Pete

Judaism does not believe in hell. It started with the early Christian church. I believe it was a means to cement the churches control over the faith. Especially with Jesus being a Jew. Judaism was a threat to their control as was Gnosticism. The Popes gave forgiveness and reprieve from going to hell. In a sense they created their very own monster and forgiveness from the sins of straying from the faith and their control. Even if we accept the gospels (which I don't) it is a far cry from the forgiveness brought by Jesus and Jesus being the only intermediary between God and a sinner. It all smacks of church corruption and their grasp of power to themselves.

I know they do not jump over cliffs. Okay, perhaps I should say driving by faith without seeing on the highway ain't a good idea.

Hey Dan, you say you walk by faith and not sight. Is that not what lemmings do.😀 Rhetorical question. I am not interested in the answer.

It's terrible that some will try and justify this.

Interestingly there is a whole lot of dead people that God ordered his followers to kill and looking through Leviticus God again inspired his followers to kill none believers, gays, and those who do not listen to their priests.ect..

The UU has Christian origins in the UK, but today it has many agnostics, atheists and pagan who just enjoy the meeting. The same goes with the Quakers in the UK. I met agnostics, atheists, sufis, hindus, etc. It has Christians who are also liberal. A UU member said Quakers like to met in silence and UUs have attention deficit and have a lively social meeting. UUs have ministers but Quakers say all are ministers and they all pitch in with the running of things.

That is sad. Have they gone Tribal or another forum.

Me too.

I remember a doctor who used to run a group of varing faiths at end of life years. He said it is not for me to convince anyone about his beliefs. The important thing is for them to say what they feel is their beliefs in an area where no one is to argue against it. Therefore the point is listening and facilitating (where possible ) what the person feels they need. This is important to many faiths and none faiths alike. In stating their belief they are reaffirming their own beliefs at a time they will need them. ie end of life years.

They are the ones arguing there God is real therefore it's for them to prove that. I am not arguing because I do not see there is evidence for a God. I cannot provide evidence for an provable God therefore it's back to them. I can judge any evidence they supply as credible or not. For me it would have to be provable by logic or science, or empirical evidence.

All I can say that in my own journey the movement from liberal Christian to agnostic is not sitting on the fence. It was a big leap and a challenge to all I stood on before. It ain't sitting on the fence . It's a position I stand on and defend. Whether it be atheist or believer. That is not sitting on any fence. In my book and like you I do not care what others think about my position. That fence is a wall against all sides except science.

I totally agree. One does not conduct science believing in only one conclusion. One approaches it being open to the findings. I cannot see any reason to believe in an all seeing or caring deity but maybe its possible even though it's very very unlikely that there is one. According to science. It is science that is the key here and a God lies in the area of unlikely, unproven, and no evidence for such a deity.

I really do not like the expression "sitting on the fence" when it comes to agnosticism. I feel it's more like being open to new evidence rather than shutting the door on things. It's an honest position that one can be wrong despite the huge evidence that God cannot be proved and Is not likely to be proved as things stand in this life.

No your not. It is the willingness that some give themselves to such trust in old scripts and religious leaders. It defies logic. Yet, for them logic is not what it is about.

It's the blind unquestioned status religous leaders get that makes feel there are so many dangers in it. I have met people who consider murder just because a piece of script says so. I just feel difficult about the relinquishing of persons responsibility in all this.

If it happened

True, but it ain't just them. It shows how religion can get people to accept the unacceptable. It creates a silence where anger should shown.

Yes the abuse was world wide and they covered it up was terrible. All hiding behind a belief that ministers/church employees were trustworthy and honest. It's that not being able to question for fear they are sinning some how.

I always say the church showed us Hell and killed many doing it. The Church of England (not the only church) often prays for the royal family. I discovered in some larger cathedrals they used to have torture chambers to enforce their will. Most likely tortured Jews and others who they called heretics but most likely just disagreed with them. I fear missionaries went to other countries and taught old school religion but forgot to ask them to question it. Totally brutal. Some ministers want their authority returned. I say look at what happened in Ireland and children's homes and schools in both countries.

Dìtto.

Same here. Our national anthem " is unprovable diety bless a royal leader I do not believe in". Nothing about us plebs. I am not a royalist.

There are also strokes. Letting go the past, a catalyst to change and a social medium in a controlled environment. Some fear social events unless the expectations are pre planned in advance or it has boundaries on what to expect. Others need it because it maybe all that holds them together in what can be a cruel world. It can be the opiate of the people and I believe that is why nations bring it into their institutions. Also opiates can be soothing providing you have safe guards. There use in surgery is essential.

I remember a tutor saying "let us pray" is an invitation to self hypnosis as it makes a person pliable as they switch off and go to an abiance state for the minister to mold.

The question I ask is not what is a persons religion but what does that religion serve cognitively in that person.

So maybe a denial of responsibility by seperating themselves from their actions? A god forgave me so it's not for anyone else to poke beyond that. I know religion often allows a person to move on from previous behaviours. That can be positive or negative if they deny that they ever had responsibility or as you say blame it on a devil or god.