What is the point.......

[pleinmont]

…….of having a religion unless it makes you a better person?

I know many Christians, the religion with which I am most familiar having been one myself. Some are very decent people whilst others are very untrustworthy. The ones who go on about being saved or burning in hell seem to be the most unpleasant. Good deeds are a much more important than words, especially ones which have no evidence to support them, which much of what is written in the Bible doesn't.

 

[Charlie24]

…….of having a religion unless it makes you a better person?

I know many Christians, the religion with which I am most familiar having been one myself. Some are very decent people whilst others are very untrustworthy. The ones who go on about being saved or burning in hell seem to be the most unpleasant. Good deeds are a much more important than words, especially ones which have no evidence to support them, which much of what is written in the Bible doesn't.

When you were a Christian, were you one of the "decent people" or one of the "untrustworthy?"

 

[pleinmont]

When you were a Christian, were you one of the "decent people" or one of the "untrustworthy?"

I was only a kid at the time, and far from perfect, however, since I lost my faith at the age of 19, I have tried to be a decent person and help people when I can.

 

[Charlie24]

I was only a kid at the time, and far from perfect, however, since I lost my faith at the age of 19, I have tried to be a decent person and help people when I can.

How did you lose your faith? Going from faith to Agnostic is quite extreme.

 

[HTacianas]

…….of having a religion unless it makes you a better person?

I know many Christians, the religion with which I am most familiar having been one myself. Some are very decent people whilst others are very untrustworthy. The ones who go on about being saved or burning in hell seem to be the most unpleasant. Good deeds are a much more important than words, especially ones which have no evidence to support them, which much of what is written in the Bible doesn't.

"Good deeds are a much more important than words"

Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,

Jas 2:16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?

Jas 2:17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

 

[tampasteve]

There are lots of reasons. Some people join a religion for social reasons, peer pressures, power over others, access to business opportunities, etc. Some people are born into an ethno-religion. Whether one is really a member of a religion if one is a follower just for those reasons is another matter.

 

[muichimotsu]

How did you lose your faith? Going from faith to Agnostic is quite extreme.

Not sure it's as extreme as you think, but we also can't be sure of the degree of faith the OP had, though speaking from experience of a more gradual shift from Christianity to Deism to general atheism/apatheism/igtheist with Buddhist influences, I probably didn't really have faith.

My mindset was never such that I was convinced by the sentimental aspects Christianity really profered except in the sense of social acceptance, but even with understanding of the existential aspects involved by studying further in college as a religious studies major, I only found myself even less convinced of the need to even try and "test" Christianity.

 

[Charlie24]

Not sure it's as extreme as you think, but we also can't be sure of the degree of faith the OP had, though speaking from experience of a more gradual shift from Christianity to Deism to general atheism/apatheism/igtheist with Buddhist influences, I probably didn't really have faith.

My mindset was never such that I was convinced by the sentimental aspects Christianity really profered except in the sense of social acceptance, but even with understanding of the existential aspects involved by studying further in college as a religious studies major, I only found myself even less convinced of the need to even try and "test" Christianity.

Not sure it's as extreme as you think, but we also can't be sure of the degree of faith the OP had, though speaking from experience of a more gradual shift from Christianity to Deism to general atheism/apatheism/igtheist with Buddhist influences, I probably didn't really have faith.

My mindset was never such that I was convinced by the sentimental aspects Christianity really profered except in the sense of social acceptance, but even with understanding of the existential aspects involved by studying further in college as a religious studies major, I only found myself even less convinced of the need to even try and "test" Christianity.

I've always been a Christian so I can't say that I completely understand your reasoning.

After leaning on Christ all these years, I couldn't imagine what life would be without Him.

 

[pleinmont]

How did you lose your faith? Going from faith to Agnostic is quite extreme.

I was 11 when I did the born again thing, which I really believed in for a year or two, until my mind kicked in and I started questioning its veracity. When I was 14 the pastor of our Pentecostal church, who spent about 1hr 15 minutes each Sunday threatening the congregation with hell fire if they weren't saved, touched me inappropriately. Many of the church elders were having affairs. By the time I was 19 I realised the faith lacked any credibility and I lost it, as did my husband, who had studied theology and science for his first degree. I am now 70 and haven't missed it. It is fine to have a faith if people choose to do so, as long as they don't proselytise in a threatening way as so many extreme Christians do, or use it as any excuse for bigotry.

 

[muichimotsu]

I've always been a Christian so I can't say that I completely understand your reasoning.

After leaning on Christ all these years, I couldn't imagine what life would be without Him.

And that line of thinking isn't healthy, even just from a psychological standpoint. Sounds like codependency, to say nothing of potential indoctrination in your thought. Being unable to imagine is even worse than the lack of critical thought you seem to apply to your worldview, because it sells yourself short in your own capacity. I can imagine many unpleasant situations, that doesn't mean I need to think that they will be realized or that they should.

I can understand your reasoning, that doesn't mean I have to find it compelling or even correct, since it sounds strongly to me like you feel some need for an authority figure that will make you confident your actions are justified and that your future is remotely secure.

It's a comforting thought to think such things about the world and how it works, but that doesn't mean any evidence really seems to support that conclusion apart from you wanting it to be true and using any argument you can that makes it seem as such. Fear of death, fear of uncertainty, fear of meaninglessness in life, these are normal things to confront existentially, but I never found reason to believe that I should put my trust and confidence in the actions of an agent to guide my life choices, especially when there isn't consistency or even a basis to suggest that the advice from inspired revelations is anything more than someone embellishing the nature of them for one reason or another (social control, influence, etc)

 

[Charlie24]

I was 11 when I did the born again thing, which I really believed in for a year or two, until my mind kicked in and I started questioning its veracity. When I was 14 the pastor of our Pentecostal church, who spent about 1hr 15 minutes each Sunday threatening the congregation with hell fire if they weren't saved, touched me inappropriately. Many of the church elders were having affairs. By the time I was 19 I realised the faith lacked any credibility and I lost it, as did my husband, who had studied theology and science for his first degree. I am now 70 and haven't missed it. It is fine to have a faith if people choose to do so, as long as they don't proselytise in a threatening way as so many extreme Christians do, or use it as any excuse for bigotry.

Jesus had quite a bit to say about hell also. I think His intentions were that we don't go there. More of an act of love rather than threats.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

…….of having a religion unless it makes you a better person?

I know many Christians, the religion with which I am most familiar having been one myself. Some are very decent people whilst others are very untrustworthy. The ones who go on about being saved or burning in hell seem to be the most unpleasant. Good deeds are a much more important than words, especially ones which have no evidence to support them, which much of what is written in the Bible doesn't.

Great question! Jesus (and His Apostles) apparently asked the same one, or implied that the answer would be one that we should all deeply consider.

 

[muichimotsu]

Jesus had quite a bit to say about hell also. I think His intentions were that we don't go there. More of an act of love rather than threats.

I mean, you can spin a husband beating his wife as an act of love, or even just emotionally abusing her as being based in love, but when you put God in a situation where you can't criticize him, it kind of defeats the purpose of making the distinction of it being love rather than threats, in a similar way with a battered wife who is expected to obey her husband.

 

[Charlie24]

And that line of thinking isn't healthy, even just from a psychological standpoint. Sounds like codependency, to say nothing of potential indoctrination in your thought. Being unable to imagine is even worse than the lack of critical thought you seem to apply to your worldview, because it sells yourself short in your own capacity. I can imagine many unpleasant situations, that doesn't mean I need to think that they will be realized or that they should.

I can understand your reasoning, that doesn't mean I have to find it compelling or even correct, since it sounds strongly to me like you feel some need for an authority figure that will make you confident your actions are justified and that your future is remotely secure.

It's a comforting thought to think such things about the world and how it works, but that doesn't mean any evidence really seems to support that conclusion apart from you wanting it to be true and using any argument you can that makes it seem as such. Fear of death, fear of uncertainty, fear of meaninglessness in life, these are normal things to confront existentially, but I never found reason to believe that I should put my trust and confidence in the actions of an agent to guide my life choices, especially when there isn't consistency or even a basis to suggest that the advice from inspired revelations is anything more than someone embellishing the nature of them for one reason or another (social control, influence, etc)

There are some amazing facts about the Holy Bible that we Christians hold to.

The Bible is about 1/3 history, in fact, it is the worlds largest history book. It mentions thousands of people, places and things.

Not one single sentence in Bible history has ever been proven to be incorrect. Not from a lack of trying though. It has been an obsession with many down through the centuries.

If the history is true, why wouldn't the rest of it be true? Why wouldn't the words of Christ be true?

 

[Charlie24]

I mean, you can spin a husband beating his wife as an act of love, or even just emotionally abusing her as being based in love, but when you put God in a situation where you can't criticize him, it kind of defeats the purpose of making the distinction of it being love rather than threats, in a similar way with a battered wife who is expected to obey her husband.

Yes, I see your point! If the conscience does not reveal a Creator who created all things including yourself, then how can one possibly believe in the love of a Holy God.

 

[pleinmont]

Jesus had quite a bit to say about hell also. I think His intentions were that we don't go there. More of an act of love rather than threats.

I doubt Jesus knew anymore about the topic than anyone else.

 

[muichimotsu]

The Bible is about 1/3 history, in fact, it is the worlds largest history book. It mentions thousands of people, places and things.

Mentioning things only makes it superficially historical, that's not the same as it holding historical facts of significance that aren't mundane in nature. Jerusalem existing and the Bible claiming it is pretty uncontroversial, but also not that important to the claims it makes regarding qualities associated with Jerusalem in prophecy, etc

Not one single sentence in Bible history has ever been proven to be incorrect. Not from a lack of trying though. It has been an obsession with many down through the centuries.

Actually I'm pretty sure there are examples of Biblical "history" being inaccurate, even if they're not that commonly known, like Luke account about the census of Quirinius being in the reign of the Herod the Great, even though historically there's a contradiction there in that the census was 6CE, the reign of Herod ended around 4CE, so Luke was mistaken, thus an history-related claim in the Bible is, in fact untrue by historical analysis of the events

And a quick look into some other contradictions of a slightly historical nature make it even more interesting to consider the reliability, or lack thereof, since Mark suggests the women who saw Jesus risen didn't report to the disciples, but Matthew and Luke say they did. Assuming this is referencing an event that happened, even if it's not necessarily historically agreed upon (location of Jesus' tomb is of some debate)

If the history is true, why wouldn't the rest of it be true? Why wouldn't the words of Christ be true?

Oh, boy, now you're leaping into fallacy territory, because that's a compositional problem there: the accuracy of the Bible in regards to history does not mean the other aspects must be correct and we can demonstrate that claims about reality that it makes which are scientifically verifiable, are untrue, though that goes without saying with a culture that really didn't practice science or have much exposure or understanding of it. The breeding of sheep with striped sticks does not result in striped sheep, that's a matter of genetic, the bible clearly wrong in thinking it works otherwise.

Also, Jesus' words being true in some respect, perhaps, like treating others as you would want to be treated, does not mean they are unique in their formulation, we have evidence suggesting that sentiment long predates the oldest manuscripts of the Gospels we have, Confucian texts, Buddhist texts, Hindu texts.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes, I see your point! If the conscience does not reveal a Creator who created all things including yourself, then how can one possibly believe in the love of a Holy God.

Why would my conscience have anything to do with a creator when the creator isn't necessary to explain the conscience itself?

 

[Charlie24]

Mentioning things only makes it superficially historical, that's not the same as it holding historical facts of significance that aren't mundane in nature. Jerusalem existing and the Bible claiming it is pretty uncontroversial, but also not that important to the claims it makes regarding qualities associated with Jerusalem in prophecy, etc




Actually I'm pretty sure there are examples of Biblical "history" being inaccurate, even if they're not that commonly known, like Luke account about the census of Quirinius being in the reign of the Herod the Great, even though historically there's a contradiction there in that the census was 6CE, the reign of Herod ended around 4CE, so Luke was mistaken, thus an history-related claim in the Bible is, in fact untrue by historical analysis of the events

And a quick look into some other contradictions of a slightly historical nature make it even more interesting to consider the reliability, or lack thereof, since Mark suggests the women who saw Jesus risen didn't report to the disciples, but Matthew and Luke say they did. Assuming this is referencing an event that happened, even if it's not necessarily historically agreed upon (location of Jesus' tomb is of some debate)


Oh, boy, now you're leaping into fallacy territory, because that's a compositional problem there: the accuracy of the Bible in regards to history does not mean the other aspects must be correct and we can demonstrate that claims about reality that it makes which are scientifically verifiable, are untrue, though that goes without saying with a culture that really didn't practice science or have much exposure or understanding of it. The breeding of sheep with striped sticks does not result in striped sheep, that's a matter of genetic, the bible clearly wrong in thinking it works otherwise.

Also, Jesus' words being true in some respect, perhaps, like treating others as you would want to be treated, does not mean they are unique in their formulation, we have evidence suggesting that sentiment long predates the oldest manuscripts of the Gospels we have, Confucian texts, Buddhist texts, Hindu texts.

I can plainly see why you are not a Christian. I wouldn't be either if I believed all this.

 

[Charlie24]

Why would my conscience have anything to do with a creator when the creator isn't necessary to explain the conscience itself?

Have you ever did something you were sorry of? Something where your conscience told you that was wrong?

If so, where do you think that came from?