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

[Ixthos]

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.

There is a documentry called Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus, where archaeologists who don't believe in the Exodus confirm the specific events in the archaeology did occur, only much earlier in the timeline than the conventional chronological dates say they should, but which does match a new chronology which was proposed by an agnostic. It is an interesting documentary with a lot of details - if you can find it and watch it it should cover the Exodus part.

Why do you say Alexander the Great and the splitting of his empire, as well as the leadup - Daniel covers a lot of events both immediately before and immediately after - be inevitable? As for those events, they were predicted by Daniel - or rather show in a vision to Daniel - about when Yeshua - Jesus - was to be born.

A question to you though: if God is real and Christianity and its claims are right, about God and morality, would you become a Christian? I'm not asking you to become one, only would you be willing to become one?

Ultimately these - even if you fully accepted everything I just said - are only a few data points. My main argument is that there are many such data points that all support Christianity, and I know of no other religion which makes these sorts of claims, including claims secular history backs up, such as the disciples of Jesus being martyred for what they say they saw (that is, not dying saying "I believe this!" but dying saying "I saw this!"). All in all I'm not arguing for any single piece of evidence to be convincing, but rather for a pattern of data points to be considered, and their merits weighed.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

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.

Perhaps. What are you referring to as far as invalidation?

[Riedquat]

There is a documentry called Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus, where archaeologists who don't believe in the Exodus confirm the specific events in the archaeology did occur, only much earlier in the timeline than the conventional chronological dates say they should, but which does match a new chronology which was proposed by an agnostic. It is an interesting documentary with a lot of details - if you can find it and watch it it should cover the Exodus part.

I don't think that there's much argument against there are some definite historical events described in the Bible.

A question to you though: if God is real and Christianity and its claims are right, about God and morality, would you become a Christian? I'm not asking you to become one, only would you be willing to become one?

Possibly, although that raises various questions (such as if God exists should he be worshipped?) TBH I'd rather like it if I were true - much (but not all) of it, both the religion and the church, fits in how I'd like the world to be. But if the world was more like how I'd like it to be it would be different in very many ways from what it is.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I feel like the question of whether God is real or not does not have much grip on any prevalent issues of accuracy in objective measure. It's a question you come to in the camp of dealing with uncertainty in itself; and is just more about the process of practicing faith.

Personally, for the most part I have to project that technically speaking, God is valid. The politics of the matter are an inherent mess down to the thick of it, and that's true for virtually any culture. Like death and taxes.

[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.

Perhaps. What are you referring to as far as invalidation?

As in being true or accurate - that is, religion being potentially explained one way doesn't automatically mean that it is that way. For example, if I am driving down the road and the windscreen is wet, it could be because I am at the bottom of a lake, but it also could be because its raining. The one is more likely than the other, but if it isn't birds moving past but fish, than what is more likely changes.

There is a documentry called Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus, where archaeologists who don't believe in the Exodus confirm the specific events in the archaeology did occur, only much earlier in the timeline than the conventional chronological dates say they should, but which does match a new chronology which was proposed by an agnostic. It is an interesting documentary with a lot of details - if you can find it and watch it it should cover the Exodus part.

I don't think that there's much argument against there are some definite historical events described in the Bible.

Fair enough though there are a lot of people who like to say "that didn't happen because its in the Bible", which usually then involves discussing whether or not such a thing happened. If a very unlikely event is discovered to have occurred in a way consistent with the Bible, it becomes another data point towards the idea that the person recording the event is also telling the truth about other things. Not a certainty, but again, a data point in its favour, other factors taken into account.

A question to you though: if God is real and Christianity and its claims are right, about God and morality, would you become a Christian? I'm not asking you to become one, only would you be willing to become one?

Possibly, although that raises various questions (such as if God exists should he be worshipped?) TBH I'd rather like it if I were true - much (but not all) of it, both the religion and the church, fits in how I'd like the world to be. But if the world was more like how I'd like it to be it would be different in very many ways from what it is.

A good point, and it gets into the issue of what worship is an isn't, and what it entails. I have my own views on that, but they get very esoteric and tangential and might derail this discussion. In essence though, and a very rough summary, worship is like a plant drawing on sunlight, aligning its leaf to gain the most rays of light it can, growing so that light will always fall on its leaves. That is a very basic summary though.

On your point of truth, I can respect that - not just accepting something because you want it to be true. I think the way the world is is consistent with the Biblical world view, or at least my understanding of it, but I can appreciate that it might not be the same from someone else's point of view.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

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.

Perhaps. What are you referring to as far as invalidation?

As in being true or accurate - that is, religion being potentially explained one way doesn't automatically mean that it is that way. For example, if I am driving down the road and the windscreen is wet, it could be because I am at the bottom of a lake, but it also could be because its raining. The one is more likely than the other, but if it isn't birds moving past but fish, than what is more likely changes.

That's circumstantial on the assessment, not really an utterly perpetual or everlasting condition to assume.

[Ixthos]

...

As in being true or accurate - that is, religion being potentially explained one way doesn't automatically mean that it is that way. For example, if I am driving down the road and the windscreen is wet, it could be because I am at the bottom of a lake, but it also could be because its raining. The one is more likely than the other, but if it isn't birds moving past but fish, than what is more likely changes.

That's circumstantial on the assessment, not really an utterly perpetual or everlasting condition to assume.

Indeed, though would that impact the truth or falsehood of whether or not the object was in one state or another in that moment?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

...

As in being true or accurate - that is, religion being potentially explained one way doesn't automatically mean that it is that way. For example, if I am driving down the road and the windscreen is wet, it could be because I am at the bottom of a lake, but it also could be because its raining. The one is more likely than the other, but if it isn't birds moving past but fish, than what is more likely changes.

That's circumstantial on the assessment, not really an utterly perpetual or everlasting condition to assume.

Indeed, though would that impact the truth or falsehood of whether or not the object was in one state or another in that moment?

That's a substrate principle, yes. Not as prominent as Lucifer, but more like Beelzebub.

But that wasn't a very good example for much consideration. Nobody in a car is going to be confused of whether they're in a lake or the rain.

[Riedquat]

Fair enough though there are a lot of people who like to say "that didn't happen because its in the Bible", which usually then involves discussing whether or not such a thing happened. If a very unlikely event is discovered to have occurred in a way consistent with the Bible, it becomes another data point towards the idea that the person recording the event is also telling the truth about other things. Not a certainty, but again, a data point in its favour, other factors taken into account.

I doubt anyone disputes historical information such as there being Romans in Jerusalem 2000 years ago! Well, actually, it wouldn't surprise me...

Over a long period of time very unlikely things will occasionally happen, and being unusual will be remembered.

A good point, and it gets into the issue of what worship is an isn't, and what it entails. I have my own views on that, but they get very esoteric and tangential and might derail this discussion. In essence though, and a very rough summary, worship is like a plant drawing on sunlight, aligning its leaf to gain the most rays of light it can, growing so that light will always fall on its leaves. That is a very basic summary though.

We could go on about this (and I'd be happy to do so), but I agree we're in danger of derailing the discussion.

On your point of truth, I can respect that - not just accepting something because you want it to be true. I think the way the world is is consistent with the Biblical world view, or at least my understanding of it, but I can appreciate that it might not be the same from someone else's point of view.

Cheers, the world really needs that sort of open-mindedness IMO. I should also say that despite my lack of belief there are definitely good messages in the Bible that we should all take on board regardless - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" being the obvious sort of example.

[Ixthos]

...

That's circumstantial on the assessment, not really an utterly perpetual or everlasting condition to assume.

Indeed, though would that impact the truth or falsehood of whether or not the object was in one state or another in that moment?

That's a substrate principle, yes. Not as prominent as Lucifer, but more like Beelzebub.

But that wasn't a very good example for much consideration. Nobody in a car is going to be confused of whether they're in a lake or the rain.

I'm afraid I'm not following what you mean by that first part Bridge. Could you perhaps elaborate?

Fair enough on the second point, but it was primarily meant as a metaphor - there are other potential examples where how something initially appears doesn't match how things actually are. I can imagine it as part of a role playing game session though, with a DM telling the players they are waking up and what they notice. Still, that is tangential to the main point, but you make a valid observation

(Though we could also use an example from mathematics about what one expects being very different from reality, where if I asked you which had more numbers, the real numbers between 0 and 1, or all the integers, the intuitive answer falls short, as 0 to 1 reals are cardinality aleph one, while all the integers are cardinality aleph null.)

Fair enough though there are a lot of people who like to say "that didn't happen because its in the Bible", which usually then involves discussing whether or not such a thing happened. If a very unlikely event is discovered to have occurred in a way consistent with the Bible, it becomes another data point towards the idea that the person recording the event is also telling the truth about other things. Not a certainty, but again, a data point in its favour, other factors taken into account.

I doubt anyone disputes historical information such as there being Romans in Jerusalem 2000 years ago! Well, actually, it wouldn't surprise me...

Over a long period of time very unlikely things will occasionally happen, and being unusual will be remembered.

Fair enough, though again it does depend on the context surrounding it, and if someone claimed the unlikely events will happen and got them right repeatedly. Still, your point is well met

A good point, and it gets into the issue of what worship is an isn't, and what it entails. I have my own views on that, but they get very esoteric and tangential and might derail this discussion. In essence though, and a very rough summary, worship is like a plant drawing on sunlight, aligning its leaf to gain the most rays of light it can, growing so that light will always fall on its leaves. That is a very basic summary though.

We could go on about this (and I'd be happy to do so), but I agree we're in danger of derailing the discussion.

If you are interested we could discuss it via PM or start a new topic, though that one will probably get very esoteric very quickly My views on it might not match mainstream Christian thought, but I am hoping to gain greater understanding, and I think what I understand about it is accurate, if a little odd.

On your point of truth, I can respect that - not just accepting something because you want it to be true. I think the way the world is is consistent with the Biblical world view, or at least my understanding of it, but I can appreciate that it might not be the same from someone else's point of view.

Cheers, the world really needs that sort of open-mindedness IMO. I should also say that despite my lack of belief there are definitely good messages in the Bible that we should all take on board regardless - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" being the obvious sort of example.

Thank you you have been very cordial and insightful, and I appreciate the way you have been approaching this. I hope if we continue discussing this we will continue in that essence, and both gain greater understanding and insight into one another's world view. I hope you have a great new years!