@Grond0 Anybody can claim to be anything, and while there is an ungodly amount of different denominations to Christianity, there are a few concrete constants that can be used to sift through the chaff. While there is a lot of interpretation to be had, there are enough conrete, explicit, do this/don't do this in the Bible to serve as a standard. The example on judging I used above is explicit. Anyone who tries to discriminate against another person for reasons of "sin" or "not being a Chrsitian" is explcitly breaking God's commands. Of course no one is perfect, but a reasonable Chrisitan should be open to gentle correction. Someone refusing to listen, even when shown where God's word corrects them, shouldn't be assumed Christian. I mean, even the freaking Westboro Baptist church claims to be Chrisitian, even though NOTHING in their attitude or actions lines up with even the most liberal interpretations.
If you want, I can provide a short list of the core beliefs that can't be deviated from to be "Chrisitan".
@FinneousPJ Are you talking how I know its correct according to Christian theology? Or in an "absolute morality sense"?
Here we go. Its a short list:
1. There is only one God and you worship only Him. “You shall have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3 2. Jesus is an aspect of this God with all the authority and power that entails. "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Acts 2:36 3. The only way to heaven is through Christ. "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 4. All are equal in God's eyes. No one is more righteous than another. "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23 5. Because we are equal, we are to treat everyone with love. "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Galatians 5:14
That's it. This is kind of the extended version, to try and be as clear as possible. Jesus actually condensed it down to just 2:
"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:30-31
There are a lot of denominations and churches that hold oddly specific beliefs for small things, but this is the core of Christianity. Jesus himself says it encompasses the whole of the Law. If these are deviated from or broken, then that is not Christianity.
@FinneousPJ 1. I'm not sure what you mean. Jesus said what He said. I deliberately chose explicit statements for clarity. 2. Anyone who follows Christ's example and commands. He was pretty clear, and His example isn't really ambiguous. The rules I listed are the guide to follow.
That's a much more complicated question. @ThacoBell, as asked, was just providing a list of core Christian beliefs. Trying to pin down (1) what exactly a true Christian is supposed to be and (2) what the exactly correct interpretation of the Bible, is something that millions of people have been pondering for just shy of 2,000 years.
@ThacoBell while the more detailed rules you set out are a reasonable interpretation of the Bible, I don't think they can be said to be the core position required of any Christian (as more generally recognized rather than specifically by you). For instance: - I posted just recently on the Pope's views that it is possible to get to Heaven without believing in Christ. - Unitarians are generally seen as Christians, but believe Jesus is not an aspect of God.
The more general formulation you give for the 2 rules (love God and love thy neighbor) seems more defensible to me as a Christian position (though once you get that general, an awful lot of groups that specifically do not call themselves Christians could be included).
@Grond0 Neither of those track though. My examples come from Christ's words, which is the single most important aspect of being CHRISTians. If those are deviated from, you aren't Christian. Again, anybody can claim to be anything. Nobody suffers a vegtarian who eats meat, but somehow going against Christ can still be labeled as "Christian".
Every unique aspect of Catholicism is extra-biblical. Which is why I argue that the Catholic church and the Christian church are separate. Unitarian is even more blatant, rejecting Christ ouright, yet still being considered Chrisitan? Hogwash.
@ThacoBell I understand your position, but I don't think most people (whether they consider themselves Christian or not) would share it. This article provides one view on why the Catholic Church should be considered Christian. Given that it was Catholics that agreed which writings would constitute the bible, I think it's hard to justify taking the label of Christian away from them on the basis of what is said in the bible.
Effectively I think this discussion just points out the difficulty of defining what makes one religion distinct from another.
But a religion centered around the teachings of a specific person cannot be a part of that religion while not following said teachings. Like I said before, if somone claiming to be an atheist regualrly affirmed the existance of, say, Vishnu , no one would consider them an atheist. If you do not follow Christ's teachings, you are not a Christian.
@ThacoBell Sure, but there is a very obvious difference: people disagree on what is the correct Christian doctrine. Atheism doesn't have that problem, because there is no doctrine. It is simply the lack of belief in theistic claims. If you have a theistic belief, you are not an atheist. That's not really analogous to your stance on Christianity.
But a religion centered around the teachings of a specific person cannot be a part of that religion while not following said teachings. Like I said before, if somone claiming to be an atheist regualrly affirmed the existance of, say, Vishnu , no one would consider them an atheist. If you do not follow Christ's teachings, you are not a Christian.
That can't be the whole story. Jesus never taught that He was both fully man and fully God or that his death would be salvation for all that accepted Him in their heart.
Christianity as we now know it would not become a single creed until hundreds of years after His death. Before then, it was not clear what was the role that Jesus would ultimately play in this burgeoning religion. There is evidence that he taught, and perhaps believed, 'merely' that he was the Son of Man, who would rule after the Messiah--i.e. that was not Jesus--rose up and rid the people of the Romans. Even after his death, there were those that called themselves Christian that did not accept the Incarnation, among many other things.*
But, there is little doubt that today, many consider it vital to accept the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, salvation through His sacrificed, and much more besides, even though these were not an established part of Christianity until the Nicene Creed, and many were not taught until after Jesus' death (and possible Resurrection).
As for the teachings themselves, it may not be certain today exactly what they were**. Even if Jesus had somebody recording his sermons, as Mohammad did, Christians would still need to interpret those words to best understand how they apply in this world today (as Muslims do). Indeed, look at the diversity of churches today, the split in the Episcopal Church over glbtq acceptance, or the vast difference between an affirming church and the westboro Baptist Church. Maybe somebody is 'right' in all of this disagreement, but the point is this is a lot of people trying to best understand how the teachings of Christ apply today***.
And, I think, that is mostly fine (I really despise the Westboro church--I don't think they are fine). Christians are not omniscient. But, I think that it is an essential part of any given faith for those practicing it to constantly reevaluate what their faith means for them, so it can best meet their needs in an evolving world
***Assuming all of these actors are acting in good faith. I personally doubt this is true of the Westboro church. They seem more interested in benefiting financially by suing counter protesters, but there are likely similarly extreme churches that are sincere.
@Grammarsalad "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” " John 14:6-7
"I and the Father are one." John 10:30
"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58
While I don't agree with @ThacoBell 's stance on Christianity, as he seems to me to be judging others, (something Jesus taught us not to do), I have to give him credit for supporting his arguments with actual quotations of scripture. I see a lot of assertions being made as counterarguments, but they are being supported by valid but extra-biblical citations. Since @ThacoBell appears to be coming from a conservative position of scriptural inerrancy, I would guess that he is unlikely to accept any arguments or counterarguments that are not supported with biblical citations.
Though I'm not convinced that Christianity treats everyone as equally as I would personally like, I do think it has a pretty good record compared to other major religions. Here's a short article that touches on Hindu discrimination against women. This is a major issue in India at the moment, with something of a struggle between the courts - who are trying to uphold constitutional equality - and the government which is seeking to promote a more fundamentalist view. Gender equality (or the lack of it) is also of course a wider cultural issue in India.
I don't participate in this thread much, because I don't find arguing about religion particularly interesting, as to me it sort of seems like arguing over which deity in the Forgotten Realms universe is more worthy of worship. I place the same validity on Scientology as I do Christianity. They are both equally fantastical, yet one is afforded a place in society where we go so far as to base actual LAWS on it's teachings, and the other is mocked and ridiculed. Yet in the end, what is the difference between believing in Xenu and believing in the idea that a man was conceived and brought into the world by a virgin birth and literally rose from the dead after 3 days??
I've mentioned it before, but it seems inescapably true to me that the reason religions of ALL types are so persistent around the world is the universal human fear of death. On a fundamental level, we can't cope with what is the likely reality, which is that all that awaits us after our time on earth is over is nothingness and oblivion. You will simply cease to be. It is rather terrifying on every level. So we have made up stories for ourselves that allow us to pretend we will continue on afterwards in infinity, that this is just a pit stop to forever. But the sad truth is that this likely isn't a pit stop, it's all there is.
@Grammarsalad "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” " John 14:6-7
"I and the Father are one." John 10:30
"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58
Just a few examples.
I don't doubt that you have textual evidence to back your interpretation. I don't doubt that at all.
But, that doesn't really address most of the points brought up. Which is fine. I'm not going to tell you how to practice your religion; that is not my place. We are coming to this discussion with very different perspectives--I'm more interested in Christianity as a historical phenomenon rather than from 'within', as theology (that would be difficult for me as a ex/non believer).
The fear of death would be an interesting, tangentially related subject to discuss
I don't participate in this thread much, because I don't find arguing about religion particularly interesting, as to me it sort of seems like arguing over which deity in the Forgotten Realms universe is more worthy of worship. I place the same validity on Scientology as I do Christianity. They are both equally fantastical, yet one is afforded a place in society where we go so far as to base actual LAWS on it's teachings, and the other is mocked and ridiculed. Yet in the end, what is the difference between believing in Xenu and believing in the idea that a man was conceived and brought into the world by a virgin birth and literally rose from the dead after 3 days??
I've mentioned it before, but it seems inescapably true to me that the reason religions of ALL types are so persistent around the world is the universal human fear of death. On a fundamental level, we can't cope with what is the likely reality, which is that all that awaits us after our time on earth is over is nothingness and oblivion. You will simply cease to be. It is rather terrifying on every level. So we have made up stories for ourselves that allow us to pretend we will continue on afterwards in infinity, that this is just a pit stop to forever. But the sad truth is that this likely isn't a pit stop, it's all there is.
And you have touched here on one of the major reasons I transitioned from an evangelical, fundamentalist, scriptural inerrancy upbringing to atheism.
I concluded after years of study including B.A. in music and philosophy and M.A. in Divinity from the University of Chicago that the driving axiom of all religion, including my childhood and teen religion, was that "life" continues in some form, as a "soul" or "spirit", beyond death, and that there is an "afterlife" that is fundamentally more important, more lasting, and free of suffering (as long as one was an adherent to the right religion), beyond this life, which is only some kind of "test" or "learning".
Once I realized that I should very aggressively challenge that fundamental axiom, the entire house of cards of all religion came tumbling down for me.
There were several important factors in my journey towards the peace and relief that came with atheism:
1) My youthful Christian faith, when applied to the people, the relationships, and the world around me literally drove me mad. I turned out to have the genetic predisposition towards manic psychotic episodes triggered by the extreme stress of conflicting values among my family members and among people in general all around me, together with my emerging gay sexual orientation. Psychiatric medications did little or nothing to help me. Becoming an atheist was the blessed key to treating and giving me complete management of all my psychiatric woes, and, pardon the expression, I "thank God" that I found my way to atheism!
2) I actually read the Bible. All of it. Twice. Between the ages of 16 and 20. I've never seen a more egregious mass of conflicting values. Then I learned Greek and read the New Testament in the original Greek. That didn't change anything.
The Old Testament Pentateuch plus Judges through I-II Kings depicts God as a genocidal, wrathful, jealous, blood sacrifice-loving, misogynistic tyrant. I'd go so far as to call that version of Yahweh EVIL. Starting in Isaiah and Jeremiah, we see an evolution of the idea of God towards justice and mercy towards the poor, the downtrodden, the widows and orphans, and non-Jewish peoples. Then in the Gospels, we see Jesus representing the most loving version of God, though he still talks about "being cast into Hell, where their worm dieth not, and there is weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth." Then we have the epistles of Paul, James, and John, where God is once again moved back towards being a judgmental, wrathful, rigid being who requires blood sacrifice and complete ascetic rejection of everything from this world. The epistle writers also clearly thought that the return of Jesus and the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven would happen in their lifetimes. (Spoiler: It didn't. History marched on. And on. And on.)
Which "God" of the Bible is the real God? I came to see Trinitarianism as a desperate attempt to reconcile and merge all these conflicting personalities and ideas of divinity into some Frankenstein's monster of coherent personality and thought.
3) As stated above, I began to rigorously question all the axioms of Christianity, and then to eastern thought, and then to all religion in general. I concluded as you did that most of all religion was a denial that physical death ends consciousness. And that it was almost all magical and wishful thinking. I remain open to evidence that I am wrong, but I see none.
4) All of that said, there is one "religion" that is still meaningful and helpful to me, and that is Buddhism, and the kinds of insights about existence and consciousness that have been mentioned by @JLee. Except for the unfortunate belief in literal reincarnation by most of its adherents, the rest of Buddhist philosophy has been very helpful to me in preserving my fundamentally "spiritual" outlook on life.
@God , I don't know to what extent you're still into doing that whole role-playing schtick you used to do and we used to play with each other, but if you've moved beyond it enough to discuss your ideas about God as an abstract Creator and guarantor of absolute free will in the universe He creates, as a philosopher among philosophers, I'd love to hear your take on some of these discussions. Although, as I have come to know you as you were a couple of years ago, you have likely lost interest in these kinds of discussions, and perhaps were never interested in any other context than making some jokes that express your views on divinity, with perhaps some hope to cajole or shock others into zen-like insight into your own insights. So, I guess ignore this tag unless you might have something to contribute here - although, I wouldn't tag you if I didn't think your theory of divinity is a useful contribution.
@BelgarathMTH I'm not judging people, I'm giving clear distinctions between different and non compatible philosophies. Also, that is a very sad interpretation of the Bible. I can see why you aren't a Christian if that is what you took from it.
So, this has become a thing in America: Lawsuits on townships putting up religious symbols on public land. Now, I have no problem with creches and Menorahs on land owned by religious institutions, bit not on public land. Public land has to be open to everyone, and can make those not of the religious symbols or displays feel unwelcome.
To some Christians this might not matter. But imagine if the religious symbols displayed were of a reigion inimical to your own (pick your own here). How would you feel if you had to see such symbols displayed on Public land?
Claremont Nativity scene, menorah under scrutiny again
CLAREMONT — The city’s traditional Nativity scene and menorah display in Broad Street Park have attracted the attention of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which has sent the city a notice calling for the display to be removed. “Ideally, we’d like to see that moving forward these types of displays don’t go back up,” said Colin McNamara, an attorney with the Wisconsin-based nonprofit. McNamara declined to say who in Claremont contacted his organization. “We were contacted by someone in the city,” McNamara said. Claremont resident Sam Killay, an athiest, brought his concerns about the display to the City Council before Christmas. Killay has said that if the displays aren’t removed from public property in the future, he would seek to put up an anti-Christian display such as a satanic pentagram or an upside-down cross. McNamara said if Claremont does not remove the displays from city property it should allow for anti-religious displays on city property, opening the door for Killay’s display.
The use of public grounds to post religious symbols or messages is honestly more of a political or legal topic than a theological or philosophical one. This is probably more on-topic for the politics thread than the religion thread.
The Killay guy doesn't sound all that bright if he wants to consider satanism anti-religious. Of course that depends on which branch he is talking about, but still. Anti-christian displays would still violate their view of freedom from religion on public property. Personally I don't see what all the hubbub is about though.
The Killay guy doesn't sound all that bright if he wants to consider satanism anti-religious. Of course that depends on which branch he is talking about, but still. Anti-christian displays would still violate their view of freedom from religion on public property. Personally I don't see what all the hubbub is about though.
In fact, Florida has a pending application from a group called the Satanic Temple. Simon says it's unconstitutional for government to put up Nativity scenes because that's sponsorship of religion. So these public forums tend to become free-speech "battle zones." Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation says that's what happened in a Loudoun County, Va., courthouse two years ago. "I think it was something like nine or 10 atheist displays went up. One of them was a crucified Santa. One of them was the Flying Spaghetti Monster," Seidel says. Seidel says it all started when elected leaders there allowed a Nativity scene on public property. He says cities tend to close forums after such displays appear. "When a religious group seeks to co-opt the power and the prestige of the government for their religious message, the best way to dilute that co-opting of the power and prestige is to put up our own message."
Pastafarianism- Belief in the flying Spaghetti Monster. "Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?"
This has become the battleground of choice for the anti-religious. They seem to believe that any display of a religious nature is some kind of affront to their non-beliefs and apparently will cause non-adherents to that faith to either fall on their knees and convert or become so intimidated by the very presence of those displays into subverting their own beliefs. I personally think they're mostly egomaniacs who think that everybody who doesn't (non)believe as they do are ignorant sheep...
Not any display, but I believe the US constitution is rather explicit about the issue regarding government and religion.
I don't recall anything in the Constitution about nativity scenes though. Maybe you can point out where that line is?
Again, this issue is much ado about nothing. The intense media focus on this non-issue is yet another way to divide people. For every die-hard atheist there is at least one die-hard Christian. Good luck to either side actually 'winning' this...
Comments
While there is a lot of interpretation to be had, there are enough conrete, explicit, do this/don't do this in the Bible to serve as a standard.
The example on judging I used above is explicit. Anyone who tries to discriminate against another person for reasons of "sin" or "not being a Chrsitian" is explcitly breaking God's commands. Of course no one is perfect, but a reasonable Chrisitan should be open to gentle correction. Someone refusing to listen, even when shown where God's word corrects them, shouldn't be assumed Christian. I mean, even the freaking Westboro Baptist church claims to be Chrisitian, even though NOTHING in their attitude or actions lines up with even the most liberal interpretations.
If you want, I can provide a short list of the core beliefs that can't be deviated from to be "Chrisitan".
Here we go. Its a short list:
1. There is only one God and you worship only Him. “You shall have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3
2. Jesus is an aspect of this God with all the authority and power that entails. "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Acts 2:36
3. The only way to heaven is through Christ. "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
4. All are equal in God's eyes. No one is more righteous than another. "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23
5. Because we are equal, we are to treat everyone with love. "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Galatians 5:14
That's it. This is kind of the extended version, to try and be as clear as possible. Jesus actually condensed it down to just 2:
"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:30-31
There are a lot of denominations and churches that hold oddly specific beliefs for small things, but this is the core of Christianity. Jesus himself says it encompasses the whole of the Law. If these are deviated from or broken, then that is not Christianity.
1) the correct bible interpretation
2) who is a true Christian?
1. I'm not sure what you mean. Jesus said what He said. I deliberately chose explicit statements for clarity.
2. Anyone who follows Christ's example and commands. He was pretty clear, and His example isn't really ambiguous. The rules I listed are the guide to follow.
- I posted just recently on the Pope's views that it is possible to get to Heaven without believing in Christ.
- Unitarians are generally seen as Christians, but believe Jesus is not an aspect of God.
The more general formulation you give for the 2 rules (love God and love thy neighbor) seems more defensible to me as a Christian position (though once you get that general, an awful lot of groups that specifically do not call themselves Christians could be included).
Every unique aspect of Catholicism is extra-biblical. Which is why I argue that the Catholic church and the Christian church are separate. Unitarian is even more blatant, rejecting Christ ouright, yet still being considered Chrisitan? Hogwash.
Effectively I think this discussion just points out the difficulty of defining what makes one religion distinct from another.
Christianity as we now know it would not become a single creed until hundreds of years after His death. Before then, it was not clear what was the role that Jesus would ultimately play in this burgeoning religion. There is evidence that he taught, and perhaps believed, 'merely' that he was the Son of Man, who would rule after the Messiah--i.e. that was not Jesus--rose up and rid the people of the Romans. Even after his death, there were those that called themselves Christian that did not accept the Incarnation, among many other things.*
But, there is little doubt that today, many consider it vital to accept the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, salvation through His sacrificed, and much more besides, even though these were not an established part of Christianity until the Nicene Creed, and many were not taught until after Jesus' death (and possible Resurrection).
As for the teachings themselves, it may not be certain today exactly what they were**. Even if Jesus had somebody recording his sermons, as Mohammad did, Christians would still need to interpret those words to best understand how they apply in this world today (as Muslims do). Indeed, look at the diversity of churches today, the split in the Episcopal Church over glbtq acceptance, or the vast difference between an affirming church and the westboro Baptist Church. Maybe somebody is 'right' in all of this disagreement, but the point is this is a lot of people trying to best understand how the teachings of Christ apply today***.
And, I think, that is mostly fine (I really despise the Westboro church--I don't think they are fine). Christians are not omniscient. But, I think that it is an essential part of any given faith for those practicing it to constantly reevaluate what their faith means for them, so it can best meet their needs in an evolving world
* See e.g.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DB39V2Q/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
**See another Ehrman book:
https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed-ebook/dp/B000SEGJF8/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546306561&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords='misquoting+jesus'
***Assuming all of these actors are acting in good faith. I personally doubt this is true of the Westboro church. They seem more interested in benefiting financially by suing counter protesters, but there are likely similarly extreme churches that are sincere.
"I and the Father are one." John 10:30
"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58
Just a few examples.
I've mentioned it before, but it seems inescapably true to me that the reason religions of ALL types are so persistent around the world is the universal human fear of death. On a fundamental level, we can't cope with what is the likely reality, which is that all that awaits us after our time on earth is over is nothingness and oblivion. You will simply cease to be. It is rather terrifying on every level. So we have made up stories for ourselves that allow us to pretend we will continue on afterwards in infinity, that this is just a pit stop to forever. But the sad truth is that this likely isn't a pit stop, it's all there is.
But, that doesn't really address most of the points brought up. Which is fine. I'm not going to tell you how to practice your religion; that is not my place. We are coming to this discussion with very different perspectives--I'm more interested in Christianity as a historical phenomenon rather than from 'within', as theology (that would be difficult for me as a ex/non believer).
The fear of death would be an interesting, tangentially related subject to discuss
I concluded after years of study including B.A. in music and philosophy and M.A. in Divinity from the University of Chicago that the driving axiom of all religion, including my childhood and teen religion, was that "life" continues in some form, as a "soul" or "spirit", beyond death, and that there is an "afterlife" that is fundamentally more important, more lasting, and free of suffering (as long as one was an adherent to the right religion), beyond this life, which is only some kind of "test" or "learning".
Once I realized that I should very aggressively challenge that fundamental axiom, the entire house of cards of all religion came tumbling down for me.
There were several important factors in my journey towards the peace and relief that came with atheism:
1) My youthful Christian faith, when applied to the people, the relationships, and the world around me literally drove me mad. I turned out to have the genetic predisposition towards manic psychotic episodes triggered by the extreme stress of conflicting values among my family members and among people in general all around me, together with my emerging gay sexual orientation. Psychiatric medications did little or nothing to help me. Becoming an atheist was the blessed key to treating and giving me complete management of all my psychiatric woes, and, pardon the expression, I "thank God" that I found my way to atheism!
2) I actually read the Bible. All of it. Twice. Between the ages of 16 and 20. I've never seen a more egregious mass of conflicting values. Then I learned Greek and read the New Testament in the original Greek. That didn't change anything.
The Old Testament Pentateuch plus Judges through I-II Kings depicts God as a genocidal, wrathful, jealous, blood sacrifice-loving, misogynistic tyrant. I'd go so far as to call that version of Yahweh EVIL. Starting in Isaiah and Jeremiah, we see an evolution of the idea of God towards justice and mercy towards the poor, the downtrodden, the widows and orphans, and non-Jewish peoples. Then in the Gospels, we see Jesus representing the most loving version of God, though he still talks about "being cast into Hell, where their worm dieth not, and there is weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth." Then we have the epistles of Paul, James, and John, where God is once again moved back towards being a judgmental, wrathful, rigid being who requires blood sacrifice and complete ascetic rejection of everything from this world. The epistle writers also clearly thought that the return of Jesus and the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven would happen in their lifetimes. (Spoiler: It didn't. History marched on. And on. And on.)
Which "God" of the Bible is the real God? I came to see Trinitarianism as a desperate attempt to reconcile and merge all these conflicting personalities and ideas of divinity into some Frankenstein's monster of coherent personality and thought.
3) As stated above, I began to rigorously question all the axioms of Christianity, and then to eastern thought, and then to all religion in general. I concluded as you did that most of all religion was a denial that physical death ends consciousness. And that it was almost all magical and wishful thinking. I remain open to evidence that I am wrong, but I see none.
4) All of that said, there is one "religion" that is still meaningful and helpful to me, and that is Buddhism, and the kinds of insights about existence and consciousness that have been mentioned by @JLee. Except for the unfortunate belief in literal reincarnation by most of its adherents, the rest of Buddhist philosophy has been very helpful to me in preserving my fundamentally "spiritual" outlook on life.
Now, I have no problem with creches and Menorahs on land owned by religious institutions, bit not on public land. Public land has to be open to everyone, and can make those not of the religious symbols or displays feel unwelcome.
To some Christians this might not matter. But imagine if the religious symbols displayed were of a reigion inimical to your own (pick your own here). How would you feel if you had to see such symbols displayed on Public land?
Claremont Nativity scene, menorah under scrutiny again
https://www.unionleader.com/news/religion/claremont-nativity-scene-menorah-under-scrutiny-again/article_efb4bd43-a71e-5e24-b7fe-17750f086103.html?fbclid=IwAR17SaINvOTsa9rohtMw6xKKfACtdpAZwA-r4_9gbWD8Ep8fFoJKEiVxkOECLAREMONT — The city’s traditional Nativity scene and menorah display in Broad Street Park have attracted the attention of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which has sent the city a notice calling for the display to be removed.
“Ideally, we’d like to see that moving forward these types of displays don’t go back up,” said Colin McNamara, an attorney with the Wisconsin-based nonprofit.
McNamara declined to say who in Claremont contacted his organization.
“We were contacted by someone in the city,” McNamara said.
Claremont resident Sam Killay, an athiest, brought his concerns about the display to the City Council before Christmas. Killay has said that if the displays aren’t removed from public property in the future, he would seek to put up an anti-Christian display such as a satanic pentagram or an upside-down cross.
McNamara said if Claremont does not remove the displays from city property it should allow for anti-religious displays on city property, opening the door for Killay’s display.
Discuss?
I know someone put up a Festivys Pole in the Florida Capitol and Aired his grievances in 2013.
https://www.npr.org/2013/12/11/250200281/florida-man-airs-grievances-with-festivus-pole-in-capitol
In fact, Florida has a pending application from a group called the Satanic Temple. Simon says it's unconstitutional for government to put up Nativity scenes because that's sponsorship of religion. So these public forums tend to become free-speech "battle zones."
Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation says that's what happened in a Loudoun County, Va., courthouse two years ago.
"I think it was something like nine or 10 atheist displays went up. One of them was a crucified Santa. One of them was the Flying Spaghetti Monster," Seidel says.
Seidel says it all started when elected leaders there allowed a Nativity scene on public property. He says cities tend to close forums after such displays appear. "When a religious group seeks to co-opt the power and the prestige of the government for their religious message, the best way to dilute that co-opting of the power and prestige is to put up our own message."
Pastafarianism- Belief in the flying Spaghetti Monster. "Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?"
Again, this issue is much ado about nothing. The intense media focus on this non-issue is yet another way to divide people. For every die-hard atheist there is at least one die-hard Christian. Good luck to either side actually 'winning' this...