General religious discussion thread

[Frustration]

@Shatter I take it based on the Hebrew you're Jewish.

 

If so, and you don't mind, could I ask you a question?

[Shatter He/Him]

15 minutes ago, Frustration said:

@Shatter I take it based on the Hebrew you're Jewish.

 

If so, and you don't mind, could I ask you a question?

Go ahed

[Frustration]

7 minutes ago, Shatter said:

Go ahed

So, why don't you do animal sacrifices anymore?

I know that the various different ideologies(groups, branches? What's the official term?) Of Judaism have different ideas, but it's something I've never been able to find out.

For Christians, the belief is that the sacrificial death and ressurrection of Christ ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood. However, as far as I know Judaism doesn't have an equivelent doctrine.

Edited May 13 by Frustration

[Verdance he/him]

3 minutes ago, Frustration said:

So, why don't you do animal sacrifices anymore?

I know that the various different ideologies(groups, branches? What's the official term?) Of Judaism have different ideas, but it's something I've never been able to find out.

For Christians, the belief is that the sacrificial death and ressurrection of Christ ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood. However, as far as I know Judaism doesn't have an equivelent doctrine.

*eyebrows*
wait i never thought about that

would it be that a lot of orthodox jewish culture was lost during all the different times of captivity or dispersal, and that wasn’t something that was brought back in modern times 

or are we asking the theological implications of that

im curious as well!

[Shatter He/Him]

30 minutes ago, Frustration said:

So, why don't you do animal sacrifices anymore?

I know that the various different ideologies(groups, branches? What's the official term?) Of Judaism have different ideas, but it's something I've never been able to find out.

For Christians, the belief is that the sacrificial death and ressurrection of Christ ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood. However, as far as I know Judaism doesn't have an equivelent doctrine.

I can answer much of this with an image.

In all seriousness, we don't sacrifice korbanos (קרבנות) anymore because we lost the place where we would do it. The Torah forbids sacrificing animals anywhere else, so we had to figure out a replacement. The rabbis of the time decided to formalize prayer to replace the sacrifices, and they created the basis of prayer that Jews have today. More was added as the centuries passed due to stuff happening (the rise of the Christians, the rise of pogroms, etc.)

Also, the different 'flavours' of Judaism (there isn't a good term) do have different ideas.

Orthodox Judaism is the most traditional approach. It holds that Torah and Halacha (Jewish Law) are binding laws from God, and they do not change based on modern trends. In practice, that means keeping Shabbos (the sabbath) strictly, kosher laws in full detail, daily prayer, and traditional gender roles in many communities. They're currently figuring out the LGBTQ community and how they fit in with Jewish Law.

Conservative Judaism values halacha and tradition, but believes Jewish law can develop over time in response to real-world changes. It's more flexible than Orthodox Judaism in that they are more lenient with the laws of Shabbos, they sometimes have mixed seating in synagogue, and will sometimes have female rabbis. They're pretty accepting of the LGBTQ community.

Reform Judaism is the most flexible. It sees Jewish law as important but not binding in the same way. The focus is more on ethics, personal meaning, and individual choice. Kosher and Shabbos observance are usually not kept, and services are shorter and often in English and adapted to modern culture. They are highly accepting of the LGBTQ community.

Basically:
Orthodox = “Jewish Law is binding and central.”
Conservative = “Jewish Law matters, but can evolve.”
Reform = “The Torah matters, but personal choice is key.”

26 minutes ago, Verdance said:

*eyebrows*
wait i never thought about that

would it be that a lot of orthodox jewish culture was lost during all the different times of captivity or dispersal, and that wasn’t something that was brought back in modern times 

or are we asking the theological implications of that

im curious as well!

There has always been an orthodox backbone as the jews have moved across the world. As best I can track the main backbone:

We went from Judea to Galilee to Babylon to Persia and the wider Islamic world (including North Africa and the Middle East) to Spain and France to Germany and Eastern Europe and to the Ottoman Empire and Sephardic centres to modern Israel and the United States and Canada and a bunch more communities. 

Keep in mind that it split and part of Jewry became what are known as Sephardis (Mediterranean and Spanish), part became Ashkenazis (Eastern European), and part became Mizrachi (Middle Eastern).

Orthodox Judaism dates back to the times before the Second Temple. I've actually thought about seeing if I could track my Rabbi's teachers all the way back (i probably could) 

Any more questions? I'll answer them tomorrow. I have to sleep now.

Edited May 13 by Shatter

[Frustration]

10 minutes ago, Shatter said:

I can answer much of this with an image.

In all seriousness, we don't sacrifice korbanos (קרבנות) anymore because we lost the place where we would do it. The Torah forbids sacrificing animals anywhere else, so we had to figure out a replacement. The rabbis of the time decided to formalize prayer to replace the sacrifices, and they created the basis of prayer that Jews have today. More was added as the centuries passed due to stuff happening (the rise of the Christians, the rise of pogroms, etc.)

Also, the different 'flavours' of Judaism (there isn't a good term) do have different ideas.

Orthodox Judaism is the most traditional approach. It holds that Torah and Halacha (Jewish Law) are binding laws from God, and they do not change based on modern trends. In practice, that means keeping Shabbos (the sabbath) strictly, kosher laws in full detail, daily prayer, and traditional gender roles in many communities. They're currently figuring out the LGBTQ community and how they fit in with Jewish Law.

Conservative Judaism values halacha and tradition, but believes Jewish law can develop over time in response to real-world changes. It's more flexible than Orthodox Judaism in that they are more lenient with the laws of Shabbos, they sometimes have mixed seating in synagogue, and will sometimes have female rabbis. They're pretty accepting of the LGBTQ community.

Reform Judaism is the most flexible. It sees Jewish law as important but not binding in the same way. The focus is more on ethics, personal meaning, and individual choice. Kosher and Shabbos observance are usually not kept, and services are shorter and often in English and adapted to modern culture. They are highly accepting of the LGBTQ community.

Basically:
Orthodox = “Jewish Law is binding and central.”
Conservative = “Jewish Law matters, but can evolve.”
Reform = “The Torah matters, but personal choice is key.”

I think "flavors" of Judaism is one of the funniest things I've heard all day.

Thanks for the resonpse, but it does raise some additional questions.

I thought(and you may correct me) that the restriction from preforming sacrifices outside the Temple in Jerusalem was implemented by King Josiah during his anti-idolatry campaign.

Likewise there are several instances of people offering sacrifices in other locations, most notably the Tabernacle, which the early Isrealites took with them as a mobile temple.

Are those seen as one time exceptions, or was it permissable and now isn't?

Edited May 13 by Frustration

[Immortal Platypus]

48 minutes ago, Shatter said:

Also, the different 'flavours' of Judaism (there isn't a good term) do have different ideas.

I feel like sect is the closest word, but it's certainly not perfect

[Shatter He/Him]

4 hours ago, Frustration said:

I think "flavors" of Judaism is one of the funniest things I've heard all day.

Thanks for the resonpse, but it does raise some additional questions.

I thought(and you may correct me) that the restriction from preforming sacrifices outside the Temple in Jerusalem was implemented by King Josiah during his anti-idolatry campaign.

Likewise there are several instances of people offering sacrifices in other locations, most notably the Tabernacle, which the early Isrealites took with them as a mobile temple.

Are those seen as one time exceptions, or was it permissable and now isn't?

The Torah repeatedly stresses that offerings must be brought only “there” (meaning the central Sanctuary). After the Mishkan (the Tabernacle) settled and later the Beis HaMikdash (the Temple) was built, that became the exclusive site. Once that shift happened, other altars were prohibited.

4 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I feel like sect is the closest word, but it's certainly not perfect

Streams of Judaism or Jewish Movements are better words than 'sect'. The Jewish sects have mostly been wiped out. Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Sicarii, etc., were Jewish sects.

[Keteᛕ He/Him/His]

10 hours ago, Frustration said:

So, why don't you do animal sacrifices anymore?

I know that the various different ideologies(groups, branches? What's the official term?) Of Judaism have different ideas, but it's something I've never been able to find out.

For Christians, the belief is that the sacrificial death and ressurrection of Christ ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood. However, as far as I know Judaism doesn't have an equivelent doctrine.

So the reason sacrifice is not common is because a great deal of signs and wonders related to how the sacrifice is done do not exist anymore (I.e. the temple, altar, or signs denoting that sacrifice is required). Yom kippur still is devoted to repentance.

[Frustration]

This is kind of off topic, but I think it's the best place to do this. I'm writing a book right now and I came across a problem that I'm working on solving. What I'd like to do is describe my problem here, with my solution in a spoiler box. I'd like to get some responses from people from various religious backgrounds, both their own attempts to solve the problem(if desired), along with their thoughts on my solution.

 

Problem: In the story I'm wanting something that has a decidedly religious feel to it, holy symbols, blessings, and so on. However I don't want to confirm to the reader that there is a deity behind it. I want it to be something that is up to interpretation, but also being respectful of various faiths.

 

My solution(so far):

Spoiler

The idea came from Catholic saints. All symbols, blessings, and holy objects have to come from one specific person. For lore reasons this person is functionally immortal, as it ties into another thing I'm working on. This individual is treated as a saint, and chosen by God. However as the story goes on I want to show that this person isn't sure if they were chosen or not, and has never heard or spoken to God. They question to themselves if they really were chosen "If I really was a saint, shouldn't I be able to do more?"

 

Any thoughts?

Edited June 17 by Frustration

[CadCom he/him]

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

Problem: In the story I'm wanting something that has a decidedly religious feel to it, holy symbols, blessings, and so on. However I don't want to confirm to the reader that there is a deity behind it. I want it to be something that is up to interpretation, but also being respectful of various faiths.

My solution(so far):

  Reveal hidden contents

The idea came from Catholic saints. All symbols, blessings, and holy objects have to come from one specific person. For lore reasons this person is functionally immortal, as it ties into another thing I'm working on. This individual is treated as a saint, and chosen by God. However as the story goes on I want to show that this person isn't sure if they were chosen or not, and has never heard or spoken to God. They question to themselves if they really were chosen "If I really was a saint, shouldn't I be able to do more?"

 

Any thoughts?

So is the idea that the specific culture has a form of quasi-religion, but no one can confirm the existence of the deity? And the Deity doesn't explicitly do anything in the story? 

Essentially the coincedences that help the hero along could be explained by either Supernatural or natural causes, and that is left to the interpretation of the reader? 

So From what I'm seeing from your solution, your saint is able to somehow imbue objects with what people believe is power from on high, but the actual saint starts to question if the objects are actually given divine power or if it's some other mechanism bestowing the good fortune. (Like positive mindset or placebo) 

I think your solution seems like a very real-world way to ground any fantasy, making it seem more realistic. Because A lot of real-world religious figures I believe often actually question their relationship with their chosen deity.  

I would definitely include some sort of ceremony or liturgy in the book. You wouldn't need to associate the liturgy with a specific deity, but just have specific ceremonies.


 

[Mint11 she/her]

On 6/17/2026 at 1:36 PM, Frustration said:

Problem: In the story I'm wanting something that has a decidedly religious feel to it, holy symbols, blessings, and so on. However I don't want to confirm to the reader that there is a deity behind it. I want it to be something that is up to interpretation, but also being respectful of various faiths.

 

My solution(so far):

  Hide contents

The idea came from Catholic saints. All symbols, blessings, and holy objects have to come from one specific person. For lore reasons this person is functionally immortal, as it ties into another thing I'm working on. This individual is treated as a saint, and chosen by God. However as the story goes on I want to show that this person isn't sure if they were chosen or not, and has never heard or spoken to God. They question to themselves if they really were chosen "If I really was a saint, shouldn't I be able to do more?"

 

Any thoughts?

I think the concept you describe in the problem is a great idea. But I'm kind of confused as to what the problem is? Did you want to base this in the real world and weren't sure which religion to go with, and your solution is an option for that?

[Frustration]

1 hour ago, Mint11 said:

I think the concept you describe in the problem is a great idea. But I'm kind of confused as to what the problem is? Did you want to base this in the real world and weren't sure which religion to go with, and your solution is an option for that?

I don't want to confirm a one true religion for this world I'm writing in. Or even confirm that this particular religion is true.

[Mint11 she/her]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

I don't want to confirm a one true religion for this world I'm writing in. Or even confirm that this particular religion is true.

I'm not of the faith that you mentioned in your potential solution. But I don't think the premise is insensitive in itself, regardless of the faith you choose.

It might depend partly on what the end game is for the character arc. Like where do they end up in their faith/doubts?

[Ascended Grubberfly He/Him]

On 6/17/2026 at 11:36 AM, Frustration said:

This is kind of off topic, but I think it's the best place to do this. I'm writing a book right now and I came across a problem that I'm working on solving. What I'd like to do is describe my problem here, with my solution in a spoiler box. I'd like to get some responses from people from various religious backgrounds, both their own attempts to solve the problem(if desired), along with their thoughts on my solution.

 

Problem: In the story I'm wanting something that has a decidedly religious feel to it, holy symbols, blessings, and so on. However I don't want to confirm to the reader that there is a deity behind it. I want it to be something that is up to interpretation, but also being respectful of various faiths.

 

My solution(so far):

  Hide contents

The idea came from Catholic saints. All symbols, blessings, and holy objects have to come from one specific person. For lore reasons this person is functionally immortal, as it ties into another thing I'm working on. This individual is treated as a saint, and chosen by God. However as the story goes on I want to show that this person isn't sure if they were chosen or not, and has never heard or spoken to God. They question to themselves if they really were chosen "If I really was a saint, shouldn't I be able to do more?"

 

Any thoughts?

I think that showing a full spectrum of belief/criticism is good. The faithful have their belief, opposition to the religion have their points, and other beliefs mix up certainty.

i really like your idea because it mixes in the doubt, but there is convincing evidence that their position has some meaning. I do also like that it is one of the believers who may have the best reason to believe instead holds doubts.

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

On 6/17/2026 at 1:36 PM, Frustration said:

This is kind of off topic, but I think it's the best place to do this. I'm writing a book right now and I came across a problem that I'm working on solving. What I'd like to do is describe my problem here, with my solution in a spoiler box. I'd like to get some responses from people from various religious backgrounds, both their own attempts to solve the problem(if desired), along with their thoughts on my solution.

 

Problem: In the story I'm wanting something that has a decidedly religious feel to it, holy symbols, blessings, and so on. However I don't want to confirm to the reader that there is a deity behind it. I want it to be something that is up to interpretation, but also being respectful of various faiths.

 

My solution(so far):

  Reveal hidden contents

The idea came from Catholic saints. All symbols, blessings, and holy objects have to come from one specific person. For lore reasons this person is functionally immortal, as it ties into another thing I'm working on. This individual is treated as a saint, and chosen by God. However as the story goes on I want to show that this person isn't sure if they were chosen or not, and has never heard or spoken to God. They question to themselves if they really were chosen "If I really was a saint, shouldn't I be able to do more?"

 

Any thoughts?

I think your problem is the singularity of the divine source. Even if there is only supposed to be 0 or 1 God, that God must act by many means.

If they are immortal, and there are no other such eternal beings, then that is going to act as a confirming effect.

I had an idea for an order of priests who worshiped a singular God whose commandment was "hunt down and end all other sources of magic in the cosmos". The true priests, who could use the divine power, have to train to become worthy of their position by reading the journals of all of the prior priests and then they are tested to see how similar of a personality to the current holder they would replace on a regular basis. The power holders had magic books that acted as transmitters to send information back to the training school so that there was no risk of a total loss of the transmitted wisdom.

I would make it so there is no way to confirm someone is a saint in their own life. The spirit of the saint can be believed to be bound to the world, but anything blessed by a given incarnation only become usable as magical after the death of that incarnation. It is thus easy enough to spend a lifetime impersonating the saint.

[Frustration]

1 hour ago, ParaTulip said:

I think your problem is the singularity of the divine source. Even if there is only supposed to be 0 or 1 God, that God must act by many means.

Well the singularity of the source is actually really important as it allows me to up the stakes after I kill them, as with the Saint dead there isn't any way to replace them.

1 hour ago, ParaTulip said:

If they are immortal, and there are no other such eternal beings, then that is going to act as a confirming effect.

Other immortals do exist, but they are just different kinds of beings.

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

So I finally figured out what my damage is. I picked up The Gospel of Christian Atheism, by Thomas Altizer. Turns out I just managed to get the basic idea of what a Dead God Christian-atheism is like from intuition thanks to having been tortured as a small child (whipped and made to stand on winter-cold concrete because I could not supply desired information) and then subjected to the horrors of something I will spoiler because I think it's probably traumatic to read.

Spoiler

My mother was the type to say she never lied and that lying was the worst thing to do to people. She also shrieked and screamed at me, repeatedly, that she "knew" I wanted to have oral and vaginal sex with her. She combined this with sarcastically proclaiming me as if I was some kind of king or noble. This is literally a weaponized form of the Oedipus complex.

So ya, God is dead because otherwise he would have killed me when I asked to be allowed to stop suffering. I have not lived a life free from sin or transgression, but everyone I explain this rust to is impressed I am not dead.

And guess what? The real stormed thing is knowing that I was a lucky one. I had a full stomach when this all happened. I was able to go to my bedroom and pray God to death instead of just having to run out into the woods and never return.

I should add that I was being raised by a single parent when this happened. The sole figure of power and authority, beyond the normal gendered division of the parent into the mother and the father, doing that sort of a thing.

God is not only dead; God is an ideal abuser.
I have seen God and Child; it is Hell.
"I too am the product of eternal love" reads the gate.
And below I inscribe "All mothers love their children." 

I want you to imagine something: Christ on the cross for 40 days and 40 nights.

[NameIess]

21 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

So I finally figured out what my damage is. I picked up The Gospel of Christian Atheism, by Thomas Altizer. Turns out I just managed to get the basic idea of what a Dead God Christian-atheism is like from intuition thanks to having been tortured as a small child (whipped and made to stand on winter-cold concrete because I could not supply desired information) and then subjected to the horrors of something I will spoiler because I think it's probably traumatic to read.

  Reveal hidden contents

My mother was the type to say she never lied and that lying was the worst thing to do to people. She also shrieked and screamed at me, repeatedly, that she "knew" I wanted to have oral and vaginal sex with her. She combined this with sarcastically proclaiming me as if I was some kind of king or noble. This is literally a weaponized form of the Oedipus complex.

So ya, God is dead because otherwise he would have killed me when I asked to be allowed to stop suffering. I have not lived a life free from sin or transgression, but everyone I explain this rust to is impressed I am not dead.

And guess what? The real stormed thing is knowing that I was a lucky one. I had a full stomach when this all happened. I was able to go to my bedroom and pray God to death instead of just having to run out into the woods and never return.

I should add that I was being raised by a single parent when this happened. The sole figure of power and authority, beyond the normal gendered division of the parent into the mother and the father, doing that sort of a thing.

God is not only dead; God is an ideal abuser.
I have seen God and Child; it is Hell.
"I too am the product of eternal love" reads the gate.
And below I inscribe "All mothers love their children." 

I want you to imagine something: Christ on the cross for 40 days and 40 nights.

Do you mean that, because God did not answer your prayers to end the abuse and suffering you were going through by killing you, he is not real/is dead?

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

1 hour ago, NameIess said:

Do you mean that, because God did not answer your prayers to end the abuse and suffering you were going through by killing you, he is not real/is dead?

No, that would be too petty of me. It was the realization that the world is a hideous agony where the abuse I was suffering would make me become a monster who would hurt others, that no amount of will would let me stop this, and that there were people suffering the same abuse but without the meager comforts of a roof over their heads or food in their stomaches which killed God.

He is headless and heartless, if it ever was at all. Unthinking in what it let's be made and uncaring for its creation.

But the image of the heart and head of God is one which licensees abuses that most people assume would just kill them. That there are stories of the creator uncreating its works, and by that example those who create children see themselves as only following the highest example when they do the most hideous ruin to those young ones, this is why I kill God.

I have said elsewhere that Spinoza's God is irrefutable, but that God is no more alive than the dirt on your shoes. It too offers no miracles, no salvation. This is my truth of that encounter: God is at best worthless.

Edited Wednesday at 04:54 PM by ParaTulip

[NameIess]

On 7/1/2026 at 12:35 PM, ParaTulip said:

No, that would be too petty of me. It was the realization that the world is a hideous agony where the abuse I was suffering would make me become a monster who would hurt others, that no amount of will would let me stop this, and that there were people suffering the same abuse but without the meager comforts of a roof over their heads or food in their stomaches which killed God.

He is headless and heartless, if it ever was at all. Unthinking in what it let's be made and uncaring for its creation.

But the image of the heart and head of God is one which licensees abuses that most people assume would just kill them. That there are stories of the creator uncreating its works, and by that example those who create children see themselves as only following the highest example when they do the most hideous ruin to those young ones, this is why I kill God.

I have said elsewhere that Spinoza's God is irrefutable, but that God is no more alive than the dirt on your shoes. It too offers no miracles, no salvation. This is my truth of that encounter: God is at best worthless.

I am sorry that you went through that. Abuse is terrible, and abusing the gospel to justify it is more so.

I have not been abused, really my life has been exceptionally good. But personally I find comfort in knowing a loving God exists who punishes evil, and better yet forgives those who turn to him. A God who will wipe away every tear and right every wrong.

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

5 minutes ago, NameIess said:

I find comfort in knowing a loving God exists who punishes evil, and better yet forgives those who turn to him. A God who will wipe away every tear and right every wrong

I see your self-comforting here in only the darkest of terms. I will not explicate them, since it would offend and insult you.

If I was told I must become a Christian or else the world is doomed, I would demand the right to be a Pelagianist. To suppose the same God who is the Father needed the sacrifice upon the cross to be able to forgive mankind is to suppose the necessity of my abuse by my parents. They felt they needed to do it.

Bad faiths are worse than faithlessness. Do you want to see hell?

[NameIess]

1 hour ago, ParaTulip said:

I see your self-comforting here in only the darkest of terms. I will not explicate them, since it would offend and insult you.

If I was told I must become a Christian or else the world is doomed, I would demand the right to be a Pelagianist. To suppose the same God who is the Father needed the sacrifice upon the cross to be able to forgive mankind is to suppose the necessity of my abuse by my parents. They felt they needed to do it.

Bad faiths are worse than faithlessness. Do you want to see hell?

I would rather know what you think of my beliefs than avoid being offended, so feel free to explicate if you want.

I think it is a fallacy to equate your parent’s ‘need’ to abuse you, a belief that is horribly distorted and wrong even if they genuinely held to it, with the necessity of Jesus’ sacrifice in order to restore mankind to a right relationship with God. God did not feel that he needed Jesus’ sacrifice in order to forgive sins. By His just nature, such sacrifice was needed. By His nature, he made that sacrifice freely.

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

My mother said that her stress would give her ulcers, and thus I had to wish sickness and potential death upon her if I was going to try to stop her abuse. This was simply the nature of things in her world. In your God's world, his sinless son and that son's sinless mother had to suffer immensely, and that was but God's own nature.

To be harsh, I am as one who faces down a machine that kills and kills and kills and tortures and kill with my eyes wide open even when I cannot help stop the machine except by screaming, and you are one who puts a teddy bear over your eyes to avoid seeing the death and mutters. To be cruel, you are like a drug addict who uses endorphins to cut yourself off from the pain of the world while I suffer it so I might try to reason about how to fix it. To be insulting, I think you are willfully ignorant of the true nature of the evil of this world and thus unable to fix it.

See my post in the Atheism thread for my effort to begin to at least try to fix the God problem. I have tried to solve homelessness by giving a home to two people on nearly free conditions, and it drove me insane. I begun to limit the suffering of the planet by trying to eat as little animal flesh as possible. I have only stopped soothing myself by going around and handing out food to the homeless on the streets because one of their number told me a parable about how I might be killed for being unreliable in that mission, and I know I am unreliable.

[SpiritOfWrath he/him]

19 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

My mother said that her stress would give her ulcers, and thus I had to wish sickness and potential death upon her if I was going to try to stop her abuse. This was simply the nature of things in her world. In your God's world, his sinless son and that son's sinless mother had to suffer immensely, and that was but God's own nature.

To be harsh, I am as one who faces down a machine that kills and kills and kills and tortures and kill with my eyes wide open even when I cannot help stop the machine except by screaming, and you are one who puts a teddy bear over your eyes to avoid seeing the death and mutters. To be cruel, you are like a drug addict who uses endorphins to cut yourself off from the pain of the world while I suffer it so I might try to reason about how to fix it. To be insulting, I think you are willfully ignorant of the true nature of the evil of this world and thus unable to fix it.

See my post in the Atheism thread for my effort to begin to at least try to fix the God problem. I have tried to solve homelessness by giving a home to two people on nearly free conditions, and it drove me insane. I begun to limit the suffering of the planet by trying to eat as little animal flesh as possible. I have only stopped soothing myself by going around and handing out food to the homeless on the streets because one of their number told me a parable about how I might be killed for being unreliable in that mission, and I know I am unreliable.

 (This is meant in a way that is as lighthearted as possible in the context… I want to prelude this by saying that none of this is meant to like… put anyone down.)

Everything that was endured by the Son and Mary was willing—additionally, they had continual sources of comfort and support.

(The greatest difference between your examples is self-worth. )

 

But that doesn’t mean that everyone has that support, that is true. Believing in miracles doesn’t mean that I am ignorant to it. It just means that there is a source that I can draw on for comfort. This comfort is not a teddy bear i place over my eyes… it’s a teddy bear I cling to tightly—and one I hope to give other people. Not just the teddy bear, though. I’m not inept.

What bugs me about your argument is that you imply strongly that accepting religion makes one unwilling or unable to help others. If that were true, I might be more open to it. But it’s kinda offensive… 

 

One foundational belief for Christianity is free will. And, when interpreted a few ways, free will can be pretty twisted… but I think that, implied by free will is the harm done to others. “Sin” is only bad if it harms someone. People wouldn’t be imperfect unless they could hurt people. But that’s given too much emphasis, I think, as an argument for religion.

Other people can choose to help with their free will though. In fact—charity, called “the pure love of Christ”, is a cornerstone of Christian beliefs. 
 

To this effect: “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”

 

This is a link to an LDS official addressing familial abuse in a sermon.

Edited 14 hours ago by SpiritOfWrath