I was raised catholic and I now consider it a form of abuse. Someone close to me was raised evangelic and thinking about this makes her want to puke.

The psychological damage from this sort of thing is probably so prevalent that it looks like water to a fish. Not to speak of the sleepless nights at 7 years old worrying about eternal damnation.

This is all abuse and it should be treated as such by any decent and civilised society.

I was not raised Christian growing up, but I still recall believing someone was always watching me as a kid. It was likely because so many around me were religious, and I had been told so many dead relatives were "up there smiling down on us" when they died. I thought both that someone was looking through my windows and that people "up there" could see me.

Until I got access to pornography (too early) and then I guess the tradeoffs changed, and I eventually got over it. I do distinctly remember wondering what grandma thinks of me at that time. But not for long, logic kicks in to explain anything away when you've got fast internet to exploit.

> But not for long, logic kicks in to explain anything away when you've got fast internet to exploit.

Not everyone is so lucky; for some, the feelings of guilt and shame never get dissolved through logic, it's just the dopamine loop is strong enough that the person keeps doing things they later despise themselves for.

Guess how that can impact the psyche over a decade or two.

Maybe not psychologically healthy for the individual, but likely provides some social benefits.

Anyway, it doesn't appear to work as well lately so we maybe should come up with another approach for social stability.

> Maybe not psychologically healthy for the individual, but likely provides some social benefits.

I never understood this line of reasoning. What good are "social benefits" if the happiness and well being of the human beings that make up that society are sacrificed? Isn't this the basis of totalitarianism? "Everything for the State, nothing against the State".

Well ya I don't say I condone, I'm very much an individualist (to a fault).

But also, we don't exist in isolation, and there are reasons societies evolve as they do. There has to be some level of social control and belief in being watched over at all times was probably pretty handy for emperors and to some extent those who would be victimized. At least back when it worked wide scale.

Why do we need this myth of things working in the past? It didn't work and was a horror show. This is bordering on the absurd "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" logic that doesn't ever really work outside the heros journey and action movies.

There are reasons things evolved as they did. Societies with forms of social cohesion beat those without. Maybe it's different now but then again, maybe it's not.

I guess I wonder which groups modern groups in your eyes have net social cohesion. Seems highly subjective

As a christian, I can handle this concept. But only in the context where the deity accepts that I can never be perfect and yet can be acceptable. This concept, though biblical, is hardly ever taught because of the fear of it being taken advantage of. The deity requires effort, not perfection. If this is false, then the messiah was a complete waste of time.

> But only in the context where the deity accepts that I can never be perfect and yet can be acceptable.

This is the religion where everyone, over 6000 years later, is being vindictively punished because a couple of their ancestors, in a single instance, broke a rule about eating from one of the trees. The deity, who is omnipotent and could decide stop this all at any time, allows for all manner of terrible diseases and pestilence to be visited on innocent children.

A few thoughts. One is that not all of christendom subscribes to the view that it was literally one man, some take a less literal view. Second, a vast majority of human suffering is down stream of human decisions. Yes it is possible for an omnipotent being to stop all suffering but I would argue it would remove all moral decision making from humans which is important.

> not all of christendom subscribes to the view that it was literally one man, some take a less literal view

I grew up in a Christian country and your "some" is doing a lot of work. Sure, perhaps some specific Christian theologists take that view. But, all actual Christians are taught from childhood that it was one specific man, tempted by one specific woman into eating a literal fruit. The only thing that's generally mentioned as open to interpretation is whether the fruit was an apple. You might get exposed to more nuanced theological views if you study at a seminary, but not while living your life as an average person who identifies as Christian, which is the vast majority.

The majority of Christians (Catholics) are told to not read the bible literally. Taking the bible literally is where logic and critical thinking breakdown.

I thought the apple thing was understood to be a Latin pun between “malum” (evil) and “mālum” (apple). Isn’t it so?

Ah yes, hence "maleficarum" being an alternate name for AppleTalk. :D

(Source: I made this up.)

> One is that not all of christendom subscribes to the view that it was literally one man, some take a less literal view.

I was raised Catholic (mass every weekend, CCD through 8th grade) and not once were we ever taught your interpretation. It was Adam and Eve, one man, one woman.

It’s not a part of Catholic doctrine. You won’t find the core beliefs of much, much more mainstream sects in Catholic teachings, let alone the more uncommon beliefs that are out there.

> One is that not all of christendom subscribes to the view that it was literally one man, some take a less literal view.

That is such a tiny minority I’ve never even heard of that until now

It’s a lot larger than you think.

Bro. This might be technically correct but you are far from the first person who posited these questions and won’t be the last to be swamped with responses trying to “save” you. Let the morons be morons and just stop poking the hornets nest.

That’s exactly what made me renounce christianity. In kindergarten.

Sounds like we've met. I'd take God in this position over one man or many any day of the week

"Judge me, O God, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation: O deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man. For thou art the God of my strength..."

"...but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

Agreed. I’ll take a fictional overseer vs an actual one any day of the week.

I'd be significantly less worried about being in a panopticon if it was going to accurately judge my good and bad deeds and do nothing else.

Though that depends quite a lot on who gets to define what is "good" and "bad".

If the results of that determination only apply after I'm dead, then their definition of good is not entirely relevant to me.

Seems wise to leave the answering of that question to a transcendent entity