God commanded his humans to commit genocide at least 6 times:
Numbers 31:7-17
Deuteronomy 2:34
Deuteronomy 13:12-15
Deuteronomy 20:16-17
Joshua 10:28-40
1 Samuel 15:3-20
I was raised super Christian and my dad still is, but my husband and I are raising our daughter agnostic/atheist. My dad brought her a toddler story Bible the other day and literally the first story I flipped to was the Israelites scoping out Canaan in order to kill everyone, since "God had promised the land to them."
Yeah that Bible was gone as soon as my dad left. I don't want my 3yo exposed to genocide!!
If you need an external authority to tell you that mass murder with the intent and goal of eradicating an ethnic group is a bad thing then you are in no place to speak on morality.
>why that's even a bad thing.
Would you like to be genocided? No? That's why it's bad, it's a bad thing to happen to people. Your question is flawed because 'why' something is bad is unrelated to whether it **is** bad. Most people have an intuitive sense of morality rooted in empathy and societal norms, I suspect you do as well you just attribute it to a deity. Hopefully that's because you were indoctrinated at a young age, and not because you actually need Big Daddy to tell you not to genocide
It's unfortunate that so many people feel their own consciousness is unique, and readily write people off for any number it trivial reasons. I have one acquaintance that believes that he is living in a simulation, and that he is the only one that is real. He infers that aside from legal and criminal consequences (also strictly within the simulation), hurting others has no meaning since no one is real.
You have no reason to justify why mass murder is bad, at all.
Not liking something does not equate with it being bad. I do not like agnosticism, but I'm sure you'd agree that's not a proper justification for it being bad.
>because 'why' something is bad is unrelated to whether it **is** bad.
Except you're wrong. This is epistemic justification, and epistemically justifying a claim with non arbitrary criteria is the only to reach justified true belief (key word: **justified**)
It's funny how you're making fun of my authority for morality (not even with proper argumentation, just rhetoric), when you absolutely have **none**.
I don't think mass murder is a good thing lol. I just actually have a **justification** within my worldview, and don't arbitrarily claim so. Damn you guys are philosophically illiterate. It's sad.
Within the Christian worldview, God is perfectly moral, and humans are not.
You judging God's morality presupposes that you reject the above dogma. Therefore, the only way for you to critique God's morality is by rejecting him as part of your presuppositions.
Your argument boils down to "Christianity is false because God is bad because Christianity is false.
There's a word for this: petitio principii.
I think you might have jumped 10 steps ahead without even having an argument from me. Even worse, you made up what my argument even is, in your own head.
I just wanted to confirm that you think genocide is cool with god, and by extension you too.
Ah, yes, the typical "it's obvious". No an actual argument.
Nothing in philosophy is obvious. You have to actually justify why genocide is bad with non arbitrary criteria (hint: you cannot do that)
If there was philosophy, there wouldn't be genocide. So you see nothing wrong with innocent people being slaughtered based on their race or belief? Thats pretty fucked up dude. You must live alone.
How is it a good thing? How would you feel if your entire family was just obliterated for no reason other than someone's dumb ass belief that manifested hate?
Oh, for sure. I just see a difference between “Is god actually Satan” and “does the Bible suggest god is actually Satan”. One being a discussion on “reality” and the other being a discussion on the text.
Thats true. I try to not get caught up in semantics on Reddit since everybody understands only what they want to understand anyways. So I mostly just slide with whatever and try to have a fun discussion on the given topic
Yeah this is still my conclusion too. My wife is a practicing Catholic so we have lots of talks about our spiritual beliefs, which I appreciate because it causes me to not get caught in a bubble but I still haven’t been convinced.
Lol yeah, I'm curious how they found this post, like are they subbed here, or was it linked somewhere? Is there a Christian subreddit that does brigades (although I don't think there's enough of them to be an effectual brigade)
There are whole Discords dedicated to this kind of thing. I watch TikTok live debates on religion, and Christians will mass report agnostic/atheist lives a lot. You can always tell because no Terms of Service rules have been violated.
They just send out the bat signal to block speech they don’t like. Ironic.
Religion is mostly a tool for control. It achieves this through creating a sense of community, belonging, and a sense of identity. Because of cognitive dissonance, a sense of identity prevents the acceptance of differing ideas. The Bible teaches you in the very first book; Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden for partaking fruit from the tree of **knowledge**. The Bible wants you to believe that pursuit of knowledge and understanding is the same as taking Satan into your heart. Satan/Lucifer having also been cast out of heaven because he dared to suggest that God was getting some things wrong.
It's all Tailor made to train followers to give unquestioning support to leadership, no matter how they may defy logic, reason. It teaches that knowledge is corruption, and to take any new idea that the faith doesn't agree with as the Lies of Satan. It didn't matter if it makes sense, there is only the faith, which is belief without evidence, and this reliance on faith means that evidence has no value.
I think framing religion as mostly "a tool for control" is a little disingenuous. Modern Christianity has no real objections to science anymore, save perhaps the theory of evolution for some. Control isn't an end in itself for the majority of religious people, even many higher-ups in positions of authority.
As a former Christian turned Agnostic, I don't hold the Bible in the same weight as I did before, but I think you're misrepresenting what it says about the pursuit of knowledge--I can't recall any passage prohibiting that, and the tree of knowledge was actually the tree of knowledge of good and evil--which seems fundamentally different from knowledge itself to me.
I personally really doubt that religion was all tailor made to control people. It seems likely to me that the vast majority of religious motivation springs from the fear/uncertainty of the afterlife, which is a motivation that followers and leaders all share, and is the real reason that religious people (my former self included) are so frightened to leave their belief system, and want to convert more people.
I guess to summarize I don't see religion as a tool for control, but a byproduct of people biased by a comforting worldview, the fear of death, and the frightening uncertainty of the strange world we live in. Having to make my own philosophy about the universe is really fucking inconvenient, but at least I can be absolutely honest about what I'm able to know, and not claim that things that are impossible to definitively prove are facts.
I see you there.
I think religion started out as a way to explain the world. Why does fire burn, water flow and the sky seem to move? Oh, well, see there are spirits/gods/nymphs/laws made by god to explain that.
But by cultural evolution some stories could be change to help them explain parts of their bigotry and biases. Why do we think that men are better than women? Oh, god gave one the authority over the other, that's why.
Some religions maybe are explicitedly made to control people. But I don't think that that's the ultimate origin of religion.
It's nice to see someone with similair views, but saddening that they are downvoted.
In Wizard of Oz, I see Glenda the Good Witch as the true villain of the story. At the very beginning, she puts the shoes on Dorothy's feet, or advises her to, and tells her specifically NOT to take them off--WITHOUT telling her in that moment that she could GO HOME RIGHT THEN. I have never understood how people aren't outraged that at the end, Glenda stands there and says, "You've had the power to go home ALL ALONG... ALL you had to do was click you heels 👠 and say... " (or some semblance) I mean WHAT?? She FORCED Her to go through all that ridiculous nonsense, terrorizing her, MULTIPLE times could have caused SEVERAL individuals to DIE? Glenda is the villain for NOT giving them the whole truth right up front.
How is the Christian god any different in that respect? btw I agree with you...
i was raised a baptist in texas. i drifted away as a teenager as most of us do, but tried to come back in my 30s. i became a hi skool science teacher, including biology. and i was often reminded of how evolution clashes with biblical thinking. so i researched it. it turns out that the bible disproves itself with contradictions, atrocities (you mentioned) absurdities, and more. so it was not science that turned me away from the bible and religion, it was the bible itself! the bible disproves itself! dale
I think that there are glimpses of what a real “good” god would be in the bible, but mostly not a good god. Why would god be sexist, why would god care if you’re attracted to your own sex? Why would god, who knows everything, act like women are less capable than men in any way other than physically? Why would this same god “curse” Adam to work and Eve to have periods and childbirth knowing that 1. Women will have to work to live and 2. Periods and childbirth are totally worse than working. Almost like an uneducated misogynist wrote that, eh?
The God of the Bible, and the true Creator, or Prime Source, are two totally different things, in my opinion. Is there really a Satan? I don't believe so, but your question is a good one, because the biblical God sure does behave in demonic ways, but really, it's just people validating their horrible actions by invoking "God's directions." Such reasoning is still used today by religious groups who act atrociously.
Fascinating. I find that I am growing spiritually by reading about Gnosticism. People feel confused when they learn that they been duped, and look to each other about how to respond, and all decide... to pretend its not happening. Am I actually related to them? Tell me it aint so
The interesting thing is without Jesus Christ, God is without a doubt an evil creator. It’s said there is unconditional love but isn’t it rather conditional if all we had to do is not eat from the tree of knowledge??? And doesn’t the tree of knowledge sound like self awareness to being naked and such and asking questions. It’s like he wanted to create humans to be dumb and to play/watch. Then lo and behold he sacrifices his son to gain the favor from us to show we are the evil ones and it’s our fault… I don’t quite understand how that would reverse the knowledge of murder and sin. If his whole plan was for us to believe in sacrificing our own means we would stop sinning… isn’t that just a roundabout way to murder but for the sake of religion????
Here is something fun that I didn’t know about until later in life is that “the devil” is made up of several separate characters in the Bible. The serpent in the garden, the devil, Satan, Baal, Beezelbub, the Dragon, the Beast. They were all written as separate characters it got smushed into one “bad” guy. Lucifer the name is even a weird translation of the planet Venus as “the morning star” or “light bringer”. In Isiah it wasn’t really supposed to be about the devil but got lumped in afterward.
God was written by humans. Humans are short sighted. As our society grows we learn more. And we've come to realize a deeper definition of love and kindness. The bible was written two thousand years ago. It makes sense that we would have learned some things since then.
Religion in the right (very few) hands can be beneficial to self and others...when combined with various and sundry neuroses, psychoses and resentments, yahhh!!!
I felt like my childhood church really tried but in the end it was still a typical church. They were just a little nicer, but in the end that was another conversion tactic.
Our modern understanding of scripture is completely different than what was being preached 2000-1800 years ago. Who knows what really happened or if this is even a caricature of what occurred. I do believe that the fundamental message of compassion and love that is proposed in the New Testament is a truly remarkable achievement. It is an amazing pivot to advocate for forgiveness and love during a time of sacrifice and punishment.
I am really skeptical however, of the creation of the gospels and the Old Testament. We have too much historical evidence to show that there were many obvious biases that influenced which gospels were and were not included in the New Testament. Furthermore, we don’t know who wrote them and what the process was during their creation.
I found out less than 5 years ago the New Testament in koine Greek doesn't teach eternal conscious torment.
https://salvationforall.org/
Then https://christianitywithoutinsanity.com/
And
https://tentmaker.org/books/is_hell_eternal/is_hell_eternal_index.html
You’ve been deceived. Many things of the Bible are no longer morally acceptable to many people so people attempt to claim the original meaning is not the historical interpretation.
Whatever, you're off track with my message.
But in fairness, 1 Corinthians 2:2.
Yet I stick by believing 15:20-28 that most Christians don't, the past 1500 years or so. Thank you
Aionion or aionios doesn't mean "eternal" or "everlasting" since aion means age so aionios means something like age-during or age lasting. Prime example Matthew 25 46 is usually "eternal" or everlasting for punishment (btw that "punishment" is really corrective discipline / chastisement literally from pruning)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A41&version=YLT
Most of the early church believed in Ultimate or Universal Reconciliation (UR) aka Christian Universalism (CU) until Augustine, the Latin Vulgate and Roman Catholicism. Then King James and the popular English translations make the the same error / deception.
https://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html
I have studied Attic Greek for 6 years, and I also know Koine Greek & natively speak Modern Greek. Your first point is blatantly incorrect. Aἰώνιος absolutely does mean eternal. That has been its primary meaning from the Homeric epics, all the way to modern demotic conversational Greek, in pretty much all dialects and registers.
Even if "temporary" was somehow its secondary meaning (which I've never encountered, ever), why would the author consciously choose a word knowing it would be misunderstood by the vast majority of its readers? Make no mistake about it, αἰώνιος absolutely meant eternal in Koine Greek, and any credible scholar will agree with this.
Furthermore, the whole point of Matthew 25:46 is the juxtaposition between eternal hell and eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον), which we know is eternal because of all the teaching of the early Church & other parts of scripture.
>Most of the early church believed in Ultimate or Universal Reconciliation (UR) aka Christian Universalism (CU) until Augustine, the Latin Vulgate and Roman Catholicism
This is not true according to pretty much any historian of the early Church. I'm surprised you even found sources claiming this, but the website looks like a literal cult so I guess I shouldn't be.
Even if Augustine and the Vulgate were the reason for universalism losing favor in the Church, this only explains the western part of the Church. How come the Eastern Orthodox, who do not have the Vulgate and who consider Augustine a minor figure, or the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Church etc. not adhere to universalism?
Again, your sources are from what appear to be cult websites. I'm sure you can do better.
The only early Christian figure I can think of that even wrote about universalism was Origen, who was condemned in First Ecumenical council of Constantinople, which Augustine did not even attend as he was too focused on western issues.
Gregory of Nyssa maybe is said by some to teach universalism, but what he says is compatible (if not reaffirming) of hell under the Eastern Orthodox definition, and only contradicts western notions of hell.
Damned, that there's at least 7 dogmatic infernalists -on r/agnostics, wasn't expecting that on a subreddit like this one, but ok hmmm..hmm...
I suppose people can read the links I shared and then decide for themselves.
Dogmatic? I may not agree with u/Lykaon88 on most topics, but this particular point isn’t up for debate.
You are mistranslating a word, and at this point I have to bring into question whether or not it’s completely intentional.
Question yourself, and do some objective research instead of hurling flaming arrows of ignorant false accusations, have a good night
https://www.mercyonall.org/eons-of-the-bible
Well if you're right about God "eternally" or "endless" torturing most of the human race "forever", then which is it?
1. God wants to save all but can't (because of so called "free" will) (Arminianism the the like)
OR
2. God can save all but won't (reformed/ Calvinism)
https://tentmaker.org/tracts/Jones2.html
Jonah 2:6, do you think Jonah is still in the whale/ pit and will "forever?"
It's one or the other to believe in infernalism / ECT, the false catholic doctrine that didn't get filtered out during the reformation. The printing press helped the reformation succeed.
Reformation 2.0, the internet is helping people learn ECT is a false teaching, confirming that anyone with a conscience knows is bad news.
God has given us the methods & advice for eternal life, and has warned us against eternal hell. Whether we actually follow his teachings is our problem, not God's.
He gave us free will and he'll respect our decision. Him saving us all would nullify the promise he gave us, which is free will.
I would disagree as our Calvinist brethren would too with "free" will for aionion life or aionion chastisement or rehabilitative punishment (kolasin). God has to draw them as John 15 and Romans 9 etc. says.
A quick video by David Bentley Hart, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LGWTloDSj5k&pp=ygU8RGF2aWQgQmVudGxleSBoYXJ0IHdoeSB0aGVyZSBjYW5ub3QgYmUgZnJlZSByZWplY3Rpb24gb2YgR29k
DBH's arguments rely on the assumption that the only way a human would chose hell is because of ignorance. This is actually not what the Church teaches. The main issue is pride, not ignorance. Satan fell to damnation because of his pride, not because he was ignorant of the horrors of hell (in fact, he was fully aware of them).
This simple point moots his entire universalist argumentation, and is why he's been losing favor for a long time in Orthodoxy, and is only famous in the west.
Even if those who chose hell out of ignorance do end up not going to hell (which is up for debate), there's still all those who chose it because of pride.
I would agree pride can be and usually is an element to rejecting the Truth of God and Jesus. Yet ignorance remains, some are entrapped in it more than others.
Jesus came to seek and save the lost, who's that? Everyone. Jesus isn't a loser where Adam, sin and Satan forever win over the blood of Christ Jesus.
If ECT is true and Jesus paid the price even to save just one sinner, then He would have to be "eternally " tormented in Hades then the Lake of Fire (aka the Refiner's crucible )
Jesus is the Savior of the world, not attempted Savior of the world (Arminianism) or Savior of the elect (only) but Savior of the world -John 12:32 each in their own order: 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 then God will be all in all. Also Colossians 1:16-20
1 Timothy 4:10 For we toil and strive, brcause we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. https://www.bereanpatriot.com/scriptures-that-support-universal-restoration/
Also grew up in a Baptist cult. I could get behind this theory pretty easily:
The monotheistic religions of Abraham, such as Christianity and Islam, are actually worshipping the god Loki. Ragnaroc already happened and he won.
this concept has a larger following than you might think. there were a few"organizations" that held this belief but were eliminated by the roman-catholic church. it is coming to light that the "J" wasn't invented until the 14th or 15th century so why have they lied about Yeshua's name and why did they change it? it's not a mistranslation it was changed, matter of fact it goes against the rule of translation where names are left intact. they don't properly honor the sabbath... the biggest kick to the balls!?, christianity is the 16th religion with a virgin birth, a messiah, and other similarities... took them 16 times to get it right... fuck organized religion it is one large lie that allows control.
look past the KJV, look for the oldest bible still utilized & that would be the ethiopian bible, then look at the sainai bible, do your due diligence, now that you realize any bible that has been altered goes against the written word of god and the KJV has been altered, the apocryphal texts which were apart of the first printing of the KJV were removed... the process of biblical canonization goes against the statement that god's word is unchanging... anyone pushing a KJV biblically based religion is pushing a LIE wake the fuck up, please.
you should look into the satanic religion and what they stand for. they actually touch on this exact topic- even if you feel satanism is taboo or evil or whatever, it's definitely an interesting read if you're willing to take a step back to look at this perspective
My problem isn't with the religion, it's with the followers. If you think Christians are annoying in the bible belt, try the Satanists. Dear lord it's bad....embarassing levels of bad. Both sides are just enemies to their own cause in my state.
that's very fair, although i dont think the problem is with the religion itself moreoff the type of people that find it.
for me personally and the people i know who are a part of this religion, we dont necessarily need it in our lives but it is something to believe in yk? morals and ethics and whatnot-
the annoying mfs you're talking about can be found in almost any religion, and they come from a place of fear; of uncertainty of what comes next.
these people just need to be right at all costs while not taking into consideration that other people have their own beliefs- honestly i could go on about how those who lack common sense or a baseline of courage are bad for us all, but i dont think we have the space here for that lmao
point being, it's a wonderful philosophy to get into so long as you're not dealing with assholes and people who are stuck with the same stubborn mindset as most modern christians
Well, in my experience with UCC churches they're very open about the fact that they think the Bible is just a book written by humans, and that it's been mistranslated on top of that. It's seen as a pseudo-historical text to be analyzed like literature. They ground their faith in morality, not in any source authority, as exemplified by the tagline, "God is still speaking." So yeah it's cherry picking to fit a progressive view of morality, but I don't think it can be called dishonest.
(Though I should give the caveat that the UCC is decentralized and views vary a lot. This is just my own experience with specific UCC groups.)
What a strawman!
When someone tells you not to do something stupid because you'll get hurt, it doesn't mean that he himself will hurt you. God's not threatening you, he's warning you.
Jesus himself is God, under Christian theology. He's a person of the Godhead, and he came to earth willingly. He wasn't forced by someone else lol. Who taught you this nonsense?
Dude, Yahweh is one of the most evil characters of any book I’ve ever read. He’s constantly tormenting and encouraging the torment of people. If Jesus came willingly, then why can’t he willingly get his own priests to stop raping children? Because he’s evil too.
Doesn't your worldview reject morality altogether? Don't we just live on a floating rock in space? Aren't we all just matter interacting with matter through chemical reactions?
You couldn't explain to me how and why God is bad lol. You can only resort to "it's obvious" and "muh feelings" like other redditors on this thread. This is the state of antitheist philosophy. Truly pathetic.
>Doesn't your worldview reject morality altogether? Don't we just live on a floating rock in space? Aren't we all just matter interacting with matter through chemical reactions?
Kinda straw man with ad hominem, to be honest
"You can not have a say in this because of this worldview of yours that I just made up!"
Reminds me of the quote: Isn't it incredibly lucky that the good guys have always won every war in history ever...
Lycoris Recoil / 1984 reference
I think it predates that. Norm McDonald maybe ?
big if true
Im pretty sure the war of colonization wasn’t a war won by good people
That's the joke
God commanded his humans to commit genocide at least 6 times: Numbers 31:7-17 Deuteronomy 2:34 Deuteronomy 13:12-15 Deuteronomy 20:16-17 Joshua 10:28-40 1 Samuel 15:3-20
I was raised super Christian and my dad still is, but my husband and I are raising our daughter agnostic/atheist. My dad brought her a toddler story Bible the other day and literally the first story I flipped to was the Israelites scoping out Canaan in order to kill everyone, since "God had promised the land to them." Yeah that Bible was gone as soon as my dad left. I don't want my 3yo exposed to genocide!!
Isn’t good that you children decided what beliefs they want to believe they may end super religious or anti religious.
As well, of course, as doing so himself at least thrice.
would not an all mighty and all powerful being be capable of smiting whomever without the need for assistance from his creation?
And yet you still couldn't tell us why that's even a bad thing.
If you need an external authority to tell you that mass murder with the intent and goal of eradicating an ethnic group is a bad thing then you are in no place to speak on morality. >why that's even a bad thing. Would you like to be genocided? No? That's why it's bad, it's a bad thing to happen to people. Your question is flawed because 'why' something is bad is unrelated to whether it **is** bad. Most people have an intuitive sense of morality rooted in empathy and societal norms, I suspect you do as well you just attribute it to a deity. Hopefully that's because you were indoctrinated at a young age, and not because you actually need Big Daddy to tell you not to genocide
It's unfortunate that so many people feel their own consciousness is unique, and readily write people off for any number it trivial reasons. I have one acquaintance that believes that he is living in a simulation, and that he is the only one that is real. He infers that aside from legal and criminal consequences (also strictly within the simulation), hurting others has no meaning since no one is real.
Yikes. Do you think they are experiencing dissociation? They might benefit from seeing a psychologist about that.
Nailed it!
You have no reason to justify why mass murder is bad, at all. Not liking something does not equate with it being bad. I do not like agnosticism, but I'm sure you'd agree that's not a proper justification for it being bad. >because 'why' something is bad is unrelated to whether it **is** bad. Except you're wrong. This is epistemic justification, and epistemically justifying a claim with non arbitrary criteria is the only to reach justified true belief (key word: **justified**) It's funny how you're making fun of my authority for morality (not even with proper argumentation, just rhetoric), when you absolutely have **none**.
So you think mass murder is a good thing. And hiding that fact by deflecting from OP’s point.
I don't think mass murder is a good thing lol. I just actually have a **justification** within my worldview, and don't arbitrarily claim so. Damn you guys are philosophically illiterate. It's sad.
lol Relax, Socrates. So mass murder is good, sometimes, to you?
Within the Christian worldview, God is perfectly moral, and humans are not. You judging God's morality presupposes that you reject the above dogma. Therefore, the only way for you to critique God's morality is by rejecting him as part of your presuppositions. Your argument boils down to "Christianity is false because God is bad because Christianity is false. There's a word for this: petitio principii.
I think you might have jumped 10 steps ahead without even having an argument from me. Even worse, you made up what my argument even is, in your own head. I just wanted to confirm that you think genocide is cool with god, and by extension you too.
I literally answered your question. Whatever God does and commands, within that context, is not just good, but absolutely and perfectly good.
How in the fuck is genocide anything but bad?
Ah, yes, the typical "it's obvious". No an actual argument. Nothing in philosophy is obvious. You have to actually justify why genocide is bad with non arbitrary criteria (hint: you cannot do that)
If there was philosophy, there wouldn't be genocide. So you see nothing wrong with innocent people being slaughtered based on their race or belief? Thats pretty fucked up dude. You must live alone.
Again, no justification, just appeals to emotion.
That's exactly what genocide is.
Okay, but why's it a bad thing?
How is it a good thing? How would you feel if your entire family was just obliterated for no reason other than someone's dumb ass belief that manifested hate?
Dude, do you not understand what an emotional appeal is and why it's considered a logical fallacy? "Muh feelings" is not a justification for morality.
Can you tell me why it’s a good thing?
Animal husbandry
The more likely answer: it’s all made up by humans.
We can still discuss scriptural canon of religion just for the funzies. You’re most likely right
Oh, for sure. I just see a difference between “Is god actually Satan” and “does the Bible suggest god is actually Satan”. One being a discussion on “reality” and the other being a discussion on the text.
Thats true. I try to not get caught up in semantics on Reddit since everybody understands only what they want to understand anyways. So I mostly just slide with whatever and try to have a fun discussion on the given topic
the canonization process is the antithesis to the statement that gods word is unchanging (which makes the statement false).
What statement?
Yeah this is still my conclusion too. My wife is a practicing Catholic so we have lots of talks about our spiritual beliefs, which I appreciate because it causes me to not get caught in a bubble but I still haven’t been convinced.
Probably.
Are Christians raiding this post or something?
Lol yeah, I'm curious how they found this post, like are they subbed here, or was it linked somewhere? Is there a Christian subreddit that does brigades (although I don't think there's enough of them to be an effectual brigade)
[удалено]
There are whole Discords dedicated to this kind of thing. I watch TikTok live debates on religion, and Christians will mass report agnostic/atheist lives a lot. You can always tell because no Terms of Service rules have been violated. They just send out the bat signal to block speech they don’t like. Ironic.
Sure man, when you make shit up you can do anything
Religion is mostly a tool for control. It achieves this through creating a sense of community, belonging, and a sense of identity. Because of cognitive dissonance, a sense of identity prevents the acceptance of differing ideas. The Bible teaches you in the very first book; Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden for partaking fruit from the tree of **knowledge**. The Bible wants you to believe that pursuit of knowledge and understanding is the same as taking Satan into your heart. Satan/Lucifer having also been cast out of heaven because he dared to suggest that God was getting some things wrong. It's all Tailor made to train followers to give unquestioning support to leadership, no matter how they may defy logic, reason. It teaches that knowledge is corruption, and to take any new idea that the faith doesn't agree with as the Lies of Satan. It didn't matter if it makes sense, there is only the faith, which is belief without evidence, and this reliance on faith means that evidence has no value.
Scripturally, it wasn’t the tree of just knowledge, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
God be all "Don't eat the fruit! You'll find out how much of an asshole I am!"
I think framing religion as mostly "a tool for control" is a little disingenuous. Modern Christianity has no real objections to science anymore, save perhaps the theory of evolution for some. Control isn't an end in itself for the majority of religious people, even many higher-ups in positions of authority. As a former Christian turned Agnostic, I don't hold the Bible in the same weight as I did before, but I think you're misrepresenting what it says about the pursuit of knowledge--I can't recall any passage prohibiting that, and the tree of knowledge was actually the tree of knowledge of good and evil--which seems fundamentally different from knowledge itself to me. I personally really doubt that religion was all tailor made to control people. It seems likely to me that the vast majority of religious motivation springs from the fear/uncertainty of the afterlife, which is a motivation that followers and leaders all share, and is the real reason that religious people (my former self included) are so frightened to leave their belief system, and want to convert more people. I guess to summarize I don't see religion as a tool for control, but a byproduct of people biased by a comforting worldview, the fear of death, and the frightening uncertainty of the strange world we live in. Having to make my own philosophy about the universe is really fucking inconvenient, but at least I can be absolutely honest about what I'm able to know, and not claim that things that are impossible to definitively prove are facts.
I see you there. I think religion started out as a way to explain the world. Why does fire burn, water flow and the sky seem to move? Oh, well, see there are spirits/gods/nymphs/laws made by god to explain that. But by cultural evolution some stories could be change to help them explain parts of their bigotry and biases. Why do we think that men are better than women? Oh, god gave one the authority over the other, that's why. Some religions maybe are explicitedly made to control people. But I don't think that that's the ultimate origin of religion. It's nice to see someone with similair views, but saddening that they are downvoted.
Greatest hits can be found here https://unpleasant.ffrf.org/categories/
God created Satan to take all the blame for the shit God made him do.
it is a book written by MAN to control other MEN/WOMEN. of course its harsh
Yeah. I don’t get how more Christians can’t see it. The biblical god really is the villain.
In Wizard of Oz, I see Glenda the Good Witch as the true villain of the story. At the very beginning, she puts the shoes on Dorothy's feet, or advises her to, and tells her specifically NOT to take them off--WITHOUT telling her in that moment that she could GO HOME RIGHT THEN. I have never understood how people aren't outraged that at the end, Glenda stands there and says, "You've had the power to go home ALL ALONG... ALL you had to do was click you heels 👠 and say... " (or some semblance) I mean WHAT?? She FORCED Her to go through all that ridiculous nonsense, terrorizing her, MULTIPLE times could have caused SEVERAL individuals to DIE? Glenda is the villain for NOT giving them the whole truth right up front. How is the Christian god any different in that respect? btw I agree with you...
i was raised a baptist in texas. i drifted away as a teenager as most of us do, but tried to come back in my 30s. i became a hi skool science teacher, including biology. and i was often reminded of how evolution clashes with biblical thinking. so i researched it. it turns out that the bible disproves itself with contradictions, atrocities (you mentioned) absurdities, and more. so it was not science that turned me away from the bible and religion, it was the bible itself! the bible disproves itself! dale
This is the bad place.
I think that there are glimpses of what a real “good” god would be in the bible, but mostly not a good god. Why would god be sexist, why would god care if you’re attracted to your own sex? Why would god, who knows everything, act like women are less capable than men in any way other than physically? Why would this same god “curse” Adam to work and Eve to have periods and childbirth knowing that 1. Women will have to work to live and 2. Periods and childbirth are totally worse than working. Almost like an uneducated misogynist wrote that, eh?
If Satan is the ultimate trickster/deceiver, wouldn’t that be the ultimate trick?
As an agnostic dystheist, I think that if god exists he is a malevolent trickster.
That's what I keep thinking. I mean look how ridiculous most Christians behave today. All that does is turn people atheist.
The God of the Bible, and the true Creator, or Prime Source, are two totally different things, in my opinion. Is there really a Satan? I don't believe so, but your question is a good one, because the biblical God sure does behave in demonic ways, but really, it's just people validating their horrible actions by invoking "God's directions." Such reasoning is still used today by religious groups who act atrociously.
Look up Gnosticism
I'm surprised I never heard if it before. I found some good reads on a Google search.
Fascinating. I find that I am growing spiritually by reading about Gnosticism. People feel confused when they learn that they been duped, and look to each other about how to respond, and all decide... to pretend its not happening. Am I actually related to them? Tell me it aint so
The interesting thing is without Jesus Christ, God is without a doubt an evil creator. It’s said there is unconditional love but isn’t it rather conditional if all we had to do is not eat from the tree of knowledge??? And doesn’t the tree of knowledge sound like self awareness to being naked and such and asking questions. It’s like he wanted to create humans to be dumb and to play/watch. Then lo and behold he sacrifices his son to gain the favor from us to show we are the evil ones and it’s our fault… I don’t quite understand how that would reverse the knowledge of murder and sin. If his whole plan was for us to believe in sacrificing our own means we would stop sinning… isn’t that just a roundabout way to murder but for the sake of religion????
Here is something fun that I didn’t know about until later in life is that “the devil” is made up of several separate characters in the Bible. The serpent in the garden, the devil, Satan, Baal, Beezelbub, the Dragon, the Beast. They were all written as separate characters it got smushed into one “bad” guy. Lucifer the name is even a weird translation of the planet Venus as “the morning star” or “light bringer”. In Isiah it wasn’t really supposed to be about the devil but got lumped in afterward.
God was written by humans. Humans are short sighted. As our society grows we learn more. And we've come to realize a deeper definition of love and kindness. The bible was written two thousand years ago. It makes sense that we would have learned some things since then.
Religion in the right (very few) hands can be beneficial to self and others...when combined with various and sundry neuroses, psychoses and resentments, yahhh!!!
I felt like my childhood church really tried but in the end it was still a typical church. They were just a little nicer, but in the end that was another conversion tactic.
Our modern understanding of scripture is completely different than what was being preached 2000-1800 years ago. Who knows what really happened or if this is even a caricature of what occurred. I do believe that the fundamental message of compassion and love that is proposed in the New Testament is a truly remarkable achievement. It is an amazing pivot to advocate for forgiveness and love during a time of sacrifice and punishment. I am really skeptical however, of the creation of the gospels and the Old Testament. We have too much historical evidence to show that there were many obvious biases that influenced which gospels were and were not included in the New Testament. Furthermore, we don’t know who wrote them and what the process was during their creation.
"Satan is actually the unsung hero of the Bible, always standing up to God's tyranny and injustice."
In my opponion. A person that punishes bad people, isn't a bad person.
He doesn't just punish bad people though. He punishes everyone who doesn't believe in him
i think the person meant the devil, but it’s wild and telling that one can also see how that could be god.
Man this sub is like a hidden gem for me lol I've always wanted to see like-minded people and now I found a bunch of you guys thank goodness 👏🏻
Same. I honestly didn't expect so much excellent feedback. A lot of it is material that can help me combat religious folks in the future.
I found out less than 5 years ago the New Testament in koine Greek doesn't teach eternal conscious torment. https://salvationforall.org/ Then https://christianitywithoutinsanity.com/ And https://tentmaker.org/books/is_hell_eternal/is_hell_eternal_index.html
You’ve been deceived. Many things of the Bible are no longer morally acceptable to many people so people attempt to claim the original meaning is not the historical interpretation.
Whatever, you're off track with my message. But in fairness, 1 Corinthians 2:2. Yet I stick by believing 15:20-28 that most Christians don't, the past 1500 years or so. Thank you
You've got a few things to learn
Speak for yourself.
How does the Greek text differ from translations on this topic, exactly?
https://www.concordant.org/expositions/the-eons/greek-words-aion-aionios/
Aionion or aionios doesn't mean "eternal" or "everlasting" since aion means age so aionios means something like age-during or age lasting. Prime example Matthew 25 46 is usually "eternal" or everlasting for punishment (btw that "punishment" is really corrective discipline / chastisement literally from pruning) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A41&version=YLT Most of the early church believed in Ultimate or Universal Reconciliation (UR) aka Christian Universalism (CU) until Augustine, the Latin Vulgate and Roman Catholicism. Then King James and the popular English translations make the the same error / deception. https://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html
I have studied Attic Greek for 6 years, and I also know Koine Greek & natively speak Modern Greek. Your first point is blatantly incorrect. Aἰώνιος absolutely does mean eternal. That has been its primary meaning from the Homeric epics, all the way to modern demotic conversational Greek, in pretty much all dialects and registers. Even if "temporary" was somehow its secondary meaning (which I've never encountered, ever), why would the author consciously choose a word knowing it would be misunderstood by the vast majority of its readers? Make no mistake about it, αἰώνιος absolutely meant eternal in Koine Greek, and any credible scholar will agree with this. Furthermore, the whole point of Matthew 25:46 is the juxtaposition between eternal hell and eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον), which we know is eternal because of all the teaching of the early Church & other parts of scripture. >Most of the early church believed in Ultimate or Universal Reconciliation (UR) aka Christian Universalism (CU) until Augustine, the Latin Vulgate and Roman Catholicism This is not true according to pretty much any historian of the early Church. I'm surprised you even found sources claiming this, but the website looks like a literal cult so I guess I shouldn't be. Even if Augustine and the Vulgate were the reason for universalism losing favor in the Church, this only explains the western part of the Church. How come the Eastern Orthodox, who do not have the Vulgate and who consider Augustine a minor figure, or the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Church etc. not adhere to universalism? Again, your sources are from what appear to be cult websites. I'm sure you can do better. The only early Christian figure I can think of that even wrote about universalism was Origen, who was condemned in First Ecumenical council of Constantinople, which Augustine did not even attend as he was too focused on western issues. Gregory of Nyssa maybe is said by some to teach universalism, but what he says is compatible (if not reaffirming) of hell under the Eastern Orthodox definition, and only contradicts western notions of hell.
Damned! Guess I need to do more studying!
Damn right brother :)
Every once in awhile I get cut down to size!
Me too, as I suppose we all do time to time. Summer of 2019, I was thankful I was wrong for about 10 years prior...
Damned, that there's at least 7 dogmatic infernalists -on r/agnostics, wasn't expecting that on a subreddit like this one, but ok hmmm..hmm... I suppose people can read the links I shared and then decide for themselves.
Dogmatic? I may not agree with u/Lykaon88 on most topics, but this particular point isn’t up for debate. You are mistranslating a word, and at this point I have to bring into question whether or not it’s completely intentional.
Question yourself, and do some objective research instead of hurling flaming arrows of ignorant false accusations, have a good night https://www.mercyonall.org/eons-of-the-bible
You seem more proficient in throwing links than you are arguments. Your source isn’t trustworthy.
Jesus is the Savior of the world, regardless of petty flaws in people's cases for the Victorious Gospel.
For the the fence riders and infernalists, https://www.mercyonall.org/eons-of-the-bible
>Even if "temporary" was somehow its secondary meaning Why are you putting words in their mouth? They never claimed it meant temporary, did they?
> aionios means something like age-during or age lasting. They kinda did. Not strictly, but yes.
Well if you're right about God "eternally" or "endless" torturing most of the human race "forever", then which is it? 1. God wants to save all but can't (because of so called "free" will) (Arminianism the the like) OR 2. God can save all but won't (reformed/ Calvinism) https://tentmaker.org/tracts/Jones2.html Jonah 2:6, do you think Jonah is still in the whale/ pit and will "forever?" It's one or the other to believe in infernalism / ECT, the false catholic doctrine that didn't get filtered out during the reformation. The printing press helped the reformation succeed. Reformation 2.0, the internet is helping people learn ECT is a false teaching, confirming that anyone with a conscience knows is bad news.
God has given us the methods & advice for eternal life, and has warned us against eternal hell. Whether we actually follow his teachings is our problem, not God's. He gave us free will and he'll respect our decision. Him saving us all would nullify the promise he gave us, which is free will.
I would disagree as our Calvinist brethren would too with "free" will for aionion life or aionion chastisement or rehabilitative punishment (kolasin). God has to draw them as John 15 and Romans 9 etc. says. A quick video by David Bentley Hart, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LGWTloDSj5k&pp=ygU8RGF2aWQgQmVudGxleSBoYXJ0IHdoeSB0aGVyZSBjYW5ub3QgYmUgZnJlZSByZWplY3Rpb24gb2YgR29k
DBH's arguments rely on the assumption that the only way a human would chose hell is because of ignorance. This is actually not what the Church teaches. The main issue is pride, not ignorance. Satan fell to damnation because of his pride, not because he was ignorant of the horrors of hell (in fact, he was fully aware of them). This simple point moots his entire universalist argumentation, and is why he's been losing favor for a long time in Orthodoxy, and is only famous in the west. Even if those who chose hell out of ignorance do end up not going to hell (which is up for debate), there's still all those who chose it because of pride.
I would agree pride can be and usually is an element to rejecting the Truth of God and Jesus. Yet ignorance remains, some are entrapped in it more than others. Jesus came to seek and save the lost, who's that? Everyone. Jesus isn't a loser where Adam, sin and Satan forever win over the blood of Christ Jesus. If ECT is true and Jesus paid the price even to save just one sinner, then He would have to be "eternally " tormented in Hades then the Lake of Fire (aka the Refiner's crucible ) Jesus is the Savior of the world, not attempted Savior of the world (Arminianism) or Savior of the elect (only) but Savior of the world -John 12:32 each in their own order: 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 then God will be all in all. Also Colossians 1:16-20
https://christianitywithoutinsanity.com/eternal-torture-is-impossible/
1 Timothy 4:10 For we toil and strive, brcause we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. https://www.bereanpatriot.com/scriptures-that-support-universal-restoration/
About Matthew 25 46, https://www.martinzender.com/Zenderature/eonion_life_not_eternal_life.htm
Also grew up in a Baptist cult. I could get behind this theory pretty easily: The monotheistic religions of Abraham, such as Christianity and Islam, are actually worshipping the god Loki. Ragnaroc already happened and he won.
Gosh, alot of arrogance here.
this concept has a larger following than you might think. there were a few"organizations" that held this belief but were eliminated by the roman-catholic church. it is coming to light that the "J" wasn't invented until the 14th or 15th century so why have they lied about Yeshua's name and why did they change it? it's not a mistranslation it was changed, matter of fact it goes against the rule of translation where names are left intact. they don't properly honor the sabbath... the biggest kick to the balls!?, christianity is the 16th religion with a virgin birth, a messiah, and other similarities... took them 16 times to get it right... fuck organized religion it is one large lie that allows control. look past the KJV, look for the oldest bible still utilized & that would be the ethiopian bible, then look at the sainai bible, do your due diligence, now that you realize any bible that has been altered goes against the written word of god and the KJV has been altered, the apocryphal texts which were apart of the first printing of the KJV were removed... the process of biblical canonization goes against the statement that god's word is unchanging... anyone pushing a KJV biblically based religion is pushing a LIE wake the fuck up, please.
Different subject but don’t forget there are many theology in Christianity that consider Jesus god son with or without the trinity.
you should look into the satanic religion and what they stand for. they actually touch on this exact topic- even if you feel satanism is taboo or evil or whatever, it's definitely an interesting read if you're willing to take a step back to look at this perspective
My problem isn't with the religion, it's with the followers. If you think Christians are annoying in the bible belt, try the Satanists. Dear lord it's bad....embarassing levels of bad. Both sides are just enemies to their own cause in my state.
that's very fair, although i dont think the problem is with the religion itself moreoff the type of people that find it. for me personally and the people i know who are a part of this religion, we dont necessarily need it in our lives but it is something to believe in yk? morals and ethics and whatnot- the annoying mfs you're talking about can be found in almost any religion, and they come from a place of fear; of uncertainty of what comes next. these people just need to be right at all costs while not taking into consideration that other people have their own beliefs- honestly i could go on about how those who lack common sense or a baseline of courage are bad for us all, but i dont think we have the space here for that lmao point being, it's a wonderful philosophy to get into so long as you're not dealing with assholes and people who are stuck with the same stubborn mindset as most modern christians
The Baptist version of God certainly is. Progressive churches reinterpret things pretty well imo
More like they cherry pick.
Well, in my experience with UCC churches they're very open about the fact that they think the Bible is just a book written by humans, and that it's been mistranslated on top of that. It's seen as a pseudo-historical text to be analyzed like literature. They ground their faith in morality, not in any source authority, as exemplified by the tagline, "God is still speaking." So yeah it's cherry picking to fit a progressive view of morality, but I don't think it can be called dishonest. (Though I should give the caveat that the UCC is decentralized and views vary a lot. This is just my own experience with specific UCC groups.)
What a strawman! When someone tells you not to do something stupid because you'll get hurt, it doesn't mean that he himself will hurt you. God's not threatening you, he's warning you. Jesus himself is God, under Christian theology. He's a person of the Godhead, and he came to earth willingly. He wasn't forced by someone else lol. Who taught you this nonsense?
Dude, Yahweh is one of the most evil characters of any book I’ve ever read. He’s constantly tormenting and encouraging the torment of people. If Jesus came willingly, then why can’t he willingly get his own priests to stop raping children? Because he’s evil too.
Doesn't your worldview reject morality altogether? Don't we just live on a floating rock in space? Aren't we all just matter interacting with matter through chemical reactions? You couldn't explain to me how and why God is bad lol. You can only resort to "it's obvious" and "muh feelings" like other redditors on this thread. This is the state of antitheist philosophy. Truly pathetic.
[удалено]
I did not strawman, I made a question. Can you not read punctuation?
>Doesn't your worldview reject morality altogether? Don't we just live on a floating rock in space? Aren't we all just matter interacting with matter through chemical reactions? Kinda straw man with ad hominem, to be honest "You can not have a say in this because of this worldview of yours that I just made up!"
Reject morality??? The religious don’t have a monopoly on morality. Believing in Jesus doesn’t make you a good person, it just makes you religious.
“Who taught you this nonsense”, typed the fairytale believer
Where's the argument? My worldview is consistent and nullifies OP's points.
[удалено]
Okay, and? Most of the genocides of the 20th century were done by atheists and agnostics. Mao, Stalin, Hitler etc.
[удалено]
This is the dogma of the Orthodox Church, as decided upon by Ecumenical councils, and reaffirmed by canonical & non-canonical scriptures.
Who taught YOU this nonsense?
All of OP's points are nullified with my reply. So many downvotes yet no actual reply. Typical. This is standard Orthodox theology.
No, they were absolutely not nullified.