Not when, just, to the mainstream religions, includes homophobia, misogyny and denying half the planet equality.
Regards
DL
So, what is the cure for mainstream religious beliefs? Do you have a better way, something more and better than railing against the old way?
Yes. A return to older and better thinking so as to help those lost to literalism, and do the bulk of the harm, return to better moral thinking.
An example of that is Gnostic Christianity. The best ideology on the planet.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Further.
pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, “The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it.”
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, “God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning.”
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia … =PLCBF574D
Regards
DL
Rumor has it that Origen castrated himself.If so, it was from a literal translation of “If the eye offends thee, pluck it out.” (paraphrase)
Most of history is likely wrong as the winners write it.
Regards
DL
Ouch!
If he had taken it “literally” it would have been his eye he plucked out. We always observe the spirit of the law if not the letter to suit our purposes.
I suppose he had little need for the “other”.
Anyway, a rumor is just that - a rumor.
So what of history can we trust to be accurate renditions of what was said and done?
If there are a variety of agreeing sources, then one might assume it to be true.
In the case of gods, there is no peer revue for any religion.
I trust the archeologists, who are peer reviewed, who have shown that the bible is historically incorrect in many instances.
If even one lie is shown, it discredits the whole book as an history.
I see a lie the moment a talking serpent and donkey are spoken of as real.
Regards
DL
More tirade against the old narrative. How is Gnostic Christianity better?
Try this and see which ideology is better.
I keep a bible in the house even though I think this quote quite correct.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Then again, I am a Gnostic Christian and know how to read the filth in it.
Said of Gnostic Christian versus Christian bible reading practices.
“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”
William Blake.
I would take this further and advise you to read any scriptures from as many POV as is within you. Question everything including yourself.
The bible, if read as a book of wisdom, does have much wisdom though.
You just have to read it the way Gnostics do and reverse a lot of the Christian morals.
Christians call evil good while Gnostic Christians call evil, evil.
I E. Gnostic Christians think that bible God, the demiurge to us, is quite immoral for thinking that torturing King David’s baby for 6 days before finally killing it is good justice. Gnostic Christians think that evil while Christians think that a good form of justice.
Which group do you think is right?
Regards
DL
Greatest I AM,
I am sure that it is. But could you not say that some archeologists, to further their own fame and cause, also lie at times about things?
Where have you ever read something like that?
I doubt that to be the case although I do agree that people need to be as impeccable and honest in their researching and investigation as they can be.
Perhaps you are deliberately trying to be hyperbolic.
Would you throw the baby out with the bathwater, Greatest I Am?
How do you know that this supposed lie was actually meant to be a lie and not just some error in judgment or perception?
But still, would you throw that whole book, whichever book it is, out? Granted if the whole book is a mess of lies, we would throw that one out. I would help you.
Would you demolish the Leaning Tower of Pisa? There was an engineering mistake there I believe.
Intent is important. Lies are deliberate things. Could the above in any case not be seen as a Lie?
But perhaps it is simply meant as metaphorical or a teaching tool.
Can fantasy which comes from one’s imagination be considered to be a lie?
I wonder what a talking serpent or donkey would say to you. Would you even listen? 
Regards…
A D
“I am sure that it is. But could you not say that some archeologists, to further their own fame and cause, also lie at times about things?”
Sure, hence the peer revue.
" D L – If even one lie is shown, it discredits the whole book as an history.
Your “Where have you ever read something like that?”
It is Jewish tradition as well as law in many states.
Have you ever read of the cases where, if a coroner is found to have screwed up on one case, all his other past cases have to be reviewed and are subject to appeal?
“Would you throw the baby out with the bathwater, Greatest I Am?”
If a genocidal and infanticidal baby Yahweh god, yes, after smashing his head against stones the way Yahweh had many baby heads smashed. If you believe the myth that is.
“But still, would you throw that whole book, whichever book it is, out?”
No. It is a great consolidation of ancient wisdom writings. Christians just read it the wrong way.
Let me show what I think along with a question for you.
I keep a bible in the house even though I think this quote quite correct.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Then again, I am a Gnostic Christian and know how to read the filth in it.
Said of Gnostic Christian versus Christian bible reading practices.
“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”
William Blake.
I would take this further and advise you to read any scriptures from as many POV as is within you. Question everything including yourself.
The bible, if read as a book of wisdom, does have much wisdom though.
You just have to read it the way Gnostics do and reverse a lot of the Christian morals.
Christians call evil good while Gnostic Christians call evil, evil.
I E. Gnostic Christians think that bible God, the demiurge to us, is quite immoral for thinking that torturing King David’s baby for 6 days before finally killing it is good justice. Gnostic Christians think that evil while Christians think that a good form of justice.
Which group do you think is right?
“But perhaps it is simply meant as metaphorical or a teaching tool.
Can fantasy which comes from one’s imagination be considered to be a lie?”
Fantasy has value for sure, but only if it is known to be fantasy, which is not the case we were discussing.
Have a look at my Gnostic Christian thinking about literalism.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Further.
pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, “The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it.”
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, “God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning.”
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia … =PLCBF574D
Regards
DL
I thought Jesus said that the sum of the law and the prophets is to love God and to love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Was he to practice what he preached?
Especially where Jesus/Yahweh are shown to kill instead of cure those they say they love.
Rather a strange way to show love. No?
Regards
DL
Who did Jesus kill?
Nobody.
Stop making shit up.
The ridiculous Trinity version that Christianity adopted is a part of the Jesus myth.
I am not stupid enough to make up such stupid shit.
I am not that kind of shitting Christian.
Regards
DL
Early Christians did not believe in a trinity of God.
I agree.
Constantine forced that idiocy into his new religion.
The way he built his Triumphal Arch indicates that he wanted to be the next man god and declare himself to be god the way former emperors had.
Regards
DL
OK, a non-religious response to the question:
About 20 years ago I had premonitions of death. I felt that my own death was imminent, and this due to my deteriorating mental state. I had a severe anger problem. It was making my life hell. By becoming so angry I had condemned myself to a living hell. However, I also live in a society which generates anger and so that society also condemns other people to living in a hell (a hell on earth).
You could say that my first “saviour” was the realisation that, because in this society people are constantly trying to make each other very, very angry, the fault did not necessarily lie with me. I remember the enormous relief I felt when I realised this. It took a huge amount of pressure off me. And this first step allowed me to deal with my own anger (I started off dealing with the problem by taking up meditation, although this alone was not enough to save my life. Meditation only provided a stay of execution, as it were.)
I have now dealt with my anger problem. I have achieved such a degree of detachment that I simply do not allow people to anger me the way they once did. This detachment has also allowed me to see that as well as being angered by people, my bad behaviour also generated anger in other people. You could say that attaining such a degree of detachment was also my “saviour”.
Had I not dealt with my own anger as well as my bad behaviour, then I know I would be dead by now.
Moreover, I note that the government has recently said that anger is a major problem for UK citizens (and, in my opinion, for people all over the world). What the government does not appear to realise is that it is among the worst in our society at generating anger. (Just think of any dealings you may have had with e.g. the DWP or with intractable beaurocracy and then tell me you don’t get angry! And who doesn’t get angry with the unreasonable demands made upon them by their boss? And yet mental health problems are on the up and up?I remember hearing once about a farmer who got so angry with his building society that he took a truck load of slurry into the town centre and sprayed the building society with the slurry. ) Any person or institution or authority that disempowers another, as this, or any, government routinely does, generates huge amounts of anger. So people, whether acting as individuals or as part of another body such as government, generate such huge levels of anger that they create a living hell for both themselves and for other people.
A non-religious answer to a religious question is a deflection by a hypocrite who cannot back up his religious beliefs.
Congrats for becoming a real Christian.
Regards
DL