Is the need of salvation an evil lie from religions?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Is the need of salvation an evil lie from religions?

Some religions like Christianity and Islam teach that peopleare condemned by God and that we have to work to gain salvation. God created usill, and orders us to be well, on pain of tremendous eternal torture andeventual death. This teaching follows the one where we are told that God isunknowable, unfathomable and works in mysterious ways. This makes the notionsof condemnation and the need for salvation obvious lies.

Gnostic Christianity does not use this type of carrot andstick motivation in its theology. We are Universalists and only see a heaven, nohell. We think God too good a creator to ever have to condemn anyone. Our Godis a winner, not the loser God that Christianity has invented. All the Gods aremyths created to help us reach our highest human potential and are only toolsto open our inner eye. Our single eye as Jesus calls it.

How we can forgive ourselves is that as Universalists, wehave tied righteousness to equality. The logic trail from there says that ifGod is to punish anyone, he would have to punish everyone as everyonecontributes to what we all are.

For instance. If Godwere to punish Hitler, he would have to revue what made Hitler what he ended upbeing. God would follow his time line and see perhaps that his parents spankedhim and God would know what we know today, that spanking creates resentment anda delinquent attitude. That beginning would see Hitler's parents setting hismindset which eventually flowered into his tyrannical nature. So to be just, God would automatically haveto punish Hitler's parents. That same logic would apply to everyone whocontributed or facilitated Hitler's rise to infamy.

So for you and me to blame just ourselves for what we arewould be quite unjust. This is not to say that we hold no responsibility forour actions, just not all of them.

Do you agree that the need of Salvation promoted by religionsis an evil lie?

Regards
DL

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Yeah it's pretty obvious to me that just about everything in religions is a lie. IMO the truth is we don't have a clue about what existence is about and anyone that says they do is lying for various reasons. It's just hard for humans to not have surety, we get scared so easily.

 

[Nixiam]

Religion is a delusional misconception of existence. No offense, but do some more thread surfing here and your opinion will be quickly changed.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Yeah it's pretty obvious to me that just about everything in religions is a lie. IMO the truth is we don't have a clue about what existence is about and anyone that says they do is lying for various reasons. It's just hard for humans to not have surety, we get scared so easily.

Indeed and religions have learned to capitalize on our fears like a good shyster would.

Religions are just the same as a mafia protection racket. Except they lie a lot more.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Religion is a delusional misconception of existence. No offense, but do some more thread surfing here and your opinion will be quickly changed.

I doubt that as I have been around long enough that I would have changed if there was something better to change me.

I am always open minded enough to look if you remember your best example.

Regards
DL

 

[Nixiam]

Maybe will was a strong word. How about might?

There is absolutely nothing, and I do mean nothing, to suggest by any stretch that a religion like Christianity is true. If a person understands this and continues to identify as a Christian, to me, it seems almost like a delusional wishful thinking concept.
BTW to answer the original question, yes I thik it is an evil lie. But the majority of religion seems to be a lie (if not 100% bullshit).

I don't mean to sound terse, I just woke up (12:30 a.m.)

Personally, I identify with Secular Humanism (though I am spiritual in the sense that I believe in possibilities).



There are a lot of juicy threads, and I have only been a member for a couple months. Go check out "Free Will vs. Determinism" thread, and "What happens after we die and should I be scared about it?". Those affected me a lot IIRC.

Regards

 

[Foreigner]

I don't think it's an intentional lie. They really do believe they're saving souls. Sure, there are corrupt Christian leaders, but most really believe what they're saying. They ruled Europe for almost 2000 years that way, trying to save as many people as possible, through force if necessary.

Most of the old world faiths, from the Judeochristian side, to the Vedic side, to the Buddhist side, all pitch something you need... whether it's salvation, a way out of the cycle of death/rebirth, whatever. There's a problem and they've got the solution. When I say "pitch" I don't mean they're intentionally manipulating the masses. They believe their own spiel, to be sure. The whole prior epoch has been about humanly dissatisfaction, guilt, shame, or insufficiency, with an appeal to God or a greater force through contrition or servitude.

Life sucked for most of humanity until very recently. It still sucks for a lot of us. A natural conclusion to draw is that something must be wrong with us or that we deserve it, that it's punishment. I think that's where salvation comes in. If you look at it that way, it's easier to have compassion for people who subscribe to these systems. When life is so shitty that you can only conclude that you must owe God something, then that's really unfortunate. We live in an era of great privilege (for some of us) and that's why we have the luxury of gawking at the backwardness of the religious. For some it's all they have.

These religions are a symbol of what a big chunk of humanity has believed about itself for thousands of years. We're only just coming out of it now. Also keep in mind that in that epoch, most people were born into faithful service from day one. Literacy was low and religions were primary teachers, conveyed by the privileged. In today's world people are increasingly born religionless. That changes everything. If you don't grow up thinking something is wrong with your soul, then of course religion seems farcical.

 

[belligerent drunk]

There is absolutely nothing, and I do mean nothing, to suggest by any stretch that a religion like Christianity is true.

I know what you mean, but I think you could say it a bit differently. The difference I'm talking about is what kind of evidence people regard as suitable. Sadly, for a lot of people something becomes true if majority of their peers say so. Not because there's observable evidence for it, but simply because it's written in some old book and because others also believe it. If one person believes in a delusion (e.g that they're Napoleon), it's regarded by others as crazy; however, if a large enough percentage of people believe in the same delusion, it's not only regarded as acceptable, but also as something that others "have no right" to question. It's funny, isn't it?

 

[RedLeader]

I think it's an important question to ask why human beings have such a strong need for faith-based irrational beliefs. And I think it's a question to ask within the context of science and evolution. Is there some kind of neuromechanical answer out there for this? Sure, there's no real physical evidence for any religion, but we also don't really have a scientific answer for why there is a demand for religion in the first place at all.

 

[belligerent drunk]

I think it developed as a means to:

1) Psychologically cope with the harsh reality of ancient times when life wasn't very pleasant. Since humans developed a pretty complex brain that could analyze its environment fairly thoroughly, it also created some emotional problems stemming from the cruelty of life.
2) Explain phenomena that were not understood at the time. Again, since humans developed a brain with powerful analyzing abilities, they've been trying to explain stuff happening around them. But since they couldn't explain them well, they resorted to a non-explanation that satisfied the needs.

There's definitely more reasons, but those are the most important as far as I can see. They apply to ancient beliefs, not organized religion as we know it today. Organized religion also introduced control of the society.

Sadly, I don't think it can be explained neuromechanically, not for now at least, but a qualitative evolutionary explanation like this, I think, works too.

 

[RedLeader]

2) Explain phenomena that were not understood at the time. Again, since humans developed a brain with powerful analyzing abilities, they've been trying to explain stuff happening around them. But since they couldn't explain them well, they resorted to a non-explanation that satisfied the needs.

Ya, that's definitely true. People have been defining god essentially as the complement of current scientific knowledge for a long time. If science cannot explain it, then it must be god. I think that's kind of a depressing idea for god, as that god essentially loses a bit of quality or power each year that science progresses. That concept of a god seems set up to fail.

Still though, my point is trying to dig deeper. Why evolve into a situation like your second point instead of one that just said "I don't know" to the unknown and used this as motivation to push the science further? A case can be made that defining the complement of science as god and giving that worship actually limits science's own progress and the ability of man to conquer his surroundings.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Still though, my point is trying to dig deeper. Why evolve into a situation like your second point instead of one that just said "I don't know" to the unknown and used this as motivation to push the science further? A case can be made that defining the complement of science as god and giving that worship actually limits science's own progress.

You are right and it is a sad fact. However, I believe it again comes back to satisfying emotional needs. It's a lot more comfortable to think you know why and how something is happening than be absolutely clueless about it, even if the explanation is really a non-explanation. What makes it depressing is, though, that we have now been able to explain a lot about life, but the religious beliefs have embedded themselves so deeply into humans that we just can't let go of them, and accept reality for what it really is. Some people just find it more comforting to believe in beautiful lies than face reality. And well, it all comes down to the fact that people (and other animals) prefer to live pleasurable lives and avoid suffering. Even if the pleasure is indirect - e.g living according to certain rules, which make life at first glance less pleasurable, but at the same time compensating, and overcompensating, with psychological pleasure in thinking that by doing so one is being righteous and will go to heaven or whatever.

Well, that's just how I see it. I may be wrong. Personally, I always say "I don't know" if there's conflicting evidence or lack thereof. Blind belief is about the worst thing that can be done in my opinion.

 

[RedLeader]

And well, it all comes down to the fact that people (and other animals) prefer to live pleasurable lives and avoid suffering. Even if the pleasure is indirect - e.g living according to certain rules, which make life at first glance less pleasurable, but at the same time compensating, and overcompensating, with psychological pleasure in thinking that by doing so one is being righteous and will go to heaven or whatever..

That's kind of it's own interesting question. Conditioned on the assumption that we are seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, why does the overwhelming majority prefer the indirect approach instead of the direct one? It kind of reminds me of the passion vs prudence topic, and I think that a strong argument can be made for prudence being a rational lifestyle. I think that the belief in righteous behaviour leading one to heaven is akin to the forethought applied to farms and cities and such, but it's different because it's just not based on successes of the past...

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Maybe will was a strong word. How about might?

There is absolutely nothing, and I do mean nothing, to suggest by any stretch that a religion like Christianity is true. If a person understands this and continues to identify as a Christian, to me, it seems almost like a delusional wishful thinking concept.
BTW to answer the original question, yes I thik it is an evil lie. But the majority of religion seems to be a lie (if not 100% bullshit).

I don't mean to sound terse, I just woke up (12:30 a.m.)

Personally, I identify with Secular Humanism (though I am spiritual in the sense that I believe in possibilities).



There are a lot of juicy threads, and I have only been a member for a couple months. Go check out "Free Will vs. Determinism" thread, and "What happens after we die and should I be scared about it?". Those affected me a lot IIRC.

Regards

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I don't think it's an intentional lie. They really do believe they're saving souls. Sure, there are corrupt Christian leaders, but most really believe what they're saying. They ruled Europe for almost 2000 years that way, trying to save as many people as possible, through force if necessary.

Most of the old world faiths, from the Judeochristian side, to the Vedic side, to the Buddhist side, all pitch something you need... whether it's salvation, a way out of the cycle of death/rebirth, whatever. There's a problem and they've got the solution. When I say "pitch" I don't mean they're intentionally manipulating the masses. They believe their own spiel, to be sure. The whole prior epoch has been about humanly dissatisfaction, guilt, shame, or insufficiency, with an appeal to God or a greater force through contrition or servitude.

Life sucked for most of humanity until very recently. It still sucks for a lot of us. A natural conclusion to draw is that something must be wrong with us or that we deserve it, that it's punishment. I think that's where salvation comes in. If you look at it that way, it's easier to have compassion for people who subscribe to these systems. When life is so shitty that you can only conclude that you must owe God something, then that's really unfortunate. We live in an era of great privilege (for some of us) and that's why we have the luxury of gawking at the backwardness of the religious. For some it's all they have.

These religions are a symbol of what a big chunk of humanity has believed about itself for thousands of years. We're only just coming out of it now. Also keep in mind that in that epoch, most people were born into faithful service from day one. Literacy was low and religions were primary teachers, conveyed by the privileged. In today's world people are increasingly born religionless. That changes everything. If you don't grow up thinking something is wrong with your soul, then of course religion seems farcical.

Not much to argue. Thanks.

I do not agree on this though.

"They really do believe they're saving souls."

Christianity and Islam both grew through murder.

If someone believes that murder damns a soul, and they believe in they have a soul, they will not jeopardize their soul with murder.

That logic trail says that all priests and imams are liars as they remain in religions that used murder to grow instead of a moral theology.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I know what you mean, but I think you could say it a bit differently. The difference I'm talking about is what kind of evidence people regard as suitable. Sadly, for a lot of people something becomes true if majority of their peers say so. Not because there's observable evidence for it, but simply because it's written in some old book and because others also believe it. If one person believes in a delusion (e.g that they're Napoleon), it's regarded by others as crazy; however, if a large enough percentage of people believe in the same delusion, it's not only regarded as acceptable, but also as something that others "have no right" to question. It's funny, isn't it?

I wish it was funny. I think it more pathetic that so many of us are sheeple who will lie about believing stupid and immoral beliefs and so few black sheep who will stand above and point out the lies and immoral beliefs.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I think it's an important question to ask why human beings have such a strong need for faith-based irrational beliefs. And I think it's a question to ask within the context of science and evolution. Is there some kind of neuromechanical answer out there for this? Sure, there's no real physical evidence for any religion, but we also don't really have a scientific answer for why there is a demand for religion in the first place at all.

Sure we do. At its root, all a religion is, is a tribal unit. We will lie to ourselves so as not to be alone. We all crave fellowship as we seek to be the fittest of our species and part of that fitness is to lead a gang.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU

If you read a bit of Jung and Freud's Father Complex you will understand how our instincts are pushing us to be the fittest and for groupish animals and that in part includes leadership qualities that can only be exercised in groups.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I think it developed as a means to:

1) Psychologically cope with the harsh reality of ancient times when life wasn't very pleasant. Since humans developed a pretty complex brain that could analyze its environment fairly thoroughly, it also created some emotional problems stemming from the cruelty of life.
2) Explain phenomena that were not understood at the time. Again, since humans developed a brain with powerful analyzing abilities, they've been trying to explain stuff happening around them. But since they couldn't explain them well, they resorted to a non-explanation that satisfied the needs.

There's definitely more reasons, but those are the most important as far as I can see. They apply to ancient beliefs, not organized religion as we know it today. Organized religion also introduced control of the society.

Sadly, I don't think it can be explained neuromechanically, not for now at least, but a qualitative evolutionary explanation like this, I think, works too.

I think it can be explained neuro-mechanically.

Please see the link above and look up Father Complex.

Regards
DL