Why do people stay religious?

[Anonymous]

I believe in God because it's comforting. But I don't follow the Bible or go to church or anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

I am guessing you are the same guy that repeats this trope when challenged by the obvious problems with the Bible. Why not just describe the methodology to know what is true and what is metaphorical? Telling people “you just don’t understand” is a clear cop-out.

If it is all literal, then, well no it can’t be as any thinking person can see.

If it’s all metaphorical, then who gives a hoot what it says because it’s no different from any other fiction?

I don’t normally post on this forum, so I’m not familiar with who you are talking about. I’m a doctor, and I find this same kind of thinking frustrating when talking to people about science and medicine.

I thought my rainbow analogy was pretty good on describing why both the literal and metaphorical descriptions are needed to understand something. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.

What is a metaphorical description of a rainbow?

Why bother with all that anyway? Why not just describe the process used to tell what parts of the Bible are truth and which are metaphor? And don’t just respond with “textual criticism” because that has been done by experts and shows the many flaws in the Bible.

I am not familiar with the “process”you are talking about.

If you were to describe a rainbow to an alien who had never been to earth, you would describe light waves, but that’s not all, right? There is more to a rainbow than that. It is beautiful. It makes you feel a certain way.
I’m not sure why you say that a metaphor isn’t true. Would you say that a poem is a less true description of love than an article about oxytocin and dopamine release?

The feelings one gets from reading the Bible or any religious text is not fact. A feeling isn’t fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

People can actually see a rainbow, rainbows are real physical manifestations. Your rainbow analogy may be like describing a rainbow to a blind person perhaps, but even then rainbows still exist. What you believe as being God is your perception, it’s make believe, no one can see your God because it doesn’t really exist. It’s like a ghost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

I am guessing you are the same guy that repeats this trope when challenged by the obvious problems with the Bible. Why not just describe the methodology to know what is true and what is metaphorical? Telling people “you just don’t understand” is a clear cop-out.

If it is all literal, then, well no it can’t be as any thinking person can see.

If it’s all metaphorical, then who gives a hoot what it says because it’s no different from any other fiction?

I don’t normally post on this forum, so I’m not familiar with who you are talking about. I’m a doctor, and I find this same kind of thinking frustrating when talking to people about science and medicine.

I thought my rainbow analogy was pretty good on describing why both the literal and metaphorical descriptions are needed to understand something. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.

What is a metaphorical description of a rainbow?

Why bother with all that anyway? Why not just describe the process used to tell what parts of the Bible are truth and which are metaphor? And don’t just respond with “textual criticism” because that has been done by experts and shows the many flaws in the Bible.

I am not familiar with the “process”you are talking about.

If you were to describe a rainbow to an alien who had never been to earth, you would describe light waves, but that’s not all, right? There is more to a rainbow than that. It is beautiful. It makes you feel a certain way.
I’m not sure why you say that a metaphor isn’t true. Would you say that a poem is a less true description of love than an article about oxytocin and dopamine release?

The feelings one gets from reading the Bible or any religious text is not fact. A feeling isn’t fact.

So are you saying that a love poem is not as realistic of a description of love as a textbook entry on oxytocin and dopamine release during intercourse?

Or are you saying that love doesn’t exist because it is a feeling?

I will say that if you believe that love is simply a release of neurotransmitters and nothing else, and a rainbow is simply light rays hitting your retina and nothing else, then I understand why you don’t believe in God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

People can actually see a rainbow, rainbows are real physical manifestations. Your rainbow analogy may be like describing a rainbow to a blind person perhaps, but even then rainbows still exist. What you believe as being God is your perception, it’s make believe, no one can see your God because it doesn’t really exist. It’s like a ghost.

What if a blind person who grew up on a society of blind people and didn’t know they were blind told you that rainbows didn’t exist. How could you show that they did?
What if that person was also fairly narrow-minded and not willing to acknowledge the existence of anything outside of their own experience as a blind person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

I am guessing you are the same guy that repeats this trope when challenged by the obvious problems with the Bible. Why not just describe the methodology to know what is true and what is metaphorical? Telling people “you just don’t understand” is a clear cop-out.

If it is all literal, then, well no it can’t be as any thinking person can see.

If it’s all metaphorical, then who gives a hoot what it says because it’s no different from any other fiction?

I don’t normally post on this forum, so I’m not familiar with who you are talking about. I’m a doctor, and I find this same kind of thinking frustrating when talking to people about science and medicine.

I thought my rainbow analogy was pretty good on describing why both the literal and metaphorical descriptions are needed to understand something. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.

What is a metaphorical description of a rainbow?

Why bother with all that anyway? Why not just describe the process used to tell what parts of the Bible are truth and which are metaphor? And don’t just respond with “textual criticism” because that has been done by experts and shows the many flaws in the Bible.

I am not familiar with the “process”you are talking about.

If you were to describe a rainbow to an alien who had never been to earth, you would describe light waves, but that’s not all, right? There is more to a rainbow than that. It is beautiful. It makes you feel a certain way.
I’m not sure why you say that a metaphor isn’t true. Would you say that a poem is a less true description of love than an article about oxytocin and dopamine release?

The feelings one gets from reading the Bible or any religious text is not fact. A feeling isn’t fact.

So are you saying that a love poem is not as realistic of a description of love as a textbook entry on oxytocin and dopamine release during intercourse?

Or are you saying that love doesn’t exist because it is a feeling?

I will say that if you believe that love is simply a release of neurotransmitters and nothing else, and a rainbow is simply light rays hitting your retina and nothing else, then I understand why you don’t believe in God.

And I, a DP, think you're trying very hard to make pp look stupid so you can say you understand how such a stupid person would not believe in God -- as if believing in an invisible, supernatural being makes sense. It does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

I am guessing you are the same guy that repeats this trope when challenged by the obvious problems with the Bible. Why not just describe the methodology to know what is true and what is metaphorical? Telling people “you just don’t understand” is a clear cop-out.

If it is all literal, then, well no it can’t be as any thinking person can see.

If it’s all metaphorical, then who gives a hoot what it says because it’s no different from any other fiction?

I don’t normally post on this forum, so I’m not familiar with who you are talking about. I’m a doctor, and I find this same kind of thinking frustrating when talking to people about science and medicine.

I thought my rainbow analogy was pretty good on describing why both the literal and metaphorical descriptions are needed to understand something. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.

What is a metaphorical description of a rainbow?

Why bother with all that anyway? Why not just describe the process used to tell what parts of the Bible are truth and which are metaphor? And don’t just respond with “textual criticism” because that has been done by experts and shows the many flaws in the Bible.

I am not familiar with the “process”you are talking about.

If you were to describe a rainbow to an alien who had never been to earth, you would describe light waves, but that’s not all, right? There is more to a rainbow than that. It is beautiful. It makes you feel a certain way.
I’m not sure why you say that a metaphor isn’t true. Would you say that a poem is a less true description of love than an article about oxytocin and dopamine release?

The feelings one gets from reading the Bible or any religious text is not fact. A feeling isn’t fact.

So are you saying that a love poem is not as realistic of a description of love as a textbook entry on oxytocin and dopamine release during intercourse?

Or are you saying that love doesn’t exist because it is a feeling?

I will say that if you believe that love is simply a release of neurotransmitters and nothing else, and a rainbow is simply light rays hitting your retina and nothing else, then I understand why you don’t believe in God.

And I, a DP, think you're trying very hard to make pp look stupid so you can say you understand how such a stupid person would not believe in God -- as if believing in an invisible, supernatural being makes sense. It does not.

NP. It only matters if it makes sense to the person who believes. It does not matter to that person if it does not make sense to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

I am guessing you are the same guy that repeats this trope when challenged by the obvious problems with the Bible. Why not just describe the methodology to know what is true and what is metaphorical? Telling people “you just don’t understand” is a clear cop-out.

If it is all literal, then, well no it can’t be as any thinking person can see.

If it’s all metaphorical, then who gives a hoot what it says because it’s no different from any other fiction?

I don’t normally post on this forum, so I’m not familiar with who you are talking about. I’m a doctor, and I find this same kind of thinking frustrating when talking to people about science and medicine.

I thought my rainbow analogy was pretty good on describing why both the literal and metaphorical descriptions are needed to understand something. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.

What is a metaphorical description of a rainbow?

Why bother with all that anyway? Why not just describe the process used to tell what parts of the Bible are truth and which are metaphor? And don’t just respond with “textual criticism” because that has been done by experts and shows the many flaws in the Bible.

I am not familiar with the “process”you are talking about.

If you were to describe a rainbow to an alien who had never been to earth, you would describe light waves, but that’s not all, right? There is more to a rainbow than that. It is beautiful. It makes you feel a certain way.
I’m not sure why you say that a metaphor isn’t true. Would you say that a poem is a less true description of love than an article about oxytocin and dopamine release?

The feelings one gets from reading the Bible or any religious text is not fact. A feeling isn’t fact.

So are you saying that a love poem is not as realistic of a description of love as a textbook entry on oxytocin and dopamine release during intercourse?

Or are you saying that love doesn’t exist because it is a feeling?

I will say that if you believe that love is simply a release of neurotransmitters and nothing else, and a rainbow is simply light rays hitting your retina and nothing else, then I understand why you don’t believe in God.

And I, a DP, think you're trying very hard to make pp look stupid so you can say you understand how such a stupid person would not believe in God -- as if believing in an invisible, supernatural being makes sense. It does not.

NP. It only matters if it makes sense to the person who believes. It does not matter to that person if it does not make sense to you.

It almost sounds like you're saying that a person can make up anything and if they believe it, then it makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

I am guessing you are the same guy that repeats this trope when challenged by the obvious problems with the Bible. Why not just describe the methodology to know what is true and what is metaphorical? Telling people “you just don’t understand” is a clear cop-out.

If it is all literal, then, well no it can’t be as any thinking person can see.

If it’s all metaphorical, then who gives a hoot what it says because it’s no different from any other fiction?

I don’t normally post on this forum, so I’m not familiar with who you are talking about. I’m a doctor, and I find this same kind of thinking frustrating when talking to people about science and medicine.

I thought my rainbow analogy was pretty good on describing why both the literal and metaphorical descriptions are needed to understand something. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.

What is a metaphorical description of a rainbow?

Why bother with all that anyway? Why not just describe the process used to tell what parts of the Bible are truth and which are metaphor? And don’t just respond with “textual criticism” because that has been done by experts and shows the many flaws in the Bible.

I am not familiar with the “process”you are talking about.

If you were to describe a rainbow to an alien who had never been to earth, you would describe light waves, but that’s not all, right? There is more to a rainbow than that. It is beautiful. It makes you feel a certain way.
I’m not sure why you say that a metaphor isn’t true. Would you say that a poem is a less true description of love than an article about oxytocin and dopamine release?

The feelings one gets from reading the Bible or any religious text is not fact. A feeling isn’t fact.

So are you saying that a love poem is not as realistic of a description of love as a textbook entry on oxytocin and dopamine release during intercourse?

Or are you saying that love doesn’t exist because it is a feeling?

I will say that if you believe that love is simply a release of neurotransmitters and nothing else, and a rainbow is simply light rays hitting your retina and nothing else, then I understand why you don’t believe in God.

And I, a DP, think you're trying very hard to make pp look stupid so you can say you understand how such a stupid person would not believe in God -- as if believing in an invisible, supernatural being makes sense. It does not.

NP. It only matters if it makes sense to the person who believes. It does not matter to that person if it does not make sense to you.

It almost sounds like you're saying that a person can make up anything and if they believe it, then it makes sense.

To that person, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

I am guessing you are the same guy that repeats this trope when challenged by the obvious problems with the Bible. Why not just describe the methodology to know what is true and what is metaphorical? Telling people “you just don’t understand” is a clear cop-out.

If it is all literal, then, well no it can’t be as any thinking person can see.

If it’s all metaphorical, then who gives a hoot what it says because it’s no different from any other fiction?

I don’t normally post on this forum, so I’m not familiar with who you are talking about. I’m a doctor, and I find this same kind of thinking frustrating when talking to people about science and medicine.

I thought my rainbow analogy was pretty good on describing why both the literal and metaphorical descriptions are needed to understand something. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.

What is a metaphorical description of a rainbow?

Why bother with all that anyway? Why not just describe the process used to tell what parts of the Bible are truth and which are metaphor? And don’t just respond with “textual criticism” because that has been done by experts and shows the many flaws in the Bible.

I am not familiar with the “process”you are talking about.

If you were to describe a rainbow to an alien who had never been to earth, you would describe light waves, but that’s not all, right? There is more to a rainbow than that. It is beautiful. It makes you feel a certain way.
I’m not sure why you say that a metaphor isn’t true. Would you say that a poem is a less true description of love than an article about oxytocin and dopamine release?

The feelings one gets from reading the Bible or any religious text is not fact. A feeling isn’t fact.

So are you saying that a love poem is not as realistic of a description of love as a textbook entry on oxytocin and dopamine release during intercourse?

Or are you saying that love doesn’t exist because it is a feeling?

I will say that if you believe that love is simply a release of neurotransmitters and nothing else, and a rainbow is simply light rays hitting your retina and nothing else, then I understand why you don’t believe in God.

And I, a DP, think you're trying very hard to make pp look stupid so you can say you understand how such a stupid person would not believe in God -- as if believing in an invisible, supernatural being makes sense. It does not.

NP. It only matters if it makes sense to the person who believes. It does not matter to that person if it does not make sense to you.

It almost sounds like you're saying that a person can make up anything and if they believe it, then it makes sense.

To that person, yes.

This can be beneficial and provide hope and comfort for people, however are you unable to see the many downsides, the dark sides of religions?

[Anonymous]

But admit that religions are simply mass delusion, this can be damaging and dangerous in some cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

I am guessing you are the same guy that repeats this trope when challenged by the obvious problems with the Bible. Why not just describe the methodology to know what is true and what is metaphorical? Telling people “you just don’t understand” is a clear cop-out.

If it is all literal, then, well no it can’t be as any thinking person can see.

If it’s all metaphorical, then who gives a hoot what it says because it’s no different from any other fiction?

I don’t normally post on this forum, so I’m not familiar with who you are talking about. I’m a doctor, and I find this same kind of thinking frustrating when talking to people about science and medicine.

I thought my rainbow analogy was pretty good on describing why both the literal and metaphorical descriptions are needed to understand something. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.

What is a metaphorical description of a rainbow?

Why bother with all that anyway? Why not just describe the process used to tell what parts of the Bible are truth and which are metaphor? And don’t just respond with “textual criticism” because that has been done by experts and shows the many flaws in the Bible.

I am not familiar with the “process”you are talking about.

If you were to describe a rainbow to an alien who had never been to earth, you would describe light waves, but that’s not all, right? There is more to a rainbow than that. It is beautiful. It makes you feel a certain way.
I’m not sure why you say that a metaphor isn’t true. Would you say that a poem is a less true description of love than an article about oxytocin and dopamine release?

The feelings one gets from reading the Bible or any religious text is not fact. A feeling isn’t fact.

So are you saying that a love poem is not as realistic of a description of love as a textbook entry on oxytocin and dopamine release during intercourse?

Or are you saying that love doesn’t exist because it is a feeling?

I will say that if you believe that love is simply a release of neurotransmitters and nothing else, and a rainbow is simply light rays hitting your retina and nothing else, then I understand why you don’t believe in God.

And I, a DP, think you're trying very hard to make pp look stupid so you can say you understand how such a stupid person would not believe in God -- as if believing in an invisible, supernatural being makes sense. It does not.

I wasn’t trying to make the pp look stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

I am guessing you are the same guy that repeats this trope when challenged by the obvious problems with the Bible. Why not just describe the methodology to know what is true and what is metaphorical? Telling people “you just don’t understand” is a clear cop-out.

If it is all literal, then, well no it can’t be as any thinking person can see.

If it’s all metaphorical, then who gives a hoot what it says because it’s no different from any other fiction?

I don’t normally post on this forum, so I’m not familiar with who you are talking about. I’m a doctor, and I find this same kind of thinking frustrating when talking to people about science and medicine.

I thought my rainbow analogy was pretty good on describing why both the literal and metaphorical descriptions are needed to understand something. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.

What is a metaphorical description of a rainbow?

Why bother with all that anyway? Why not just describe the process used to tell what parts of the Bible are truth and which are metaphor? And don’t just respond with “textual criticism” because that has been done by experts and shows the many flaws in the Bible.

I am not familiar with the “process”you are talking about.

If you were to describe a rainbow to an alien who had never been to earth, you would describe light waves, but that’s not all, right? There is more to a rainbow than that. It is beautiful. It makes you feel a certain way.
I’m not sure why you say that a metaphor isn’t true. Would you say that a poem is a less true description of love than an article about oxytocin and dopamine release?

What I am saying is you are typing a lot of meaningless words.

Rainbows are real. We can see them. We can see photos of them. We can explain why they exist.

If you are separating the Bible into both true and metaphor, what is the process you use to determine which is which?

If you don’t know what I mean by “process”, then maybe you should, or at least refrain from commenting until you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

I am guessing you are the same guy that repeats this trope when challenged by the obvious problems with the Bible. Why not just describe the methodology to know what is true and what is metaphorical? Telling people “you just don’t understand” is a clear cop-out.

If it is all literal, then, well no it can’t be as any thinking person can see.

If it’s all metaphorical, then who gives a hoot what it says because it’s no different from any other fiction?

I don’t normally post on this forum, so I’m not familiar with who you are talking about. I’m a doctor, and I find this same kind of thinking frustrating when talking to people about science and medicine.

I thought my rainbow analogy was pretty good on describing why both the literal and metaphorical descriptions are needed to understand something. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.

What is a metaphorical description of a rainbow?

Why bother with all that anyway? Why not just describe the process used to tell what parts of the Bible are truth and which are metaphor? And don’t just respond with “textual criticism” because that has been done by experts and shows the many flaws in the Bible.

I am not familiar with the “process”you are talking about.

If you were to describe a rainbow to an alien who had never been to earth, you would describe light waves, but that’s not all, right? There is more to a rainbow than that. It is beautiful. It makes you feel a certain way.
I’m not sure why you say that a metaphor isn’t true. Would you say that a poem is a less true description of love than an article about oxytocin and dopamine release?

What I am saying is you are typing a lot of meaningless words.

Rainbows are real. We can see them. We can see photos of them. We can explain why they exist.

If you are separating the Bible into both true and metaphor, what is the process you use to determine which is which?

If you don’t know what I mean by “process”, then maybe you should, or at least refrain from commenting until you do.

I am not saying that rainbows aren’t real. I’m saying that if you want to define what a rainbow is to an alien race who has never seen one and could never see one, you would have to use both facts and metaphor. Facts alone don’t really do justice to the marvel of a rainbow.

I’m not sure what the process is for separating these things in the Bible.
Can you give me an example of a process where you differentiate truth and metaphor in another book or subject?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another religious freak died, scammer, creeper bit golly gee wiz he was a church going dude!

The Louisiana native was best known for being a captivating Pentecostal preacher with a massive following before being caught on camera with a prostitute in New Orleans in 1988, one of a string of successful TV preachers brought down in the 1980s and ’90s by sex scandals. He continued preaching for decades, but with a reduced audience.

Religion is always the scam. And it’s never been the drag Queens.

OPPs why do people stay religious?? They are either stupid or scammers or child molesters or morally corrupt. Or all of the above.

There are lots of religious people who are educated. They're intelligent and have good jobs and are decent people. They're just dumb when it comes to religion.

So they are essentially followers, which is fine, I don’t think I am better than religious people, I just wish people had more evolved critical thinking skills.

DP: Don't you think it odd to just assume highly intelligent people are dumb about one thing? Has it occurred to you that maybe they've studied and thought about it more than you have? Maybe they have a better and more nuanced understanding of their own beliefs than whatever it is you are assuming they believe?

I hear you, pp. Most of the people arguing against religion on this forum have a third grade education in it or less.
Why would OP assume that adults believe in things the way they were explained to them when they were eight?

I cannot fathom how anyone on modern day earth literally believes stories from ancient times, like word for word. Learned adults are doing this. I may not be a religious scholar but this seems insane to me. It’s fine to learn ethics and cautionary tales, etc., but not literally following these texts.

Yeah. It’s really easy to not understand something that you know almost nothing about.

It’s also very easy to be sure that you are right about something when you don’t know much about the subject. That’s why anti-vaxxers are so confident in their rhetoric while medical research papers end with a discussion of where they might have been wrong. It’s easy to feel certain that you are right when you have a simplistic view of a subject.

If you think that educated adults believe the Bible stories in the way you were taught them when you were eight, you are mistaken.

And the Bible is liter-ary. It isn’t liter-al. If it were literal, it wouldn’t make any sense. But there is more than one kind of truth than a description of literal facts. If you were to describe a rainbow to someone who had never seen one by talking about the different light waves bouncing off water droplets in the air and hitting your retina, you would be describing a literal event, but you would be missing something essential about the rainbow. Same thing if you only talked about its beauty. You need to understand some things in multiple ways before you can start to grasp the truth of what they are.

I am guessing you are the same guy that repeats this trope when challenged by the obvious problems with the Bible. Why not just describe the methodology to know what is true and what is metaphorical? Telling people “you just don’t understand” is a clear cop-out.

If it is all literal, then, well no it can’t be as any thinking person can see.

If it’s all metaphorical, then who gives a hoot what it says because it’s no different from any other fiction?

I don’t normally post on this forum, so I’m not familiar with who you are talking about. I’m a doctor, and I find this same kind of thinking frustrating when talking to people about science and medicine.

I thought my rainbow analogy was pretty good on describing why both the literal and metaphorical descriptions are needed to understand something. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.

What is a metaphorical description of a rainbow?

Why bother with all that anyway? Why not just describe the process used to tell what parts of the Bible are truth and which are metaphor? And don’t just respond with “textual criticism” because that has been done by experts and shows the many flaws in the Bible.

I am not familiar with the “process”you are talking about.

If you were to describe a rainbow to an alien who had never been to earth, you would describe light waves, but that’s not all, right? There is more to a rainbow than that. It is beautiful. It makes you feel a certain way.
I’m not sure why you say that a metaphor isn’t true. Would you say that a poem is a less true description of love than an article about oxytocin and dopamine release?

What I am saying is you are typing a lot of meaningless words.

Rainbows are real. We can see them. We can see photos of them. We can explain why they exist.

If you are separating the Bible into both true and metaphor, what is the process you use to determine which is which?

If you don’t know what I mean by “process”, then maybe you should, or at least refrain from commenting until you do.

I am not saying that rainbows aren’t real. I’m saying that if you want to define what a rainbow is to an alien race who has never seen one and could never see one, you would have to use both facts and metaphor. Facts alone don’t really do justice to the marvel of a rainbow.

I’m not sure what the process is for separating these things in the Bible.
Can you give me an example of a process where you differentiate truth and metaphor in another book or subject?

A rainbow is real though, there’s no questioning this. There is no physical God. What you refer to as God is intangible, it’s a personal or subjective feeling or experience? It would be called mental illness otherwise. Some people believe in ghosts and spirits, doesn’t make them real.