Why do people stay religious?

[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?

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?

DP

The classic example of this is in the Gospels (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25": A rich person has as much chance of entering heaven as a camel has of going through the eye of a needle.

Is that truth? Said three times by three different Apostles -- rich people have no chance of getting into heaven.

NP. The meaning of this quote is that one cannot simply rely on wealth in order to get into heaven.

Well, that's a relief, because I'm rich and I want to go to heaven. Thanks to this assurance from an anonymous stranger on the internet, I know I can't rely strictly on my many cash gifts to the church to get me there, but it's good to know that they help. And it's in the Bible so it must be true! /S

Why do you want to go to heaven if you don't believe that it exists?

[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:

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?

So, let those people find hope and comfort in their religion.

Fine just don’t hold nonbelievers to your delusional standards and beliefs.

I'm not. I don't care what you believe/don't believe.

Do you think people who don't believe in God will suffer for eternity in hell?

Catholics believe all nonCatholics will go to hell. Sweet.

[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?

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?

DP

The classic example of this is in the Gospels (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25": A rich person has as much chance of entering heaven as a camel has of going through the eye of a needle.

Is that truth? Said three times by three different Apostles -- rich people have no chance of getting into heaven.

Im the pp you quoted.
I would say that it’s the literal truth that Jesus said something like this that has been translated modern English.

Whether or not it means that rich people can’t get into heaven is up for interpretation. Not everyone interprets this the same way.

[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:

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?

So, let those people find hope and comfort in their religion.

Fine just don’t hold nonbelievers to your delusional standards and beliefs.

I'm not. I don't care what you believe/don't believe.

Do you think people who don't believe in God will suffer for eternity in hell?

Do you believe that it’s possible to go to Heaven if you don’t want to be near to God?

[Anonymous]

It’s a scam

[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?

Yes. Although I am shocked I have to as you appear to have some education. You can compare with corroborating sources. You consider the sources. You see if you have original copies and drafts in the original languages and what they say. You perform textual criticism (Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus) You use methods like OPCVL.

https://www.clastify.com/blog/ib-history-opcvl-explained
https://www.clastify.com/blog/ib-history-opcvl-examples

What you don’t do is pick and choose based on obvious flaws. What we know is that the Bible is a complication of collected writings from different sources, we have no original copies of the gospels (we dont even know who wrote them), none of them are contemporaneously written, and they are striking similarities to other obvious myths from other ancient religions.

[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?

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?

DP

The classic example of this is in the Gospels (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25": A rich person has as much chance of entering heaven as a camel has of going through the eye of a needle.

Is that truth? Said three times by three different Apostles -- rich people have no chance of getting into heaven.

NP. The meaning of this quote is that one cannot simply rely on wealth in order to get into heaven.

Well, that's a relief, because I'm rich and I want to go to heaven. Thanks to this assurance from an anonymous stranger on the internet, I know I can't rely strictly on my many cash gifts to the church to get me there, but it's good to know that they help. And it's in the Bible so it must be true! /S

The anonymous stranger on the internet never said that cash gifts to the church can help you get into heaven. Nice try, though.

Thanks, from another anonymous stranger

[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?

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?

Yes. Although I am shocked I have to as you appear to have some education. You can compare with corroborating sources. You consider the sources. You see if you have original copies and drafts in the original languages and what they say. You perform textual criticism (Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus) You use methods like OPCVL.

https://www.clastify.com/blog/ib-history-opcvl-explained
https://www.clastify.com/blog/ib-history-opcvl-examples

What you don’t do is pick and choose based on obvious flaws. What we know is that the Bible is a complication of collected writings from different sources, we have no original copies of the gospels (we dont even know who wrote them), none of them are contemporaneously written, and they are striking similarities to other obvious myths from other ancient religions.

In other words, the Bible is not the word of God, even if there were a God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Religions are cults. Some more extreme than others. People want to fit in, some are born into cults, others convert into cults. People want to feel more fulfilled, find connection and network, and sometimes shallow reasons like they met a partner who is in a specific cult. The person never had any interest in that cult prior to meeting this person, oh but now, now they state that they always wanted to become part of it. Bull$h!. Many times religion is all about exclusion and potentially elevating one’s status somehow.

This describes the experience of someone I deeply love to a “T”. He was a late teen at the time and someone came along that indoctrinated him at a vulnerable point in his life. Love bombing, coercive control, manipulation, fear based techniques…all used against him and it is destroying his life because it’s feeding into his anxieties in multiple ways but he is trapped now (mind-forged manacles as Christoper Hitchens said).

Saddest thing I’ve ever witnessed and I can do nothing to fight it from the outside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Without religion we would have much less to fight about. Other than being unable to critical think and being a follower, why would anyone believe in and follow antiquated belief systems and practices? There’s absolutely no reason to do this other than all of your associations are through this religion, or you think you might be able to elevate to a higher status or meet the right people through this religion. We shouldn’t need religion to do this.

Ironically, it is science that can answer these questions. Neurobiology, psychology, etc are the explanations to why people believe in the first place, and why they can continue to believe despite the irrationality, cognitive dissonance etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My non religious father was visiting his uncle who happened to be in a Catholic Nursing Home, an elderly resident rolled up to my dad and asked him if he was Catholic and my dad replied no, he wasn’t Catholic. This elderly woman looked him straight in the eyes and said ‘Sir, you’re going to hell’ my dad laughed at her. I’ve had Catholic supervisors allow other Catholics to leave for mass during work and made it clear to everyone that she preferred the Catholics. She had Catholic saint figures all over the office along with Catholic brochures. She wouldn’t even let me leave early for an ultrasound when I was 37 weeks pregnant. I’ve had evangelical coworkers tell me I needed to be ‘saved’ etc. This is simply insane. How is this helpful to society?

It is so NOT helpful to society that I’m currently writing a book specifically about this type of insidious harm to society.

On another note, I’ve seen my once loving child go from making handmade cards for me for Mother’s Day (even as a young adult) to only filling my card with Bible verses about how I need to be saved or I’m going to hell and choosing evil. It’s horrendous to watch someone you love disappear into this ideology. His particular sect is taught to “revel and celebrate when you see evil in the world for it means Christ will be returning soon”

Pretty hard to sleep at night knowing there are really people that believe this stuff and know of its harm.

[Anonymous]

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.

I think a lot of people do have evolved critical thinking skills, except when it comes to religion.

Exactly. Religious indoctrination quiets the prefrontal cortex (critical thinking) and activates the amygdala (fear center) It’s hard to overcome that

[Anonymous]

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.

I think a lot of people do have evolved critical thinking skills, except when it comes to religion.

Exactly. Religious indoctrination quiets the prefrontal cortex (critical thinking) and activates the amygdala (fear center) It’s hard to overcome that

But a lot of people have overcome it, including me. How did we do it? I my case, I just started reading.

[Anonymous]

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.

I think a lot of people do have evolved critical thinking skills, except when it comes to religion.

Exactly. Religious indoctrination quiets the prefrontal cortex (critical thinking) and activates the amygdala (fear center) It’s hard to overcome that

But a lot of people have overcome it, including me. How did we do it? I my case, I just started reading.

I never truly believed, but I can honestly date my full conversion to atheism to an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. No advanced society (or thinking person) believes in Gods.

[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.

I think a lot of people do have evolved critical thinking skills, except when it comes to religion.

Exactly. Religious indoctrination quiets the prefrontal cortex (critical thinking) and activates the amygdala (fear center) It’s hard to overcome that

But a lot of people have overcome it, including me. How did we do it? I my case, I just started reading.

I never truly believed, but I can honestly date my full conversion to atheism to an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. No advanced society (or thinking person) believes in Gods.

and now the US is quickly losing its place as an advanced society, with Trump, an atheist, using Christians to harm people.