An Excess of…Religion?

Some questions for the faithful: This post is a search for answers to questions that have long bothered me. This is a genuine quest for information. I’m interested in the views of everyone, but especially those who espouse a faith.

Assuming your deity is considered both omnipotent (supremely powerful in every imaginable way) and omniscient (knowing everything there is to know), and wondering why he/she/they/it merits worship if your god isn’t these things, I’d like your answers, please. Whether, and how, you answer is, of course entirely up to you. I’m curious about certain aspects of religion and would appreciate a wide range of views, which you can easily enter in the comments section below.

Some background about me, for your information. Raised in the Church of England Christian protestant tradition, I served time as a choir boy, attended Sunday school, and, for a short time, considered entering the priesthood. A tragedy in my mid-teens caused me to question that faith. As a result, I read a good deal of literature on religion, including the Bible and the Qur’an, both from cover to cover. Later in life, I became a Humanist and member of the Secular Society. So, you know my history. Here are my questions.

  1. Robust scientific exploration proves humanity has existed for at least 200,000 years, and probably much longer. I’m curious about when your god decided to make his/her/their presence known to humanity and why this point in history was chosen. And why were earlier humans completely denied the benefits promised by the knowledge of your god(s)? Also, why was the specific geographical location selected, since these frequently appear to have been places without the means to spread the words of the god in a manner that might be expected to reach the whole of mankind in a reasonable time.

2. Omniscience demands knowledge of everything and spans the past, present and future, so your god must know the consequences of all his/her/their actions and decisions before they’re taken. I wonder, therefore, why all sacred texts that include instructions for followers are open to interpretation, since such freedom of judgement inevitably leads to the divisions evident in all religious groups, frequently causing violence and destruction. Does such ‘freedom’ suggest your god is therefore cruel, indifferent to human suffering, or merely a megalomaniac who enjoys creating chaos?

3. Omnipotence requires the quality of being everywhere at all times, since, regardless of the degree of power, it’s not possible to control events which remain unknown. This means your god is present at all catastrophes, disasters, and tragedies, whether ‘natural’ or man-made. I’m interested in how, or if, you equate the obvious consequences of your god’s inaction in such circumstances to some divine quality and how you would define that characteristic. I also note it’s common for the faithful to praise their god for the good things that occur but that condemnation of the same god for the many bad events is rarely heard. I except, of course, the mercenary condemnation made by insurance companies in their definition of natural disasters as ‘Acts of God’. And I wonder why gods are praised in this way but not held responsible for the bad that occurs in the world they apparently created with full foreknowledge of the outcomes.

4. Most religions stem from ancient times, long before humanity understood the real reasons for natural events. It’s likely many traditions, customs and rites were created by confused and frightened people in the hope of preventing repetition of such events as earthquakes, volcanic activity, floods, droughts, epidemics, food poisoning, etc. Bearing that in mind, is it wise or even necessary to continue such beliefs long after we know how these events occur? A small example would be the prohibition of certain meats in some religions; these are obviously the result of folk knowledge that some foods caused sickness if allowed to remain available long after animals were killed for food, especially in warm climates. Now we can preserve such foods, why is it necessary to continue the prohibitions?

5. God, according to certain religious beliefs, created humanity in his/her/their own image. This belief raises several questions. Humanity, although a single species, has many different faces. Which of these is the image of your god? To create a species as a mirror image suggests a form of vanity on the part of the creator, but it also must be only a partial likeness, since gods are supposed to be perfect in every way, yet humanity suffers all manner of defects, illness, and deficiencies, even from birth. Also, many deities are of a specified gender, which, of course, suggests that chosen gender is considered superior to any other. Why would your god do this, and create an underclass of gender in the process? Is it not more likely your god was invented by humanity in the likeness of those creators?

6. Many stories, traditions, rites, and claims pertaining to gods involve suffering, pain, injustice, exclusivity, arbitrariness, bullying, and cruelty. Can you explain why a deity who created the world and everything in it, and who knows in advance the outcomes of all actions, in certain beliefs actually directing the individual actions of followers, would create such a dreadful place for so many of his/her/their subjects?

I expect many responses I receive to these questions will be based on the sacred texts used by the faithful. But, since these questions relate to the nature of these texts, I want answers that come from the hearts of those who espouse these various faiths. In other words, I’d like you to use your own minds and thoughts to form responses, rather than quote from texts you rely on for your faith. I will, in fact, delete all comments that rely solely on sacred texts. I want your opinions, not those you’ve been taught by your religious leaders. Thank you.

41 thoughts on “An Excess of…Religion?

  1. Love these questions! Too often the “religious” shy away from asking questions because they either fear the answers that have potential to contradict what they believe, or they see questioning as a lack of faith. But questions lead to understanding (or more questions sometimes) because they force you to actually think and seek out the pieces of the puzzle in order to form the picture.

    To give some background to my beliefs, I grew up in Evangelical Christian churches my whole life as a pastor’s kid. I was one of those who claimed they believed but in reality I was more concerned with everything else in life and didn’t really put much thought into faith or religion. In college, I realized the lack of sincerity in what I was claiming to believe, and I began a journey of asking questions and seeking answers that I am still on, cause a lot of the answers to those questions led to more questions, which is a very healthy thing in my opinion. Through this process I have come to find that a lot of the answers are contrary to what many Christians have believed and taught for years, which is what happens when we get too caught up in individual interpretation.

    Which on that note, I have my answer for your 2nd question. I believe that the idea of the sacred texts (in this case, the Bible) being open to individual interpretation is an inaccurate idea. Quite honestly, I think people started teaching this in order to justify the differing “opinions” of Scripture, which would then allow for the justification of their actions without the accountability for their actions. This inaccurate idea that the Bible is open to an individuals interpretation is the reason why we have so much division in the Christian realm, and why the world laughs at even the thought of Christianity. And honestly, I can’t say that I blame them for laughing, cause we have created quite the WWE match for people. There are certain parts of the Scriptures that speak into specific situations and seasons, but not every season is the same and not every situation will look the same. But the practical application remains the same throughout every situation. Now I also realize that this idea makes it sound very much like a cult type religion, and there are many people who would (and have done so) seek to abuse this idea.

    For the sake of not writing a book in a comment, I will hold off on writing about the other questions just yet, but will come back around to them later.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. But the Bible, Brandon, is a collection of stories told over a number of centuries, some of them originating in the myths and legends of former cultures. Almost every religion and culture has a creation myth and these vary enormously, and most have a flood myth, many far older than the words in the Bible. In the New Testament, the four gospels contain different accounts, and the letters from St Paul are a cause of misogyny. And, if we look at Leviticus, there are statements that are clearly quite lunatic. Justification is given for the killing of innocents, people who have no connection to the so-called sins apparently being punished (the story of Sodom is a case in point – why are the children also destroyed?).
      It’s clear on reading the text that the Bible is a hotpotch, and, in any case, as more recent finds among the Dead Sea scrolls, and others discovered in the region, the selection of what to include was made at a specific point in history, by a collection of men who clearly had their own agenda, which has very little to do with the god they purport to worship.
      And the whole idea of the Eve myth is an example of appalling misogyny, clearly created so that men could claim justification in subjecting women to a lesser role in life. No deity worthy of the name would subject an entire gender to suffering because of the curiosity of one woman. It makes no logical sense at all.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. But what you see as myth, some (including myself) see as truth. Which many historians who do not claim to be believers have also attested to the historical accuracy of the Scriptures. The Bible itself has been proven to be one of the most historically accurate texts.

        In regards to the four gospels and the “discrepancies” between the accounts, I’ll pose this question: In a court case, when hearing the accounts given by the witnesses of what happened, would you be more prone to believe the stories of all of them if every single detail was the same, or would it sound more like the stories were fabricated because every detail was exactly the same? When reading the gospels, people have to realize that out of the four authors, two of them walked side by side with Jesus for the entirety of His ministry. These two being Matthew (the tax collector) and John the Beloved. Both of these men take two different approaches in their accounts because they both have different perspectives. In the cases of Mark and Luke, they both conducted investigative journalism to acquire their information. They may have talked to the same witnesses, while also talking to separate witnesses, so it is expected that there would be differences in certain details of the same story. We see the same in our news stations and newspapers (are those still in circulation?) in the world today. Though they may be reporting on the same exact story, one journalist may have found out more information than the rest. Without that, though, they each have different styles of writing, which will also lead to there being differences in the stories. These truths hold true for the writers of the four gospels.

        I won’t deny that the book of Leviticus is strange. Not to mention also very difficult to read. But most (if not all) of what the Lord was instructing the people of Israel to do was to protect them from wandering off into the other religions of the time. And they had also just come out of Egypt as well after having spent 400 years in slavery in that land. After 400 years in a foreign land, you start to pick up their practices, and their gods start to mix with your own. The Lord had to break them away from this, because He doesn’t share His glory with any other gods (idols).

        As for the misogyny that so many (even within the collective body of believers) are so quick to point out, a lot of context is left out this conversation for the sake of making it sound extreme. For Paul and what he had to say (I’m assuming you are referring to when he says that the women must cover their heads and remain silent), he was addressing a very specific situation that was happening in that specific church at that specific time in history. With the things he was saying, we also have to keep in mind that the culture of society at that times was very different from our current culture in society. And what so many forget to take into consideration with Paul and the things he wrote in his letters, there many women that Paul makes mention of in his letters. Paul also tells Timothy to look after widows and orphans. To take care of them. This same Paul also tells husbands to respect their wives and to treat them with the same love and care that Christ shows to the Church. So when we take all of the pieces of what Paul has to say about women and we put them together, does he really have a tone of disrespect or prejudice against women?

        On the same note, their is also an extremely important part of the story with Eve and the fruit that so many intentionally leave out. Adam was standing right there with Eve throughout the entire encounter with the serpent (no matter how crazy you think the story as whole is). Adam had EVERY opportunity to stop her and put an end to the encounter. But he remained silent, and he himself ate the fruit right after she did. So the question is, who bears more responsibility in the situation? The one who ate the fruit, or the one who stood right there and did nothing?

        Sodom and Gomorrah, that involved the young and the old, as the scriptures say, so the children were not as innocent as people would like to think. Granted, they were probably doing what they had been taught to do by their elders, but in a court of law, that argument wouldn’t change the fact that they still committed the act.

        Now, the argument that I even hear supposed believers make – this idea that somehow the Bible can’t be trusted because of man’s influence on it and the inclusion of only specific texts. You will probably think that I sound like a brain-washed lunatic (I’ve been called worse), but God allowed this event to happen. You don’t think His hand was in the entire thing? All throughout history we have accounts of God using kings that were labeled as evil to accomplish a greater purpose. King Nebuchadnezzar for example. Or Pharaoh in the story of the Israelites. God used both of these rulers in the midst of something that seemed evil to accomplish and display His power and His glory. Quite interesting to me is the fact that, in the midst of this conversation of questioning the authenticity and reliability of the Scriptures, you reference the Dead Sea Scrolls which are documents that are referenced and quoted all throughout the Bible (especially the New Testament). Also the book of Enoch is one that Jesus Himself quoted a few times.


        1. Whilst it’s the case that certain parts of the Bible can be read as history, most are really justifications for acts of violence in the hope that the gullible will blame god for the violent and unjust acts of men.
          You miss the whole point about sacred texts being the word of god. If, as you say, god was aware of the outcome of misinterpretations, which of course, as an omniscient power he would have to be, then what you’re actually saying is that this deity, who created all living things, knowingly sowed seeds of doubt, fully aware of the outcomes, causing the conflicts that resulted in deaths among the creatures he is supposed to have created. At the very least that depicts your god as unjust, divisive, uncaring, and downright cruel.
          There is also the problem of god having a gender: he is described by most religions as a male, in spite of the fact that he clearly understood the need for genders bearing in mind all the two gender creatures he supposedly created. If god is a man, then there must be a Mrs god; that’s the way nature works.
          It is abundantly clear from the language and content of most religious texts that they were the works of man. Gods have always been created by humanity – just look at the pantheons of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Indian, etc.
          It is also noteworthy that followers of most gods seem to believe their god needs to be defended from the acts and opinions of those who disagree with the many interpretations of the words in religious texts. If such a need exists, then that god fails the test of omnipotence: after all, what has an omnipotent god to fear from mere humanity?
          The Dead Sea scrolls I mentioned are those discovered recently, which had no influence on what earlier followers decided to put into their bible. If these contain further words of god, why did he allow them to be lost?
          Either your god is omnipotent and omniscient and therefore knows everything there is to know, past, present and future, and has the power to alter what fails to please him, or he is not omniscient and omnipotent, in which case I fail to see how he can be considered a god.


          1. Your line of reasoning is missing very important components: The freewill of mankind, and the existence of evil.

            God created mankind with the will to freely choose the path they carve. Hence why evil and sin entered into the world in the first place. This is also the reason why God doesn’t force humans to take a specific route, He allows them to choose for themselves. What makes the God of the Bible different from all other religions is that He is a relational God. He wants us to choose Him, just like He chooses us. And how can one choose unless there are multiple choices? He absolutely knew before He even spoke the world into existence how all events would play out, but He is not a dictator.

            As far as defending God, who is defending Him? I also wonder why, if you seem so sure that no gods exist, why the need to pose questions that you already have predetermined answers for? For both of us, it is more about defending where our faith has been put, and less about defending the god (or lack of) we believe in.

            Now as for blaming God, who blames Him? I certainly don’t. Did He command the people of Israel to drive out the pagan nations? Yeah, He did. But He is sovereign over all, and He has the right to do that. One person’s lack of belief doesn’t negate His sovereignty as Creator. But more than that, He is a God who keeps His promises to His people. Long before the Israelites drove out the people who inhabited the land of Canaan, God made a promise to man named Abram (Abraham). Abraham believed and trusted God’s promises, though he had no idea how they would come to pass.

            Now as for this conversation as a whole, one side is based solely on human reasoning, while the other is not. Which takes me back to my previous question: why even ask questions if you have already predetermined the answers in your mind? Doesn’t that close you off from learning?


            1. The reason I’m asking these questions, Brandon, is that I find it incomprehensible that any intelligent person, given the basic lack of logic, consistency and moral compass displayed by religious texts, believes in any of it. I am curious about why such beliefs have held people in thrall for so many centuries.
              As for Abraham; I have no time at all for any parent who would subject their child to such terror as the pretend sacrifice, and the same goes for a god who would demand such action. It shows a callousness that has been echoed through history and is probably responsible for much of the violence that exists.
              And why would your god, who supposedly created all life, show preference for one tribe of primitives over another? And, if he truly understood the consequences of his actions and his words, I repeat, he must be truly cruel. We don’t need to invent evil as a human creation when your creator demonstrates such evil frequently. The flood? All of humanity has to be drowned because a few of them disobeyed the vain creature who claims to have created them in his own image. Now, there’s a truly disturbed mind at play.
              I’m sorry, but there are so many holes in the arguments in support of a god that I cannot believe in such a creature, and I certainly wouldn’t voluntarily worship such an evil, cruel, unjust, divisive deity.
              And you still haven’t explained why it’s necessary for this being to have a gender and render one half of humanity as second class.


              1. I have intentionally not answered the question concerning the gender of God because, even someone did explain it to you, I’m not sure you would understand given the lack of understanding on simpler faucets in this conversation. It is clear that your ideas of God in the context of our conversation are rooted in only a small part of the bigger picture of who He is, which saddens me because there is so much more to be discovered!

                All in all though, the conversation was a good one, and I think it is a healthy thing to have conversations that involve opposing views.


                1. That’s an interesting insight, Brandon. Your entire support has come from a single, Christian, point of view. My own embraces the pantheons on ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt, the multitude of Hindu deities, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, the hundreds of different Christian sects, many of the African and South American deities. I’m not sure how you expect me to have a wider view of the topic. Interestingly, many of the other deities also have genders – many of them female, others hermaphroditic.
                  Clearly, when I mentioned the defence of god, you didn’t recognise this as a reference to the appalling aspect of religion that allows blasphemy to be seen as a capital crime. I can think of no other aspect of life where mere opinion can create a death sentence for the person who employs thought as opposed to blind adherence to any one of thousands of myths.
                  As is so often the case with believers, your entire view is predicated in your belief, giving you no apparent way to consider all the many arguments against such a narrow view of the subject. I must assume that your indoctrination by whatever sect raised and schooled you has been so thorough that the very idea of questioning the ides on which it is based is not only difficult for you, but actually impossible.
                  Discussion of the topic is not only good but essential. The world is a small place with many differing populations and we are rapidly reaching a point where war is almost inevitable (by the end of the decade 3 billion people worldwide will be without sufficient fresh water to drink or to grow food crops), the likely outcome of that is global war, much of which will be based on religious grounds. That situation is the main reason I opened this discussion: to illustrate the divisive nature of religion and open currently blind eyes to its destructive power.


                  1. Whatever you were trying to convey in mentioning the defence of God wasn’t recognized because God needs no defence. Blasphemy isn’t about defending God, but defending truth, and even then it is only those who claim to be part of the body of believers who are held accountable by other believers for their blasphemy. When it comes to truth, mere opinion never holds any ground.

                    Now as for where my support comes from, I speak out of my own life experiences in being a follower of Christ. What I believe and what I speak is more than just simply words on a page. It is a way of life for me. And for the very bad assumption that I have been indoctrinated by a sect and don’t ever question what it is that I believe, you don’t know anything about me beyond this conversation. Yes, many in the Christian realm are like that. But not all are. And not only have I asked questions and sought answers, but I have also in deathly studied other religions. The most prominent being Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions and deities. In fact, I find aspects of other religions and belief systems to be quite fascinating, especially in helping to understand certain cultures. So again, very bad assumption.

                    Now as for “blind adherence,” are not all forms of belief blind to an extent? Even for those who believe in science as the final authority. Science can only reveal so much at a time, and even then all science is rooted in mere ideas until proven to be true or false. Even then, how do you know you can actually trust the findings fully? For example, the theory of evolution. It is taught as factual science, but the title itself says it is still merely a theory. Yet many people blindly believe in it without having the substantial proof to say it us fact. Even those who believe in nothing are believing it blindly. But in ever instance, we have still put our faith in something. Life is a race that we all run with only part of the knowledge of what lies around the bend in the road. I think 2020 was the perfect example of that. No matter how much knowledge we think we have, we still have a blindness that we can do nothing about.


                    1. Blasphemy is defined as ‘ Profane talk of something supposed to be sacred; impious irreverence.’ And there are countries where nonbelievers are routinely executed for committing this ‘crime’. I rest my case.
                      Your entire argument has been based on the Christian point of view, so how else am I expected to determine your sources of argument and thought? There has been no apparent input from any other source.
                      Yes, all forms of faith are blind. Science is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of looking at evidence and determining what that evidence conveys. You complain that the ‘theory of evolution’ is only a theory. It is clear you have no real understanding of what is meant by a scientific theory. When any matter is initially investigated and results obtained, any initial ideas on the outcome are considered an hypothesis. Only after peer review and further investigation of the matter are the ideas elevated to the level of a ‘theory’. And, yes, theories are open to potential challenge, change and modification as further evidence becomes available. The whole point about science is that nothing is ‘fixed’, uncertainty is understood. But everything is based on evidence, the evidence available at the time of the engagement with the subject.
                      Religion requires its followers to blindly follow the sayings, commands, and stories of, usually, dead old men, and or traditions lost in the annals of time. There is no evidence to support the claims of religion. There are so many gods that it’s impossible to determine which of the multitude is the real one, if, indeed any of them fulfil that role, which is unlikely. Many gods, and especially that of the Abrahamic trio, are cruel, inconsistent, unjust, arbitrary, and divisive. In any analysis they come across as monsters rather than good powers. And, studying any of the many thousands of sects results in the inevitable realisation that cruel men worship a cruel god, tribally exclusive people worship a tribally exclusive god, selfish people worship a selfish god, vain people worship a vain god. In other words, it’s patently clear that gods are created by humanity in their own image, not the other way round.


  2. Pingback: An Excess of…Religion? – Hansell el hermano de Gretel!

  3. Hola Stuartaken!

    Arigato for your writing and Arigato for your quested. My name is Hansell and i have more questions that answers. I write as Hansell Gretel’s brother in The other day I wrote this:

    For the LinkedIn community. If you have a friend who can translate (or maybe you know Spanish); this are other writing that you may enjoy…

    I will do my best to add value to your question but remember:

    I can only show the door!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you, Hansell. I speak no Spanish (I’m English, and therefore naturally expect everyone in the world to speak my language 🙂 We are notoriously monolingual on this island. I usually attempt to learn a little of the language when I intend to travel overseas (Greece, France, Germany, Italy), but it’s only the polite stuff.
      I couldn’t find a Spanish/English translation for ‘Arigato’.
      Your piece on ‘Can we be happy without a god…’ I found interesting. I’m also a non-believer, of course. My attitude to whether there is a god is as follows: We can never know whether or not any god exists, since any power or force capable of designing and creating everything we understand to exist must be so far beyond our understanding as to be incomprehensible.
      Of course, most religions depend upon an intermediary between the worshipper and the worshipped. The head honchos in that role are the ‘prophets’ or ‘holy men’, and almost without exception their good intentions have been distorted by those who followed them, often for their own benefit or so these followers can gain power over others who come later.
      I hope you’re able to understand my words here. As a writer of fiction, I sometimes tend to use language that is less easily understood, even by English speakers! A love of words, when combined with imagination, can be a dangerous thing.


  4. So beautiful article 🌷🙏♥️👌 I born Hindu family and brought up our religion
    Hindu Gods praying in Temples 👏🌷But from studying time my friends Christen
    Girls, Muslim girls and jine Buddha worshiping girls we grown up and we very happy and we respect all religions , we School going time Church see and we
    Pray two hands together and same Mosque and Buddha Vihara also prayed🙏🌷
    Then my marriage happened Muslim country Malaysia and we can pray our
    Wish and all religious festivals we celebrating here also 🌷🙏🌷I’m trusting
    that what my life happening and The Ultimate God with me and giving grace wishes 🌷🙏♥️🌷 Thank you for this lovely topic 🙏😊

    Liked by 1 person

    1. An interesting response, Thattamma. Although it answers none of my questions, you do seem to be making the point that, in your experience, some religions can live side by side without conflict, and I’m glad for you that such has been your experience. However, it must not be forgotten that the partition of India and Pakistan was largely due to hostility between the Muslim and Hindu sects, and that violence still occurs between these two groups.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Religious violence is only possible because those with a faith fail to prevent it. In fact, the faithful give a sort of legitimacy to the extremists by practicing their beliefs. Many very good people naively remain unaware that their espousal of a religion is a factor in the continuation of extreme religious groups, unfortunately.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Great questions, Stuart. I doubt you’ll find many willing or able to explain their answers to these questions. After all, they are basically being told what to think. These answers would require a great deal of thought. In my opinion, most people don’t want to think so they turn to a religion to do the thinking for them.
    Sherrie Miranda’s “Crimes & Impunity in New Orleans” follows the dramatic story of naive, sheltered Shelly going to “The Big Easy” to prepare for El Salvador, but has no idea she will encounter sexism and witness racism as well as illegal activities by government agents.
    Author, Sherrie Miranda’s husband made the trailer for “Crimes & Impunity in New Orleans.” He wrote the music too.

    Review: Shelly’s journey in “the city that care forgot.”Sherrie Miranda’s new novel “Crimes and Impunity in New Orleans” puts the reader into a whirlwind of political protests, abusive police, sexist attitudes towards women, and “good old boys” racism in 1980’s New Orleans. Miranda’s second novel follows Shelly, the young northerner, as she quickly finds out that she “isn’t in Kansas anymore” while encountering a slew of picturesque, colorful characters. Reading her book makes you wonder if justice and respect for blacks, immigrants, and women can be reality in America.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Unfortunately, I agree with you about religious people being unwilling to think for themselves, Sherrie. Also, many are indoctrinated from birth so thoroughly it’s almost impossible for them to escape from the myths, legends and lies that drive them to worship. (See my response to Lynette below).
      Another aspect of such religious indoctrination is the frequent fear element: Hell (and its fellow sites of punishment) was invented to strike fear into the hearts of believers so they would obey what are, let’s face it, some pretty bizarre and often conflicting rules of behaviour. Religion is largely a control mechanism, but those under its control mostly fail to recognise this and continue as its slaves, often willing slaves, regardless of the reality of their lives and those of others damaged by other sects with equal claims to false orthodoxy they use to legitimise their existence.
      And, of course, the Eve myth, espoused by the Abrahamic religions, is the root cause of misogyny and the suffering of women as so-called sinners and second class humans. An appalling injustice to half the human population and one that does our species no good and great deal of harm.


  6. Anonymous

    Good, sincere questions. We see the past as done. My thoughts on this is that God sees the future with the same clarity, not to change it, so much as see it. I’m sure He would have us choose right, but in our free will we screw up continually. He gives us His word to show the right way, but after that we choose how to respond and how to live. Ultimately, it is how humanity reacts to these instructions that seems to be the problem, not God.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I understand your reply, Anonymous, but it misses a crucial point about your god. He, for some inexplicable reason it tends to be a he, is supposed to be omniscient. That means he has the ability to know everything about the past, present and the future. With that knowledge, his reported words in the so-called sacred texts would need to be explicit and not open to interpretation if he was expecting humanity to follow his commands. However, the very fact that they are, without exception open to wide interpretation, means either your god is not omniscient (in which case, he cannot be properly identified as a god) or he is deliberately cruel and encourages division among those who wish to follow those commands. Those divisions are responsible for many wars between differing sects and factions, and your god, if he is omniscient, must have known this at the outset. His actions can only therefore be determined as deliberate; in other words a deliberate action designed to cause conflict among the very people he has encouraged to follow his unclear advice and commands. If that’s a god, I have no wish to follow such an unpleasant creature.


      1. Sad, but true, Stuart.
        I do believe that Christ (who I do believe existed tho not in the way most Christians view him) had a love & appreciation of women that is NOT in the Bible.
        Dan Brown got much of his knowledge of Christ from a scholar. I wish I had written down his name, but I saw an interview with him. He does believe that Mary Magdalena was Christ’s wife & considered her his equal.
        Sad that the church had to make us 2nd class citizens in order to keep their hold on the men & put women in a place of subservience. Of course, this is done for many men too. Somehow, it has been forgotten about us being made in the image of God and that Christ actually said we are ALL sons & daughters of God.
        The other thing Christians ignore is the fact that neither God, not Christ wrote the Bible.
        Peace, love & justice for all to anyone reading this.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I suspect that much of what has been written about Christ must be speculation, some of it based on the unpublished ‘gospels’ found among the Dead Sea scrolls and other recently discovered documents of the time. Many of these are fragments and scholars put their own interpretations upon the wide gaps in the knowledge they contain. The idea of Christ being married to Mar Magdalene and considering her his equal has been around for a while, but how true it is we’ll probably never know. The man himself comes across as a caring and warm individual with an understandable anger and frustration about the customs, habits and attitudes of his times. A man who, like so many of the so-called prophets, has been used and abused by followers with their own motives and aims to support their own ideas and theories. He lived in turbulent times and much of the history of the period he lived in has been either distorted or destroyed.
          As for the idea that he or any god had anything to do with any of the religious texts currently extant, well, that’s the whole purpose of this post, Sherrie; the clear falsehood that any of the so-called sacred texts have anything at all to do with any deity.


  7. Will you receive many responses? I doubt that there are many who would try to argue from the heart instead of from the religious text … if they have read it. In my experience, many of the people who say they believe in whatever religion haven’t read the texts associated with it. They just believe because they were raised that way and have decided not to question it.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. To be honest, Lynette, I hoped for rather than expected responses. In the past, I’ve posed similar questions on different parts of the social media. Generally, there’s either been no response or a series of answers entirely based on the ‘sacred’ texts I was questioning – specious answers, of course.
      The problem basically lies with education systems that permit religions to either run or influence schools. Children are then indoctrinated into the beliefs held by those religious people who raise/teach them. The Jesuits, a fairly extreme Catholic sect have a saying, ‘Give me a child until he is seven, and he’s mine for life.’, a saying they appear to be proud of without ever realising they are merely drowning the children in their care in the same superstitions they themselves have been drowned in. So sad.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, I’m familiar with that saying. It seems that (here in Canada, anyway) more and more people are leaving religion behind, but the ones who are sticking to it are really sticking. Often they are fundamentalist bible-thumpers who are totally indoctrinated and brain-washed. A real divide is evident; so far the numbers seem very weighted against this weird group who are also anti-vaccine and believers in all kinds of misinformation and lies, but I worry about all the horseshit we’re exposed to from the US. Our proximity and interconnectedness makes us vulnerable.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yes, your closeness to the US must be a constant cause of concern, Lynette. I fear the ‘American Dream’ is actually a nightmare for the world, with its concentration on consumerism and love of the dollar. The quick fix and the quick buck bring with them the excesses of consumerism and concentration on profit that has driven the current climate crisis. Let’s hope Canada can continue to resist the superficial gloss that makes the US way seem so attractive to so many.
          The indoctrinated are largely frightened individuals who have been steeped in superstition and soaked in falsehood as truth to such an extent it is very difficult for them to escape their past. It takes courage and the ability to ask crucial questions to escape the quagmire of brain-washing, and so few who have been subjected to such torture have the necessary bravery to defy it.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. That notion of “freedom” to pursue money is also related to the religious (“man” has control over the world) dominance to be found in US. The American Dream is, of course, nothing more than a dream (actually, it’s more like a delusion). I hope we can stand up to it all.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Spot on, Lynette. And that ‘American Dream’ always only applied to the already wealthy, and is a way of recruiting consumers to spend their hard-earned money on often worthless crap.

              Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.