Much better than any apology.

for believing in original sin and telling the whole congregation we are worthless sinners doomed to hell without Jesus.

Original sin is a non-existent problem that has an unnecessary solution--salvation through the death of Jesus. There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed. Nothing written about him until many years after his death. There is nothing original about Christianity. It is a syncretic religion based on old mystery cults about a Chosen One.


I consider that to be emotional and mental abuse. And yet it's socially acceptable to destroy people by telling them they are worthless because of an old story about a talking snake tempting a woman to eat a fruit, acceptable to break a child's will when he wants to learn about our wonderful world all the time, and destroy his curiosity and desire to make something of himself because the ultimate virtue is obedience, not curiosity and wanting to learn. That's bad.


They don't tell kids they are unique and special and able to learn many wonderful things. They tell them they are bad and sinful and horrible if they don't accept jesus into their hearts. God is a cosmic cop watching you all the time and if you even THINK about doing something bad, that's just as bad as the deed itself. That's what George Orwell called "thoughtcrime". You're supposed to feel guilty all the time just for breathing and praise god all the time because he is immature and needs praise ALL THE TIME or else.


You are only supposed to do good because you are being threatened with hell. Albert Einstein said that if we are only motivated to be good by the threat of punishment in the afterlife, we are indeed a sorry lot. If you don't have a conscience telling you what is good and bad, you have a real problem with your mind. We should do good because it is the right thing to do to treat other people nicely, and should not need any other reward. All we know that exists is the here and now and we don't know if there is reincarnation or an afterlife. So we should be kind to others now in the present.


I had to leave Christianity because I was ready to crawl in a hole and die.


It was either leave or wish I was dead. I wish preachers would apologize to me for that.
I had to get the strength to leave and not believe the prehistoric bullshit they told me that is part of their doctrine.


Original sin is one of the most divisive, horrible, damaging ideas that mankind has ever come up with. Along with all that stuff about how slavery is good, women are inferior and are to shut up and suffer pain in childbirth, and it's just fine for god to kill thousands of people for offending him for trivial stuff. It's ok to follow Jesus when he says he has no problem with the law in the OT about killing your son for being disobedient, or cussing out a fig tree for for not fruiting out of season.


Nobody should be following the religion of a bunch of primitive, illiterate bronze age goat fuckers who thought devils caused mental illness and women were not to be touched while menstruating or after having a baby because womens' blood had magic bad powers. Women who were healers were burned as witches. Heretics were burned as well, by Catholics and Protestants both. It's not adequate guidance for our modern age, and it's deliberately stupid and counter productive. It makes no allowances for science and practices that help our mental health. They had no knowledge of science or curiosity about the stars. They thought the earth was flat and pi was three and the moon shines by its own light. None of those are true.


They could change their religion and stop spreading those pernicious harmful ideas. And be nice to people and kind and helping instead of driving them away. If god is supposed to help people on earth through people who follow him, I decided from the lack of help I got that god wanted me to starve to death, or that god was a farce. So I have no more to do with them and won't darken a Christian church. Only the Unitarian Universalists who are not specifically Christian and have no creed you have to recite.

They don't even realize they are hurting people with their pernicious doctrine of original sin. As far as I can tell, ALL Christian churches believe in original sin and therefore they are putting you down (without even knowing you as a person) just because you are breathing.

I have yet to discover a Christian church that does NOT believe in original sin, because if you don't have original sin you don't need to be saved by the death of Jesus in substitutionary atonement. It's very primitive bronze age thinking, like an animal sacrifice, but millions believe it, because it's what they've been taught, and it's reinforced every day in our society.

My church is not a creationism church so we don't really talk about original sin.

I thought creationism was the belief that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. according to the calculations of Bishop James Usscher.

I have not heard the term creationism related to original sin.

This is what I found at religionfacts.com

QUOTE:
While different creationists, and schools of creationism, emphasize different components of their view, most adherents hold to the following core beliefs and so these may be called pillars of the position:

The Creator created ex nihilo, which is Latin for "out of nothing." This emphasizes that the Creator did not use any pre-existing materials to create the universe. Implied in this doctrine is that the material world is not eternal, but time and space were established at a specific point in the past. Bible verses used to support this idea include: Genesis 1:1; Psalm 33:6-9; John 1:3; and Revelation 4:11.

The Creator created an unseen realm, not just a visible, physical one. The unseen realm contains spiritual beings, such as angels, and places that are not directly accessible through the material world, such as heaven. Bible verses used to support this idea include: Nehemiah 9:6 and Colossians 1:16.

The Creator created the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve, directly. Implied in this is that Adam and Eve did not evolve from lower life forms nor did they have any earthly ancestry. When Adam and Eve were created they were "mature," meaning they were adults. Bible verses used to support this idea include: Genesis 2 , 21-23 and 1 Corinthians 11:8-9.

The Creator created to demonstrate glory. It is often believed that the creation reflects the Creator, like a painting reflects a painter in the sense that even when the image is not a self-portrait, the piece can be said to reflect the artist's style, interests, and tastes. Bible verses used to support this idea include: Isaiah 43 and Psalm 19:1-2.
END QUOTE


I have found nothing on the internet in my search that says that any Christians do not believe that Adam and Eve never existed.
I have also found statements that we all must be baptised to accept Jesus Christ because we are born into sin, whether that is because Adam and Eve sinned or not, so we are all sinful and need substitutionary atonement.


Because you are an Episcopalian, I have searched Episcopalian websites and find nothing that says in their doctrine that Adam and Eve never existed.


There is nothing in this covenant addressing the question of Adam and Eve's existence:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/docs/The_Anglican_Covenant.pdf

I also saw nothing in the Nicene Creed nor the Apostles' Creed, both used by the Episcopalian church, mentioning any beliefs other than what I have just posted here.

Where did you get the idea that creationism means "We don't believe that Adam and Eve existed?"

I see nothing in the Episcopalian or any other Christian website doctrines that state that.

I didn't. I said or i thought i said we are not a creationist church. I should have alsosaid we do not believe adam and eve is literal

If you do not believe Adam and Eve literally existed, are you part of a church who does not believe the official doctrines of the Episcopal Church? Because I can find nothing that says "As Episcopalians, we do not believe Adam and Eve ever existed."

I can find nothing in official Anglican/Episcopalian doctrine websites saying that.

Did a minister tell you that? How did that come about? Who is "We" in "We do not believe Adam and Eve existed?"

The Episcopal Chur h has no offical stance but if you were to poll its members you would find a clear majority saying adam and eve is allegorical.

about the allegorical nature of the creation story in Genesis. He still has his collar, so I'd think that's a pretty good indicator that you're right.

I was raised among liberal Christians who ignore most of the stupid stuff in the bible so that makes sense. I was raised Presbyterian and graduated from a Presby college. Got a very fine liberal arts education there. And the religion courses were fascinating.



If you're educated you cannot take the Bible seriously. At least not the ridiculous and illogical parts.

of the values of its time.

But there are other reasons why one might not be interested in Mormonism.

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

And as John Bradshaw puts it, you are never loved "for the very one you are". Never loved for the unique person you are, simply as a unique combination of genetic material without bringing god into it.

Sometimes I'm an asshole, and sometimes I'm pleasent and engaging. Which one is the true el_bryanto?

Bryant

You said that according to Mormonism that it is "largely impossible to avoid sinning."

To me that sounds like you are still a sinner and therefore need Jesus for salvation. Please read the previous post. You are being told you are a sinner because of the Mormon doctrine, even as it is different from original sin. You are not loved for being "the very one you are" according to John Bradshaw, Ph.D. You are not loved as a unique individual. You are loved conditionally. You don't meet certain conditions, you are not loved.

I said nothing about who you are personally. One of the damaging aspects of needing salvation through accepting Jesus as your savior is that it is completely impersonal. It has nothing to do with your personal characteristics or how good or bad you are.

Just as ministers stand up in the pulpit and tell hundreds of people, most of whom they know little to nothing about, that they are worthless sinners and need Jesus for salvation.

Whether by my standards or the standards of my religion, I've clearly sinned. I can blame the world around me - and it's true that it as an imperfect being it is very difficult if not impossible to avoid sinning entirely, but I think that's letting myself off the hook.

I think you are also conflating forgiveness and love - they are not the same thing. One can love someone, but still disapprove of their actions. If you watch someone make the same mistake again and again, something that will hurt them down the road, you can't necessarily approve that, but you still love them and hope they don't continue down that path. If humans are capable of doing that, than why not God?

Bryant

So the conclusion you are coming to is that humans often have better morals than the Abrahamic god, because they can forgive people. It's possible to have good morals without a god. Morals and religion are intertwined but not synonymous.

That is why the rigidity of the idea that we are all sinners is so poisonous. That implies that there is no hope for us and we are all going to hell. It implies that people cannot improve. It gives rise to predestination. It's extremely primitive and damaging. But that's Bronze Age pre-literate magical thinking for you.

as worshiping a psychopathic mass murderer? Why do you suppose they do that? Are they just hateful people themselves?

Bryant

I think they worship a psychopathic mass murderer because they don't read the bible; the preachers ignore the cruelties but if they mention it, they spin it as something positive, like Abraham's willingness to kill his son as a sacrifice on an altar. They spin it as obedience to god being a virtue, instead of pointing out that a god who tells a man to kill his son is a psychopath. A god who tells a man to kill his son is not worthy of being worshiped by a sane person. The Abrahamic god is a construct of many of the worst tendencies of humans.

They worship because of habit and social custom. Religious belief and attendance at religious rituals is a socially approved activity. Even if the content is insane, because people like habits and most people are terrified of being different. Obedience to this psychopathic god is the highest virtue, and using your own thinking processes is usually considered bad. You are to defer to the judgment of the authority figure.

These people are not necessarily bad, but could use that example of a psychopathic god to do bad things and justify it. I think they are conformists, not usually bad people. They probably don't want to think for themselves, because it's discouraged and it's easier to say "god wanted me to do it" rather than "I wanted to do it." It's easier to say "It's god's will" rather than "I don't want to take responsibility for my life."

I believe it to be the word of God. That said I don't believe in turning off my brain, nor do I believe your interpretation of the Abrahamic God.

I take it you aren't a believer? Or if you practice a faith, which one is it?

Bryant

Do you mean literally, every bit of it is true (including the contradictions) or figuratively(some of this stuff was simile or metaphor), or let's throw out the cruel stuff and concentrate on the good stuff?

What's your interpretation of the hundreds and thousands of murders and cruelties in the bible, either done by God or commanded by God to be done by humans? It seems to be OK for people to murder other people if God tells them to. It seems to be OK for God to murder people if he doesn't like them for whatever reason. You've read it.

What other interpretation of the plain meaning of murdering people by the hundreds and thousands by the order of God, and threats by God to kill people if they don't do certain things, is there? It's beyond bizarre, random and capricious and utterly nonsensical.

Jesus approved of the Old Testament law. He didn't have a problem with it.

I left the religion forum because I got tired of having my beliefs insulted.

Perhaps you feel that suggesting that my beliefs are "bizarre, random and capricious and utterly nonsensical" isn't insulting though.

Bryant

I did not insult your beliefs.

I did NOT say your beliefs are "bizarre, random and capricious and utterly nonsensical".

I said the text of the Bible is bizarre, random and capricious and utterly nonsensical.

One of these things is a book of ancient writings: the Bible.
The other thing is your beliefs. Those are two different things.

I was differentiating between them.

Why don't you answer my question? I don't know what your beliefs are because you have not answered my question.

I believe the Bible to be the word of God - not that he wrote but that he inspired it through prophets. I believe that through reading the Bible I have become closer to God - to understanding him. Insulting the Bible is, after a fashion, insulting my beliefs.

Your faith is relevant to you participating in this forum; if you are hear to mock the beliefs of believers than there is already a forum dedicated to that. It's called the religion forum. And if you want to mock the beliefs of believers without them being able to respond, you might try the Atheists and Agnostics forum.

Bryant

I can't get any Christians to explain to me what they believe. I would like to know what they believe. However, no Christian at DU will tell me what they believe. I find this to be extremely strange. You believe the bible is the word of god. What does that mean to you? I'd like to understand their beliefs, but they won't tell me what they are.

That's not real specific, but it beats nothing.

I don't believe in hell.

I believe all humanity was saved 2000 years ago by the death and resurrection of Christ.

I believe the bible is divinely inspired but is not written by God but interpeted and written by man.

I believe the bible represent the valiues of its time.

I believe that all worship by other religions is just as good in God's eyes.

If you believe in substitutionary atonement through the death of Jesus, I understand that concept. Because that's part of systemic Christian doctrine.

But salvation as a concept that all humanity is saved through the death of Jesus, I don't understand what it means, or why it would need to apply to every person on earth, especially people who are non-Christian, atheist, agnostic or of other religions.

Is it not telling everyone who is non-Christian that their religions or non-religious belief systems are worthless and false? Yet you say other religions are all right in god's eyes.

So i proclaim it as a real event. As for other religious events in other religions while i do not believe in them i make no judgements. I believe their worship of the divine is just as good.

My point is that i experience the divine throught the risen Christ.

I declare no religion as false and i believe that humans experience the devine in different ways.

react to you?

It's also possible that you simply reject the answers you are provided as insufficient. That's a tactic I've seen often enough.

I believe that through prayer and studying the scriptures one can become closer to God - to understanding him and his purposes. That doesn't mean that I take each word literally - but that I look for how it can be applied in the situations I find myself in.

Bryant

Do you think, "That's bad stuff. I shouldn't commit mass murder and cruelty, even though God did"?

Or do you think, "God did it so it must be all right"?

You weren't able to have that mask on long were you?

Well there's the Flood, there's Sodom and Gohmorah (destroyed for their treatment of the poor), there's the commandments to kill all the Canaanites, others - which one do you want me to address? I don't want to be all day about this.

Bryant

The bible is plain text with words we can examine and stories we can examine. And the most accurate translation I know of is the New English Bible, now known as the Revised English Bible. Had to read it in my college religion courses.

I don't know what's not respectful about asking that question. It would take all day because there are hundreds of examples of bad stuff in the bible. It's the book you're using as a moral guide, in whole or in part. I asked you what do you think of the cruel parts? You don't have to separate all those situations unless you want to. In general, what do you think of the plain meaning of the cruel parts?

You're the one taking offense at a reasonable question.

That's an interesting argument.

At any rate, I certainly don't believe the Bible excuses mass murder - i haven't even murdered one person, and don't intend to start. How many Christians do you imagine do believe that the Bible excuses mass murder?

I guess that's your cue to pivot to war and how many Christians are pro-war. We'll deal with that when we get to it.

I take those sections (the Flood, Sodom and Gommorah, the Canaanites) as a metaphor for how i should look at the evil I do and the evil I allow in myself. I tolerate evil attitudes, selfishness, greed, laziness, and particularly anger and hatred far to long in myself. I should cut myself off from those sides of myself that are evil.

Bryant

I'm not pivoting to war. I don't know how many Christians believe that the bible excuses mass murder. I don't have an answer for that.
It does make me wonder about the ones who call themselves pro-life but believe that killing Palestinian or Syrian children with drones is all right, and they see no conflict.

You say the evil sections are a metaphor for how you should look at the evil you do and the evil you allow in yourself.
I think that's a reasonable thing to do with those sections.

Thank you for answering.

Presumably more hoops will be forthcoming, if you continue to participate in the interfaith forum.

Bryant

Isn't that putting a particular spin on it, like I'm coercing you?

I wanted an answer, that's' all. I'm not testing you or anyone else. I wanted an answer and I got one.

I hope everybody here reads it so that they get a good idea of where you are coming from.

Bryant

I was pointing out that the Bible is inconsistent. The book is one thing. What parts a person believes is something else.

I did not know what specific beliefs the Christians here believe, because they won't tell me. Justin is the first person who has given me any answer to a simple question. Asking someone: Do you believe the Apostles' Creed? is a question that has not been answered.

I am waiting for a Christian church that says "We are going to keep the good stuff about loving your neighbor as yourself, as you did it unto the least of them so also you did it unto me, and the Sermon on the Mount. We're going to ignore all the ridiculous and hateful stuff."

It would seem to be a simple matter to say that as a matter of doctrine. Then there would be consistency in their canonical scriptures.

Why hasn't a church done that?

So pretend i didn't answer.

And anyway - how you doing spying on the religionists?

Bryant

They will be glad to tell me their views of how I need to be saved, there are no atheists in foxholes, etc. but they have no interest in hearing my views on religion in general, or of opinions of specific religions based on their principles.

I try to base my worldview on science and reality, not the way I wish it was.

You didn't answer me.

Let's go answer that one.

Bryant

The good parts are: to love thy neighbor as thyself, and the Sermon on the Mount.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

As you did it unto the least of these, so also you did it unto me.

I think we all have enough of our own sins to deal with, rather than deal with the sins of our ancestors.

We may make them through immaturity. We may make them through being thoughtless or ignorant. We may not know the effects of our actions and words on other people. We may make them on purpose to make other people suffer, if we do not have a developed conscience.

But in any case we have enough to deal with in life without a crooked prosecutor named god indicting us for a rap we did not commit.

I went to law school. Original sin is just like a crooked prosecutor framing a person by presenting false evidence to a grand jury that a person committed a particular crime at a particular time and place. As in "throw down guns" and "planted drugs" and lying cops.

If there is a god, he/she/it/whatever should have higher morals than that. But he/she/it/whatever doesn't, in the human conception of the Abrahamic religions and the unlimited cruelty and absurdity of their god.

You are right.

that I learned about when I was young, and haven't thought much about since. I suspect most Catholics have a a vague (if any) understanding of what it is (I'll include myself) - it just isn't relevant to our lives. Maybe this is also why the idea of God as a prosecutor, and the concept of God's "morals," just seems silly.