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

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

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.)

I get the metaphor. I understand the numeric theory conundrum. It really starts to turn things inside out if you are not paying attention.

Yes I get that. Illusions exist, but they're not utterly subliminal.

[Ixthos]

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.)

I get the metaphor. I understand the numeric theory conundrum. It really starts to turn things inside out if you are not paying attention.

Yes I get that. Illusions exist, but they're not utterly subliminal.

I'm afraid you've lost me again. Do you mean illusions as in beliefs adn perceptions of reality that aren't accurate?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

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.)

I get the metaphor. I understand the numeric theory conundrum. It really starts to turn things inside out if you are not paying attention.

Yes I get that. Illusions exist, but they're not utterly subliminal.

I'm afraid you've lost me again. Do you mean illusions as in beliefs adn perceptions of reality that aren't accurate?

Yes. Religion isn't that complicated.

[Ixthos]

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.)

I get the metaphor. I understand the numeric theory conundrum. It really starts to turn things inside out if you are not paying attention.

Yes I get that. Illusions exist, but they're not utterly subliminal.

I'm afraid you've lost me again. Do you mean illusions as in beliefs adn perceptions of reality that aren't accurate?

Yes. Religion isn't that complicated.

Perhaps, though which ones, and does a lack of complexity allow one to say anything about whether one is true? Also, I was referring to general beliefs, not just religious. One's intuition isn't always reliable was my main point, as was the idea that what is and isn't the obvious answer can change depending on what information one has.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

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.)

I get the metaphor. I understand the numeric theory conundrum. It really starts to turn things inside out if you are not paying attention.

Yes I get that. Illusions exist, but they're not utterly subliminal.

I'm afraid you've lost me again. Do you mean illusions as in beliefs adn perceptions of reality that aren't accurate?

Yes. Religion isn't that complicated.

Perhaps, though which ones, and does a lack of complexity allow one to say anything about whether one is true? Also, I was referring to general beliefs, not just religious. One's intuition isn't always reliable was my main point, as was the idea that what is and isn't the obvious answer can change depending on what information one has.

I don't think I said that in a way that suggested a definite article in front of religion. I just said Religion isn't that complicated. There isn't much to it that "can't be explained." Mysticism typically refers to a person's personal experience that leads them to wonder about God.

A lack of complexity doesn't allow people to lie, if that's what you're asking.

Not only one's intuition, but a lot of people's intuition. You keep trying to explain that people can get things wrong. I understand that philosophical conundrum, as it pertains to depictions of religion.

[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.

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

Where Orthodoxy means Right Belief, Orthopraxy means Right Practice. From a Christian perspective, Christian Orthodoxy is about whether you believe in original sin, whether Christ was capable of sinning and just didn't or was incapable of it, whether you think The Rapture is a thing that will happen, whether the eucharist is actually the flesh and blood or if that's a metaphor, etc. Christian Orthopraxy is about whether you charge interest on loans, if you kneel when you pray, if you tithe 10% of your income, how you celebrate Easter and Christmas, if you wear a St Christopher's Medallion.

With purpose, I mean things like the proverbial God's Plan. Cosmic order. Everything being according to one grand design. I see this universe as the result of lots of different wills, different agendas, different ideals of how everything should be, all pulling in different directions.

There are some gods I'm not sure about. I generally try to evaluate deities on a case-by-case basis, and try not to actively offend any of them just in case.

For the ones I do believe in, that sort of varies to an extent. The Spirit of the Night Wind I felt touched and called by. Ostara I started worshipping because I felt she deserved recognition and respect, and the belief followed. Dionysus was a bit 50-50, start with a sense of connection and a bit of belief, belief grew as the relationship of worship and reciprocity continued. Hecate is the one I most actively sought out as a clear, conscious decision, and belief slowly came out of support and a sense of majesty.

My path has been a stumbling and awkward one, with a lot of theological trial-and-error. Little blessings and things I choose to interpret as miracles help, but mostly my religious praxis is as somebody running with a very full cup of hot coffee. I hope that answers your question, or at least is a start.

[Ixthos]

...

Perhaps, though which ones, and does a lack of complexity allow one to say anything about whether one is true? Also, I was referring to general beliefs, not just religious. One's intuition isn't always reliable was my main point, as was the idea that what is and isn't the obvious answer can change depending on what information one has.

I don't think I said that in a way that suggested a definite article in front of religion. I just said Religion isn't that complicated. There isn't much to it that "can't be explained." Mysticism typically refers to a person's personal experience that leads them to wonder about God.

A lack of complexity doesn't allow people to lie, if that's what you're asking.

Not only one's intuition, but a lot of people's intuition. You keep trying to explain that people can get things wrong. I understand that philosophical conundrum, as it pertains to depictions of religion.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding one another, as we seem to be carrying on two different conversations at the same time. I'm afraid your posts seem to me very much as though you are trying to obfuscate your meaning, using broad and tangential metaphors and redirecting to different part. Perhaps that is just me, and if so, I apologise. I was under the impression you were saying that religions, as simple things, were therefor the results of human nature rather than reflections of reality - that religions, being the products of simple, understandable facets of human nature, were human inventions rather than from actual contact with God or spirits. Was I mistaken, and if so, what did you mean?

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

Where Orthodoxy means Right Belief, Orthopraxy means Right Practice. From a Christian perspective, Christian Orthodoxy is about whether you believe in original sin, whether Christ was capable of sinning and just didn't or was incapable of it, whether you think The Rapture is a thing that will happen, whether the eucharist is actually the flesh and blood or if that's a metaphor, etc. Christian Orthopraxy is about whether you charge interest on loans, if you kneel when you pray, if you tithe 10% of your income, how you celebrate Easter and Christmas, if you wear a St Christopher's Medallion.

I know the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy though most of those elements of orthodoxy you mentioned are, I think, distractions the Church can develop which causes branches to loose sight of the things that really matter to God. Though most of those also seem to be the Catholic branch of Christianity's questions.

With purpose, I mean things like the proverbial God's Plan. Cosmic order. Everything being according to one grand design. I see this universe as the result of lots of different wills, different agendas, different ideals of how everything should be, all pulling in different directions.

Based on this, do you believe the universe was made by one or by many, that many worked together and so each put their own agenda into it?

There are some gods I'm not sure about. I generally try to evaluate deities on a case-by-case basis, and try not to actively offend any of them just in case.

For the ones I do believe in, that sort of varies to an extent. The Spirit of the Night Wind I felt touched and called by. Ostara I started worshipping because I felt she deserved recognition and respect, and the belief followed. Dionysus was a bit 50-50, start with a sense of connection and a bit of belief, belief grew as the relationship of worship and reciprocity continued. Hecate is the one I most actively sought out as a clear, conscious decision, and belief slowly came out of support and a sense of majesty.

My path has been a stumbling and awkward one, with a lot of theological trial-and-error. Little blessings and things I choose to interpret as miracles help, but mostly my religious praxis is as somebody running with a very full cup of hot coffee. I hope that answers your question, or at least is a start.

It is indeed a start I would like to discuss more of this with you, both to ask about yours and to talk about mine, and for us both to discuss, if you are interested?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

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.)

I get the metaphor. I understand the numeric theory conundrum. It really starts to turn things inside out if you are not paying attention.

Yes I get that. Illusions exist, but they're not utterly subliminal.

I'm afraid you've lost me again. Do you mean illusions as in beliefs adn perceptions of reality that aren't accurate?

Yes. Religion isn't that complicated.

That sounds like somebody who's never argued with a Rabbi.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I was under the impression you were saying that religions, as simple things, were therefor the results of human nature rather than reflections of reality - that religions, being the products of simple, understandable facets of human nature, were human inventions rather than from actual contact with God or spirits. Was I mistaken, and if so, what did you mean

Technically that depends on what God or spirits means precisely. For a matter of fact, I don't think that anyone really couldn't say that it's not human invention, whether there were contact or not.

[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.

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

Where Orthodoxy means Right Belief, Orthopraxy means Right Practice. From a Christian perspective, Christian Orthodoxy is about whether you believe in original sin, whether Christ was capable of sinning and just didn't or was incapable of it, whether you think The Rapture is a thing that will happen, whether the eucharist is actually the flesh and blood or if that's a metaphor, etc. Christian Orthopraxy is about whether you charge interest on loans, if you kneel when you pray, if you tithe 10% of your income, how you celebrate Easter and Christmas, if you wear a St Christopher's Medallion.

I know the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy though most of those elements of orthodoxy you mentioned are, I think, distractions the Church can develop which causes branches to loose sight of the things that really matter to God. Though most of those also seem to be the Catholic branch of Christianity's questions.

With purpose, I mean things like the proverbial God's Plan. Cosmic order. Everything being according to one grand design. I see this universe as the result of lots of different wills, different agendas, different ideals of how everything should be, all pulling in different directions.

Based on this, do you believe the universe was made by one or by many, that many worked together and so each put their own agenda into it?

I'd say many rather than one, but I'm not sure which ones, and overall the question isn't that important to me. You don't need to create the universe to control it, and you don't need to control the universe to create it. That's the nice thing about not needing your supreme deity to also be a demiurge.

I would be happy to discuss the matter further.