I lost?  The prospect of Heaven.  That's a big one no doubt, but I was only ever partially convinced about the afterlife anyway.  And death as oblivion does not seem terribly bad.  Certainly better than believing that billions of decent people are destined for Hell because they failed to believe the right things.

[Geezer]

On 5/27/2018 at 7:04 AM, Knott said:

 

1) If you were to break the bible up in say 5/5's, only 1/5 would actually be written directly to NT believers, and that would be Paul's letters.

 

2) Palms for example, or the Proverbs, lot of good things for life to be gleaned, but there is no life in them. The only life in the written word is the Son. And that life is the only life of the believer.

 

3) as far as sin goes, the only thing we knew about it was it happened, until Paul. Paul describes the sin nature, and he tells the born again they no longer have a sin nature. The sin nature is what Christ killed out at the cross. So without understanding Paul you will have what you have in the Christian religion, a mixed up, confused, self unto-self religion of doing to hopefully get.

 

 

Oops. another problem that historians have discovered. The evidence indicates the Epistles were not written in 30-35 CE as apologists theorize. Textual Historians, those that are trained to date these manuscripts as accurately as possible, say the evidence indicates they were written somewhere between 90-CE and 125 CE. If Paul wasn't the author, as some textual scholars believe, the Simon Magus is the most likely candidate. The Epistles are clearly Gnostic writings and Simon Magus was a Gnostic.  Therefore, some historians are convinced the real creator of the Christian faith and the author of the Epistles is Simon Magus. It is also believed Marcion edited and rewrote many of the Epistles, if not all of them, to coincide with his theological belief in the early part of the second century. Marcion's Gnostic Churches were the most popular churches in the early 2nd century and survived into the 4th and 5th centuries. 

 

If you believe you are saved by faith and faith alone then you embrace Gnostic teaching. If you believe"works" are required they you believe in orthodox teaching. (The orthodox church evolved into Catholicism). 

 

Knott you also referenced interpretation issues and you're correct. That is why there is an estimated 30,000+ active versions of Christianity today. That clearly validates that they Bible is open to a huge range of interpretations. Would a Divine being write so ambiguously that it would create that much confusion? 

 

Addressing another issue you noted. If historians are accurate, and the evidence indicates they are, then the Bible simply is not true......none of it! If the Bible, the supposed Holy Words of God, have been proven to be untrue then why would Christianity be true? It's an apologists job to defend the faith, it's a historians job to fact check the evidence. That is something every believer and non-believer needs to be aware of. 

 

The first thing you would learn, if you attended a secular university or a mainline seminary, is that the Professor teaching the class would inform you that the Bible is literature not history. It's a collection of stories not a historical record of anything. Stories also defined as Theological Myths.

 

 

[ag_NO_stic]

Sorry to just hop in on this convo, I haven't been a part of some of the aftermath after my first response.

 

I will freely admit that I'm not always sure where I fall on the "benefit of agnosticism" side of things. Some days, I feel so exhilaratingly and wildly free from religion that it feels like a benefit that far outweighs any "con" of no longer believing. There are other days that I, in some ways, wish I could just go back. It'd be easier, all my family/friends wouldn't look down on me, I could stay in the cozy little ignorant bubble of "I'm special and loved by the creator of the universe." But the easier option isn't always worth it, is it? I can't go back if I wanted to, I am not comforted by flattering and snuggly lies. Chocolate covered poison is still poison, even if it tastes a little better. It doesn't matter how badly I personally want to "go back to believing" (when I have a bad day), the faith of my past has been irreparably shattered by the truth. I think, if I had to pick something (and there are a lot of things to pick) I just do NOT miss about my old faith, it is the inevitable exhaustion that occurs from all the mental acrobatics it takes to "get right with God." My desire to please god at the expense of what I wanted/enjoyed was paramount, my "death to the flesh" mentality destroyed any self-esteem or genuine moments of happiness with loved ones; my constant guilt difficult to capture in words. I was always on the lookout for my own sin and how I should be repentant, since I took my faith seriously.

 

Now, I can laugh at funny shit and also say "christ on a cracker" and not feel like a terrible person. I can sleep in on Sundays and I actually find that I respect nature MORE now that I don't believe it was made just for me. I can breathe (most days, I still have Christians to share the world with and boy can they suffocate... ) for the first time in my life. And....I don't have to thank some narcissistic figment of social imagination for that breath or use it to constantly worship and repent.

[sdelsolray]

5 hours ago, Knott said:

 

Ok I did look at it, you know what I need to look at is the proofs that the bible is not the inspried word of god. That is the stumbling block for me now, as far as looking and listening to the different arguments. 

 

I suggest you look for evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  That is the positive claim that should be addressed first.  While you are compiling that evidence, you will likely find that most of it fits into some of the following categories:

 

1)  Passages in the Bible itself claim that the Bible (or "scriptures") are the inspired word of God.  This is the original source of the claim (or a mere repetition of the original claim) and is not evidence of the claim.  Relying on the claim itself to prove the truth of the claim is deemed circular reasoning, an informal logical fallacy (there are exceptions, such as a tautology).

 

2)  Other people say that the Bible (or "scriptures") are the inspired word of God.  This is just someone repeating the original claim.  It is not evidence of the truth of that claim.  If you research these claims more deeply (and if the claimants are honest in answering your questions), you will find that they were simply told this from some other human orally or in writing, believe the claim (probably due to indoctrination and peer pressure) and are simply repeating the bald claim. 

 

3)  Millions of people say that the Bible (or "scriptures") are the inspired word of God.  Same issue, with the addition of the argument from popularity, another common informal logical fallacy used by theists (among others).

 

4)  A person claims to have seen Jesus, an angel, God, or some other sky fairy and argues, "Therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God".  This is called a non-sequitur.  Even if Jesus, an angel, God, or some other sky fairy actually exist and this person actually saw them is hardly relevant to the question of whether the Bible (or "scriptures") are the inspired word of God.  In short, the conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

 

I could go on.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Knott said:

 

Ok thank you, but with due respect is that not something you were taught. I do understand that kind of torment and it drove me out of religion. But what about your father that birthed you (spirit), he didn't teach you that, that was all mans interpretation. For me it was never an issue with my father it was the institution of religion. It doesn't matter what man says the truth remains the same, it's an inner thing not outer. Man will always be ignorant of these things. It is the nature of the beast if you will. Practically no one believes in anything as ever being absulute. 

I do not have a spiritual father. The very fact that you talk to us that way somehow indicates that you should expect that we also believe that way. Well, this is a forum for ex-christians. Most of us are atheists or agnostics. 

The prime reason I left Christianity was due to the fact that I examined this "father", and found he was anything but. I will quote Dan Barker, as I have many times already on this site: "I do understand what love is, and that is one of the reasons I can never again be a Christian. Love is not self denial. Love is not blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your ego or disobeyed your rules. Love is not obedience, conformity, or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being."

[Knott]

2 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I do not have a spiritual father. The very fact that you talk to us that way somehow indicates that you should expect that we also believe that way. Well, this is a forum for ex-christians. Most of us are atheists or agnostics. 

The prime reason I left Christianity was due to the fact that I examined this "father", and found he was anything but. I will quote Dan Barker, as I have many times already on this site: "I do understand what love is, and that is one of the reasons I can never again be a Christian. Love is not self denial. Love is not blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your ego or disobeyed your rules. Love is not obedience, conformity, or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being."

 

You are right, I should not have used the word "father." I'm struggling to find the words to use as I answer comments. I believe what I said to be true for me and for you, but in this situation I could have worded it different.

[disillusioned]

7 hours ago, Knott said:

 

Once conclusions are made the mind set appears the same. 

Example: for christians, once converted it is the world and everyone in it are evil.

 

For the deconverted: eveything religious is evil.

 

Your comment about the deconverted is not true. Many new deconverts feel this way. But for many of us, there comes a time when we can see religion in general as just a thing. Neither the best nor the worst of what humanity has to offer. Silly, yes. Evil? Sometimes.

[Joshpantera]

6 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

I suggest you look for evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  That is the positive claim that should be addressed first.  While you are compiling that evidence, you will likely find that most of it fits into some of the following categories:

 

1)  Passages in the Bible itself claim that the Bible (or "scriptures") are the inspired word of God.  This is the original source of the claim (or a mere repetition of the original claim) and is not evidence of the claim.  Relying on the claim itself to prove the truth of the claim is deemed circular reasoning, an informal logical fallacy (there are exceptions, such as a tautology).

 

2)  Other people say that the Bible (or "scriptures") are the inspired word of God.  This is just someone repeating the original claim.  It is not evidence of the truth of that claim.  If you research these claims more deeply (and if the claimants are honest in answering your questions), you will find that they were simply told this from some other human orally or in writing, believe the claim (probably due to indoctrination and peer pressure) and are simply repeating the bald claim. 

 

3)  Millions of people say that the Bible (or "scriptures") are the inspired word of God.  Same issue, with the addition of the argument from popularity, another common informal logical fallacy used by theists (among others).

 

4)  A person claims to have seen Jesus, an angel, God, or some other sky fairy and argues, "Therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God".  This is called a non-sequitur.  Even if Jesus, an angel, God, or some other sky fairy actually exist and this person actually saw them is hardly relevant to the question of whether the Bible (or "scriptures") are the inspired word of God.  In short, the conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

 

I could go on.

 

You'd better @Knott forget to closely read and analyze the above post. Then perhaps express what the above means to you. Is it up to anyone to have to prove that the bible is NOT the inspired word of god? Is it up to anyone to prove that god DOESN'T exist? 

 

What do you think about these questions? How do they strike your sensibilities? 

 

 

[Knott]

17 hours ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

I would echo what midniterider and TruthSeeker0 had to say above, but I’ll add my own two-cents’ worth…

 

Deconverting is not the result of a cost-benefit analysis but rather the result of realizing that you can simply no longer believe; I think you know that.  Some of us here – like myself - would never want to go back while others still mourn what they have lost, at least to some extent. 

 

That said, the biggest benefit for me is maybe the hardest one to describe:  the exhilarating feeling that I have come home to my true self with my deconversion.  I was indoctrinated from childhood into Christianity/Catholicism, so I grew up using reason and evidence in most every area of my life, but with this walled-off area of my mind that simply believed what had been imprinted on it.   Since “scratching the itch” of my doubts in middle-age and arriving at agnostic atheism, I have felt  the indoctrination being reversed, a feeling of my head clearing.  In fact it’s a lot like having lived with severe sinus congestion for years and then finally being able to breathe freely at last!  I feel like I am close to being the man I would have been years ago without the indoctrination.

 

What have I lost?  The prospect of Heaven.  That's a big one no doubt, but I was only ever partially convinced about the afterlife anyway.  And death as oblivion does not seem terribly bad.  Certainly better than believing that billions of decent people are destined for Hell because they failed to believe the right things.

 

I know I have had the same feeling at times to be back in front on an audience. On that pedestal you get put on, it is like celebrity status. I grew up on the streets of SoCal, I think that kicked in and I knew what was happening wasn't right. My point though is I have had feelings of going back, but reality sets in and relief that it is over

[Knott]

16 hours ago, Geezer said:

 

 

Oops. another problem that historians have discovered. The evidence indicates the Epistles were not written in 30-35 CE as apologists theorize. Textual Historians, those that are trained to date these manuscripts as accurately as possible, say the evidence indicates they were written somewhere between 90-CE and 125 CE. If Paul wasn't the author, as some textual scholars believe, the Simon Magus is the most likely candidate. The Epistles are clearly Gnostic writings and Simon Magus was a Gnostic.  Therefore, some historians are convinced the real creator of the Christian faith and the author of the Epistles is Simon Magus. It is also believed Marcion edited and rewrote many of the Epistles, if not all of them, to coincide with his theological belief in the early part of the second century. Marcion's Gnostic Churches were the most popular churches in the early 2nd century and survived into the 4th and 5th centuries. 

 

If you believe you are saved by faith and faith alone then you embrace Gnostic teaching. If you believe"works" are required they you believe in orthodox teaching. (The orthodox church evolved into Catholicism). 

 

Knott you also referenced interpretation issues and you're correct. That is why there is an estimated 30,000+ active versions of Christianity today. That clearly validates that they Bible is open to a huge range of interpretations. Would a Divine being write so ambiguously that it would create that much confusion? 

 

Addressing another issue you noted. If historians are accurate, and the evidence indicates they are, then the Bible simply is not true......none of it! If the Bible, the supposed Holy Words of God, have been proven to be untrue then why would Christianity be true? It's an apologists job to defend the faith, it's a historians job to fact check the evidence. That is something every believer and non-believer needs to be aware of. 

 

The first thing you would learn, if you attended a secular university or a mainline seminary, is that the Professor teaching the class would inform you that the Bible is literature not history. It's a collection of stories not a historical record of anything. Stories also defined as Theological Myths.

 

 

 

Thanks good stuff. I haven't brought the subject of revelation up much if any. I am sure it depends on the individual in here but wondering how you see it?

My point there is: as I began to see Christ as life and the life of every born again believer, I referr to it as revelation. I see revelation as an understanding, but I see it as spirit taught knowledge. 

Now with that said Paul talks about his revelation of the indwelling Christ as his only life. That was Paul's gospel, his goepel was a person as the only life of the individual, the 2 having become1 by a birthing. 

[Knott]

16 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

Sorry to just hop in on this convo, I haven't been a part of some of the aftermath after my first response.

 

I will freely admit that I'm not always sure where I fall on the "benefit of agnosticism" side of things. Some days, I feel so exhilaratingly and wildly free from religion that it feels like a benefit that far outweighs any "con" of no longer believing. There are other days that I, in some ways, wish I could just go back. It'd be easier, all my family/friends wouldn't look down on me, I could stay in the cozy little ignorant bubble of "I'm special and loved by the creator of the universe." But the easier option isn't always worth it, is it? I can't go back if I wanted to, I am not comforted by flattering and snuggly lies. Chocolate covered poison is still poison, even if it tastes a little better. It doesn't matter how badly I personally want to "go back to believing" (when I have a bad day), the faith of my past has been irreparably shattered by the truth. I think, if I had to pick something (and there are a lot of things to pick) I just do NOT miss about my old faith, it is the inevitable exhaustion that occurs from all the mental acrobatics it takes to "get right with God." My desire to please god at the expense of what I wanted/enjoyed was paramount, my "death to the flesh" mentality destroyed any self-esteem or genuine moments of happiness with loved ones; my constant guilt difficult to capture in words. I was always on the lookout for my own sin and how I should be repentant, since I took my faith seriously.

 

Now, I can laugh at funny shit and also say "christ on a cracker" and not feel like a terrible person. I can sleep in on Sundays and I actually find that I respect nature MORE now that I don't believe it was made just for me. I can breathe (most days, I still have Christians to share the world with and boy can they suffocate... ) for the first time in my life. And....I don't have to thank some narcissistic figment of social imagination for that breath or use it to constantly worship and repent.

 

You know I can't relate to those raised and indoctrinated by religion, as far as childhood goes. I'm getting a better picture of a lot of those that were. That is why I keep thinking, but that was just a teaching. I don't think I have really understood the power it had over the young. You know how we do sometimes, I think everyone is like me. I went to church sometimes as a child but it didnt mean anything to me, shame on them for letting me slip by. I don't really know why, rebellion, just being a punk I don't know. But it wasn't for me, but trust me I had my hell later in life seems no one escapes it's clutches

[Knott]

16 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

I suggest you look for evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  That is the positive claim that should be addressed first.  While you are compiling that evidence, you will likely find that most of it fits into some of the following categories:

 

1)  Passages in the Bible itself claim that the Bible (or "scriptures") are the inspired word of God.  This is the original source of the claim (or a mere repetition of the original claim) and is not evidence of the claim.  Relying on the claim itself to prove the truth of the claim is deemed circular reasoning, an informal logical fallacy (there are exceptions, such as a tautology).

 

2)  Other people say that the Bible (or "scriptures") are the inspired word of God.  This is just someone repeating the original claim.  It is not evidence of the truth of that claim.  If you research these claims more deeply (and if the claimants are honest in answering your questions), you will find that they were simply told this from some other human orally or in writing, believe the claim (probably due to indoctrination and peer pressure) and are simply repeating the bald claim. 

 

3)  Millions of people say that the Bible (or "scriptures") are the inspired word of God.  Same issue, with the addition of the argument from popularity, another common informal logical fallacy used by theists (among others).

 

4)  A person claims to have seen Jesus, an angel, God, or some other sky fairy and argues, "Therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God".  This is called a non-sequitur.  Even if Jesus, an angel, God, or some other sky fairy actually exist and this person actually saw them is hardly relevant to the question of whether the Bible (or "scriptures") are the inspired word of God.  In short, the conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

 

I could go on.

 

I would answer as I did to geezer, thanks

[Knott]

13 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Your comment about the deconverted is not true. Many new deconverts feel this way. But for many of us, there comes a time when we can see religion in general as just a thing. Neither the best nor the worst of what humanity has to offer. Silly, yes. Evil? Sometimes.

 

Agreed, and time is a healer

[Knott]

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You'd better @Knott forget to closely read and analyze the above post. Then perhaps express what the above means to you. Is it up to anyone to have to prove that the bible is NOT the inspired word of god? Is it up to anyone to prove that god DOESN'T exist? 

 

What do you think about these questions? How do they strike your sensibilities? 

 

 

Knott fur sure I understand your question?s

[ag_NO_stic]

34 minutes ago, Knott said:

 

You know I can't relate to those raised and indoctrinated by religion, as far as childhood goes. I'm getting a better picture of a lot of those that were. That is why I keep thinking, but that was just a teaching. I don't think I have really understood the power it had over the young. You know how we do sometimes, I think everyone is like me. I went to church sometimes as a child but it didnt mean anything to me, shame on them for letting me slip by. I don't really know why, rebellion, just being a punk I don't know. But it wasn't for me, but trust me I had my hell later in life seems no one escapes it's clutches

 

You know, I appreciate that. It goes a long way in these kind of discussions to acknowledge someone's story even when you don't agree with everything they're saying. I urge you to consider that the bible and christian message is what has driven so much of this hell. It's not just, "boo to the childhood." It's that my parents thought they were doing what God said, that's DANGEROUS. 

[Storm]

Having read through this thread, I think I would like to share a few thoughts that seem to be relevant to this discussion.

 

Christianity is essentially a prepackaged worldview. Its seems plausible to the average person because it attempts to explain things that people don't want to spend copious amounts of time trying to figure out. Our brains like to be as efficient as possible and tries to limit the amount of energy spent trying to figure out things. Because Christianity (and other religions) have spent the time and energy "working" through these issues, it makes sense that humans would be prone to accept what Christianity (or other religions) offer.

 

Truth be told, I would rather spend my time doing enjoyable activities and having fun than contemplating the meaning of life or some other complicated issue.

 

Religion eliminates the need for that. But some people are not content with the "answers" that religion provides (in this case Christianity). Indoctrination is a common theme among the many people who frequent this site. Its a powerful tool for developing Christians and is likely the primary reason most people become Christians. When you are young and looking for answers, Christianity provides answers, but they aren't necessarily the "correct" ones. But as a child, you don't generally know any better, and you trust that the people who are helping you and have no reason to doubt what they are telling you. So you grow up simply accepting what you were taught as a child, only to find out later that it wasn't true or wasn't quite as true as you thought it was. This is a problem.

 

As humans, we have a long maturation period until we are adults and some scientists believe that, due to this long maturation time, and due to our need to rely on someone else for our survival for the first several years of our life, this mechanism (our reliance on others) that is innate in our minds only continues into our adulthood. It brings comfort to us when we think that a cosmic being is still caring for us and that it still has some control over our lives. Religion uses this already intuitive process and applies it to what already is natural for us to believe. Its like a match made in heaven. Its why religion in general is so prevalent through the world.

 

So, the powerful combination of prepackaged worldview and our own limitations as humans makes for the perfect canvas for religion to paint itself upon our lives.

 

As to your comment about the people on this thread being the same as Christians, I think I understand what you were referring to, and you're right to some degree. One of my favorite quotes is this one:

Quote

"the human brain is, in large part, a machine for winning arguments, a machine for convincing others that its owner is in the right – and thus a machine for convincing its owner of the same thing. The brain is like a good lawyer: given any set of interests to defend, it sets about convincing the world of their moral and logical worth, regardless of whether they in fact have any of either. Like a lawyer, the human brain wants victory, not truth; and, like a lawyer, it is sometimes more admirable for skill than for virtue (Robert Wright, The Moral Animal p. 280)

This statement perfectly summarizes what humans do. Whether it be political views, sports views, religious views, cooking views, etc., we all want to be right and we want others to agree with our view. When others believe as we do, it creates a sense of community and thus a group is born. Churches are, for the most part, social clubs for like-minded people. When we realized that Christianity wasn't all it was made out to be, we all of the sudden lost our community and we were the outcasts among the people we thought were our friends. This website provides us with a new community of (generally) like-minded people who have all come from the same basic place. Christianity has no more of a claim to humanity that Atheism or Paganism, or whatever religion you want to mention. We are all human first, then religious second or atheist second. As someone mentioned up thread, we as humans tend to look at the world in black and white, but in reality, its really a lot of gray with some black and white.

 

In regards to this:

Quote

you know what I need to look at is the proofs that the bible is not the inspired word of god. That is the stumbling block for me now, as far as looking and listening to the different arguments.

I think it might be beneficial to first sit down and think about what an "inspired" book from a Deity would say. List some criteria that you would expect to be in a book that was inspired by the person who claims to be the one divinely inspiring the book. Ask questions like "Do I think a book inspired by a divine being would hold universal, eternal truth?" "Would a divinely inspired book have contradictions?" "Would a divinely inspired book provide special insight into the world we live in, which can provide us with valuable information regarding how we should live, how we should treat illness or disease or how to prevent them?" "Would a divinely inspired book teach us that we are all the same and that we are equal as humans and that we should treat each other with that in mind?" Answering these questions first should provide you with a good framework of criteria upon which to judge the Bible or any other divinely "inspired" text. As others have pointed out, the bible (and Christians) make a claim. That claim needs to be validated to be true, not the converse claim of it not being the claim that is true. The default isn't "God is Real, the Bible is True". The default is "I don't know if God is real or that the Bible is True", how can I confirm this? In order to get as objective an answer as you can, you have to be as objective as you can be when you seek the answer.

[Knott]

6 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

You know, I appreciate that. It goes a long way in these kind of discussions to acknowledge someone's story even when you don't agree with everything they're saying. I urge you to consider that the bible and christian message is what has driven so much of this hell. It's not just, "boo to the childhood." It's that my parents thought they were doing what God said, that's DANGEROUS. 

 

Yes it does I've learned that, I think what helps is when you don't have an agenda to try to win over a crowd or covert the masses. You can be yourself, and hopefully that self can play some what with others ha. I agree totally that the bible has caused the hell, at least interpretations of it. I think the label christian has put me in a category I personally feel like I don't belong. I still use the term Christian because I believe in it. I personally believe it represents a christ person, a birthed (born again) person. I believe as most in here about the way most Christians handle people, their thinking and all the bs that goes with it. I understand your not booing about your childhood but at the same time it was your childhood that has brought the hell. My parents didn't drive god down our throats but like I shared before my mom still thinks she is a raging alcoholic after 40 years of not drinking. That shit gets old listening to, everybody has a disease she says, crazy. I think she needs a drink ha, honestly. The mind is a trippy place and can get out of control at times.

[disillusioned]

@Knott, please carefully consider @Storm's exceptional post above. I'd like to know your thoughts on what he said.

[Knott]

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

@Knott, please carefully consider @Storm's exceptional post above. I'd like to know your thoughts on what he said.

 

Yes I will, it will be in the morning before I can respond. What I read was very good