10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion (Blog)

[Steve Pavlina]

Personally I enjoy writing posts of this nature and will likely do more in the future. Yes, this post was more emotional/humorous than factual -- I wrote it that way intentionally. The point was to provoke an emotional reaction in those who read it. The piece was written so that it would be difficult to stay emotionally neutral by the end.

Obviously when I write an article in this style, there will be a backlash along with some personal jabs. No surprise there.

This kind of writing will surely push some people's buttons, but to whom do those buttons belong?

Pushing buttons that are in need of pushing is the whole purpose of this site. If you don't want your buttons to be pushed now and then (sometimes gently, sometimes in an over-the-top manner), then it makes no sense to continue visiting this site.

The point of this site is to help you grow, not to pat you on the head and send you off with a cookie. Genuine growth includes dealing with highly volatile, emotional issues, including the kind that cause anger to surface. I figure that if there's anger brewing, we might as well bring it to the surface and deal with it instead of pretending it isn't there. The anger comes out because of the supressed, unresolved issues. This article simply gives those issues an excuse to surface, and some people will achieve a bit more resolution when this happens (myself included).

Religion is a subject that we must not only resolve as individuals but also as a global community. Sweeping our problems under the rug and pretending everything is fine isn't the answer. If a single blog post can cause such a stir, then clearly the pot was already too close to boiling.

[24evita]

Originally Posted by Ree

I know. I've been there. It's damn scary to give up those beliefs because the world and how it works is very neatly explained and categorized and made simple by religion(s).

Having faith in a religion is not difficult. That's the easy way out, the coward's way out.

What is difficult is having faith in yourself enough to make that move away -- away from the comfort of the ancient texts of the Bible and the power of prayer and the fellowship of others who are like-minded -- and step out all by yourself and start a real quest for truth.

My thoughts exactly. I used to be tied "religiously" to a religion and then one day I just woke up and everything that seemed to make sense no longer did. Today I feel lighter and more in charge of my thinking and who i am and how the world works better than ever. And the best part is I NO LONGER have to be a "hypocrite"

But as for Steve's article I loved it at first...but then as i kept reading it did get a little too tense I think. I agree with all the messages but there seemed to be a little bit of anger attached to it, which although I can see how it comes out when religion and its "brilliant ideas" are the theme, I still think it could have been written just a little more tamely - but then again I just changed my mind no - you know what people should be able to speak out on the topics that they are really passionate about! I know that is how I would like to be treated when I write.

[Still Growing]

WOW !
Don't hold back Steve. Tell us what you really think....

I must admit that it took a lot of courage to completely rip apart the entire foundation of many people's beliefs.

Normally posts made by you are more live and let live, they are more focused on the positive. This post didn't hold anything back.

People, can you imagine the nads it took to post something that thousands of people will read and that will be floating around on the net for the rest of his life.

Steve, I'm not offended at alll.... I'm just shocked that you had the nads to say it. My mouth is still hanging open....

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Yes, this post was more emotional/humorous than factual -- I wrote it that way intentionally.

Are you growing Steve? Are you still growing?
You've come a long way... but are you truly continuing to grow?
What I felt lately was more of an artificial different thingy than true growth...

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Personally I enjoy writing posts of this nature and will likely do more in the future. Yes, this post was more emotional/humorous than factual -- I wrote it that way intentionally. The point was to provoke an emotional reaction in those who read it. The piece was written so that it would be difficult to stay emotionally neutral by the end.

Obviously when I write an article in this style, there will be a backlash along with some personal jabs. No surprise there.

This kind of writing will surely push some people's buttons, but to whom do those buttons belong?

Pushing buttons that are in need of pushing is the whole purpose of this site. If you don't want your buttons to be pushed now and then (sometimes gently, sometimes in an over-the-top manner), then it makes no sense to continue visiting this site.

The point of this site is to help you grow, not to pat you on the head and send you off with a cookie. Genuine growth includes dealing with highly volatile, emotional issues, including the kind that cause anger to surface. I figure that if there's anger brewing, we might as well bring it to the surface and deal with it instead of pretending it isn't there. The anger comes out because of the supressed, unresolved issues. This article simply gives those issues an excuse to surface, and some people will achieve a bit more resolution when this happens (myself included).

Religion is a subject that we must not only resolve as individuals but also as a global community. Sweeping our problems under the rug and pretending everything is fine isn't the answer. If a single blog post can cause such a stir, then clearly the pot was already too close to boiling.

Would you be wiling to write the same article again with the same title, but written in an intellectual way with more concrete reasons for never having a religion. Like a part 2?

I was raised Catholic / Christian myself kind of like you, but I don't practice my religion anymore or go to Church on a regular basis. I definitely believe in spirituality, but not really religion.

However, once I have kids I have often thought about whether or not I would baptize them or not. It's something that could be important to my parents and possibly to my kids, and besides being too lazy to go through the process I haven't really seen any negative sides to having my kids learn about God and Jesus and all that in a Church setting. I'm kind of undecided right now.

I would like to hear your opinion or an argument against exposing your kids to religion, but "Cuz all priests are pedophiles" just doesn't do it for me. I think a lot of that is just media over-exaggeration because it's such a shocking story. If you print a paper that says "Random guy found to be pedophile, sent to jail" nobody cares. If you print a paper that says "Christian Priest Pedophile Going to HELL for Molesting Young Children", that sells newspapers.

I just don't know. I went to church for the first 9 years of my life and I think I turned out ok. Any thoughts?

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by impaul99

I just don't know. I went to church for the first 9 years of my life and I think I turned out ok. Any thoughts?

I would recommend trying to find out how the Church doctrine is different from Christ's teachings.
Find out how Church supports violence by trying to understand how is it possible for the majority of people to don't even question oxymorons like "christian soldier" or "Christian State".
Here is something to get you started if you really want to find out more:
Leo Tolstoy - The Kingdom of God is Within You

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by seeker5

It just doesn't seem "Smart People" respectful type of discussion to call people morons, idiotic, and hypocrite, incestuous, etc. We don't tolerate people calling others like that in this forum, and there's even a rule in the World Affairs forum that bans blanket statements like that, so it just seemed quite peculiar to see that in the blog post.

My only real concern is that I hope this kind of post doesn't encourage the discussion in this forum to orient itself toward more blanket attacks on other people. I've kind of really enjoyed the relative respectful tone that people here on this forum have (mostly) tended to take toward others with widely different views.

I understand what Steve is trying to do, so hopefully, that's worked. I myself don't need this post since I threw away my religion about 16-17 years ago

I predict the next article will be "10 Reasons Meat Eaters Are Mentally Challenged Cavemen Who Will Rot In Hell for Killing Bob The Cow"

Would get a lot of traffic though.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by impaul99

I predict the next article will be "10 Reasons Meat Eaters Are Mentally Challenged Cavemen Who Will Rot In Hell for Killing Bob The Cow"

"Mentally Challenged Sadistic Cavemen" let's not forget Sadistic ok?

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

I would recommend trying to find out how the Church doctrine is different from Christ's teachings.
Find out how Church supports violence by trying to understand how is it possible for the majority of people to don't even question oxymorons like "christian soldier" or "Christian State".
Here is something to get you started if you really want to find out more:
Leo Tolstoy - The Kingdom of God is Within You

You might also consider how they are the same, like sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. Or how many people have recognized the problems of the church and tried to correct them.

You might start here: Irresistible Revolution

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

"Mentally Challenged Sadistic Cavemen" let's not forget Sadistic ok?

Yes, yes!

You know what would have been really cool if Steve did in this article? If he ended it with the line "I'm just kidding guys..."

It would have been like that Eminem song "White America" where at the end he just goes on a major rant and it's fricken crazy and he just totally bashes America...and then you hear at the end "hehehe, I'm just kidding America....you know I love you..."

I love that song...it's funny.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

You might also consider how they are the same, like sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. Or how many people have recognized the problems of the church and tried to correct them.

You might start here: Irresistible Revolution

I've only been to Church like once a year in the last 10 years or so, mostly for like funerals and weddings and baptisms and stuff like that. Since I've been learning and pursuing a spiritual path, whenever I go I always listen really carefully to what the priest is saying.

I'd like to say that they are idiots, but every time I've gone and listened, everything they said made total sense to me. I don't know, sometimes I get the feeling that maybe these priests are not to blame. Sometimes I think the people attending church are just not listening to a word they are saying and just doing their own thing, pretending to be following their Church.

I don't know... I find it hard to have an opinion on this topic.

[Steve Pavlina]

Actually I was thinking my next article should be titled:

Are You Vegetarian... or Evil?

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

FYI this religion post was the brainchild of an (almost) 30-day trial with no sex.

The following post was written within an hour after sex.

Which is better?

The religion one, for me. You're more creative and bold, kind of inspired in and artsy way. You seem more confident, even in kind of a rebel way. Honestly, you remind me of myself, if I could elaborate so much sentences well in English.... or kind of John Lennon talking about politicians and religion.

Without sex? I don't think it's a basic need, or at least doing it with someone, you know... but that would be part of "10 reasons why....", you know.

I come here to trigger buttons in my head, I prefer the ones that make me think and that are somehow out of the ordinary, creative, bold, close to art. Like certain song lyrics. Open my mind to new things besides the stuff we're tired to hear, like.... ads slogans.... or whatever. .
But I'm very open minded, others would prefer more practical, and less risky stuff like the religion one.

BTW, the flat tire, you can face it as a synchronicity (Carl Jung... or "wink of the universe"). The same strange event has happened to you and to the other boardie. And you both developed statements against having a religion.
Maybe the Gods/Universe are not angry, but really happy. And they have sent you the same event to you both.

The flat tire synch.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Actually I was thinking my next article should be titled:

Are You Vegetarian... or Evil?

I'd read that.

[24evita]

Yeah I guess this one is going to be a hot topic for a while yet. And I was so moved by it - thank you Steve - that it inspired me to write an article of my own quoting Steve and express some of my own thoughts on this topic and how it relates to Steve's article.

You can read it here, it is freshly posted

Reasons for Having or Not Having a Religion - Evolving Beings

At some point this had to come out I feel, and yeah props to him for having the courage to do so! I guess with 2.4 million readers a month you can afford to lose some

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by 24evita

At some point this had to come out I feel, and yeah props to him for having the courage to do so! I guess with 2.4 million readers a month you can afford to lose some

They can come to my Blog! I got cookies for all the Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jehovah Witnesses, Spaghetti Monster Believers, and everyone else who wants to come. No pedophiles allowed though.

[24evita]

Originally Posted by impaul99

They can come to my Blog! I got cookies for all the Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jehovah Witnesses, Spaghetti Monster Believers, and everyone else who wants to come. No pedophiles allowed though.

Ha ha ha - thanks Paul that gave me a really good laugh

[Erin Pavlina]

Felt like jumping in to this one for a minute...

1. I always find it fascinating that the same written words can cause outrage in some, offense in some, and total agreement in others. Just shows how we're all coming from different places, with different experiences and beliefs. That's to be expected. There is no right or wrong reaction.

2. Let's not confuse God and Religion. You can believe in God or Source and not belong to a religion.

3. Steve likes to stir the pot. That's not going to change. Those who have been around a while know that Steve likes to throw a bear bomb periodically. They're rarely fatal.

4. Things you hear or read that offend you are signs you may want to examine your beliefs. Not saying you have to change them, just examine them. If your beliefs are clear, nothing someone says to the contrary can offend you.

5. 30 days with no sex wasn't a conscious choice on either of our parts. I was experiencing some heavy duty female issues that made it impossible for that time. It's all good again

6. No matter what someone says you don't have to respond with negative energy. I mean, you can choose to if that's how you want to play your character, we all have free will. But even if you feel like someone is pushing your buttons you can still respond with love. No matter how you respond, though, it says more about you than the source of your irk. And that's something I've had to learn as well, especially living with Steve the Blogger. He stirs my pot all the time.

That's all. Carry on then.

[coLLege kid07]

God isn’t going to smite you for not formally worshipping him. If he didn’t smite me by now, it’s a safe bet you’ll slide beneath the radar as well.

I think I enjoyed this line the best. As far as religion goes I never exactly believed in everything that was taught to me. I was of course brought up with a Christian backround and I didn't necessarly take everything extremely seriously as some others may have. I think I liked most what my mom stated about religion; You don't have to believe in everything the church teaches but rather take it with a grain of salt. Granted I haven't been to church in several months...but I do believe that religion at one point did teach deeply entrenched values and ideals..although rather many of which are now lost and/or greatly misunderstood. My 2 cents for religion..which probably don't mean much lol

[Cassio]

Awesome post Steve! I am forwarding it to some blind religious friends of mine.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by coLLege kid07

but I do believe that religion at one point did teach deeply entrenched values and ideals..although rather many of which are now lost and/or greatly misunderstood. My 2 cents for religion..which probably don't mean much lol

I remember when I was a kid, being in a position where I could do something "wrong" and I *knew* I could get away with it because nobody was watching and I could totally get away with it.

However, because I thought God was watching I decided to do the right thing, just in case. So later as an adult I always thought that my religion kept me out of jail when I was a young kid.

So maybe religion, kind of like Santa Claus is good for keeping kids in line.

[wolfgang]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgang
I think Steve was channeling Jesus in that blog!

Originally Posted by carenkh

I think Steve is Jesus! Of course, so am I. I'm also Steve. heh.

So how did it *feel* to write a post like that? It seems like you were trying on a different suit - how did it fit? Was it fun?

It was fun to read.

I wrote that to mean the common parts of the message. Jesus was kind of against religion - or rather the people of his time were hung up on dogma and the common message is to stay out of dogma. Then he died and they made another religion.

Now I see it as kidding around too. lol

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

Felt like jumping in to this one for a minute...

1. I always find it fascinating that the same written words can cause outrage in some, offense in some, and total agreement in others. Just shows how we're all coming from different places, with different experiences and beliefs. That's to be expected. There is no right or wrong reaction.

2. Let's not confuse God and Religion. You can believe in God or Source and not belong to a religion.

3. Steve likes to stir the pot. That's not going to change. Those who have been around a while know that Steve likes to throw a bear bomb periodically. They're rarely fatal.

4. Things you hear or read that offend you are signs you may want to examine your beliefs. Not saying you have to change them, just examine them. If your beliefs are clear, nothing someone says to the contrary can offend you.

5. 30 days with no sex wasn't a conscious choice on either of our parts. I was experiencing some heavy duty female issues that made it impossible for that time. It's all good again

6. No matter what someone says you don't have to respond with negative energy. I mean, you can choose to if that's how you want to play your character, we all have free will. But even if you feel like someone is pushing your buttons you can still respond with love. No matter how you respond, though, it says more about you than the source of your irk. And that's something I've had to learn as well, especially living with Steve the Blogger. He stirs my pot all the time.

That's all. Carry on then.

Erin, you're a psychic medium. Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried channeling Jesus? Steve, in the article, talks about JC being a made up character. I should think that would be easy to verify for a Psychic medium, no?

I know if I had the gift, the first person I would want to connect to is JC, that's for sure. If nothing else, just to feel his energy.

[Erin Pavlina]

I wish I could just look up someone and dial them up in the ether but it doesn't work that way. It's more like I'm tuning in to a radio with many stations and I have to tune my radio to the channel that is broadcasting what I'm interested in hearing.

To that end, however, I have been in contact with one or two ascended masters which blew me away the first time I connected. I really didn't think I could do it. Was it Jesus? He didn't give a name, just an energy, and there was no doubt in my mind how ascended he was. I wouldn't get hung up on names, but yeah, there are more highly evolved energies out there to tap into.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

I wish I could just look up someone and dial them up in the ether but it doesn't work that way. It's more like I'm tuning in to a radio with many stations and I have to tune my radio to the channel that is broadcasting what I'm interested in hearing.

To that end, however, I have been in contact with one or two ascended masters which blew me away the first time I connected. I really didn't think I could do it. Was it Jesus? He didn't give a name, just an energy, and there was no doubt in my mind how ascended he was. I wouldn't get hung up on names, but yeah, there are more highly evolved energies out there to tap into.

Forgetting the name, as it really doesn't matter. My question is whether or not there really was a man about 2,000 years ago who ascended to the point where he resurrected himself after death and continued teaching before "disappearing" again.

The Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East, The Disappearance of the Universe, A Course in Miracles, the movie Stigmata, etc. all point to the fact that Jesus was real (by whatever name), but like someone else mentioned he never wanted his teachings to turn into a religion like it did with twisted BS thrown in to make people more powerful.

Most "spiritual" people I've been in contact with over the years who don't consider themselves religious at all do believe in Jesus and have a lot of respect for him. Not the version you hear about in Church though, I think you know what I mean.

I was surprised to hear Steve say that he was just a myth based on Horus. I thought it was Zoroaster not Horus. Anyways, just curious as to your view on it.

My personal intuition tells me JC did exist. Not the way Christianity portrays him, but I think he did exist. I can't tell you why, I just think he did.

[Dive Bomb]

I guess people are also disappointed that this blog post had a significant amount of "shock appeal". Some people probably come here to get away from that type of style which is rampant all over the media. Steve's blog posts are usually argued in a well-thought out and rational manner. So to see something like this can be a bit of let down.

Personally I like a little "shock voltage" in his articles, but some may not. Different strokes, for different folks.

[Syr]

Originally Posted by impaul99

My personal intuition tells me JC did exist. Not the way Christianity portrays him, but I think he did exist. I can't tell you why, I just think he did.

I've heard that there are roman documents with convicted criminals and he's on one of those lists they recovered (Probably under his original name (Yoshua or Yeshua, since "Jesus" is a translated name), but I haven't seen evidence of this, so regard this as a rumour. But I agree with your feelings that there's a difference between mythical and historical Jesus.

[Erin Pavlina]

My personal belief, though I have little to no physical or earthly evidence to back this up, but where I'm leaning right now given what I do know is that an ascended master took an earthly incarnation in order to increase the awareness of people on the planet. He came as a teacher. How people received him is of course a matter of personal perspective. When he was ready, he sloughed off the body and returned to Source. His work continues still for those who open their hearts to his wisdom and insights.

And I don't believe he was the only one. There are dozens (or more) ascended masters who incarnate when the time is right for teaching. I have witnessed their collective energy when I've tuned in before, but I've only been in direct contact with one or two. It's something I want to explore more.

[DivaLion]

If that's what makes the difference in your writing, Steve, then please-- get laid DAILY. =)

What I find unfortunate in this discussion is that there are some people who disliked the article or disagreed with Steve in content or presentation, who have offered challenges regarding the things they disliked-- called Steve out on faulty logic or asked for further elaborations or questioned assumptions-- and none of the responses to them have addressed any of them in actual debate.

The responses, rather, including from Steve and Erin, seem to accept the possibility of only two choices, dismissing any legitimate points of debate and discussion that have been offered:

1) You agree with everything Steve says;
2) You can't have a valid point because you are clinging to your "security blanket" or because you're angry and that just proves Steve is right, so you really should be thinking about why that is and personally-developing your way back to choice 1.

I feel like I've seen this kind of endless go-round on other email lists and message boards, only usually someone invokes Nazis and then everyone screams Godwin's Law and flings poo.

I guess it's progress that everyone's remaining basically civil and not actively flaming each other, but I'd still like to see responses from the "I agree" side of the debate that are more substantial than "I say you're a doodyhead, and if you think I'm wrong, then that just proves you're a doodyhead and it means you're the one with the problem."

Steve, how about an article about your own revelations and personal growth based on the thought you've given to what calling all religious leaders pedophiles and rapists says about *you*?

Either your vitriol says more about you than it does about religion, and therefore the feelings of those of us who disagree say more about us than they do about the article; or you are not the viewpoint expressed in your article and don't have to be held to it, and therefore we are not the viewpoints expressed in our responses and don't have to be held to them.

Which is it? Because, you know, excusing your own choices by holding yourself to a different standard than you apply to the people who look to you for guidance...is the kind of thing a cult-like religious leader does. ;-)

[coLLege kid07]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

My personal belief, though I have little to no physical or earthly evidence to back this up, but where I'm leaning right now given what I do know is that an ascended master took an earthly incarnation in order to increase the awareness of people on the planet. He came as a teacher. How people received him is of course a matter of personal perspective. When he was ready, he sloughed off the body and returned to Source. His work continues still for those who open their hearts to his wisdom and insights.

And I don't believe he was the only one. There are dozens (or more) ascended masters who incarnate when the time is right for teaching. I have witnessed their collective energy when I've tuned in before, but I've only been in direct contact with one or two. It's something I want to explore more.

I believe I agree with you. I've come to find that as I've greatly strengthened my own spirtuality that many people are sent to this Earth with a great variety of gifts. Some as you say are teachers, others masters, others with skills that are almost out of this world. Recently I must say I have discovered my own gift, and I must say it is amazing the power that was given to me. I am still fascinated in what goes on in this world.