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:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

[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:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

Ok, then. We’ll leave you to it.

[Anonymous]

Please learn what an ad hominem attack really is, thanks.

[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:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

[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:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please learn what an ad hominem attack really is, thanks.

If you are referring to me, a PP who kept pointing out you (or someone) kept committing the fallacy instead of responding to the point. I completely do understand what it is. It is when you attack the messenger instead of the message itself.

What mistaken definition do you hold of the term?

Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/ad-hominem.html

Examples from this thread:

- "a random internet commenter who doesn’t know anything about my religion"

- "This is not an ad hominom [sic] attack against you, it is more like a teacher letting you know you are not on track for the A paper because you are only using one source and not a great one at that." - This might be my favorite, because of the direct use of the term (mis-spelled but no points off there) while both committing one and denying it, but mostly because of the four uses of the word "you".

- "The thing is that it’s really hard to argue with someone who knows very little about the subject they are talking about and is Hell-bent on defending their position and believing that everyone else is part of a conspiracy."

-"It’s because the person they are talking to doesn’t really have the scaffolding to receive any technical information and the big picture is easy to dismiss if you think everything is a conspiracy and have no respect for education or authority."

- "You are uneducated and not willing to learn, which makes you boring at best. "

- "I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance."

That's just the last couple of pages.

I beleive that to be sufficient evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please learn what an ad hominem attack really is, thanks.

If you are referring to me, a PP who kept pointing out you (or someone) kept committing the fallacy instead of responding to the point. I completely do understand what it is. It is when you attack the messenger instead of the message itself.

What mistaken definition do you hold of the term?

Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/ad-hominem.html

Examples from this thread:

- "a random internet commenter who doesn’t know anything about my religion"

- "This is not an ad hominom [sic] attack against you, it is more like a teacher letting you know you are not on track for the A paper because you are only using one source and not a great one at that." - This might be my favorite, because of the direct use of the term (mis-spelled but no points off there) while both committing one and denying it, but mostly because of the four uses of the word "you".

- "The thing is that it’s really hard to argue with someone who knows very little about the subject they are talking about and is Hell-bent on defending their position and believing that everyone else is part of a conspiracy."

-"It’s because the person they are talking to doesn’t really have the scaffolding to receive any technical information and the big picture is easy to dismiss if you think everything is a conspiracy and have no respect for education or authority."

- "You are uneducated and not willing to learn, which makes you boring at best. "

- "I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance."

That's just the last couple of pages.

I beleive that to be sufficient evidence.

Thank you for bringing the receipts. While I continue to be baffled by the total lack of self-awareness that atheist PP has with regard to his own ignorance on a subject that he keeps digging further into, I'm enjoying the conversation around him with other religious folks explaining how religion works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please learn what an ad hominem attack really is, thanks.

If you are referring to me, a PP who kept pointing out you (or someone) kept committing the fallacy instead of responding to the point. I completely do understand what it is. It is when you attack the messenger instead of the message itself.

What mistaken definition do you hold of the term?

Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/ad-hominem.html

Examples from this thread:

- "a random internet commenter who doesn’t know anything about my religion"

- "This is not an ad hominom [sic] attack against you, it is more like a teacher letting you know you are not on track for the A paper because you are only using one source and not a great one at that." - This might be my favorite, because of the direct use of the term (mis-spelled but no points off there) while both committing one and denying it, but mostly because of the four uses of the word "you".

- "The thing is that it’s really hard to argue with someone who knows very little about the subject they are talking about and is Hell-bent on defending their position and believing that everyone else is part of a conspiracy."

-"It’s because the person they are talking to doesn’t really have the scaffolding to receive any technical information and the big picture is easy to dismiss if you think everything is a conspiracy and have no respect for education or authority."

- "You are uneducated and not willing to learn, which makes you boring at best. "

- "I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance."

That's just the last couple of pages.

I beleive that to be sufficient evidence.

Thank you for bringing the receipts. While I continue to be baffled by the total lack of self-awareness that atheist PP has with regard to his own ignorance on a subject that he keeps digging further into, I'm enjoying the conversation around him with other religious folks explaining how religion works.

This post makes no sense and has no context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please learn what an ad hominem attack really is, thanks.

If you are referring to me, a PP who kept pointing out you (or someone) kept committing the fallacy instead of responding to the point. I completely do understand what it is. It is when you attack the messenger instead of the message itself.

What mistaken definition do you hold of the term?

Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/ad-hominem.html

Examples from this thread:

- "a random internet commenter who doesn’t know anything about my religion"

- "This is not an ad hominom [sic] attack against you, it is more like a teacher letting you know you are not on track for the A paper because you are only using one source and not a great one at that." - This might be my favorite, because of the direct use of the term (mis-spelled but no points off there) while both committing one and denying it, but mostly because of the four uses of the word "you".

- "The thing is that it’s really hard to argue with someone who knows very little about the subject they are talking about and is Hell-bent on defending their position and believing that everyone else is part of a conspiracy."

-"It’s because the person they are talking to doesn’t really have the scaffolding to receive any technical information and the big picture is easy to dismiss if you think everything is a conspiracy and have no respect for education or authority."

- "You are uneducated and not willing to learn, which makes you boring at best. "

- "I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance."

That's just the last couple of pages.

I beleive that to be sufficient evidence.

Thank you for bringing the receipts. While I continue to be baffled by the total lack of self-awareness that atheist PP has with regard to his own ignorance on a subject that he keeps digging further into, I'm enjoying the conversation around him with other religious folks explaining how religion works.

This post makes no sense and has no context.

+1. Especially like that the pp thinks that religious people are "explaining how religion works"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

I stay religious because I actually believe in God. You can doubt all the way you want, no one really cares. I have two graduate degrees by the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just reading about hundreds of deaths in the Philippines. First there were several earthquakes, and just in the last week two very strong typhoons.

So God created heaven and earth, but apparently He is a very designer. It’s a very Catholic country so I’m seeing lots of posts on FB saying pray for the survivors. Apparently they don’t question how God loves you but creates the conditions for hundreds to be drowned and killed in collapsing buildings.

What an original thought. No one has ever written a book or done a PhD thesis on that. /s

explain how this all perfect all knowing God decided to create tectonic plates that rub against each other and inevitably kill thousands of innocent people. Either he’s not all knowing or he doesn’t give a shit if people die from his faulty design.

It is not a faulty design. He never designed the humans to live forever. We will all die, including 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please learn what an ad hominem attack really is, thanks.

If you are referring to me, a PP who kept pointing out you (or someone) kept committing the fallacy instead of responding to the point. I completely do understand what it is. It is when you attack the messenger instead of the message itself.

What mistaken definition do you hold of the term?

Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/ad-hominem.html

Examples from this thread:

- "a random internet commenter who doesn’t know anything about my religion"

- "This is not an ad hominom [sic] attack against you, it is more like a teacher letting you know you are not on track for the A paper because you are only using one source and not a great one at that." - This might be my favorite, because of the direct use of the term (mis-spelled but no points off there) while both committing one and denying it, but mostly because of the four uses of the word "you".

- "The thing is that it’s really hard to argue with someone who knows very little about the subject they are talking about and is Hell-bent on defending their position and believing that everyone else is part of a conspiracy."

-"It’s because the person they are talking to doesn’t really have the scaffolding to receive any technical information and the big picture is easy to dismiss if you think everything is a conspiracy and have no respect for education or authority."

- "You are uneducated and not willing to learn, which makes you boring at best. "

- "I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance."

That's just the last couple of pages.

I beleive that to be sufficient evidence.

I don't actually think any of these are ad hominem attacks. They aren't attacks on you as a person; they're attacks on the demonstrated gaps in your knowledge that make this ongoing conversation pointless. What questions do you still want answers to? As far as I can see, they've all been answered, but because they weren't answered with "oh, you're so right, I see the atheist light now," you dismiss them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please learn what an ad hominem attack really is, thanks.

If you are referring to me, a PP who kept pointing out you (or someone) kept committing the fallacy instead of responding to the point. I completely do understand what it is. It is when you attack the messenger instead of the message itself.

What mistaken definition do you hold of the term?

Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/ad-hominem.html

Examples from this thread:

- "a random internet commenter who doesn’t know anything about my religion"

- "This is not an ad hominom [sic] attack against you, it is more like a teacher letting you know you are not on track for the A paper because you are only using one source and not a great one at that." - This might be my favorite, because of the direct use of the term (mis-spelled but no points off there) while both committing one and denying it, but mostly because of the four uses of the word "you".

- "The thing is that it’s really hard to argue with someone who knows very little about the subject they are talking about and is Hell-bent on defending their position and believing that everyone else is part of a conspiracy."

-"It’s because the person they are talking to doesn’t really have the scaffolding to receive any technical information and the big picture is easy to dismiss if you think everything is a conspiracy and have no respect for education or authority."

- "You are uneducated and not willing to learn, which makes you boring at best. "

- "I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance."

That's just the last couple of pages.

I beleive that to be sufficient evidence.

I don't actually think any of these are ad hominem attacks. They aren't attacks on you as a person; they're attacks on the demonstrated gaps in your knowledge that make this ongoing conversation pointless. What questions do you still want answers to? As far as I can see, they've all been answered, but because they weren't answered with "oh, you're so right, I see the atheist light now," you dismiss them.

Every single one of those listed attacks the person and not the point. The word "you" (meaning the poster responded to) was used four times in one sentence! Not one of those sentences quoted contain anything responding to the substance of a point.

You're just wrong on this. They are blatant and obvious ad hominem fallacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please learn what an ad hominem attack really is, thanks.

If you are referring to me, a PP who kept pointing out you (or someone) kept committing the fallacy instead of responding to the point. I completely do understand what it is. It is when you attack the messenger instead of the message itself.

What mistaken definition do you hold of the term?

Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/ad-hominem.html

Examples from this thread:

- "a random internet commenter who doesn’t know anything about my religion"

- "This is not an ad hominom [sic] attack against you, it is more like a teacher letting you know you are not on track for the A paper because you are only using one source and not a great one at that." - This might be my favorite, because of the direct use of the term (mis-spelled but no points off there) while both committing one and denying it, but mostly because of the four uses of the word "you".

- "The thing is that it’s really hard to argue with someone who knows very little about the subject they are talking about and is Hell-bent on defending their position and believing that everyone else is part of a conspiracy."

-"It’s because the person they are talking to doesn’t really have the scaffolding to receive any technical information and the big picture is easy to dismiss if you think everything is a conspiracy and have no respect for education or authority."

- "You are uneducated and not willing to learn, which makes you boring at best. "

- "I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance."

That's just the last couple of pages.

I beleive that to be sufficient evidence.

I don't actually think any of these are ad hominem attacks. They aren't attacks on you as a person; they're attacks on the demonstrated gaps in your knowledge that make this ongoing conversation pointless. What questions do you still want answers to? As far as I can see, they've all been answered, but because they weren't answered with "oh, you're so right, I see the atheist light now," you dismiss them.

Every single one of those listed attacks the person and not the point. The word "you" (meaning the poster responded to) was used four times in one sentence! Not one of those sentences quoted contain anything responding to the substance of a point.

You're just wrong on this. They are blatant and obvious ad hominem fallacies.

- "a random internet commenter who doesn’t know anything about my religion"

You've demonstrated multiple times that you don't understand Christianity beyond your own narrow definition of it as a literalist, text-only religion. That's a substance critique, not a personal attack.

- "This is not an ad hominom [sic] attack against you, it is more like a teacher letting you know you are not on track for the A paper because you are only using one source and not a great one at that." - This might be my favorite, because of the direct use of the term (mis-spelled but no points off there) while both committing one and denying it, but mostly because of the four uses of the word "you".

Again, this is about the substance of your argument being off track, because it's based on a false equation. Thinking that literalism IS Christianity is the substantive problem at hand in this critique.

- "The thing is that it’s really hard to argue with someone who knows very little about the subject they are talking about and is Hell-bent on defending their position and believing that everyone else is part of a conspiracy."

You keep demonstrating that you don't know about the subject by continuing to argue against literalism, instead of accepting the feedback from Christians that our religion is more complex than that, and then debating the substance of the actual religion. This is using literalism as a strawman against Christianity. And that's not an attack on you personally, that's about the substance of your argument.

-"It’s because the person they are talking to doesn’t really have the scaffolding to receive any technical information and the big picture is easy to dismiss if you think everything is a conspiracy and have no respect for education or authority."

This PP is pointing out that you don't have the necessary understanding ("scaffolding") of non-literalist religion (which is the majority of religion and Christianity) to engage on the topic. That's not about you personally, but your engagement with the material presented in the discussion.

- "You are uneducated and not willing to learn, which makes you boring at best. "

I'll give you this one. In the context of your repeated unwillingness to engage on the substance of actual Christianity, instead of continually resorting to a literalist strawman, it read as more exhausted than ad hominem, but I'll give it to you anyway.

- "I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance."

This one was me and I'll give it to you too. Again, in context, you were ignoring answers to your questions that didn't conform with your incomplete understanding of Christianity. In that context, this critique was meant to be about your inability to engage with Christianity outside of your narrow literalist framework, but I let my frustration/exhaustion with that get the better of me and didn't frame that critique as well as I could have, and I apologize for that.