And people wonder why I have a hard time believing Christianity

I hope this happens to all Abrahamic religions. Scratch that, I hope it happens to all organized religion. It had its place in the development of human society, but we are past the point of needing angry sky-man to scare us into being nice to each other. It's possible to teach kids to have a moral compass without fear of divine retribution.

have a moral compass without fear of divine retribution.
plus, how good is someone, really, if the only reason they're behaving is out of fear of punishment or hope for reward?
- Good enough for civilized society.
  
  sure, until they aren't
  yes, non-religious people are bad too, but if religion is supposed to "make people good," and has such high rate of failure, then what is it for?
  
  Same as any laws, the main goal is control. Whether for good, profit or anything else, it depends on who's in control and their motives.
  
  i agree. everything is about control (which money buys).
  i'll even do you one better and voice my own controversial opinion: even the concept of monogamy and marriage was invented to control the commoner. can't have just anyone running around with 50 kids and 300 grandkids, all loyal to their patriarch unto death, presenting a threat to the power of the tribe's chieftain
  
  I disagree on that. Monogamy was invented by rich people to secure inheritance rights.
  
  I think monogamy was invented by men to control women and to validate their claims of owning land and space that actually belongs to a community.
  Women tend to do really well in open nonmonogamy and men sometimes not as good. Like in modern times, think of an orgy - women are usually at the center of these and men at the outskirts. If every man agrees to just take 1 woman, then that's a good deal for men. But maybe not what women naturally want. So we compel women's behavior by withholding capital and needs from them and their children unless they comply.
  Eventually over time, this lead to what you're talking about - the wealthy and inheritance rights. But I think monogamy came before that and actually caused it. (Which is why full service sex work is illegal/taboo and why it threatens capitalism and the patriarchy itself). I think marriage is a form of soft slavery for women and has been for thousands of years.
  
  Different ages had different reasons, but in general women indeed weren't seen as equals.
  Also let's not forget that having multiple wives or concubines was quite popular in parts of the world not Europe and still is for some.
  Despite the commodification of women having a long and constant history, I can't help but doubt monogamy's exact role in it.
  The European modern marriage is still only some centuries old. If i recall the story right, it began with merchant houses trading daughters and signing it as contract on paper/leather. And slowly evolved from there.
  The peasantry was far more fluid in their cohabitation arrangements and feuding families needed workers/warriors, so back then there was little time for pleasure and was more a matter of survival.
  I believe it was the church that eventually shackled the peasantry in monogamous relationships, for control, puritanism, to attack the nobility or whatever other reasons.
  So I don't see monogamy as a direct assault on women, but rather a welcomed side effect by those who implemented it for other selfish reasons.
  
  inheritance rights.
  so..control. yep.
  
  But this was more against each other than against the lower class.
I believe it will, as you can see accross the world that eternalism is crushed beneath the weight of high quality education, delivered on mass.
The problem is, capitalists love what Christianity metastasised into.
If anyone want to see the effect modern Christianity has on people, you won't have to look further than the west indies, during the abolition of slavery in the British empire.
Obviously, they wouldn't let aboloshionists anywhere near the slave plantations of the west indies. However, the slavers would allow missionaries. The rational from the missionaries being that once the people kept as slaves became Christian, the slavers would have no option but to let their fellow Christians go.
However, the enslaved converts didn't go to the slavers, demanding their freedom. Bizarrely, vast numbers of them seem to conclude "oh well, as this is only temporary and I'll have the rest of eternity to enjoy, there's no need to rock to boat here. So, I'll settle down and be the best slave I can be, in service to God."
Crazy huh?
When we think of the vast differences in the world religions, you can only imagine how fortunate the rich and powerful must have felt when that specific version of that one specific religion became the biggest on the planet. They must have thanked their lucky stars when they found that out.
The purpose of Abrahamic religions is to convince people to become soldiers. Hence the legend of Abraham itself that these religions are named after - it's a message to parents to sacrifice their children to war if needed. The entire thing is to groom us into a society with soldiers and babymakers.

I was rewatching Community again and got to the Starburns funeral episode. Basically, the study group manages to start a riot and destroy the school, yada yada yada.

Anyway, prior to the riot, each one in the study group is asked to say some words about Starburns, and they end up trash talking the school. We get to the Christian mom of the group Shirley.

When asking her to come up to say her piece, the Dean says something along the lines of "What about you, Shirley? I think we can all use a little bit of Jesus during this time."

Now I've seen this episode....countless times and I highly doubt that Dan Harmon actually meant this to be a critique of religion but it was the first time it really hit me that this must have been how kings and dictators use religion to placate society. How useful it would have been to use an invisible, all knowing, all powerful god.

The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.
-Edward Gibbon
TL;DR: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
~~Lucius Annaeus Seneca~~
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
-Napoleon Bonaparte
The institution of religion exists only to keep mankind in order, and to make men merit the goodness of God by their virtue. Everything in a religion which does not tend towards this goal must be considered foreign or dangerous.
-Voltaire
- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. -Lucius Annaeus Seneca
  That one's by Edward Gibbon, in reference to the Roman Empire. Seneca is a common misattribution.
  
  ah, thanks!

I grew up Christian and I still find myself occasionally praying and wishing I still had faith... But it just doesn't seem to add up. If religion was real, why is there zero evidence of anything divine? If Christians are full of God's holy spirit then why are they so hateful and ignorant? Millions of German Christians cheered for the Nazis and now they are doing the same for the Republican fascism.

- The atmosphere is gay! Look at all the rainbows even in a sunrise and sunset rainbows everywhere!!!!!111
Divinity might still exist. Also it's we who might be self-inflating our importance to it.
Bigass universe out there, trillions of known galaxies and less than a universal second since we gained consciousness.
It's like a culture of microbes in between your ass cheeks yelling at what they consider to be the sky because you're not paying attention to them. Make the ass itch though and someone might just scratch it.
- It’s like a culture of microbes in between your ass cheeks yelling at what they consider to be the sky because you’re not paying attention to them. Make the ass itch though and someone might just scratch it.
  LOL so earth is the anus of the universe, and humans are the microbes making it itch
  that tracks

I'm sorry that you were raised Catholic.

There shouldn't be a marriage of church and state, with that said, there are sects of Christianity that actually follow Christ's teachings and not the myriad laws and interpretations added over the ages though they are rare.

there are sects of Christianity that actually follow Christ’s teachings
ok. 'original sin' is bullshit too. the thing is, you CAN be a good person without any of the supernatural stuff about "you must believe if you don't want to go to hell"
also, please name a sect of christianity for which one of the MAIN duties of the "good christian" is not to convert the world to christianity?
- Greek Orthodoxy, Ethiopian Orthodoxy as well as the Coptic Christians
  Much higher emphasis on taking care of people and being a caring person.
  
  Not sure that's true. Christianity is pretty inherently evangelical. That's one of the big reasons why it spread so far.
  
  If you want to have a historical discussion about this I would be more than open to that. I have spent many years studying abrahamic religions. The three sects of Christianity that I have mentioned are all prior to romanization of the church. The Catholic church is the foundation of almost all sects of Christianity, but the Catholic church is itself a splinter group from the original church that was a sect people who still thought of themselves as Jews and were not very open to outsiders. See the whole Jew versus gentile discussion in Acts. But the long of the short is that the Roman Catholic Church did not become a thing until roughly 200AD. And it was only after that point that it became the monster from the meme. Prior to that it was the religion of the poor and downtrodden because it promised a better life after you died. Which was in direct contrast to the Roman religions where you had to pay in to get to heaven.
  
  Which was in direct contrast to the Roman religions where you had to pay in to get to heaven.
  I'm about to go to sleep, but that's not even close to correct.
  
  Source?
  The early Church would be gathering in people's private houses and back rooms with no admission fee and food and drink would be freely sheared in common.
  For most popular religions such as the cult of Mars or Jupiter or even Judasim you were required to either give to the temple or provide sacrifices to the temple sacrifices are not cheap.
  
  Goddammit. I'll elaborate when I wake up, but:
  Roman religion did not have a clear or consistent view of the afterlife, much less a specific heaven. Everything from reincarnation, to lingering as a spirit, to oneness with divinity, to one common afterlife, to multiple places of the afterlife (Elysium/Asphodel Fields/Taratarus) was floated, and none of the views predominated, much less agreement on HOW one was sorted.
  Sacrifices were very often done on behalf of the community, not as an individual matter, unlike "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and savior". Religion was a public affair, not a private and spiritual one, some eclectic cults and philosophies aside.
  Both individual and communal sacrifices were done to gain the favor of the gods for undertakings in the world of the living, not to curry favor for the afterlife
  Mars and Jupiter were part of the Roman pantheon, and insofar as there were cults to them, they would not and should not be regarded as separate religions or sects
  Christianity, and yes, this includes early Christianity, was very big on individuals giving up their worldly possessions to the Christian community.
  Sacrifices and feasts were provided by most pagan religions to their communities. Christianity is not special in that regard.
  
  You two seem to be talking past each other. They're merely saying history is complicated, and it is. There were far more peaceful Christian sects back in the day for the simple fact that there were A LOT more sects. Including ones that thought God was the bad diety.
  They are correct in that many sects did not preach outreach and indoctrination, and you are correct in that most modern Christian sects are the dumbasses who did a lot of culling in addition to their "outreach".
  
  You two seem to be talking past each other. They’re merely saying history is complicated, and it is.
  My main objection - and, in fact, in the original comment, my ONLY objection - was to their characterization of Roman religion.
  There were far more peaceful Christian sects back in the day for the simple fact that there were A LOT more sects.
  I'm not discussing 'peaceful'. That was never on the board. I've not stated any position on whether Christianity, in part or whole, is peaceful. Evangelism means 'actively seeking converts'.
  Including ones that thought God was the bad diety.
  There's debate as to whether gnostics should be considered, in historical context, Christians.
  Gnostics have not had a significant influence on the history of Christianity.
  Gnostics still very much believed in proselytization.
  They are correct in that many sects did not preach outreach and indoctrination,
  Which ones? The Orthodox Churches, despite the other commenters claims, are far from opposed to outreach and indoctrination. The Coptic Church is only hesitant about outreach because of religious oppression in Egypt, not because of a theological difference.
  
  Thank you for summarizing my thoughts
  
  wow, ok THREE even. do you belong to one of those sects?
  
  Show me on the crucifix where the Catholics touched you. Greek Orthodox
  
  LOL i was never catholic, i couldn't care less if you think your sect is superior to another-- it's ALL make-believe. santa claus for "grown-ups"
  and you haven't yet addressed the core belief of original sin, which honestly, pounding that crap into kids' heads is child abuse if you ask me. here you are, a grown ass adult, genuinely believing that because you were born human, you and everyone else is paying the price for an equally make-believe storybook character's egregious crime of eating "forbidden fruit"
  sure "it's allegory," whatever. the fall of man has to do with knowledge, somehow.
  i really don't care about the details, because it's all bullshit anyway. and there's always someone there to preach about it. thank you for illustrating that point
  
  Maybe you should have phrased it differently then because I didn't disagree when you said original sin is bullshit. Adam and Eve sined. That was their issue. You live your own separate life
  Original sin is a Catholic teaching. So which flavor of Catholic are you? Were you a Methodist? A calvinist a Lutheran, a Baptist, a born-again or just generic American ist
  
  and yet, because we are descended from that "original sin," we are subject to "sinful tendencies." whether our "sin" is an effect or a cause doesn't matter if sin itself is bullshit. which it is.
  
  Again your Catholicism is showing. We're just people on a rock spinning through space as far as I was taught and the Orthodox Church is concerned.
  Live your best life.
  
  LOL what's the obsession with catholicism? and the obsession with "my christianity is best christianity"? ok fine. you win the prize for best sect LOL
  i've been living my best life since i started thinking for myself and threw "god is true" out the window. it sounds like your life is already the best too. so kudos