On religion (in particular Christianity), rationality, and this forum - are we allowed to discuss it?

[Ixthos]

I realise this is potentially a risky topic to make, so in part this is also a question to the mods. Are we allowed, assuming we remain respectful even when disagreeing vehemently, to discus our opinions on religion and faith, and whether or not religion and rationality are compatible?

For my part, I am a South African Christian, I have a background in the sciences and an interest in learning, in particular in scientific fields of all types, and while I come from a Christian household and was brought into the faith by my family, I stay in the faith because it is to me rational. I believe Christianity, and to a certain extent Judaism, are logical and supported by the evidence in history and modern science, and so believe Christianity and reason to be compatible. Of course there are many groups that call themselves Christian and which hold a variety of beliefs. What I mean is that the Bible - while not a science textbook - is nevertheless accurate in what it describes, and true even when not being literal (e.g. Yeshua HaMashiach, my LORD, is the Door, but not a literal door - He is, however, spiritually a door, just as He is spiritually bread, and spiritually a vine. Likewise the account of creation in Genesis is true and accurate, but primarily a poetic summary, especially because the language used for days is not the definite article for day, "The first day", etc., but rather the indefinite article, "day one", for day one up until day five, and then day six is the definite article, which is "The sixth day", and the seventh day not being stated to have ended and more order hidden and not drawing attention to itself, but manifestly obvious when pointed out, such as the pairings of the days, and the unique language used for each day.)

To be clear, there are certain elements I am still learning and still discovering. If this topic is allowed, I would be interested to hear others perspectives on this.

I hope, whether or not you respond, whomever reads this has a great day, and I hope if this topic is allowed we all are able to engage respectfully with one another, and all to benefit from this discussion. Have a great day everyone!

[Madner Kami]

Just discuss it, if you can live with others disagreeing. To me, science and religion are incompatible. The moment where you start interpreting the words of holy scriptures in order to pattern them around what we scientifically know, is the moment where you start reading horoscopes. Anything can fit anything, If you just bend it hard enough.

[Ixthos]

Just discuss it, if you can live with others disagreeing. To me, science and religion are incompatible. The moment where you start interpreting the words of holy scriptures in order to pattern them around what we scientifically know, is the moment where you start reading horoscopes. Anything can fit anything, If you just bend it hard enough.

I can live with people disagreeing disagreement can often lead to growth and improvement, though obviously it depends on what they disagree on and how someone disagrees on it.

I certainly agree you can twist just about anything into almost anything else, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an original intended meaning. It all depends on what the text and context itself supports, would you not agree? (As someone I admire said, "text without context is a pretext".)

On the topic of science and religion agreeing and disagreeing, would you agree if, to give two hypothetical examples, a religion has as a tradition that in a certain valley it rained fish for a week, then birds for another week, and then the valley was covered over, if that same valley were later excavated and several metres of fish bones were found under several metres of the bones of birds, that religion might have recorded something unusual accurately? Or, if a religion with texts that can be dated to before a certain event claimed that someone from a given nation will conquer another given nation, then have their nation conquered by someone from a third nation, and then centuries later those events happen, it is more likely that the writer was actually aware of the future, rather than just guessing? Just for these hypothetical examples.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Religion as a folk practice is pretty easy to understand on an sociological basis.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I'm up for talking about religion. I've found one very good source of accessible information about the subjects is youtuber and religious studies scholar Religion for Breakfast. He covers a LOT of ground, from Indigenous religion to Gnostic Christian sects, from American State Rituals as Religion to Islam, from racial division in congregations to the History of Demons to animal sacrifice. https://www.youtube.com/c/ReligionForBreakfast/videos

I think one thorny thing is that a lot of us are immersed in Christian societies, so even an atheist's understanding of what religion is and how it works is shaped by a Christian perspective. Myself, I'm an Eclectic Pagan by choice. I mostly want people to remember the "Christian" isn't interchangeable with "religion". Even Judaism and Islam have huge differences in how they approach theology, morality, community, and relationships with the divine.

As far as Christian text, some of the best Christian theology and biblical interpretation I've read (Not that I've read a lot) is in Thomas Cahill books. He did a lot to highlight historical context and what is the important thing to think about in certain chapters. Like Genesis has things about making the stars, the sky, the sea, not to highlight that is the precise order they were created in, but to emphasize the contrast with Pagan cultures, that the god being worshipped is one who made the stars and sky and sea but is not worshipped as a sea god or a personified star or suchlike, and His superiority/power over those things.

[Ixthos]

Religion as a folk practice is pretty easy to understand on an sociological basis.

Perhaps, though that doesn't automatically invalidate it. It could explain why so many are superficially similar but it doesn't explain why they are fundamentally different. Could you perhaps elaborate on that point?

I'm up for talking about religion. I've found one very good source of accessible information about the subjects is youtuber and religious studies scholar Religion for Breakfast. He covers a LOT of ground, from Indigenous religion to Gnostic Christian sects, from American State Rituals as Religion to Islam, from racial division in congregations to the History of Demons to animal sacrifice. https://www.youtube.com/c/ReligionForBreakfast/videos

I've heard of him I think I've seen one or two of his videos, and I've been meaning to watch some more though I've been very busy lately. They do seem very well researched. I also, entirely from a Christian side, watch some of the Bible Project's videos, and in the past - and I mean to watch them again - I've watched David Pawson's Unlocking the Bible series, where he goes in depth into the structure of each book, when it was written and to whom, what the book does or doesn't cover, and so forth.

I think one thorny thing is that a lot of us are immersed in Christian societies, so even an atheist's understanding of what religion is and how it works is shaped by a Christian perspective. Myself, I'm an Eclectic Pagan by choice. I mostly want people to remember the "Christian" isn't interchangeable with "religion". Even Judaism and Islam have huge differences in how they approach theology, morality, community, and relationships with the divine.

Indeed! I fully agree with you on that. A lot of people don't realise that many concepts in Western civilisation originate from a Judaeo-Christian world view that isn't always shared with other cultures, and things like repentance etc. aren't universal parts of religion in the same way.

As a pagan, what do you believe, if I may ask?

As far as Christian text, some of the best Christian theology and biblical interpretation I've read (Not that I've read a lot) is in Thomas Cahill books. He did a lot to highlight historical context and what is the important thing to think about in certain chapters. Like Genesis has things about making the stars, the sky, the sea, not to highlight that is the precise order they were created in, but to emphasize the contrast with Pagan cultures, that the god being worshipped is one who made the stars and sky and sea but is not worshipped as a sea god or a personified star or suchlike, and His superiority/power over those things.

Very much so I haven't heard of him, but I'll check him out. On Genesis 1, that is very much the main point of it, and also, when you read Deuteronomy 32, which is when Moses gives a poetic recount of some of the events, it also covers why mankind worships other gods, tying it to Babel and God assigning the rebelling people to other gods but chose Abraham's descendants for Himself and to bring the nations back to Him (indeed, the first part of Genesis is about the nations splitting into 70 groups, and how Abraham isn't part of those groups, but through him all the families of the Earth will be blessed).

It also emphasises that God does things in a structured way, with day 1 paring with day 4, day 2 with day 5, and day 3 with day 6 (and I personally think there are parings between other days as well), and the idea in a sense that "good" means "complete" in this sense, as day 2 is the only day where what was made wasn't described as good, and that material was then further used on day 3. So saying that God created everything and gave them whatever glory they have, and did so in a structured manner, so don't worship them and recognise the order behind everything as coming from God, who gave the heavens and the earth order and was there before the beginning started.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

As a Pagan, I believe that there are many gods, not just the ones I worship. I believe that the cosmos does not have one singular, unifying purpose, but multiple ones. I believe that most gods are worthy of respect, regardless of whether I worship them or not, and I'd need to have a really good reason to offend or dismiss any of them. I believe that Ostara, Dionysus, the Spirit of the Night Wind, and Hecate are all powerful entities, more good than bad, and worthy of worship, and that I have good relationships with them. I believe in the tradition of hospitality.

But then, belief is more important to Christianity than to some other religions. For many faiths, particularly a lot of pagan ones, Orthopraxy is more important than Orthodoxy.

[Riedquat]

I certainly agree you can twist just about anything into almost anything else, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an original intended meaning. It all depends on what the text and context itself supports, would you not agree? (As someone I admire said, "text without context is a pretext".)

Then you've got to ask yourself why it was couched in such ambiguous terms in the first place (beyond the obvious metaphors, like the door one you mentioned), and why those so often conveniently line up with contradictions with what else we know of the world, and why the contradiction means that a different interpretation is needed instead of it being just that, a contradiction.

On the topic of science and religion agreeing and disagreeing, would you agree if, to give two hypothetical examples, a religion has as a tradition that in a certain valley it rained fish for a week, then birds for another week, and then the valley was covered over, if that same valley were later excavated and several metres of fish bones were found under several metres of the bones of birds, that religion might have recorded something unusual accurately? Or, if a religion with texts that can be dated to before a certain event claimed that someone from a given nation will conquer another given nation, then have their nation conquered by someone from a third nation, and then centuries later those events happen, it is more likely that the writer was actually aware of the future, rather than just guessing? Just for these hypothetical examples.

No. If the bones are fossils then there was no-one around when they got laid down, nothing to remember. Although someone very much later might've dug a well and encountered them and started off the story as an explanation.

And countries conquering each other happens all the time, that could be guessed with a fair chance of being correct, particularly if the details are imprecise enough to later say "Ah, they must've meant this one attacking that one" after the event.

[Ixthos]

As a Pagan, I believe that there are many gods, not just the ones I worship. I believe that the cosmos does not have one singular, unifying purpose, but multiple ones. I believe that most gods are worthy of respect, regardless of whether I worship them or not, and I'd need to have a really good reason to offend or dismiss any of them. I believe that Ostara, Dionysus, the Spirit of the Night Wind, and Hecate are all powerful entities, more good than bad, and worthy of worship, and that I have good relationships with them. I believe in the tradition of hospitality.

But then, belief is more important to Christianity than to some other religions. For many faiths, particularly a lot of pagan ones, Orthopraxy is more important than Orthodoxy.

Thank you for responding, that is very interesting. When you say purpose though, what do you mean? Also, are there any gods you don't believe exist, and why do you believe those you mentioned do? Also, if I may, where do you believe they came from? The tradition of hospitality is a good one I fully agree.

When you say orthopraxy, doesn't that involve doing some things for one set of gods that another set would disapprove of though?

Again, thank you for responding

I certainly agree you can twist just about anything into almost anything else, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an original intended meaning. It all depends on what the text and context itself supports, would you not agree? (As someone I admire said, "text without context is a pretext".)

Then you've got to ask yourself why it was couched in such ambiguous terms in the first place (beyond the obvious metaphors, like the door one you mentioned), and why those so often conveniently line up with contradictions with what else we know of the world, and why the contradiction means that a different interpretation is needed instead of it being just that, a contradiction.

Remember though that most Biblical prophesy gives the explanation along with the prophesy, as well as stating specific times and conditions, such as the prophesies about how Jerusalem would fall, and Daniel's prophesies specifically mention the nations they would be about - more on that below.

Could you give me an example of a contradiction?

On the topic of science and religion agreeing and disagreeing, would you agree if, to give two hypothetical examples, a religion has as a tradition that in a certain valley it rained fish for a week, then birds for another week, and then the valley was covered over, if that same valley were later excavated and several metres of fish bones were found under several metres of the bones of birds, that religion might have recorded something unusual accurately? Or, if a religion with texts that can be dated to before a certain event claimed that someone from a given nation will conquer another given nation, then have their nation conquered by someone from a third nation, and then centuries later those events happen, it is more likely that the writer was actually aware of the future, rather than just guessing? Just for these hypothetical examples.

No. If the bones are fossils then there was no-one around when they got laid down, nothing to remember. Although someone very much later might've dug a well and encountered them and started off the story as an explanation.

I didn't say fossils, I said bones, though I suppose I did phrase it somewhat ambiguously. Also, I didn't say they told a story about it, only that several metres of bone rained into the valley. To put it in other words if the use of rains is again a poor choice on my part, the religion says in a certain valley something really weird happened, and then it was discovered that someone really weird had happened, that would be an interesting data point. To repeat the question, would you agree that religion might have recorded something unusual accurately?

And countries conquering each other happens all the time, that could be guessed with a fair chance of being correct, particularly if the details are imprecise enough to later say "Ah, they must've meant this one attacking that one" after the event.

I see I really should have worded myself better. This is my fault, I apologise. I probably shouldn't have worded things in these particular hypothetical stories.

Let me be plain then. If archaeologists discover that, in Egypt, the six stages of the Exodus described in the Bible did in fact occur, in that sequence and for those particular lengths of time described, that would be interesting. If the book of Daniel described how a king from Greece (Macedonia) were to conquer Persia, and then die and leave behind an empire that split into four, than either the document was faked after the fact or he actually knew that would happen - and if that same book then predicted events that can be confirmed to have happened centuries after the earliest recorded copies of that book, that would also be curious.

Basically, if things the Bible said that are unambiguous are discovered to have happened, both historically and after the earliest dated texts, that certain should be added as data points to consider.

[Riedquat]

If you can give me clear, unambigous, no questions about the dating, certainty that there was no post-event re-wording and selection of events, no undue weight (e.g. yes, it happened, but so what? Would've been quite likely to anyway). And that these aren't just historical records that happen to be in the Bible with a bit of religious interpretation on them - no-one's claiming that there's not a definitive historical basis for a lot of things there (countries, many people etc.)

And that the same wouldn't equally hold true for other religions.