10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion (Blog)

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I bet if you recorded ten sermons and analyzed the lessons, churches would be teaching something entirely different.

They have to do it like that otherwise they will self destruct. The current church organization is contrary to the true teachings of Christ.

If there is any ounce of awareness on the part of a priest, he should refuse a life of opulence as long as there are still people in need. Unfortunately, they live in nice big homes and drive expensive cars and the worst thing is that they don't see it as incongruent with what Christ instructed them to do.

Monseigneur Bienvenue (the Bishop from Les Misserable) is a perfect example of how a priest should approach its job and it would be funny to ask a priest why isn't he living like that... it would be funny to listen to the arguments that he will bring to justify his way.

[Liminal Chris]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

They have to do it like that otherwise they will self destruct. The current church organization is contrary to the true teachings of Christ.

I guess I don't see how anyone who believes this would be againt Steve's article.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

I guess I don't see how anyone who believes this would be againt Steve's article.

I got the impression that Steve's article was more anti-organized religion (which I hate as well) than anti-following the teachings of Jesus, which it didn't come across as to me at all. I took it more as: stop putting your head in the sand and letting others tell you what to do/how to find "God", especially an institution such as the Catholic Church with 1600+ years of corruption, greed, and violence in its' history (much of it 100% sanctioned and encouraged by Popes or other high level church figures) that you "just aren't supposed to" call it out on.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by mlc82

(much of it 100% sanctioned and encouraged by Popes or other high level church figures) that you "just aren't supposed to" call it out on.

Um, haven't you heard, they're infallible!

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

I guess I don't see how anyone who believes this would be againt Steve's article.

Good intentions, bad approach.

I'm not against the wake-up call that Steve tried with that article but against the way he approached it.

I saw it as violent. This is how I perceived it. I know I'm subjective and I know different people see it differently BUT my intuition says that this kind of an approach does more bad than good. It shuts communication channels. Just as an extremely loud music coming from the radio will make you turn the radio off, so with this article, it will turn people off this site. And if Steve thinks that's ok... than I guess even more people will be turned off from this site... and he will be left with a bunch of guys sharing his beliefs, applauding at everything he says.

[Kent F]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Thanks for the reasons Kent. The things you wrote are spot on, as far as what lessons people should take away from the Bible.

Do you think churches are the best way to teach these lessons? Are these even the lessons that churches are really teaching?

It would be a really interesting social experiment, I think, to go to several dozen churches and record the sermons to see if they mention these same values that you just have.

If churches are out there telling people to celebrate life, to get along better, explaining how other religions aren't things to fear, teaching people to stay out of debt, etc., I'd be all for that. But I bet if you recorded ten sermons and analyzed the lessons, churches would be teaching something entirely different. In fact, I bet ten different Christian churches might be teaching ten different things, some of them contradictory.

I know it's a bit unfair to group all churches together when looking at this issue. Not all churches are the same, by any means. I realize that there are some very loving, open minded, joyous churches out there.

An interesting indicator of how truly loving and accepting a given church is would be their response to 1. an atheist joining, and 2. a gay couple joining.

Dan - I resonate with most of what you say here. I spent a decade at a more main-stream church trying to convince people to act in the way you've mentioned and growing tired of the messages I was hearing in the pulpit. I finally left that church in late 2006 for a more progressive church (that, oddly enough, has a more stoic tradition denominationally) - and have been infinitely happier for reasons you note.

I participated in a really cool 3 month dialogue between Christians and atheists a year ago on a blog - it was a great experience.

My favorite Christian author is a pretty radical guy named Donald Miller (Blue like Jazz - among other books). My daughter shared Blue Like Jazz with an agnostic friend of hers who said "if more Christians were like Miller, I might be a believer".

Another favorite book is called "Dear Church". The author gives very compelling reasons why 65% of the under-30 group that claim to be Christian are unhappy with ALL organized religion today (as researched by George Barna).

So, I hear what you're saying. I probably over-reacted to Steve's post for this very reason. I stand by my statements, but my preference is always to attempt to find common ground with someone rather than argue something to death.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by mlc82

I took it more as: stop putting your head in the sand and letting others tell you what to do/how to find "God"

I took it more like "Listen you negative IQ, **** for brains, nincampoops, stop putting your head in the sand.... etc." by the time I got to "stop putting your head in the sands" the perception apparatus inside my head was already drowned in revolt. It didn't picked up the message as clearly and efficiently as it could. And I believe myself to have a positive bias towards what Steve has to say.... The target persons for that message will not even get to the message. Their mind will not even process it because they will be too busy being revolted.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Um, haven't you heard, they're infallible!

Of course, they conveniently forget about the really horrific ones when they say that. The CC has to be least favorite institution on Earth (and no, I'm not an angry ex-catholic for the record).

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

I saw it as violent. This is how I perceived it. I know I'm subjective and I know different people see it differently BUT my intuition says that this kind of an approach does more bad than good. It shuts communication channels.

I used to make that same assumption when I first started blogging -- you'd naturally think this kind of article would backfire and turn people away, wouldn't you? At the very least, you might assume it's not going to help anyone grow, right?

I've tested that assumption multiple times by writing certain articles in a very snarky, over-the-top style, and every time the long-term results showed that assumption to be incorrect -- at least in the aggregate.

I have an unfair advantage in my perspective since I get to see both the public and the private feedback on every article. For most articles the public and private feedback are fairly congruent, but for articles of this nature, the public discussion rarely aligns with the private feedback. People tend to be more candid in private, especially when they don't want to risk being ridiculed for their opinions/experiences.

I've found that the most important factor in determining what effect an article will have on people is the intention behind it. If the intention is positive, it doesn't seem to matter what style of writing I use. The article will find a way to serve its purpose. But if the intention is weak or misguided, the article normally falls on deaf ears. My intention for this article was to challenge people to reconsider their thoughts about religion, especially for those who don't hold a strong opinion either way. You may question whether that intention is being fulfilled, but I have no doubt that it is.

It's ironic to say that the most discussed article I've ever posted (in terms of the comment count, not including private feedback) "shuts communication channels" when clearly the opposite has occurred.

One of the most powerful lessons I learned is that if I want to help people grow, I must violate their expectations. The simple reason is that this is how learning occurs. When expectations aren't violated, learning cannot occur because old patterns are merely reinforced. Since most people didn't expect me to post an article like this, it violated their expectations, which creates the opportunity for learning and growth.

You may consider this a violent approach. I do not. People come here voluntarily, so no ideas are forced upon anyone in any way. If people didn't want their expectations to be violated, they wouldn't visit this site. And of course everyone is free to stop reading and never return whenever they choose to.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

I took it more like "Listen you negative IQ, **** for brains, nincampoops, stop putting your head in the sand.... etc." by the time I got to "stop putting your head in the sands" the perception apparatus inside my head was already drowned in revolt. It didn't picked up the message as clearly and efficiently as it could. And I believe myself to have a positive bias towards what Steve has to say.... The target persons for that message will not even get to the message. Their mind will not even process it because they will be too busy being revolted.

I actually disagree on the target audience, as I think a more accurate target audience for such an article would be the "on the fence" types, who are probably still semi-believing in their religion, likely out of fear, but tired of it, and more likely to laugh and nod with such an article than be angry. One thing I've learned about debating with any highly religious person is that no matter what, NOTHING will change their mind when they're convinced that they're correct. Common sense doesn't work, even pointing out how their own Church (especially the Catholic one) goes directly against teachings of Jesus, that a basic understanding of the history of how the Bible came to be takes all of the divinity out of it and turns it into Roman political spin, etc- NONE of this will either be acknowledged or rebutted in any sort of satisfactory way by someone who's absolutely convinced that they're right.

I used to play around on a religion/politics board quite a bit years ago, which tended to become a big "atheist vs theist" flamefest too often for my liking. The thing I really learned from it is that, whether Christian, Muslim, or hard core Atheist, most people are set in their ways and wouldn't believe that the sky was blue if whatever they believed claimed it wasn't, even with it clear as day in front of them.

This turned into a caffeine-driven ramble, but you get the idea.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

It's ironic to say that the most discussed article I've ever posted (in terms of the comment count, not including private feedback) "shuts communication channels" when clearly the opposite has occurred.

I guess you're right about that...
Well, controversial stuff tends to do that...

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

One of the most powerful lessons I learned is that if I want to help people grow, I must violate their expectations. The simple reason is that this is how learning occurs.

I agree with this, and as I said... is not the intent but the delivery.

Have you read by any chance Awareness by Anthony de Mello? He's calling people all sorts of names in that book but... I never felt as offended as in your article. Some how he manages to call me an "ass" and make me agree smiling.

[Steve Pavlina]

Remember that it's impossible to get offended unless there's something in you that takes offense. That may sound a bit unfair to some, but it's the honest truth.

Of course once you get offended, then you need to defend yourself, and being defensive usually ends up being a big waste of time.

It's only when they get past their defensiveness that people get to the root of what offended them -- attachment.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Remember that it's impossible to get offended unless there's something in you that takes offense. That may sound a bit unfair to some, but it's the honest truth.

Of course once you get offended, then you need to defend yourself, and being defensive usually ends up being a big waste of time.

It's only when they get past their defensiveness that people get to the root of what offended them -- attachment.

How do you ensure that people can get past their defensiveness?

The style of trying to teach by pushing buttons can lead to defending and someone taking their stance to a more rigid place. Exactly the opposite of the intention of a teaching.

You assume people will be able to become realized about their positions and be able to let go of that.

[Angela]

Odds are, if you're drawn to a blog called, "Personal Development for Smart People," you are interested in pushing past your internal obstacles that have you being stopped or ineffective. I trust that the people here are interested in that.

Sometimes they're not ready yet, and a seed is planted for later growth.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

Odds are, if you're drawn to a blog called, "Personal Development for Smart People," you are interested in pushing past your internal obstacles that have you being stopped or ineffective. I trust that the people here are interested in that.

Sometimes they're not ready yet, and a seed is planted for later growth.

OK, so the readers are already primed to want to let go of obstacles, I'd agree.

Yet, what is it or how does one do this?

Does this blog entry contain guidance for how to get passed the internal obstacles that make one's buttons be exposed? Or just push the buttons (if you have them)?

maybe this thread has some guidance. It's attachment, ok. So then what. Figure out you don't like the belief with attachment and just make it a perspective that can be swapped out (which I think makes the belief not as deep)?

But how is this shift done? How does one believe something but also not have emotions generated from the belief? Isn't that what a belief is - a thinking pattern that generates certain emotions or behaviors?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

if I want to help people grow, I must violate their expectations.

It's funny, because my old pastor would always say, "oh, have I offended you? GOOD." I think he had a really similar approach to growth as you, Steve.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

It's funny, because my old pastor would always say, "oh, have I offended you? GOOD." I think he had a really similar approach to growth as you, Steve.

What would the pastor do after he realized he offended you?

How was that used as a teaching other than just pointing out something that you react to?

[Love]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I know it's a bit unfair to group all churches together when looking at this issue. Not all churches are the same, by any means. I realize that there are some very loving, open minded, joyous churches out there.

An interesting indicator of how truly loving and accepting a given church is would be their response to 1. an atheist joining, and 2. a gay couple joining.

I agree. I guess this is another reason why I didn't take the issues of the article to heart. I play handbells in the family church, so I come in to church and service those days and I'm absent for the rest. I don't know what everyone else in the choir makes of that, but they know I am a nice person and they don't really ask questions. I'm not an atheist, but they don't really know that. I don't think they would ask me to stop attending if I did say something to the sort. They might be curious but accepting.

I find that everyone is welcomed at the service, gays included. The LGBT community (along with many other communities) also has outside-of-service but in-the-church meetings.

The Church allows the Muslim community to use one of the chapels in the church to worship.

They offer yoga, meditation, languages, and faith classes, and groups for the homeless .....etc. etc. Tons of stuff.

I don't know. It seems pretty good to me. I see so many loving people, so what do I care what they believe? I don't think Christianity is a bad thing--I think it's just the expression of some of the communities within it. But that goes for all different types of groups. There are always bad apples in the mix. I guess the key is to making sure that the most open-minded persons are the ones that end up making our laws.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Does this blog entry contain guidance for how to get passed the internal obstacles that make one's buttons be exposed?

Well, that wouldn't be very trusting, now, would it? Would you prefer that Steve include a synopsis of ALL of his personal development knowledge each time he posts? Don't you think it's more empowering to people to allow them to take on what they're ready for? Including button-pushing posts.

But how is this shift done? How does one believe something but also not have emotions generated from the belief?

One very big part of it is recognizing that your belief is not who you are.

As long as you believe that your belief is who you are, then a perceived attack on that belief is a threat to YOU. You feel diminished. When you can see the illusion of that "attack" -- that there is no real threat -- then what is there to get emotional about?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

What would the pastor do after he realized he offended you?

How was that used as a teaching other than just pointing out something that you react to?

Well, this was not in one on one conversation (although I am sure he would say it then too, but I don't know what the follow up would be).

It was from the pulpit, and he would go on to explain that his job was to get you out of your comfort zone and your complacency and into taking a good hard look at things. He was a big proponent of "if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got" and I think he felt that taking offence showed you where you were stuck.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, that wouldn't be very trusting, now, would it? Would you prefer that Steve include a synopsis of ALL of his personal development knowledge each time he posts? Don't you think it's more empowering to people to allow them to take on what they're ready for? Including button-pushing posts.

With that logic - it then would also be more empowering to not even push people's buttons and make them find them on their own.

But, no Steve can post what he will. I'm just interesed in the part after you get your buttons pushed. And if Steve thinks that's a good teaching to just push buttons all by itself - I'm not in agreement. There could also be guidance for that - or some will not be able to let go of the root cause of the button pushing.

One very big part of it is recognizing that your belief is not who you are.

As long as you believe that your belief is who you are, then a perceived attack on that belief is a threat to YOU. You feel diminished. When you can see the illusion of that "attack" -- that there is no real threat -- then what is there to get emotional about?

that's what I like hearing now. and I know these ideas and think this is where the learning happens - not just in getting buttons pushed.

So if someone believes something but is not really owning it or identified in it, they won't feel anything when someone has a different belief or contradiction to that belief?

Is it possible to believe something and not feel emotions around it? Are all the emotions of a belief related to weather or not you put your identity into the belief?

[Natsu]

Steve, now you're here, where did you get the comparison Jesus-Horus? It's dramatically mistaken (for those of us who know a little of mythology at least), and it's been used very much of late... in internet forums, blogs and chats.

I have a strong guess about where you got it, but would you please tell me where did you see that?

I would recommend you to change that one to Jesus-Mithra. Threre are a vast number of coincidences there that don't appear between Jesus and Horus.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by Natsu

Steve, now you're here, where did you get the comparison Jesus-Horus? It's dramatically mistaken (for those of us who know a little of mythology at least), and it's been used very much of late... in internet forums, blogs and chats.

I have a strong guess about where you got it, but would you please tell me where did you see that?

I would recommend you to change that one to Jesus-Mithra. Threre are a vast number of coincidences there that don't appear between Jesus and Horus.

IIRC Dionysus (might have been the Greek name for Mithra for all I know) had a very similar and pre-dating story to Jesus as well.

[Natsu]

Dionysus shares two points indeed, but most of the similarities are between Jesus and Mithra. Anyway, what I'd like to know is where did Steve get the info about similarities between Jesus and Horus.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

So if someone believes something but is not really owning it or identified in it, they won't feel anything when someone has a different belief or contradiction to that belief?

Well, they might feel something, but what they feel is not at the effect of a disagreement or contradiction. In other words, you are not a victim.

Is it possible to believe something and not feel emotions around it?

Sure, you betcha!

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

I took it more like "Listen you negative IQ, **** for brains, nincampoops, stop putting your head in the sand.... etc." by the time I got to "stop putting your head in the sands" the perception apparatus inside my head was already drowned in revolt. It didn't picked up the message as clearly and efficiently as it could. And I believe myself to have a positive bias towards what Steve has to say.... The target persons for that message will not even get to the message. Their mind will not even process it because they will be too busy being revolted.

If it had been anything else that you're interested in besides a religion, would it have made you as angry?

If Steve wrote up some articles called:

"Bodybuilding: Good Fun For Meatheaded Insecure Egomaniacs Suffering From Obvious Penis Envy"

or

"Computer Game Addiction: Because You're Socially Inept and Just Can't Get Any Sex"

I'd probably laugh at the titles and laugh my way through them, even though both of those things mean much more to me than any religion does.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Natsu

Dionysus shares two points indeed, but most of the similarities are between Jesus and Mithra. Anyway, what I'd like to know is where did Steve get the info about similarities between Jesus and Horus.

It wasn't a technical comparison. I think you've read too much into it, although given the context I can see how you might interpret it that way. You're probably thinking of the movie Zeitgeist or something along those lines, but the line wasn't meant in that context.

The exact line from the article was, "You go, Horus!" It was meant as hyperbole. I could just as easily have written, "You go, Apollo!"

I picked Horus because the Eye of Horus is a symbol of power much like the crucifix is for the church. This was meant as a jab at history repeating itself... needing a powerful figure to idolize as a symbol. Maybe I was too subtle about it, but I didn't think it was a big deal.

During the 1990s I spent a lot of time researching pre-Christian mythology for a computer game I was working on. Due to a number of problems, the game never got published, but I enjoyed learning about those belief systems. It was interesting to see how the same patterns repeat themselves today. It took a while for religion to figure out that tithes are better than animal sacrifices.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by mlc82

If it had been anything else that you're interested in besides a religion, would it have made you as angry?

If Steve wrote up some articles called:

"Bodybuilding: Good Fun For Meatheaded Insecure Egomaniacs Suffering From Obvious Penis Envy"

or

"Computer Game Addiction: Because You're Socially Inept and Just Can't Get Any Sex"

I'd probably laugh at the titles and laugh my way through them, even though both of those things mean much more to me than any religion does.

I guess you might be right... I should have my sense of humor checked out.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

It was interesting to see how the same patterns repeat themselves today. It took a while for religion to figure out that tithes are better than animal sacrifices.

The patterns are still repeating, improving... iteration after iteration....

Religion is about the future and as the future unfolds... religion needs to adapt and predict the next step...