Anonymous wrote:^^^^ Every single one of those is an ad hominem fallacy.
No. You have asked multiple questions that rely on a literalist definition of Christianity. You've been informed that your understanding of Christian doctrine is incomplete, because text-based literalism does not represent the majority of Christian theology. That's a substantive criticism of the content you are bringing to the discussion, not an attack on you personally.
To summarize some of the questions and answers:
-You asked why Christians believe in eternal hellfire. The answer is that the majority of us are not literalists, so "burning forever" is not our literal belief. Burning in hell might be a metaphor for disconnectedness from God or a commentary on humanity's search for justice in unjust times. But hell is also not the focus of our faith. We focus instead on living a life of love and service.
-You asked how we can believe in the Bible without taking it literally. The answer is that there are centuries of religious thought that have grown around the Bible that inform modern church doctrine. And we believe in the Bible as a guide for our lives, where we can glean wisdom through metaphor, rather than literalism, and that those lessons from God are relevant without being literal about it.
-You asked about politics and the Supreme Court. The answer is that there is a problematic evangelic Christian political lobby that has outsized influence on our laws. You can see it in the abortion debate, where the vast majority of Americans (including religious Americans) support abortion access, even if they would like to limit it to save the life of the mother or "viability" or something else. Where super-restrictive laws have been on the ballot, they have been soundly defeated. It's a problem, of course, that we're in a position to be defending abortion rights from the tyranny of the minority. None of that changes the fact that the majority of Christians are still not literalists.
-You asked why God lets bad things happen. You'll say that the answer is that there is no God. The religious answer is that there isn't actually a knowable answer to this question, but grappling with the question is an exercise in finding meaning in chaos and seeking humanity in crisis.
Were there other questions that you don't feel were answered?
PP you are responding to. I didn't ask any of those questions, and while I did mention the supreme court I did so in response to a claim that biblical literalism wasn't an important thing or a problem. Those other questions were other posters.
Your responses that followed were all (until this post of yours) laden with ad hominem fallacies. That was my point. And it remains proved.
Question for you and the other atheists on the thread: Why do you ask questions about what religious people think if you're just going to dismiss the answers?
No one dismissed your answers. Your ad hominem were summarily dismissed. I haven’t asked you any questions myself.
If you’d like me to respond though, I am happy to.
Your answers regarding god are all presuppositional and presume there is one, which (as has been pointed out and ironically, ignored) renders any points that follow nonsensical.
Your points about the Bible being the word of man and not the literal word of god have been read, accepted, agreed with, and I even complimented you on them and stated several times that it seems your thinking is closer to mine and atheism than traditional theists that I know. That is not “dismissing” your answers WRT the Bible - quite the opposite.
Need more?
What would you like a religious person to say about God? When someone asks a religious person what they believe about God, the assumption is that the questioner wants the religious perspective, which is obviously going to presume God's existence.
It's actually dismissive of my religious conviction to just write off my beliefs as "closer to [atheism]." My beliefs are in line with mainstream Protestantism, and to claim that they're not is not the compliment you want it to be.
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.
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.
And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.
I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.
I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?
Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.
Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.
Anonymous wrote:^^^^ Every single one of those is an ad hominem fallacy.
No. You have asked multiple questions that rely on a literalist definition of Christianity. You've been informed that your understanding of Christian doctrine is incomplete, because text-based literalism does not represent the majority of Christian theology. That's a substantive criticism of the content you are bringing to the discussion, not an attack on you personally.
To summarize some of the questions and answers:
-You asked why Christians believe in eternal hellfire. The answer is that the majority of us are not literalists, so "burning forever" is not our literal belief. Burning in hell might be a metaphor for disconnectedness from God or a commentary on humanity's search for justice in unjust times. But hell is also not the focus of our faith. We focus instead on living a life of love and service.
-You asked how we can believe in the Bible without taking it literally. The answer is that there are centuries of religious thought that have grown around the Bible that inform modern church doctrine. And we believe in the Bible as a guide for our lives, where we can glean wisdom through metaphor, rather than literalism, and that those lessons from God are relevant without being literal about it.
-You asked about politics and the Supreme Court. The answer is that there is a problematic evangelic Christian political lobby that has outsized influence on our laws. You can see it in the abortion debate, where the vast majority of Americans (including religious Americans) support abortion access, even if they would like to limit it to save the life of the mother or "viability" or something else. Where super-restrictive laws have been on the ballot, they have been soundly defeated. It's a problem, of course, that we're in a position to be defending abortion rights from the tyranny of the minority. None of that changes the fact that the majority of Christians are still not literalists.
-You asked why God lets bad things happen. You'll say that the answer is that there is no God. The religious answer is that there isn't actually a knowable answer to this question, but grappling with the question is an exercise in finding meaning in chaos and seeking humanity in crisis.
Were there other questions that you don't feel were answered?
PP you are responding to. I didn't ask any of those questions, and while I did mention the supreme court I did so in response to a claim that biblical literalism wasn't an important thing or a problem. Those other questions were other posters.
Your responses that followed were all (until this post of yours) laden with ad hominem fallacies. That was my point. And it remains proved.
Question for you and the other atheists on the thread: Why do you ask questions about what religious people think if you're just going to dismiss the answers?
No one dismissed your answers. Your ad hominem were summarily dismissed. I haven’t asked you any questions myself.
If you’d like me to respond though, I am happy to.
Your answers regarding god are all presuppositional and presume there is one, which (as has been pointed out and ironically, ignored) renders any points that follow nonsensical.
Your points about the Bible being the word of man and not the literal word of god have been read, accepted, agreed with, and I even complimented you on them and stated several times that it seems your thinking is closer to mine and atheism than traditional theists that I know. That is not “dismissing” your answers WRT the Bible - quite the opposite.
Need more?
What would you like a religious person to say about God? When someone asks a religious person what they believe about God, the assumption is that the questioner wants the religious perspective, which is obviously going to presume God's existence.
It's actually dismissive of my religious conviction to just write off my beliefs as "closer to [atheism]." My beliefs are in line with mainstream Protestantism, and to claim that they're not is not the compliment you want it to be.
Maybe you don’t consider it a compliment. But it shows you have critical thinking skills.
I would like the religious person to apply the same level of critical thinking skills as they do to everything else. Because I believe that religions are a huge problem in the world today. And many religions are, in fact, simple Bronze Age myths.
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.
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.
And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.
I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.
I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?
Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.
Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.
So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?
Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?
Anonymous wrote:^^^^ Every single one of those is an ad hominem fallacy.
No. You have asked multiple questions that rely on a literalist definition of Christianity. You've been informed that your understanding of Christian doctrine is incomplete, because text-based literalism does not represent the majority of Christian theology. That's a substantive criticism of the content you are bringing to the discussion, not an attack on you personally.
To summarize some of the questions and answers:
-You asked why Christians believe in eternal hellfire. The answer is that the majority of us are not literalists, so "burning forever" is not our literal belief. Burning in hell might be a metaphor for disconnectedness from God or a commentary on humanity's search for justice in unjust times. But hell is also not the focus of our faith. We focus instead on living a life of love and service.
-You asked how we can believe in the Bible without taking it literally. The answer is that there are centuries of religious thought that have grown around the Bible that inform modern church doctrine. And we believe in the Bible as a guide for our lives, where we can glean wisdom through metaphor, rather than literalism, and that those lessons from God are relevant without being literal about it.
-You asked about politics and the Supreme Court. The answer is that there is a problematic evangelic Christian political lobby that has outsized influence on our laws. You can see it in the abortion debate, where the vast majority of Americans (including religious Americans) support abortion access, even if they would like to limit it to save the life of the mother or "viability" or something else. Where super-restrictive laws have been on the ballot, they have been soundly defeated. It's a problem, of course, that we're in a position to be defending abortion rights from the tyranny of the minority. None of that changes the fact that the majority of Christians are still not literalists.
-You asked why God lets bad things happen. You'll say that the answer is that there is no God. The religious answer is that there isn't actually a knowable answer to this question, but grappling with the question is an exercise in finding meaning in chaos and seeking humanity in crisis.
Were there other questions that you don't feel were answered?
PP you are responding to. I didn't ask any of those questions, and while I did mention the supreme court I did so in response to a claim that biblical literalism wasn't an important thing or a problem. Those other questions were other posters.
Your responses that followed were all (until this post of yours) laden with ad hominem fallacies. That was my point. And it remains proved.
Question for you and the other atheists on the thread: Why do you ask questions about what religious people think if you're just going to dismiss the answers?
Maybe in hopes of religious people seeing how dumb their answers are and they will rethink their belief in God. That's how it happened with me.
Oh, evangelism. I wonder if that works in this context? Or if the denigration of religion (calling it "dumb" "Bronze Age mythology" and misrepresenting it by the extreme of literalism, rather than addressing the majority's lived belief system) just hardens people into place?
Sounds like you're talking about being stubborn - continuing to believe out of spite because atheists aren't sensitive enough.
I really did realize how dumb it was to believe in God and religion and an afterlife. Meanwhile, I was very well educated in science and had just never put it all together. Science and the afterlife just don't mix. Darwin saw it too -- which is apparently why he put off publishing his findings for such a long time. His wife was very religious.
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.
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.
And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.
I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.
I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?
Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.
Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.
So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?
Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?
Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.
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.
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.
And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.
I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.
I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?
Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.
Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.
So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?
Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?
Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.
DP - Your question as to why a person would discuss religion in a religion discussion forum is patently silly. Why else would anyone be here? Why else would this exist?
As for not engaging with other opinions you don't agree with, does that include all of them? Even if their stupid ideas are causing problems in the world? What if their stupid ideas are racist? Or fascist? Or sexist? Or anti-American? Or personally dangerous, like the aforementioned anti-vaxxers? You "respect" those opinions also?
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.
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.
Wow, you must be smart to get 2 graduate degrees! Too bad you're dumb about believing in God.
You don't know anything about me. But you calling me names speaks a lot about you. Do you really think your comment add something productive to the discussion?
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.
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.
Wow, you must be smart to get 2 graduate degrees! Too bad you're dumb about believing in God.
They're probably degrees in theology from a highly respected institution like Bob Jones Uni.
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.
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.”
Why do people continue to post messages like this?
Is it because they assume that people who are religious have never ever before hear any of this? Like these posters themselves are aware that of a long-standing tradition of questioning in all of the world’s major faiths.
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.
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.
And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.
I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.
I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?
Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.
Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.
Nothing I did in my life was as stupid as believing that I'd go to heaven when I died. It was a nice idea, but a stupid one. It was an idea that everyone I knew believed and none of them were stupid. I think that it's impressive, but stupid, that some people spend so much time studying religion. They really study just as hard as a lot of other people who study other things. But they end up with what I feel is a useless degree in "theology" - the study of god (that doesn't exist). And I think pp above is right: "trivial" is another word for it.
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.
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.
And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.
I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.
I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?
Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.
Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.
So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?
Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?
Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.
DP - Your question as to why a person would discuss religion in a religion discussion forum is patently silly. Why else would anyone be here? Why else would this exist?
As for not engaging with other opinions you don't agree with, does that include all of them? Even if their stupid ideas are causing problems in the world? What if their stupid ideas are racist? Or fascist? Or sexist? Or anti-American? Or personally dangerous, like the aforementioned anti-vaxxers? You "respect" those opinions also?
My question remains- why engage disrespectfully? This does not lead to an exchange of ideas. If I disagree with someone about a serious issue, I do so respectfully.
If I find their beliefs so stupid that I cannot manage to maintain basic respect, I do not engage. This doesn't actually happen. I can manage to be respectful. But if it is something I really find dumb, I just don't engage.
If you are going to be disrespectful about my beliefs, or really even someone else's beliefs, I know that your way of thinking if fundamentally unserious. You're not present to have a discussion, but to entertain yourself. I'm busy and don't have time to engage with that.
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.
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.
Wow, you must be smart to get 2 graduate degrees! Too bad you're dumb about believing in God.
They're probably degrees in theology from a highly respected institution like Bob Jones Uni.
Wrong. All three degrees are in STEM.
For someone who has three degrees in STEM, you failed to catch the sarcasm.
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.
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.
And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.
I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.
I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?
Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.
Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.
Nothing I did in my life was as stupid as believing that I'd go to heaven when I died. It was a nice idea, but a stupid one. It was an idea that everyone I knew believed and none of them were stupid. I think that it's impressive, but stupid, that some people spend so much time studying religion. They really study just as hard as a lot of other people who study other things. But they end up with what I feel is a useless degree in "theology" - the study of god (that doesn't exist). And I think pp above is right: "trivial" is another word for it.
So where did you go after you died? I went to heaven, and it’s been great.
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.
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.
And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.
I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.
I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?
Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.
Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.
So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?
Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?
Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.
You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.
I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".
I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
