Biggest benefits of leaving a religion

[Samael_Khan]

It's sad how some people can hold a serious grudge for so long. Like you, I understand it, but it's still sad. There should be more rehabilitation programs to help people move on. Of course the ex-forums are skewed towards the folks who feel the need to speak about their experiences to somebody. Those who pack up and move on most likely wouldn't go to a forum.

I think they must be really traumatised to hold a grudge. For me I overcame it because I owe a lot to the group such as public speaking skills and cold calling skills and it made me realise more about myself. Plus I can proudly say I was in one of these groups and have first hand experience about indoctrination and can help others because of that.

There should be more rehabilitation programmes for such groups but governments won't address indoctrination as a problem and laws don't account for them as well. I imagine because either they don't believe in it or it will impact the beliefs and methods of those in power. They would have to make military methods of training illegal and various groups illegal if they make it a problem. Plus I don't think people truly understand the problem until they have been affected by it in some way and realise it.

I have joined a group yesterday to help people out so I will see how that goes. Informing a friend of my story actually helped her realise that she had indoctrination imposed on her by a corporation.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think they must be really traumatised to hold a grudge. For me I overcame it because I owe a lot to the group such as public speaking skills and cold calling skills and it made me realise more about myself. Plus I can proudly say I was in one of these groups and have first hand experience about indoctrination and can help others because of that.

There should be more rehabilitation programmes for such groups but governments won't address indoctrination as a problem and laws don't account for them as well. I imagine because either they don't believe in it or it will impact the beliefs and methods of those in power. They would have to make military methods of training illegal and various groups illegal if they make it a problem. Plus I don't think people truly understand the problem until they have been affected by it in some way and realise it.

I have joined a group yesterday to help people out so I will see how that goes. Informing a friend of my story actually helped her realise that she had indoctrination imposed on her by a corporation.

Some of the treatments used in PTSD rehab would work. Trauma can be lifetime unfortunately for those souls.

 

[PruePhillip]

View attachment 40265


View attachment 40266

View attachment 40267

You might like to mention that I think David in Psalm 22 and Isaiah in C53 speak of the
Redeemer suffering and rising again. Not only that - Isaiah speaks of him healing the
sick, opening the eyes of the blind and raising the dead.

 

[Terry Sampson]

You might like to mention that ...

I limited my response to only one of three Gospel quotations because:

• I was responding to someone who asked me to show, specifically, verses in which "Jesus predicted the resurrection of His body from the grave."
• Note the clever response of that person to my quote: "Actually, it was not Jesus who said that, it was the Gospel writers who wrote that Jesus said that decades after Jesus walked the earth, writers who never even knew Jesus. It is called oral tradition."
• Her response, which she knew that she would give me regardless how many quotes from Jesus' words, confirm the complete waste of time quoting anything would have been: if she won't accept a direct quote of Jesus' words, she's certainly not going to accept an indirect "proof" such as a prior prophecy.
• Far better than any prophecy from before Jesus' life, IMO, are the post-resurrection accounts in Acts and in Paul's testimony, e.g. 1 Corinthians 15. But I already knew that the Baha'i dismiss a literal reading of those verses. They take the position that Jesus' resurrection is "metaphorical".
  
• Moral of this story: It's a complete and utter waste of time for anyone to begin to discuss their non-Baha'i scriptures with the Baha'i. I say that, regardless what religion a person is and what scriptures a person chooses to use. I have been told that one can even be an atheist and a Baha'i. Apparently, the Baha'i religion is non-discriminatory supercessionism, which is why I call the Baha'i übersupercessionists.

@CG Didymus

 

[ManSinha]

the post-resurrection accounts in Acts and in Paul's testimony

Are the post resurrection accounts in the gospels as well as Acts and Paul's Epistles? That was my understanding from my study of the Bible

 

[Samael_Khan]

Some of the treatments used in PTSD rehab would work. Trauma can be lifetime unfortunately for those souls.

True. In my research about the affects, ex members of an abusive group could suffer from PTSD.

Another thing that I forgot to mention:

I was only in the group for 7 years and I left young. I have my whole life ahead of me. There are those who have dedicated their life to a group, in a span of 40 years even, and have left in between there 40's and 60's. I am not surprised that they would have a grudge because the group has taken practically their whole lives away from them. They dedicated their lives to a lie.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Are the post resurrection accounts in the gospels as well as Acts and Paul's Epistles? That was my understanding from my study of the Bible

Yes.
I didn't mention those because (a) T's question focused on pre-resurrection statements by Jesus and (b) I didn't want to get into an arm-wrestling match over what each gospel author says and the differences in accounts.

 

[Trailblazer]

Persistence my friend! Never give up!

I never do.

 

[Trailblazer]

I do think though that the foundation of the idea of Jesus is in the gospels. Therefore we would say that it is most likely that they give the more accurate depiction of Jesus as opposed to religions who came a hundred or more years afterwards.

Yes and no, it depends upon which part of the Gospels you are reading.
However, I agree that the Gospels are the greatest testimony of Jesus.

So it is most likely that Jesus said these words, though not conclusive. So we would hold the gospels as more credible.

I do not think it is likely that Jesus said the exact words that are attributed to Him in the NT, because that would be impossible. However, I believe that the essential message came through. Below are some official statements about the Bible from an authoritative source representing the Baha'i position:

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet....

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[Trailblazer]

thereby proving once again that Baha'i and I have no theology in common.

And I thank God for that daily.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If those rules or "guidelines" are in the policies of the religion then one would have to leave the group to be free.

Aw, that is bad. We just have one problem here - don't eat beef. Apart from that everything is OK.

 

[Trailblazer]

The great joke is that you dare to affirm that prophecies in books you do not regard with any respect

Baha'is hold the Holy Bible in high regard, even though we interpret much of it allegorically.
Addressing the Muslims, Baha'u'llah wrote the following about the Bible...

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! “How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89

 

[Aupmanyav]

I always wonder why Bahais have not changed the writings of the Bahai Trinity in modern English? Why this use of Shakespearean English?
It does make Bahai writings seem ancient.

 

[Trailblazer]

I always wonder why Bahais have not changed the writings of the Bahai Trinity in modern English? Why this use of Shakespearean English?
It does make Bahai writings seem ancient.

Some of the original translations were in King James English but not all of Baha'u'llah's Writings were translated that way. Not all people like that style of writing, but some do. For people who do not like or understand those Writings, there are interpretations of them that are easy to understand.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I always wonder why Bahais have not changed the writings of the Bahai Trinity in modern English? Why this use of Shakespearean English?
It does make Bahai writings seem ancient.

The reason is that Shoghi Effendi went to England to study English so He could better translate the Writings of Baha'u'llah from Persian and Arabic into English.

From his studies he determined that King James English was the best form to portray Persian and Arabic to English speakers.

Apparently Persian and Arabic have a form of poetic prose that is hard to portray to English speakers. King James English must in a small way convey some of that poetic prose experienced by Persian and Arabic speakers.

Shoghi Effendi offered that the future may see different translations.

RegardsTony

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, it was an attempt at obfuscation.

For people who do not like or understand those Writings, there are interpretations of them that are easy to understand.

Why do you not quote from those interpretations/translations? For fear of being exposed?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do you not quote from those interpretations/translations? For fear of being exposed?

Why would I be exposed?

 

[Thief]

I don't parrot what I've been told

I am no longer a sock puppet

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So, this doesn't only apply to religion, but can also apply to any other group if they don't promote freedom of thought, even an atheist group, and also might not apply to all religions. And it might not even apply to all people who are religious as I know there are religious people on this forum who it does not apply to.

But this is from my experience. I wonder if anybody else has had similar experiences.

For me the biggest and most cathartic benefit of leaving religion is freedom of thought and self expression.

I am free to change my mind at will, based on evidence provided.
I can be honest with how I think and feel without being told that my way of thinking and feeling is wrong.
I can be honest with myself and what I actually belief and do not feel pressured to belief certain specific things.
I can honestly explore other viewpoints honestly, thoroughly and openly without feeling like I am being a traitor.
I can honestly listen to critique about my viewpoints without feeling uncomfortable or attacked.
I don't assume that others who don't believe as I do are inherently wrong or misguided.
I don't have to feel I need to villainize those who are opposed to my beliefs.
I don't have to feel I need to refute scientific theories.
I can genuinely be interested in all religions and explore them without feeling like God will condemn me for being a traitor.
I don't have to engage in logical fallacies and mental gymnastic to defend views that I honestly do not believe in.
I am free to recognise and admit to when I am wrong and am totally comfortable with it.
I can "travel along the route" based on where the evidence leads me.

Any thought?
Any religions that you would apply what I experienced to?
Any disagreements?

Sorry mate, only a small thought on this really, but...
I don't think this only applies to religion (or even 'non-religion'). I think it applies to any group membership with restrictive dogma, or particular expectations.

I was reading something about Incels, and some of the fallout after Elliot Rodger. It included comments from someone who'd left the Incel community after initially defending it to the mainstream media as non-violent and ironic, only to have members of the community disagree quite strongly with that.

They seemed to describe much the same things as you are here. Freedom from pre-conception and the ability to assess things without baggage, etc.
Interestingly, the talked about requiring momentum for this to continue, and not (basically) slip back into old habits.

In any case, yeah...not just a religion thing. More human nature and group/social psychology I think.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Back to the OP and benefits:

Less cognitive dissonance

I feel I have a fairly simple, clean philosophy, that leads to mostly simple ethics and morals.

I would say this is where my personal world views have moved to over time. They've become simpler, and less situational, and feel so much more robust and applicable because of it.