This is ignoring that a huge part of religion hasn't been about the actual worship, belief, and so on, but instead about binding a group into a cohesive whole. The punishment for leaving that whole is necessary, otherwise people would leave when it benefited them. People, by my observation, rarely follow any religion because of absolute faith, trust, and so on. They follow religion for support, community, and a sense of belonging. Leaving that is a small pinprick in the sides of everyone who was part of that group, who just essentially lost a fraction of their sum power, the total human-machine-type capability to think, to support one another, and so on. The church used to go hand in hand with the government, it was the thing that bound us all together, after all, the crown was a god given right, the power to lead. We are sitting in a modern world where that group-cohesion has mostly fallen apart, a world full of individualism, of interconnection created by networks of small relations rather than dedication to some ideal of a larger whole. It's from this perspective that we can say that it's silly to have things like apostasy, because it really is a silly notion from an age where machine labor accomplishes far more than human labor, and where all our needs are easily met by connections made outside of the church, be it in the government's support for the poor, or the media's capability of connecting us. I think this is the source of all the issues with religion today, we are looking at a system designed to create and hold together communities that existed in eras where our day to day lives would make us look like gods in comparison, and trying to use it to suit our modern needs/ideals like comfort or "good" morality, rather than the purpose for which they were intended.
I must say that you answer is so well presented that my post now looks more like an emotional dribble. That been said, I know that there was a purpose for religion and each commandment as well, as every part of it had intuitive knowledge necessary for survival of the species. On the other hand, moral of some stories in religious texts says that letting go is a necessary part, especially in Buddhism and Christianity so that people can realise on their own what is good or bad, right or wrong ... I am trying to imagine what kind family would that be -- if all fathers or mothers punished their sons and daughters for leaving their families in order create their own. Speaking of which, it was not so unusual practice in many corners of the world earlier in the history ... And as you hinted, having same in 21 century seems strange, although I feel that similarly we need to find that something that will connect us more (without punishment if possible), in the way that will, if nothing, protect us to wipe ourselves from existence on our way to become like gods ....
Not at all, honestly my post doesn't really contradict what you said, because you are absolutely right when you say that a religion based on belief, faith, and so on would never need this sort of apostate crap to function. My comment complements that, describing why it is that this is true, rather than leaving it at the assumption that religions are inherently flawed.my post now looks more like an emotional dribble.
And this is why they get so irked when you bring up the sticking points of 'So you ACTUALLY believe all of this whacky, otherwise regarded as mythological stuff?'People, by my observation, rarely follow any religion because of absolute faith, trust, and so on. They follow religion for support, community, and a sense of belonging.
I think this is one of those times where our words and our true intentions do not match. Those in religion think, on the surface, that they are in the religion because they have faith, because they believe. However, the reason we "believe in belief" falls to the points I mention, which is why pointing out that all this stuff is wacky and obviously not false brings out so much anger. It's true, and it discredits the religion the person follows, but it doesn't tear down that core reason. So here we have a person no longer at peace, their idea of themselves, that they are a believer is false, because they do not believe, but their core reason for liking religion is still there, leaving them on a precarious edge of being unable to pick a direction without causing a fundamental change in who they are. Since religions teach us we should be involved in religion for a love of God, that situation is a nasty one, so we avoid it, we shun those who bring it up, and so on and so forth. For a long time I debated with that, and it took years of me slowly chipping away at religion, slowly changing my own identity from one based on "God is there and betray of him means you go to hell" to "Hey, this god guy, he might not exist". I, for a long time, jumped to so many theories, I remember praying happily one day having been "given" a theory by god, that God is a "great simulator", that proved to me that god was real. I called myself an agnostic for a while. Finally, I hit the tipping point. I feel this happens with many of our group identities, and I feel this is why people so often think debates are fruitless when arguing these subjects. They aren't, not at all, you just lack the scope to see the change you are creating in people, because that change won't be visible for upwards of ten to fifty years.