Religion isn’t good for everyone.

[an anarchist]

I want to practice/present a specific argument. It is one I am going to present to my religious family to try to get them to understand/accept that I am not religious (if I choose to not be religious, which is likely).

If, by chance, the Holy Bible is not the literal truth, then it would serve to reason that it would not benefit the mental health of every individual tasked with believing in it as literal truth. If, by chance, there is no God, then it would not be inherently beneficial for an individuals mental health to believe in one. On the contrary, if there is no God, then it could very well be detrimental to a specific individual’s mental health to believe in one.

My family believes Jesus is literally God. Therefore, in their minds, there is nothing but benefit when it comes to believing and nothing but negatives when it comes to disbelief. The part of my argument I don’t think they will accept is the idea that the have to entertain the possibility of being wrong when it comes to the Bible.

Is there any way I can beef up my argumentation or logic? Is there any shortcomings that you see in it?

 

[LuisDantas]

You will know your family better than me... I might try to point out that it can't possibly be true that god finds it very important that we understand it and believe in exactly the right description of it.

After all, there is a wide range of understandings of what it is like and what it wants. Those of us who believe in its existence of course ought to attempt to honestly pursue wisdom according its presumed wishes, but ultimately we have no constructive choice that is not based in our own honest discernment.

And in that respect, we are all in the same boat, believer and non-believer alike.

 

[an anarchist]

ultimately we have no constructive choice that is not based in our own honest discernment.

Perhaps I should try to get them to understand why they themselves are Christian. Partly because of their background they are Christian. Grew up in it, family and culture. And they are Christian partly because it is necessary for the worldview they have built their life on. This results in a lack of honest discernment when it comes to metaphysical truths.

 

[libre]

How would you describe your relationship with your family?
I think it would be relevant in how I would tailor a response. Are you looking to comfort them, create understanding, and/or disarm attempts to convert you?

 

[Jimmy]

I want to practice/present a specific argument. It is one I am going to present to my religious family to try to get them to understand/accept that I am not religious (if I choose to not be religious, which is likely).

If, by chance, the Holy Bible is not the literal truth, then it would serve to reason that it would not benefit the mental health of every individual tasked with believing in it as literal truth. If, by chance, there is no God, then it would not be inherently beneficial for an individuals mental health to believe in one. On the contrary, if there is no God, then it could very well be detrimental to a specific individual’s mental health to believe in one.

My family believes Jesus is literally God. Therefore, in their minds, there is nothing but benefit when it comes to believing and nothing but negatives when it comes to disbelief. The part of my argument I don’t think they will accept is the idea that the have to entertain the possibility of being wrong when it comes to the Bible.

Is there any way I can beef up my argumentation or logic? Is there any shortcomings that you see in it?

I think you need to lose the word literal imo. And maybe you’d begin to understand the Bible

 

[an anarchist]

How would you describe your relationship with your family?
I think it would be relevant in how I would tailor a response. Are you looking to comfort them, create understanding, and/or disarm attempts to convert you?

Well ideally I would want them to be personally okay with me not being Christian. That is impossible though. I grew up in their churches, so I know how it is. It’s the real “scare the hell out of ya” types of places. Pastors threaten your loved ones with hell if you don’t bring them to church for conversion.

So they will never be comfortable with the decision, so ultimately I need to be able to have them understand that I have the intellectual high ground when it comes to the topic. And that I am doing it for my own good. So I guess to preemptively disarm any more attempts to convert me. It’s funny, my aunt would try to “convert“ me while I was growing up, even though I was really a Christian. Me not being Christian is a recent development. But she never believed me back then, so idk. I want them to understand that I am being reasonable. Of course, when my eternal destination is on the highway to hell, how can my choice seem reasonable to them?

I’m chill with the fam by the way. Just distant.

 

[an anarchist]

I think you need to lose the word literal imo. And maybe you’d begin to understand the Bible

Well I’m not trying to “understand” the Bible currently.

 

[Jimmy]

Well I’m not trying to “understand” the Bible currently.

My point

 

[an anarchist]

My point

 

[sun rise]

I want to practice/present a specific argument. It is one I am going to present to my religious family to try to get them to understand/accept that I am not religious (if I choose to not be religious, which is likely).

If, by chance, the Holy Bible is not the literal truth, then it would serve to reason that it would not benefit the mental health of every individual tasked with believing in it as literal truth. If, by chance, there is no God, then it would not be inherently beneficial for an individuals mental health to believe in one. On the contrary, if there is no God, then it could very well be detrimental to a specific individual’s mental health to believe in one.

My family believes Jesus is literally God. Therefore, in their minds, there is nothing but benefit when it comes to believing and nothing but negatives when it comes to disbelief. The part of my argument I don’t think they will accept is the idea that the have to entertain the possibility of being wrong when it comes to the Bible.

Is there any way I can beef up my argumentation or logic? Is there any shortcomings that you see in it?

What is your ideal outcome? What do you expect to happen? - that's the starting point.

If I were you I'd try to build a bridge between their beliefs and yours. The following is only reasonable if you feel comfortable with my thoughts about how I would handle it. This is partly based on your Dharmic DIR membership since I believe in the Avatar and classify Jesus as on incarnation of the eternal Avatar (Christ). And the Bible passage about "sowing and reaping" is a poetic description of karma. And arguing facts is almost often a loser because they won't believe what you know. So I'd approach from another angle.

You assert "God is love..." under your picture. There is a passage in the Bible that says the same thing.1 John 4:7-21. So if I were you I'd start with what you and your family both believe. You might then bring up all the various groups of Christians and how many different interpretations of scripture there are. I'd guess they'd agree so far. You could then mention that you find passages of the Bible to be true and helpful but that you can't take it all literally and must find your own path to truth.

 

[crossfire]

The Four Solaces summarized from The Kalama Sutta: (kinda like the Buddhist version of Pascal's Wager)

If you purify your mind of greed, hatred, and delusion in the here and now and let the four sublime states of loving kindness (metta,) compassion (karuna,) empathetic joy (mudita,) and equanimity/even-mindedness/sanity (upekkha) shine through you get the following four solaces:

1. If there is a reward for good deeds and pure mind, you might get it.
2. If there is no reward for good deeds and pure mind, your mind is freed from enslavement to greed, hatred, and delusion in the here and now.
3. If there is punishment for evil deeds, if you wish evil to no one, how can there be a punishment?
4. If there is no punishment for evil deeds, your mind is freed from enslavement to greed, hatred, and delusion in the here and now.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I want to practice/present a specific argument. It is one I am going to present to my religious family to try to get them to understand/accept that I am not religious (if I choose to not be religious, which is likely).

If, by chance, the Holy Bible is not the literal truth, then it would serve to reason that it would not benefit the mental health of every individual tasked with believing in it as literal truth. If, by chance, there is no God, then it would not be inherently beneficial for an individuals mental health to believe in one. On the contrary, if there is no God, then it could very well be detrimental to a specific individual’s mental health to believe in one.

My family believes Jesus is literally God. Therefore, in their minds, there is nothing but benefit when it comes to believing and nothing but negatives when it comes to disbelief. The part of my argument I don’t think they will accept is the idea that the have to entertain the possibility of being wrong when it comes to the Bible.

Is there any way I can beef up my argumentation or logic? Is there any shortcomings that you see in it?

If by religion we mean the acquisition of virtues, an upright character and love of all people unconditionally then we all need religion. These conditions would create good relations between people and lead to ultimate mental health and inner peace and happiness. But man has turned against religion and chosen prejudice, hatred and indifference leading to wars, conflicts and worldwide unhappiness and mental depression.

PS: A fanatical cult like worship of the personality of Jesus is not true religion because Jesus never asked to be worshipped but for us to love one another so Christians should be making love for humanity the central ornament of their belief not the supremacy of Christ.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The Four Solaces summarized from The Kalama Sutta: (kinda like the Buddhist version of Pascal's Wager)

If you purify your mind of greed, hatred, and delusion in the here and now and let the four sublime states of loving kindness (metta,) compassion (karuna,) empathetic joy (mudita,) and equanimity/even-mindedness/sanity (upekkha) shine through you get the following four solaces:

1. If there is a reward for good deeds and pure mind, you might get it.
2. If there is no reward for good deeds and pure mind, your mind is freed from enslavement to greed, hatred, and delusion in the here and now.
3. If there is punishment for evil deeds, if you wish evil to no one, how can there be a punishment?
4. If there is no punishment for evil deeds, your mind is freed from enslavement to greed, hatred, and delusion in the here and now.

Beautiful.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I want to practice/present a specific argument. It is one I am going to present to my religious family to try to get them to understand/accept that I am not religious (if I choose to not be religious, which is likely).

If, by chance, the Holy Bible is not the literal truth, then it would serve to reason that it would not benefit the mental health of every individual tasked with believing in it as literal truth. If, by chance, there is no God, then it would not be inherently beneficial for an individuals mental health to believe in one. On the contrary, if there is no God, then it could very well be detrimental to a specific individual’s mental health to believe in one.

My family believes Jesus is literally God. Therefore, in their minds, there is nothing but benefit when it comes to believing and nothing but negatives when it comes to disbelief. The part of my argument I don’t think they will accept is the idea that the have to entertain the possibility of being wrong when it comes to the Bible.

Is there any way I can beef up my argumentation or logic? Is there any shortcomings that you see in it?

I don't believe you are likely to have any success. Atheists and agnostics have been arguing with religious people forever, and never seem to make any headway. And by the way, same is true in reverse -- theists make little headway trying to convert atheists, as well.

And this is true not only for religious beliefs. Look at the silliness over vaccines, or any number of conspiracy theories. It is a known fact now that Canadians accepted Covid-19 vaccines at a much higher rate than Americans -- and in direct consequence, Canadians also had much lower rates of death and long Covid. But facts alone simply are not enough to change minds, and there are some very good reasons for this, according to neuroscience. Some of those reasons, hard-wired into the human brain, are:

1. Belief Perseverance
2. Confirmation Bias
3. Avoidance of Complexity
4. Causality and the Ignorance Gap
5. Emotions and Assessing Risk

You can't force others to understand all of these, and use their understanding to allow them reason better; you can only do that for yourself.

 

[McBell]

I want to practice/present a specific argument. It is one I am going to present to my religious family to try to get them to understand/accept that I am not religious (if I choose to not be religious, which is likely).

If, by chance, the Holy Bible is not the literal truth, then it would serve to reason that it would not benefit the mental health of every individual tasked with believing in it as literal truth. If, by chance, there is no God, then it would not be inherently beneficial for an individuals mental health to believe in one. On the contrary, if there is no God, then it could very well be detrimental to a specific individual’s mental health to believe in one.

My family believes Jesus is literally God. Therefore, in their minds, there is nothing but benefit when it comes to believing and nothing but negatives when it comes to disbelief. The part of my argument I don’t think they will accept is the idea that the have to entertain the possibility of being wrong when it comes to the Bible.

Is there any way I can beef up my argumentation or logic? Is there any shortcomings that you see in it?

Seems to me the only shortcoming in your argument is that it will fall on deaf ears.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps I should try to get them to understand why they themselves are Christian. Partly because of their background they are Christian. Grew up in it, family and culture. And they are Christian partly because it is necessary for the worldview they have built their life on. This results in a lack of honest discernment when it comes to metaphysical truths.

Please keep in mind that I do not know your family and my comments are based on my experiences with others.

Most people when told they are being dishonest get super uber defensive.
In most cases I have seen, the accused tend to dig in even deeper.
And my personal experience has been that the accused will dig even deeper than "normal" when it comes to their religious beliefs.

 

[Secret Chief]

I want to practice/present a specific argument. It is one I am going to present to my religious family to try to get them to understand/accept that I am not religious (if I choose to not be religious, which is likely).

If, by chance, the Holy Bible is not the literal truth, then it would serve to reason that it would not benefit the mental health of every individual tasked with believing in it as literal truth. If, by chance, there is no God, then it would not be inherently beneficial for an individuals mental health to believe in one. On the contrary, if there is no God, then it could very well be detrimental to a specific individual’s mental health to believe in one.

My family believes Jesus is literally God. Therefore, in their minds, there is nothing but benefit when it comes to believing and nothing but negatives when it comes to disbelief. The part of my argument I don’t think they will accept is the idea that the have to entertain the possibility of being wrong when it comes to the Bible.

Is there any way I can beef up my argumentation or logic? Is there any shortcomings that you see in it?

Does it matter what they think of your views?

 

[Little Dragon]

Is there any way I can beef up my argumentation or logic? Is there any shortcomings that you see in it?

Using logic and appealing to factual information, in my experience, is seldom appreciated, by those whom have been indoctrinated since birth. This is a formidable barrier to overcome, for even the greatest paradigm shaker and breakers.

Actions speak louder than words, and with your family you have the ability to demonstrate that life can be led without living in fear, and waiting for someone else to come and bail us all out. You can show how one lives a life without a false narrative living in your head rent free.

 

[1213]

if there is no God, then it could very well be detrimental to a specific individual’s mental health to believe in one.

If that would be said to me, I would ask, how so? Seems baseless claim.

My family believes Jesus is literally God.

That is interesting, when Jesus says that there is only one true God who is greater than him.

 

[Sargonski]

I want to practice/present a specific argument. It is one I am going to present to my religious family to try to get them to understand/accept that I am not religious (if I choose to not be religious, which is likely).

If, by chance, the Holy Bible is not the literal truth, then it would serve to reason that it would not benefit the mental health of every individual tasked with believing in it as literal truth. If, by chance, there is no God, then it would not be inherently beneficial for an individuals mental health to believe in one. On the contrary, if there is no God, then it could very well be detrimental to a specific individual’s mental health to believe in one.

My family believes Jesus is literally God. Therefore, in their minds, there is nothing but benefit when it comes to believing and nothing but negatives when it comes to disbelief. The part of my argument I don’t think they will accept is the idea that the have to entertain the possibility of being wrong when it comes to the Bible.

Is there any way I can beef up my argumentation or logic? Is there any shortcomings that you see in it?

First off .. Religion is clearly not good for those who will use this religion for Evil .. which is more the rule rather than the Exception throughout history. Given this historical imparative .. the words of Paul should be taken with a grain of salt -- were he beckons us to worship ..for all intensive purposes what ever authority happens to be in power .. Be it Stalin - Adolf - Mao - Pol Pot - Biden and one of the many problems with Literalism -- "Every Word God Breathed"

and with that to one of the most disturbing passages in the Bible .. and problematic for literalists to deal with .. although not nearly as problematic as some other things but .. without further adieu .. the famous "Romans 13"

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. .....4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

and well .. the passage speaks for itself .. just substitute "Nazi" every time authorities is mentioned .. God established the Nazi for your own good and thus you are not to rebel but serve dutifully .. for this is God's servant -- is for your own good .. therefore necessary to submit ... not only for punishment .. but as a matter of conscience.

WoW .. Just WoW -- if one is a literalist. But -- if one is a believer but one who can believer and not be a literalist .. believe even though at least some of the Bible is not God Breathed .. Psalms and Ecclesiastes .. for example David and Solomon take credit for authorship of some .. the text is not arguing that particular books are God Breathed. ..

In the case of this text --It is Paul's words .. and he is writing them .. to good effect .. and for very good reason .. likely intending that others would understand what he was up to .. and not take the words in his letter literally --- as "God Breathed" .. as how happy are the Romans to read this glorification of - and annointing as God's servent on earth .. the Pontifex Maximus of the Day.

Remember in later days when some Christians were burned for not giving proper honor to the Cult of Ceasar -- They should have just read this passage .. perhaps they didn't have .. but here we have Paul doing exactly what is required of the Cult of Ceasar ..

Just - hands down .. the most disturbing passage I can come up with (if taken literally) .. and I have some doozies believe me you .. this is not a low bar being crossed.