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

[McAvoy]

I won't get into the previous discussions on already started on this thread.

I will say this personally, I have no problem with religion and faith. As long as it's not forced onto me.

Of course the Bible will and does have historical events written in its pages and can be easily proven by evidence. On the other hand, there are events in the Bible that most likely never happened or didn't happen on the scale told in the Bible. Such as Noah's Flood. Carrying two of each animal for a long time on a boat that has a physical description of its size. Doesn't allow for the massive amount of food needed be carried to feed them. Or Noah and his family having to care for the animals. Or the fact a wooden boat with no physical way of navigating water being able to survive a world covered in ocean which means Hurricane level or worse winds as no land will block the wind. Or the time line in the Bible for this happening would give very little time for Ancient Egypt to build its pyramids let alone repopulate the world.

Just an example.

[Madner Kami]

I won't get into the previous discussions on already started on this thread.

I will say this personally, I have no problem with religion and faith. As long as it's not forced onto me.

Of course the Bible will and does have historical events written in its pages and can be easily proven by evidence. On the other hand, there are events in the Bible that most likely never happened or didn't happen on the scale told in the Bible. Such as Noah's Flood. Carrying two of each animal for a long time on a boat that has a physical description of its size. Doesn't allow for the massive amount of food needed be carried to feed them. Or Noah and his family having to care for the animals. Or the fact a wooden boat with no physical way of navigating water being able to survive a world covered in ocean which means Hurricane level or worse winds as no land will block the wind. Or the time line in the Bible for this happening would give very little time for Ancient Egypt to build its pyramids let alone repopulate the world.

Just an example.

Besides, one word invalidates all claims of the abrahamitic flood myth: Utnapishtim.

Funfact: If the sumerian religion was true, that guy would also still be around, clocking in at, at least, 4,120 years of age (oldest known transcript of the story is from 2,100 BCE). Oh and his wife as well... But I guess that doesn't count, as he didn't pray to the right god, except that god didn't care to reveal himself to at least a small portion of people until around 1,300 BCE, according to the bible, but whatever. Not to mention the fact that Utnapishtim was told of what was coming by his gods in the first place, so how does that work out?


youtu.be/lWZifSXlzlI

[Riedquat]

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!

You too!

Actually I'm afraid I'm going to wimp out for now unless something else pops up in the thread that catches my eye. Too many such discussions start well and end up going down the drain, and I'm really a grumpy, bad-tempered old-fashioned person most of the time anyway

[Ixthos]

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.

I mean, Moses probably knew whether or not God gave him the tablets, though I don't think that is the example you meant? Do you mean no one around today knows, or even the founders, such as some might have been having hallucinations?

As for what spirits are, that is also another topic entirely God however is the source and author of existence, the One who created order, and the origin of everything – the source of life, the origin of love – indeed, He is Love – and the source of wonder such that everything else that induces awe is a reflection. I know what that sounds like to someone who doesn't believe in Him, but that is who I and other Christians believe Him to be.

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.

That is a very interesting answer. I'm not sure I agree, but I would love to continue this discussion. Not now though hopefully in a few days.

I won't get into the previous discussions on already started on this thread.

I will say this personally, I have no problem with religion and faith. As long as it's not forced onto me.

Of course the Bible will and does have historical events written in its pages and can be easily proven by evidence. On the other hand, there are events in the Bible that most likely never happened or didn't happen on the scale told in the Bible. Such as Noah's Flood. Carrying two of each animal for a long time on a boat that has a physical description of its size. Doesn't allow for the massive amount of food needed be carried to feed them. Or Noah and his family having to care for the animals. Or the fact a wooden boat with no physical way of navigating water being able to survive a world covered in ocean which means Hurricane level or worse winds as no land will block the wind. Or the time line in the Bible for this happening would give very little time for Ancient Egypt to build its pyramids let alone repopulate the world.

Just an example.

Those are good points, though I do have some theories on that. I know this isn't much of a response right now, but it is late and I've got a lot to do, but I'd like to pick this point back up with you later if that is alright with you.

I won't get into the previous discussions on already started on this thread.

I will say this personally, I have no problem with religion and faith. As long as it's not forced onto me.

Of course the Bible will and does have historical events written in its pages and can be easily proven by evidence. On the other hand, there are events in the Bible that most likely never happened or didn't happen on the scale told in the Bible. Such as Noah's Flood. Carrying two of each animal for a long time on a boat that has a physical description of its size. Doesn't allow for the massive amount of food needed be carried to feed them. Or Noah and his family having to care for the animals. Or the fact a wooden boat with no physical way of navigating water being able to survive a world covered in ocean which means Hurricane level or worse winds as no land will block the wind. Or the time line in the Bible for this happening would give very little time for Ancient Egypt to build its pyramids let alone repopulate the world.

Just an example.

Besides, one word invalidates all claims of the abrahamitic flood myth: Utnapishtim.

Funfact: If the sumerian religion was true, that guy would also still be around, clocking in at, at least, 4,120 years of age (oldest known transcript of the story is from 2,100 BCE). Oh and his wife as well... But I guess that doesn't count, as he didn't pray to the right god, except that god didn't care to reveal himself to at least a small portion of people until around 1,300 BCE, according to the bible, but whatever. Not to mention the fact that Utnapishtim was told of what was coming by his gods in the first place, so how does that work out?


youtu.be/lWZifSXlzlI

As with McAvoy I'd like to discuss this with you later. This response is mainly to indicate I'd like to get back to you but can't at the moment. I will definitely watch that video before responding though.

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!

You too!

Actually I'm afraid I'm going to wimp out for now unless something else pops up in the thread that catches my eye. Too many such discussions start well and end up going down the drain, and I'm really a grumpy, bad-tempered old-fashioned person most of the time anyway

Understood, and I don't see that was wimping out so much as wisely choose what and how to spend your time on. I would appreciate if you kept your eye on it, but you are under no obligation to respond, though your responses are welcome And God willing this discussion will continue to be civil, even when those involved disagree strongly.

Also, to everyone reading this, including Bridge, Fuzzy, McAvoy, Madner, Riedquat, and everyone else, member and guest, I hope you all have a happy new year! Take care!

[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.

I mean, Moses probably knew whether or not God gave him the tablets, though I don't think that is the example you meant? Do you mean no one around today knows, or even the founders, such as some might have been having hallucinations?

I don't think Moses was uncertain. I take these stories as truth.

[Ixthos]

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.

I mean, Moses probably knew whether or not God gave him the tablets, though I don't think that is the example you meant? Do you mean no one around today knows, or even the founders, such as some might have been having hallucinations?

I don't think Moses was uncertain. I take these stories as truth.

Fair enough Also, its just gone midnight here, so happy new year!

[Riedquat]

Fair enough Also, its just gone midnight here, so happy new year!

Might be pusing it from my previous post, but it has done here now, so Happy New Year to you all, even the ones I bicker with!

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't celebrate new years.

[Ixthos]

...

...

First off, thank you both for responding, and I apologise for taking so long to get back to you. With that said, my response is fairly short for the moment, and mainly is this: considering that most of the writers in scripture probably didn't know the exact shape or dimensions of the world, and lived in a particular area, would you object to the idea that the events described did happen, but to the known world of the writers? Second, wouldn't you expect that the common event that every living human at least in that region experienced would be passed on as a common story - i.e. because all the peoples of that region are descendants of the eight mouths on a vessel (which is the Chinese character for boat) that that major event would have been passed on in myths and stories to all the peoples that emerged? (Also, to McAvoy, the ark wouldn't have needed to navigate the waters, minor note - and Egyptian chronology is a little less robust than most people think, though I'm not sure which dates you are referring to) (To Madner - I actually think I can explain the reason why God revealed himself to Abraham, as it is the entire thrust of the book of Genesis being two halves, though it is a little esoteric (I seem to use that word a lot), if you are interested).

(Sorry for the response being so short - I'm hoping to respond more fully later, but I am still curious as to your take on that view).

[clearspira]

I'll give you my view on God. I'm an atheist, which means I do not believe that He, She, or They exist. I believe in science first. Problem is, man has been searching for God for at least 5,000 years and in all that time, we have produced exactly nothing that can be put through the scientific method. And what amuses me is that if this was ANY OTHER SUBJECT, a sample size of 0% would be enough to convince 99% of people that what we're talking about is a bunch of baloney.

However.

I also believe that if He, She, or They do exist then they either A) Only give the faintest shit about us because in all likelihood we are just one of a billion inhabited planets in the universe or B) Are a bunch of assholes who I would refuse to bow to just as readily as I would refuse to bow to Hitler. Only whereas Hitler had the SS, God has Hell. Same difference. Follow me or suffer.

TL;DR - I'm this guy. Or at least, I dearly wish I was: