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

[Madner Kami]

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?

Are you infering that the "world flood" described as in the Bible may in fact not have been a world wide flood, but a localized event? That is quite literally exactly what I expect to have happened. Just thinking about two decades back, we had a fairly large flood in my area. My hometown is located on a slight hill, compared to the rather wide river valley below. The world around my town was literally drowned by the flood for several days. I have no doubts that such events, especially in ancient times with people not being fully aware of the actual size of the world, would regard that as a world-wide event and it would explain their description and the cultural heritage resulting from that event. However, that flies right into the face of it being a fact. If that is the wrath of god, then he did a rather shoddy job, drowning a valley instead of the world...

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)

A) See above.
B) The chinese character for a boat... No. Wrong on several levels. First, there are several different chinese signs for a boat. Secondly, the character you have in mind, "船", is not a conglomerate of "ship", "eight" and "mouth". That is not how this particular chinese sign-language works at all. Let me explain: The sign signifying a large vessel consists of three signs indeed. The first, the large one on the left side, is the sign for a boat, a specific type of boat no less, namely a dugout canoe:



Doesn't quite look like anything that could work as an ark with the propositions given in the bible, does it? But that is besides the point for the moment. The other two signs on the right hand side, the lower one indeed is the sign for mouth, the upper one however isn't the sign for eight, but an old ideogram for "divide". Granted, eight and that old way of writing divide look very similar, but they are not and you'll see in a moment, as I'll come back to it.
So, even if those three signs were "boat", "8" and "mouth", you run into a very basic problem: That is simply not how chinese characters work. The sign on the left is the "word" itself. Those other two signs to the right, however aren't words, those are signs that indicate how the primary character, the actual word is pronounced. Let me put it this way: The chinese character for boat is actually intended to be read as: "Boat, pronounced (mouth) divided".
So, that character, if I transcribe it into a latin script (which never works out quite right, because asian languages use more than just the tounge, throat and lips to make sounds), is spoken similar to Chuán. The character misidentified as "eight", and here I come back why that similarity is so glaringly obvious wrong, is pronounced Bā, like Baaaaaa. Does Chuán sound in any way, as if there's a Baaaaa in there? Specifically the long, drawn-out a? No? That's because that sign isn't "8"... It's Chuán, not Chān...

(As a side-note, anyone who actually speaks and can read chinese, mandarin to be specific, would look at you in a very wierd way when you produce the sign boat+eight+mouth, because it doesn't even read as Chān. It's as if I'd suggest to pronounce boat that way: b04t. It's gobbledygook, even though it, literally, looks very similar on paper.)

Besides that, there are many more ways to write boat or ship in traditional chinese. I'll give you just a short list: 船, 舟, 航, 舺, 艭, 搒 and so many, many more...

(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).

Oh, please go ahead. But please realize, the moment you start interpreting and bending and stretching things, the further you go from scripture, the more likely I'll just reply: Anything can look like anything, if you flinch a little and look at it in a certain way and angle. The more you start interpreting, the further you get away from the original source, one of the oldest points made by theologians in the history of ever and they were and are quite right with that assessment.

[Ixthos]

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:

It might surprise you to learn that I believe in science also, and I see no issues with believing in God and believing in the principles and discoveries of science. And the God I believe in is the only God which backs up His claims with evidence of various forms - in short, I believe in a God who provides evidence - so much so that an atheist cold case detective became a Christian when he investigated it; if you are interested, look up J Waller Wallice. So in short I would like a chance to present some of that evidence to you, as I disput your claim that there is no evidence. Otherwise, I agree, a small sample size should in general allow someone to dismiss something as nonesence, baring in mind there are many things that are true that sound like nonesense but aren't (various properties of the laws of physics such as speeds not actually being addititive due to the constant nature of the speed of light, "now" depending on how fast you are going, entangled particles instantly affecting one another despite no information being passed faster than light, particles being both particles and waves, etc., and various mathematical paradoxes related to infinities of different sizes)

(Also, on the topic of evidence, if you will permit me a few days and I will try to post a list of data points for Christianity as evidence; it won't be an exaustive list, but I hope it can be a place to start and for you to examine and / or question. It probably will be in a week or so though.)

As to your second point, I have to disput that also, and ask why you make those claims. God does not have a mind like ours, and is presented in scripture as being aware of the universe at both its highest and lowest levels, and the past and present and future - if God cares about the movement of the most distant galaxies, and the entangled states of the smallest subatomic particles, caring about people should certainly not be a stretch. As for Hell, I wonder, what does the Bible say about it, and who goes to it? It certainly is a stretch to call God as Hitler, when God requires kindness to others, giving of yourself for others, loving others and sacrificing yourself for others - all things God did and does, including delying justice to try and save as many as can be saved. When God is the source of morality, which if He exists then He is, why do you have moral objections to God - if you are accepting the idea of hell in a certain context - and one I disput - why are you ignoring the rest of what scripture says about God? That is like being told by a friend that he saw a man walking with his kids when someone else came out and started attacking the mans kids with a knife, so that man pushed the attacker away, only for you to say that clearly the man with children should be thrown in jail because he clearly assaulted the man with the knife - why are you looking at the one set of actions and not the context - for example that it is actually those with the mark of the beast who have the attitude of follow me or suffer?

(Also, complete side note, but have you ever heard of Neal Asher? His writing is very interesting and action packed (though rather bloody) sci fi about an AI run society called the Polity. My problem with his books is that they tend to keep derailing the narrative to remind everyone that religion is evil, but if you can get past that you might enjoy his writing.)

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?

Are you infering that the "world flood" described as in the Bible may in fact not have been a world wide flood, but a localized event? That is quite literally exactly what I expect to have happened. Just thinking about two decades back, we had a fairly large flood in my area. My hometown is located on a slight hill, compared to the rather wide river valley below. The world around my town was literally drowned by the flood for several days. I have no doubts that such events, especially in ancient times with people not being fully aware of the actual size of the world, would regard that as a world-wide event and it would explain their description and the cultural heritage resulting from that event. However, that flies right into the face of it being a fact. If that is the wrath of god, then he did a rather shoddy job, drowning a valley instead of the world...

Sort of - I'm not committed to either a world wide flood or a global one, it is that I can see the passage meaning either one, and certainly meant wiping out the population centres where humanity was, or at least the corrupt humans. If it was local I don't see it as a shoddy job, but rather minimising the casualties; the scriptures focus on how sorrowful God was about what humanity was doing, and about how long He waited - indeed, many passages talk about God delaying judgement in order to give people as much time and as many warning as possible to repent before He judges them. Even what happened in Canaan involved God delaying for hundreds of years, as He said to Abraham that his descendents would claim the land once the evil of its inhabitants had reached its zineth, with their brutality and burning alive of their own children.

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)

A) See above.
B) The chinese character for a boat... No. Wrong on several levels. First, there are several different chinese signs for a boat. Secondly, the character you have in mind, "船", is not a conglomerate of "ship", "eight" and "mouth". That is not how this particular chinese sign-language works at all. Let me explain: The sign signifying a large vessel consists of three signs indeed. The first, the large one on the left side, is the sign for a boat, a specific type of boat no less, namely a dugout canoe:



Doesn't quite look like anything that could work as an ark with the propositions given in the bible, does it? But that is besides the point for the moment. The other two signs on the right hand side, the lower one indeed is the sign for mouth, the upper one however isn't the sign for eight, but an old ideogram for "divide". Granted, eight and that old way of writing divide look very similar, but they are not and you'll see in a moment, as I'll come back to it.
So, even if those three signs were "boat", "8" and "mouth", you run into a very basic problem: That is simply not how chinese characters work. The sign on the left is the "word" itself. Those other two signs to the right, however aren't words, those are signs that indicate how the primary character, the actual word is pronounced. Let me put it this way: The chinese character for boat is actually intended to be read as: "Boat, pronounced (mouth) divided".
So, that character, if I transcribe it into a latin script (which never works out quite right, because asian languages use more than just the tounge, throat and lips to make sounds), is spoken similar to Chuán. The character misidentified as "eight", and here I come back why that similarity is so glaringly obvious wrong, is pronounced Bā, like Baaaaaa. Does Chuán sound in any way, as if there's a Baaaaa in there? Specifically the long, drawn-out a? No? That's because that sign isn't "8"... It's Chuán, not Chān...

(As a side-note, anyone who actually speaks and can read chinese, mandarin to be specific, would look at you in a very wierd way when you produce the sign boat+eight+mouth, because it doesn't even read as Chān. It's as if I'd suggest to pronounce boat that way: b04t. It's gobbledygook, even though it, literally, looks very similar on paper.)

Besides that, there are many more ways to write boat or ship in traditional chinese. I'll give you just a short list: 船, 舟, 航, 舺, 艭, 搒 and so many, many more...

I'd like to get back to you on that - I remember reading an article which went into detail about additional symbols, and how this has been effective in convincing Chinese people to investigate further, implying they saw that as viable, but I am not prepared to discuss that part just yet. Let me get back to you on that.

(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).

Oh, please go ahead. But please realize, the moment you start interpreting and bending and stretching things, the further you go from scripture, the more likely I'll just reply: Anything can look like anything, if you flinch a little and look at it in a certain way and angle. The more you start interpreting, the further you get away from the original source, one of the oldest points made by theologians in the history of ever and they were and are quite right with that assessment.

Fair enough, though perhaps wait until after I've done so - after all, the book's was written with a certain goal in mind, and if you can show that goal is intended in the book then that doesn't become bending; also, as a side note, you might find David Pawson's Unlocking the Bible series interesting, as he covers each book and gives the full context and history of the book being studied, as well as highlighting key elements the book itself draws attention to, as well as the structure of the book and what each part focused on - and he made a note of reminding everyone to read each book of the Bible in full before quoting from parts of it to support a point of doctrine.

In brief, Genesis consists of two distinct halves (and remember the chapter and verse numbers were added later and aren't part of the original text), and later in Deuteronomy the key event at the junction between those two halves is repeated poetically by Moses in chapter 32. The first half is about God creating the universe and creating humanity (two slightly differing accounts that were meant to be read back to back), and the purpose for which mankind was created, and then covers the series of falls mankind underwent

* original sin, when Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - and note they were originally only bared from eating from that tree, not from the tree of life
* Cain killing Abel, followed by Lamech killing a man and boasting about it
* The corruption of human descent (and the mentioning of the Sons of God - key point) and how mankind's heart was filled with evil all the time (note that God's first negitive emotion described in scripture is sorrow)
* Babel, when humanity stopped trying to spread and tried "make a name for themselves", a very significant statement in the context of the Middle Eastern cultures, and so God scattered them and confused their language - this point is addressed again in Deuteronomy 32:8, written by the same author as Genesis and counted as the last book of the five written by Moses, of which Genesis was the first, and after the genealogies this where the first half ends.

Each of these was described by God as a terrible thing, and show a pattern of humanity getting worse and worse, and a key point is that all the humans at this stage know about God - every human knows God exists, and there is no mention of other gods, only the Sons of God. And in Deuteronomy 32:8 a new context is added to this event, with God saying in effect "if you will not put aside your evil and have the relationship with Me that you were created for, then I will give you others to be your gods." Note that the number of people mentioned in the genealogy is seventy, and traditiion is that El had seventy children, El being a Canaanite diety but as mentioned before due to cultural sharing and early traditions could be traced back to their understanding of God, taken along with Deuteronomy 32:8, implies each of those people was assigned to one of those seventy to now rule over them. God had in effect washed His hands of humanity and given them to others to rule them now; but this was not supposed to be a perminent thing, and especially in the context of also teaching the seventy Sons of God a lesson as well. This is where others in Genesis are shown to start worshipping other gods.

This is where the second part begins, which focuses on one man and his family as opposed to focusing on all humans as the previous half did. This man, Abram, is not listed with the seventy people mentioned previously, and as Deuteronomy 32:8 notes that Abraham's line was chosen to be God's inheretence, and with a specific purpose: to bless all the families of the Earth, as the scriptures say when God called Abram. Indeed, this is a continuation of the promise made to Eve, about how her seed - note in Hebrew this is singular, referring to a single person, rather than plural - would crush the serpent's head, even as the serpent bruises his heal. The story then focuses in on the narrowing line of descent, and God assigning Abram - who He renames Abraham - and Abraham's descendants a land at the crossroads of the world. Israel is located at the crossing point in the fertile crescent, the narrow corridor between Africa and Asia, and Europe and the Middle East - a place where a people blessed by God could be seen by everyone, and a place were those who, after accepting to follow God's will, reject it can be shown as a warning for God's justice and judgement.

So Genesis covers how mankind lost its knowledge of God due to God withdrawing Himself and letting them have other gods, and how God planned to restore that knowledge to them and to once again bless mankind, as He had blessed them before, and doing so by placing Abraham's line at the crossroads of the world.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

On the subject of Eternal Damnation in Christian theology, there's a great deal of gap between the popular conception and canonical lore. If you want to delve into the moral questions associated with it, I strongly suggested watching Religion For Breakfast's "A History of Hell". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s25-6Fq7PM8

[Ixthos]

On the subject of Eternal Damnation in Christian theology, there's a great deal of gap between the popular conception and canonical lore. If you want to delve into the moral questions associated with it, I strongly suggested watching Religion For Breakfast's "A History of Hell". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s25-6Fq7PM8

That was very interesting, thank you I think he gave a rather effective summary of a lot of the ideas, but probably could have covered Jesus's parables which mention it and how they describe it as well as those are extremely important to understand the context.

[McAvoy]

As far as the Great Flood.

It's definitely possible it was a localized event since there is plenty of evidence of something like that may have happened. I mean it will happen when you live near a major water source. All ancient civilizations built their towns or cities near one. Afterall, you need water.

Was there a man who realized something was wrong when there was alot of raining and the local natural dam to a major water source was leaking? Then he built a boat or had one on hand to save his family? Probably. Never will know.

My point, is that the Great Flood is the sort of thing no one should take literal and take mental gymnastics in figuring it out. There is alot of things wrong with it. And alot of things wrong with the 'evidence' for those who do try to prove it.

Dissecting what is and what is not history would take too long.

[Ixthos]

As far as the Great Flood.

It's definitely possible it was a localized event since there is plenty of evidence of something like that may have happened. I mean it will happen when you live near a major water source. All ancient civilizations built their towns or cities near one. Afterall, you need water.

Was there a man who realized something was wrong when there was alot of raining and the local natural dam to a major water source was leaking? Then he built a boat or had one on hand to save his family? Probably. Never will know.

My point, is that the Great Flood is the sort of thing no one should take literal and take mental gymnastics in figuring it out. There is alot of things wrong with it. And alot of things wrong with the 'evidence' for those who do try to prove it.

Dissecting what is and what is not history would take too long.

Those are good points though I disagree with your assessment. Still, you are very fixated on the Flood. How much of what the Bible recounts would you need to be convinced of in order to believe - if, for example, Jesus's life as described in the Gospels was Rashomon style accurate, including dying and resurrecting and ascending to Heaven, would that be enough? How many data points do you need?

[TGLS]

if, for example, Jesus's life as described in the Gospels was Rashomon style accurate, including dying and resurrecting and ascending to Heaven, would that be enough? How many data points do you need?

More than King Arthur.

[Ixthos]

if, for example, Jesus's life as described in the Gospels was Rashomon style accurate, including dying and resurrecting and ascending to Heaven, would that be enough? How many data points do you need?

More than King Arthur.

To be clear, are you saying you think Jesus has more evidence than King Arthur, or that you think Jesus would need more evidence than King Arthur?

(Also, doesn't the legends say that Arthur didn't fully "die" but remain in stasis, so that he will return but at the moment is still recovering from his wounds? (Also, are you waiting for that review too?))

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

You guys seem to be discussing whether the objectively animated events are consistent enough to represent truth/fact/history accurately.

A Rashomon style accuracy amounts to legend. The bible is pretty much full of legend as far as anyone here seems to acknowledge in your thread. I think people want more than legend to be convinced of the Bible's events as fact.

[TGLS]

if, for example, Jesus's life as described in the Gospels was Rashomon style accurate, including dying and resurrecting and ascending to Heaven, would that be enough? How many data points do you need?

More than King Arthur.

To be clear, are you saying you think Jesus has more evidence than King Arthur, or that you think Jesus would need more evidence than King Arthur?

Basically. King Arthur is basically my yardstick of "disputed historical personage", partially because few people are likely to be offended by someone saying "King Arthur is fictional" and partially because it makes the continuum from "King Arthur isn't real" to "King Arthur is an amalgam of various real people" to "There was a guy named Arthur in Briton who fought the Saxons" to "Geoffery of Monmouth wrote history" pretty clear.