Many religions (basically all the big ones) forcefully indoctrinate members from childhood to believe that their deity is omniscient and is constantly watching them and judging them. It's generally agreed among members that this is a good thing.
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.
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.
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.
Anyway, it doesn't appear to work as well lately so we maybe should come up with another approach for social stability.
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".
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.
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.
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.
(Source: I made this up.)
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.
That is such a tiny minority I’ve never even heard of that until now
This implies there is a small minority, i.e. human suffering not down stream of human decisions - what about that?
I actually don’t want to argue, I can understand that for some people disregarding that part or finding an explanation is enough and still helpful.
My point is to highlight that, similarly, for others, this idea and its interpretations are unhelpful.
"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."
Some say it is just the way the rich keep the poor from killing them.