Fascism. Racism. Antisemitism. Homophobia. Sexism. Also insidious and sinister ideologies/value systems. But that doesn't mean one is rebelling against them or out for revenge against them. Honesty sometimes requires you recognize that delusion and bigotry are just THAT--delusion and bigotry. Religion is a soul-poisoning addiction that feeds off of fear and human weakness. It drains us of life energy with neurotic fantasies of moral perfection and approval before an exacting and judgemental father figure. It enslaves the mind with superstition and paralyzes the heart with a shame and insecurity more suited for a child of three that for a maturing adult. Calling it "enemy" is a major step in moving beyond it into real authentic living. After a while you won't even think about it anymore. It's called moving on and getting over it.
http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nchrist.html
''Getting over it.'' That's interesting that you position those words in that way.
My anger if it shows here at all, is due to the fact that I believed in something for so very long, that was not true. So, when you strip away religion, and the idealogy of such a religion, I'm left wondering if God exists. As you said earlier in the thread...it is nice to not really 'have' to know, anymore.
I've explored other faiths, and never felt like an outsider, or really anything...just explored them, objectively. I still do. But, I come away with the feeling that at the end of the day, they all want their ''followers'' to believe that they are the ultimate pathway to 'enlightenment.' The ultimate path to 'a god.'
If others want to follow a particular religion, great. I don't want to ever become someone who tries to talk someone out of any belief system, simply because I don't believe in it. Every person is unique, and I respect that. I only ask to be respected in return. Your points here Magical, I understand. In my view, religion tends to pit people against one another. It creates divisions, whether subtly or blatantly.
I know your story, from reading it elsewhere, and you haven't had it easy.
I commend your courage to press on with what you believe to be true.
wegs,
If one doesn't take the Bible literally, how can one understand what is written?
How do you conclude that Mary couldn't have been pregnant without having sexual intercourse, or somehow came into contact with sperm, if you didn't take it literally.
Sorry, not certain of what you mean here? Can you clarify?
Then let's not include Christianity. I'm cool with that if you are.
Okay
The process of evolution (similar to darwinian) is nothing new. In vedic literature it is understood that the soul transmigrates from one body to another, going from simple to complex, and the human form is the gateway through which the spirit-soul can be liberated from this process and go back to it's essential, original state.
....
So why accept a speculative explanation when we can understand how people came about through the Bible?
who is speculating?
They were the first something, but people? That's illogical
lol ...the story as it goes, presents Adam and Eve, as the first humans on earth, yes.
It is an unfortunate problem for the Bible, what with evolution and all, I know.
It assumes that Caine married a woman who was him sister (as Abel was killed).
It assumes that Caine got married, built a city, and waited till he had enough children to populate it.
It assumes that Caine was frightened of his yet unborn off-spring that would eventually rise up and kill him because he was a marked man.
I'm sure if I could be bothered, I could come up with loads more oddments but I'm sure you get my drift.
Do you believe this story? (I'm honestly asking you that.)
You're talking about a small section, not the whole thing.
You're free to broaden your perspective now. Why not take advantage?
I do feel a sense of peace and contentment over leaving the faith, and even being ok with letting go of the notion of what or who 'God' might be.
When you say...''broaden your perspective'' ...do you mean explore other religions or spiritual 'paths?'
Could you clarify, Jan?
Obviously not everyone thinks so. Are you saying you are right and anyone who doesn't think like you are mistaken?
No, it's only my opinion of how I feel about religion.
If not, then what is the purpose of these massive, gigantic claims?
It's not gigantic. It just seems that way because you disagree.
I have not read much here, not even your full post, but the above caught my eye.
The word "virgin" now means without sexual penetration, but the Hebrew word (and Greek as parts of bible were first in Greek, I think) it comes from did not mean that when bible was written. Most scholars agree it meant: "young woman." There are dozens of texts from the period where this is clear from context. Just to make one up as I'm not a language scholar. Texts that translate into English like: "The virgin and her husband worked together from sun up until sun down in their field while her mother cared for their two young children."
To use a more modern example of how meaning of words evolves, even within one language, consider "Lady." Only a couple of hundred years ago "Lady" clearly referred to (and only to) a Lord's wife. Now the cop is fully correct when he calls this report in: "Send the wagon to Fourth and Vine. There is a drunk lady lying in the gutter there."
With regards though to religious 'dogma'...Mary (Jesus' mother) is taught to have been a virgin (in today's sense of the word) when she became pregnant with Jesus.
I'm a bit confused as to what Jan is explaining, above.
Don't feel alone on that wegs.
Thanks.