Understanding Religion's Relationship To Human Social Systems

 There are ... very serious problems  caused by "putting God first" and "putting the kingdom first"; -whenever "God" (allegedly) wants something  which (factually) causes harm.  For example: It causes really serious problems for innocent humans ( intense prolonged suffering, mental illness, and suicides )  when someone's religious narrative tell them that they better warn LGBT people to repent of either: being LGBT  or  living/loving as LGBT.   That's especially problematic when the targeted person thinks "uh oh. Maybe that's true. Maybe GOD really does feel that way about me". But it's also a problem for people (especially youth) who do NOT believe it BUT are being othered/alienated/condemned by parents, siblings, friends, kids at school, etc..  It's not ok to 'feed the societal consciousness' (nor even our own family) with bullying and canceling sentiments against LGBT, free thinking, doubts, skepticism, or anything ...

Responding to this video .  ----   Introducing myself: I stopped believing in a general idea of "the Christian God" at age 41. That was about 10 years ago. For me personally, that transition was liberating and healthy. But I understand some people feel and function better within a Christian narrative; compared to how they struggled without it. After de-converting, I went through stages. I was vaguely spiritual for a while. At one point, I seriously consider Pandeism. Over time, I became increasingly atheist-y. I eventually became fully anti-theist (Gnostic Atheist). And I fully accept my burden of proof for that. It may be interesting to note that most Lack-theists cringe at anti-theists. They're just as quick to say we're being ridiculous as Theists are. But I'm ok with that. I'm quite adept at defending my position. However, I don't "identify" with it. I've learned the value and wisdom of never allowing my sense of ...

The American "Republican" party does relentlessly attempt to function as a suppressor of human rights. It has done that, ever since the left and right switches labels. Before that, it was still (has always been) conservatives at the root of that problem. Current example: Every child has a basic human right to an education. And yet, conservative politicians in America are still doing everything they can to sabotage the public education system; in an effort to make it finish failing. Why? So that the conservatives can "rescue" children from that failed education, by replacing that destroyed system with a privatized education. Why? 1. To satisfy the Billionaire donors who are renting conservative politicians for that purpose. 2. That outcome will obliterate the wall of separation between Church and State; - giving religious conservatives the opportunity to structure their charter schools as social, political, and religious indoctrination centers. To what end? To fi...

Egocentrism . It's a way of thinking that most humans would naturally outgrow;  if they grow up around other naturally maturing humans.  However, ... Egocentrism is a major mechanism that some religions use in order to stunt the emotional maturation of members.  Infants are easier to control than adults . Emotionally regressed people  are less scary, more exploitable.  And thus, more rewarding for church leaders. It's also an essential element of their worldview. Thus, such churches go out of their way to cultivate this.  They realize that especially mature and wise adults do not mentally see their "God". This is why some bible writers have specifically said that their god does not reveal himself to the wise and the learned .  This is how they shame knowledge and maturity;  as they call upon everyone to regress back to a helplessly dependent child-state.  Thus, the infantile nature of egocentrism remains a core facet of religious fundamentali...

The term "grace" literally means "undeserved kindness". It posits that humans don't even deserve the air we breathe, because we "fall short" of a super-Father's standard of perfection. We are not enough; as we are. We aren't worthy of that minimal amount of kindness. It then offers to "forgive"/pardon us for being unworthy to even exist so that super-Parent can then justify (to himself) the choice to a.) let any pardoned-person keep existing (beyond this life) and b.) while being treated kindly.  [Note: Some Christian sects do not include eternal torture as a teaching.  Some only say we stop existing.  Some say we go to a less horrific (but still horrific) place of eternal suffering. Some say we all 'eventually' get sculpted into Christians and then allowed into paradise. However, nearly all versions teach that "grace" means we get forgiven for being imperfect; - so that we can then be allowed to escape ~whichever~ ...

 This is a screenshot of a post a Christian started today in a "Stoicism" group on Facebook.   He quoted an ancient and respected STOIC ... out of context; to make it appear as-if Seneca's wisdom naturally leads to Christianity, and as if Seneca intended his words to be understood as such.  And he has a point. Maybe you should ... pretend that Seneca meant literally the opposite of what he meant.  Maybe you should  ~Fear Death~; a lot; like it's about to catch up with you. Dwell on your fragility, your vulnerability, and your mortality. BE DESPERATELY AFRAID so that you'll become mentally vulnerable enough that my God-Awful Religion can prey upon that vulnerability with logical fallacies like Pascal's Wager. Because then, if that works, you'll surrender to US as a moral authority over your life, who gets to TELL YOU ~who you are~, what your life's meaning and purpose are, what you AREN'T worth, and what you CAN BE WORTH, if you submit to "God...

   When I hear someone like Bart Ehrman say that Jesus of the Christian texts really existed  and that this is a settled issue for all qualified scholars, ...  I realize: What Ehrman is really confessing is  confessing about himself (and accusing about his academic peers) is: They have allowed themselves to become lazy, complacent, and dogmatic about that particular issue.  As Dr Josh Bowen has gone on record to say ,  about adopting dogmatic, unchangeable (or "settled") positions regarding ancient history and texts, ... [Note: He was not talking specifically about anything Ehrman said.  Bowen, in that clip, was talking about why fundamentalism is incompatible with scholarship ]  [words in parenthesis are mine]   " Scholarship  is always pushing beyond today's status quo; probing, challenging, applying new data and new theory. What I have been trying to show ... is that fundamentalist is incompatible with scholarship.  Fun...