Board 8 > So, I finally came to terms with the fact I am not a Christian.

(+) Yeah! (+)

How on earth can anyone feel justified believing all of a religion. The idea that a singular set of humans managed to figure out god perfectly boggles the mind.
---

INCEPTlON posted...

Thanks for the even tempered responses everyone. Its going to take me a while to come to feel comfortable with it.

We're here for you bud
---

SantaRPidgey posted...

How on earth can anyone feel justified believing all of a religion. The idea that a singular set of humans managed to figure out god perfectly boggles the mind.

I too, wonder this as well.
---

Ashethan posted...

"The people writing the book added to it, in order to appeal/control the masses."

or "all the cool stuff is to be taken literally, all the batshit insane stuff is OBVIOUSLY allegories/parables/etc."
---

Part of me doesn't see how Christians can support same sex relationships, given that their holy book says that we are abominations.

And part of me doesn't care how they see it, because I'd rather deal with a Christian who's pro-same sex relationship than anti-same sex relationship.
---

SantaRPidgey posted...

How on earth can anyone feel justified believing all of a religion. The idea that a singular set of humans managed to figure out god perfectly boggles the mind.

Isn't this kind of circular though? Goes back to if you don't really trust the source why trust any of it.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Part of me doesn't see how Christians can support same sex relationships, given that their holy book says that we are abominations.

"homosexuals" is obviously an allegory for "evil purple monsters."
---

I'm pretty sure Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuals one way or another. Anyone thumping the Bible to justify gay bashing would either have to cherry pick Old Testament stuff or creatively interpret things John said in Revelation about "men loving men", which he probably meant more in a literal sense of "People worship other people and themselves above God" than anything about sex.
---

wg64Z posted...

Ashethan posted...

PerfectChaosZ posted...

I love how people come in here being like 'personal relationship', form your own thing, organized religion sucks just talk to jesus and stuff. So silly. Christianity is literally based on a book that says if you don't believe every single word it's just as good as if you didn't believe any of it. It's just deluded to think otherwise and try to stay Christian even tho you literally oppose almost everything it stands for.

To be fair, most people pick and choose what they believe about Christianity (or Islam or any of the other religions) anyway. Most of them don't even read the bible. (Reading the bible coincidentally is what turned me atheist)

I could see someone saying "The bible is corrupted, but Jesus was still the son of god" though it sounds like TC is more of a Deist.

How can anyone justify only believing "some" of a religion? That entire notion just boggles my mind trying to justify it from any point of view.

It's all about interpretation. There is like hundreds of different Christian denominations who all reference the same Bible as their source material (minus a few extra books the Catholics throw in). If you put all these denominations on a spectrum, you'd be amazed to see the differences between their beliefs and viewpoints. instead of just adhering strictly to the doctrine of one chosen denomination, many Christians will go a-la-cart and pick what they believe, maybe mixing together the views of a few different denominations.

It sounds very wishy washy, but this is true of most Christians. Even diehard Christians who connect strongly with their denomination probably unknowingly disagree with a few minor tenets here or there. So the notion that one can "detach" from the brand of Christianity they were raised in, and then "reattach" to a different brand is not as ludicrous as it sounds.
---

No it still sounds pretty ludicrous.

Seriously, if your belief system is based on something above and beyond, how can you just "choose" to believe one thing and not another? Is it whatever is convenient to your lifestyle? Sounds pretty broken to me.
---

It's not always about "choosing to believe certain parts." Sometimes it is, but sometimes it's just different interpretations or translations of the same part.
---

bryans7 posted...

It's cool man, I realized recently I'm not Mark Henry. We can't always be our favorite wrestlers.

Underrated post
---

Yes, this isn't picking or choosing to believe in certain parts of the Bible.

It's more like - here is this passage in the Bible. How do you interpret what it's saying?
---

Yeah, the folks saying it's mostly about interpretation have it right. Of course, there IS some element of pick and choose in there. I'm an atheist now, but I used to be a pretty by-the-book Lutheran. Even back then I found the idea of Hell ridiculous, it always came across as an obviously human-crafted scare tactic to control people.
---

Welcome to the club! I came to terms with the same fact a few years ago.

Though my point of divergence is somewhat different. I can still believe that the world was created in seven days, that woman was created from a man's rib, etc. I can still believe in a personal God who wants a relationship with humans. (That is to say, I'm not convinced either way, but it doesn't seem particularly farfetched to me)

What I can't believe is that the God of the Bible, assuming he exists as written, is good or worthy of worship in any way. Like, is there a being out there who condemns people to hell who have never heard his name, or who have heard but choose not to believe? Maybe. But if so, I do not want to be a follower of that being.

Which is potentially a bad deal for me -- Pascal's wager and all that -- but I guess I'm just shortsighted like that.
---

Gatarix posted...

Like, is there a being out there who condemns people to hell who have never heard his name,

don't want to change your mind on this (obviously), but you could believe that these people go to purgatory.
---

I actually don't know where the idea of purgatory comes from. It isn't in the standard Protestant Bible -- although I know there was/is debate about what books belong in the Bible, so maybe it's in one of those extra books.
---

christ never mentioned gayness

anti-gay is based on a few of paul's letters

as for purgatory, that was a catholic interpretation of a few passages in the nt. there is nothing directly supporting the concept

Dante, probably. It's an older concept than him, but after Divine Comedy suddenly the Church started going "Yeah this is accurate"
---

The existence of hell is pretty contradictory to the message of Christianity. That always bothered me, even when I was, like, 8.
---

Gatarix posted...

Which is potentially a bad deal for me -- Pascal's wager and all that -- but I guess I'm just shortsighted like that.

Pascal's Wager isn't a very good wager tbh. It assumes that the only possible outcomes are "Christian God" and "No God". Ignoring Hindu God, Pagan Gods, Greek Gods, Xenu, any number of unnamed gods, Pixies, Fairies, A Computer Programmer who rewards logic over faith, and any number of other potential scenarios. Including angry gods who prefer you worship no gods to worshiping the wrong god.
---

I don't understand how anyone could believe in any religion when other religions exist in parts of the world that developed completely apart from each other and all ended so different. Not just that there are so many religions, but that there are so many categories of religion. Monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, henotheism, transtheism, etc.

For the vast majority of people, the only reason you believe your religion is because you were born into it. Give a moment's thought to just how many people there are in the world TODAY, let alone that have ever lived, that have never heard the words "Jesus Christ" put together. Think about how many of those people have a religion of their own that has existed for thousands of years, that they're just as sure is the one and true religion as you are about your own faith.

That knowledge alone should prove that it is asinine to believe that you just so happened to be born into the one and only true faith. What great fortune, mirite!?!?
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Pascal's Wager isn't a very good wager tbh. It assumes that the only possible outcomes are "Christian God" and "No God". Ignoring Hindu God, Pagan Gods, Greek Gods, Xenu, any number of unnamed gods, Pixies, Fairies, A Computer Programmer who rewards logic over faith, and any number of other potential scenarios. Including angry gods who prefer you worship no gods to worshiping the wrong god.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of gods, but most of them won't send you to hell. Like, the Greek gods aren't going to care about you whether you believe in them or not.

So to maximize your expected gain, you want to pick a god who will send you to eternal damnation if you don't believe in him. Obviously you might screw yourself over (what if you pick the wrong one? what if the real god is extra mad that you picked the wrong one?) but that's why it's a wager.
---

i think he means there are an infinite number of possible gods of any permutation that reward any number of different things
---

Gatarix posted...

What I can't believe is that the God of the Bible, assuming he exists as written, is good or worthy of worship in any way.

I had this thought myself too way after the fact.

If it turns out I go to hell, what does that prove? I'll just think this whole game he set up was really stupid and didn't really allow me to win in the first place. Creating people and pretending to give them free will while you're pointing the biggest gun in the world at them is so dumb. I mean I might regret being there with every fiber of my being...but he doesn't really win respect or admiration for that either.
---

tazzyboyishere posted...

The existence of hell is pretty contradictory to the message of Christianity. That always bothered me, even when I was, like, 8.

Which was like the entire point Jesus was trying to make by the way.

Theres a school of thought that Christ was less messiah and more Jewish reformer. And its through that lens that he makes the most sense.

Arguing that ideas like hell and titheing and practices like the rich getting the best seats in the synagogue are the things he was railing against. This naturally posed an existential threat to the ruling class of rabbis so they had him killed, the end.

Only an opportunist like St Paul turned it into a proper religion of its own and not the counter culture reform movement that Peter was leading.
---

Vlado posted...

You must realise how important it is to embrace morality, to know right from wrong, and to live your life accordingly in service to yourself, your family, your friends and your people - there's nothing more important in life.

Do you realize how difficult it is to do this when following a highly corrupt and evil religion like Christianity?

I'm all for challenges but that seems way too hard
---

reminds me of that stefan molyneux video were he argued that "right-wing people typically have morals and rationality because they're christians." lmfao
---

Eddv posted...

tazzyboyishere posted...

The existence of hell is pretty contradictory to the message of Christianity. That always bothered me, even when I was, like, 8.

Which was like the entire point Jesus was trying to make by the way.

Theres a school of thought that Christ was less messiah and more Jewish reformer. And its through that lens that he makes the most sense.

Arguing that ideas like hell and titheing and practices like the rich getting the best seats in the synagogue are the things he was railing against. This naturally posed an existential threat to the ruling class of rabbis so they had him killed, the end.

Only an opportunist like St Paul turned it into a proper religion of its own and not the counter culture reform movement that Peter was leading.

Fun Fact: "Saint" Paul was literally the Antichrist.
---

redrocket_pub posted...

Eddv posted...

tazzyboyishere posted...

The existence of hell is pretty contradictory to the message of Christianity. That always bothered me, even when I was, like, 8.

Which was like the entire point Jesus was trying to make by the way.

Theres a school of thought that Christ was less messiah and more Jewish reformer. And its through that lens that he makes the most sense.

Arguing that ideas like hell and titheing and practices like the rich getting the best seats in the synagogue are the things he was railing against. This naturally posed an existential threat to the ruling class of rabbis so they had him killed, the end.

Only an opportunist like St Paul turned it into a proper religion of its own and not the counter culture reform movement that Peter was leading.

Fun Fact: "Saint" Paul was literally the Antichrist.

Mind blown
---

wg64Z posted...

No it still sounds pretty ludicrous.

Seriously, if your belief system is based on something above and beyond, how can you just "choose" to believe one thing and not another? Is it whatever is convenient to your lifestyle? Sounds pretty broken to me.

Because these "things" are up to interpretation, and often from different sources. Like people have said, for instance, Jesus never says anything about homosexuality.

It's pretty simple to understand how this happens and is not at all "ludicrous."
---

HashtagSEP posted...

wg64Z posted...

No it still sounds pretty ludicrous.

Seriously, if your belief system is based on something above and beyond, how can you just "choose" to believe one thing and not another? Is it whatever is convenient to your lifestyle? Sounds pretty broken to me.

Because these "things" are up to interpretation, and often from different sources. Like people have said, for instance, Jesus never says anything about homosexuality.

It's pretty simple to understand how this happens and is not at all "ludicrous."

There is definitely room for interpretation. Diehard Christians argue about interp issues all the time without being any less diehard for it.

But textual interpretation only goes so far before it becomes distortion. If you believe that 90% of the Bible is allegory/fable, I think it's intellectually dishonest to continue to call that Christianity. Same thing if you want to cut out the supernatural elements and just have a philosophy about how to live one's life. You can call it something else! That's okay!

Like maybe you think Jesus was a good dude with a lot of insights into societal reform, and you'd like to live by the principles he espoused during his life, but you don't believe in any of that "divinity" or "salvation" stuff. That's not even religious any more (since religion has to do with a higher power), let alone Christian, but it probably means you're kind/compassionate to the poor and downtrodden, which is a good thing.
---

Gatarix posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

wg64Z posted...

No it still sounds pretty ludicrous.

Seriously, if your belief system is based on something above and beyond, how can you just "choose" to believe one thing and not another? Is it whatever is convenient to your lifestyle? Sounds pretty broken to me.

Because these "things" are up to interpretation, and often from different sources. Like people have said, for instance, Jesus never says anything about homosexuality.

It's pretty simple to understand how this happens and is not at all "ludicrous."

There is definitely room for interpretation. Diehard Christians argue about interp issues all the time without being any less diehard for it.

But textual interpretation only goes so far before it becomes distortion. If you believe that 90% of the Bible is allegory/fable, I think it's intellectually dishonest to continue to call that Christianity. Same thing if you want to cut out the supernatural elements and just have a philosophy about how to live one's life. You can call it something else! That's okay!

Like maybe you think Jesus was a good dude with a lot of insights into societal reform, and you'd like to live by the principles he espoused during his life, but you don't believe in any of that "divinity" or "salvation" stuff. That's not even religious any more (since religion has to do with a higher power), let alone Christian, but it probably means you're kind/compassionate to the poor and downtrodden, which is a good thing.

Well, right. I was merely replying to his assertion that it's literally all or nothing. Even if it IS all or nothing, interpretation is still going to cause differences.
---

I've been a former Christian for years now, and I understand how emotionally hard it is to take the first step off of that path.

Or to realize that you've been off the path for awhile now and didn't realize it.

It'll get easier - I'm also a theist. Well, more specifically, a pagan, though right now I'm in a transitionary period where I try to figure out what I actually believe and don't believe.

Organized religion is very much a mixed bag, and unfortunately, more often than not you end up with nasty stuff. On one hand, you have community just for saying "Hey, I believe in <x>, you believe in <x>, we have something in common", on the other hand, you have to deal with dogmatic nonsense, internal politics, external politics, and people using it as leverage for their own gains.
---

---

This topic was therapeutic for me.
---

To be fair, if would-be rapists and murderers like Vlado are being tamed and controlled by Christianity, that is a huge net benefit to religion.

But in reality, organized religion is used to justify rape, murder, evil far more than it is used to prevent it.
---

INCEPTlON posted...

This topic was therapeutic for me.

Because it further established and reinforced the thesis that there is no God that cares about us and we've been left to suffer and struggle under our own arrogance, idiocy and divisiveness?
---

Admitting there is a problem is the first step to correcting it.
---

NFUN posted...

INCEPTlON posted...

This topic was therapeutic for me.

Because it further established and reinforced the thesis that there is no God that cares about us and we've been left to suffer and struggle under our own arrogance, idiocy and divisiveness?

Just good to hear people being understanding of the situation and how it deeply it can mean to someone.
---

People saying "Christianity sucks and you CAN'T just pick and choose what you believe in" are as bad as the people who say "Christianity rocks and you CAN'T just pick and choose what you believe in".

If you believe the bible is the product of man interpreting God, then you can believe that it has faults, just as humans do.

Regardless of what you believe, you can see it (and the quran etc) as a code of laws, that at one time was probably rather important to society. Whether or not those laws still apply to modern day seems to be where most religious conflict happens, but if people thousands of years ago needed the threat of a deific punishment to convince them to buy into monogamy then whatever.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

If you believe the bible is the product of man interpreting God, then you can believe that it has faults, just as humans do.

it's not so much "you can't believe that is has faults" as it is "how do you know where the faults are?"

it's convenient that the cool stuff (like some of jesus' teachings) still applies, but the less cool stuff is "OBVIOUSLY outdated/allegorical/[insert excuse of your choosing here]."
---

I don't know why you have so much trouble comprehending that time has passed and society has developed.

People who believe the Bible to be literal word of God will have a harder time viewing that, but people who don't believe in Christianity should have no problem with this.

"How do you know where the faults are" is a dumb question unless you believe that morality is dependent on religion.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

"How do you know where the faults are" is a dumb question unless you believe that morality is dependent on religion.

i don't see what's dumb about it. we should ask this question about any historical document.
---

You're purposefully trying to remove context from the equation. I'm not. That's where our disagreement lies.
---

i'm not "purposefully trying to remove context," i'm saying you CAN'T KNOW the context. you do realize that the bible has gone through a gazillion revisions/translations and in the present day 99.99% of it is still contested/hotly debated among scholars who study christianity, right? to say with absolute certainty "oh this segment OBVIOUSLY means this" or "this OBVIOUSLY refers to that" is fucking stupid.
---

You completely dont get my point. The context is that the bible was written over the course of quite a few centuries. Reading and interpretation of the bible is different than what it used to be. Just as Christianity has changed throughout the years, parts of the bible are read or interpreted differently... due to the present nature of the world and civilization.

It's why Christians are ok with eating pork and shellfish.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

It's why Christians are ok with eating pork and shellfish.

Actually, pork/shellfish are okay because Acts (one of the New Testament books) explicitly removes the dietary restrictions from the Old Testament. It doesn't really have anything to do with the present nature of the world.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Just as Christianity has changed throughout the years, parts of the bible are read or interpreted differently... due to the present nature of the world and civilization.

It's why Christians are ok with eating pork and shellfish.

yes. i get that when it comes to the anti-gay stuff in the bible, nowadays we have more christians saying "that's not the actual word of god, that's just something people put in at the time because they thought homosexuality was wrong" because homosexuality is way more accepted in our current western society than in used to be. but it still makes no sense, because they're still making assumptions about what the "actual word of god" is and what isn't that are based on nothing. you're just describing why christians pick and choose what they believe in, but this description is not an actual excuse for the picking and choosing.

basically what i'm saying is: yeah sure, you can pick and choose what you believe in. you can do whatever you want. just don't pretend that this picking and choosing is logical or rational or based on anything but your own assumptions or gut feeling, because it isn't.
---