Religion — Page 99

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

As embarrassing as this is, I used to be a biblical literalist.

Why? And what changed your view?

Not sure.

l

.

DuracellEnergizer said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I was raised to be a weird sort of fair-weather literalist. As in my dad said things like “Maybe fossils are just decoration God put there, and maybe the world is only about 10,000 years old. Maybe.”

And on the eighth day God said, “The Earth needs some flare. Fake bones will really bring the planet together.”

Real LOL

suspiciouscoffee said:

I was raised to be a weird sort of fair-weather literalist. As in my dad said things like “Maybe fossils are just decoration God put there, and maybe the world is only about 10,000 years old. Maybe.”

I prefer to think of it as though God created the universe such that no matter how much we learn about our planet or our universe, there’s always much much more that we then realize that we still don’t know yet. Or, as Einstein put it, “as our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” And it’s not just that we are created in God’s image, but the universe and everything in it is. Everything you yourself create says something about the nature of who you are. And the idea that there’s always so much more to learn about the universe and that we can’t ever learn everything there is to know says the same thing about God.

And yet, at the same time, God became a man so that we could know him; we could identify with him and he with us; and the sacrifice that was paid on our behalf allows us to pursue that relationship.

God gave us the ability to be curious about our universe and the capacity to learn. To be super-literal about the nitpicky bits of one’s doctrine, if I might extend the house-built-on-rock metaphor, is like building the house itself using extremely rigid materials such that when an earthquake shakes it, it crumbles due to its own structural inflexibility (which actually has happened in real life). While it is important to have a solid foundation, it is also wise to have flexible structural supports so that (for example) increasing scientific knowledge does not create a stumbling block for one’s faith.

Well, then he shouldn’t have written his holy book to be almost completely contradictory to enlightened morality and science.

moviefreakedmind said:

Well, then he shouldn’t have written his holy book to be almost completely contradictory to enlightened morality and science.

I’m not getting into this with you.

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Well, then he shouldn’t have written his holy book to be almost completely contradictory to enlightened morality and science.

I’m not getting into this with you.

Oh, of course not. It’s not just your god’s holy book I find objectionable, by the way. I feel the same way, if not more strongly, about the Koran and Islam and I’d be happy to get into that if anyone cares.

Possessed said:

Only really the old testament is like that, save for a few sections in the new testament. And they were all written by various men, not like they couldn’t have fucked up what they were supposed to put or added things to suit themselves.

I actually would argue that the morality of the New Testament is as repugnant and hypocritical as the Old Testament. Jesus Christ claims to be a God of love yet consigns all those who do not kiss his ass the way he wants them to into eternal hellfire. He’s supposed to be a god of forgiveness yet tells those who act as stumbling blocks to children (or believers, it’s not clear exactly what he’s referring to) would have been better off drowned. He says that the one who dares to blaspheme the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness. He says it’d be better for Judas to never have been born, etc. etc. Christ condemns the death penalty but then Peter kills the man and woman that try to scam his church money collection. Also, by today’s standards, in the narrative of Revelation it’s impossible to honestly come away from that viewing God as less destructive than Satan and his Antichrist. And those are just the more intense flaws I see with it on a moral level. As it relates to today’s world, the New Testament has incredibly misogynist and anti-gay sentiments as well that do still shape the views of many of our politicians and voters in this country. Of course it was written by men, I get that and don’t expect ancient writing to fit today’s moral standard, but if we think of it as a book that was orchestrated by God himself, then it’s just not impressive to me and I find it unfortunate that people think it’s an appropriate source to gleam their morality from.

The latter part regarding the misogyny and anti-gay stuff is the kind of religiosity I’m referring to when I say that we shouldn’t be expected to respect religion. If you think that homosexuality is a crime against god, then I don’t respect your opinion and I don’t think that anyone should respect your opinion. If you believe women shouldn’t be allowed to drive, or should be forced to wrap themselves in burkas and other oppressive garb, then I don’t respect your opinion. The list goes on and on. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I find all of those individuals that think that way to be totally unworthy of respect, but their religious views are. I don’t think that that’s unreasonable and no one else should either.

suspiciouscoffee said:

I was raised to be a weird sort of fair-weather literalist. As in my dad said things like “Maybe fossils are just decoration God put there, and maybe the world is only about 10,000 years old. Maybe.”

Yeah, with logic like that, maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster put the Bible there for decoration.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I was raised to be a weird sort of fair-weather literalist. As in my dad said things like “Maybe fossils are just decoration God put there, and maybe the world is only about 10,000 years old. Maybe.”

I prefer to think of it as though God created the universe such that no matter how much we learn about our planet or our universe, there’s always much much more that we then realize that we still don’t know yet.

Exactly right! And the things we still don’t know yet include if God definitely exists or definitely does not exist. 😃

Correction, you don’t know it.

But again, that’s why we can’t have deeper faith-oriented philosophical discussions in here than the most basic one. Because any deeper conversation becomes a house of cards.

moviefreakedmind said:

The latter part regarding the misogyny and anti-gay stuff is the kind of religiosity I’m referring to when I say that we shouldn’t be expected to respect religion. If you think that homosexuality is a crime against god, then I don’t respect your opinion and I don’t think that anyone should respect your opinion. If you believe women shouldn’t be allowed to drive, or should be forced to wrap themselves in burkas and other oppressive garb, then I don’t respect your opinion. The list goes on and on. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I find all of those individuals that think that way to be totally unworthy of respect, but their religious views are. I don’t think that that’s unreasonable and no one else should either.

If I’m allowed to play devil’s advocate (guess chyron needs new representation), it wasn’t long ago that the consensus thought oppositely: that accepting gender norm heresies meant one’s opinion didn’t deserve respect.

The tables have turned on religion, at least in most Western countries, but how are we to grapple with “truth” in an objective way? Is it all about consensus?

I understand the sincerity of conviction (see the preceding pages) but as we survey history and different cultures, “truth” seems to be whatever those who have power insist it to be.

I get the basic point about not respecting views one finds odious, but is there an objective standard there?

Possessed said:

Well it’s like I said the Bible was written by men thousands of years ago so you can’t really take much of what it says literally.

Are you saying that anything written thousands of years ago can’t be taken literally, because writings thousands of years ago weren’t even then reliable? Like, people who lived so long ago were generally stupid?

Or are you speaking specifically to the fact that their scientific understanding was comparatively limited?

JEDIT: That was a question, not intended as a jab.