You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
@5plusn8 are any of those being displaced by overlaid Christian celebrations though. (think carefully about the passover one).
That's the point up thread that @TJagain is making; that early Christian sects used already existing spring fertility right festivals and replaced the original deities with Christian ones. Bede says the word is Old English/German and talks about a Goddess of that name - but he's not clear about his references or sources, as she doesn't exist in written form before Bede writes it down in Passages of Time (or whatever his book is called)
displaced by overlaid Christian celebrations though. (think carefully about the passover one).
a) They don't need to be displaced to show that clearly humans celebrated a spring festival long before they invented christianity.
b) Lots of christians and abrahamic religiosn call passover pascha, which they also use to mean jesus, they were merged, and then split apart again.
Anyway I thoiught TJ used a magic spell and drove you away?
Right but overall were women better off in Europe than elsewhere?
Where and when? It varies massively over time and location which isnt a great indicator Christianity was helpful. Indeed if we look at Europe its rather striking that as Christianity took more of a backseat womens rights improved.
We might not have written sources for these 'takeovers', but the pre-Christian Romans are pretty well evidenced in their co-opting of local deities and festivals everywhere they conquered. I think it's a pretty safe assumption to suspect that the early Christian Church (so effectively the Romans) carried on the same strategy when they all converted under Theodosius.
Resurrection cults existed long before Jesus also.
Innana 4000BCE celebrated at the spring equinox, Horus/Osris 3100BCE celebrated in spring (emergence), Dionysus 1300BCE celebrated in Jan(planting) and April (harvest).
Cybele an anatolian goddess was reborn again every spring. 600 BCe
The Iranians invented Zoroastrianism about the same time as christianty and it followed a similar story.
All this stuff is just cross fertilisation of ideas, and just goes to prove that people would fall for any old shit back then like they do today.
This is like discussing the history and significance of snake oil salesmen in the 1800's west.
People manipulate other people to control them for their own ends, profit, power, narssicism, whatever.
"Studying" theology just lends credence to religion when actually it is a corrisive and repulsive concept.
It like those Universitys that give degrees in "naturopathy".
NOT – to be clear – with a view to ‘converting’ anyone;
just with a view to answering your legitimate questions and criticisms from a more thorough place than an internet forum normally represents.
That has so far borne no fruit, as I have simply had too much on the go.
So, my idea is this:
If I organised an online ‘pub night’ exclusively for members of STW, to which you could bring your questions, challenges, comments, or arguments, and to which I would try to offer a constructive, interesting, affirming, or corrective response, would you be interested?
For me the bold items represent something more concering in the OP's proposal. As if there were anything in faith or christianity that is defendable.
To me it sounds like an opportunity to indoctrinate.
“Studying” theology just lends credence to religion when actually it is a corrisive and repulsive concept.
Surely you could apply that logic to a lot of History subjects. Does learning about WWII in School legitimise wars?
What do you propose instead, we forget it all ever happened?
Surely you could apply that logic to a lot of History subjects. Does learning about WWII in School legitimise wars?
What do you propose instead, we forget it all ever happened?
Not at all, call it Scam and Manipulations Studies and I'd be happy...
Lump it in with ghosts, seances, snake oil, advertising and politicians.
I just feel that calling it the academic study of theology gives credence to religion.
theotherjonv
Full MemberMan created god.
Equally you can say that man created love.
Both would appear to be intrinsic aspects of human nature as a whole, yes.
There will always be a percentage of people who believe they are immune to one or both 🙂
God might be a human construct, but doesn’t mean s/he isn’t real.
God is as 'real' as any other faith based human construct.
There is no evidence for the actual existence of a god or gods, but obviously we know that there appears to be a need for some of us to believe in one.
I just feel that calling it the academic study of theology gives credence to religion.
It rather seems that you want to counter this by hanging a pejorative label on it instead.
Organised religion has done a lot of harm over the years.
Organised religion has done a lot of good over the years.
It's unfair to cherry-pick one over the other depending on whichever suits your narrative. Whilst personally I'm in agreement with most of the anti-religion sentiment expressed here, I'm not sure that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the solution.*
And whilst I'm lobbing metaphors around - play the ball not the man hey? I'm reasonably sure that SR is one of the good guys.
(* - Well, the bathwater is a solution I suppose...)
Cougar
Full Member
“Studying” theology just lends credence to religion when actually it is a corrisive and repulsive concept.Surely you could apply that logic to a lot of History subjects. Does learning about WWII in School legitimise wars?
What do you propose instead, we forget it all ever happened?
You don't have to believe in a supernatural being to be interested in theology.
Arthur Conan Doyle and James Randi both studied spiritualism, but their conclusions could not have been more different.
You don’t have to believe in a supernatural being to be interested in theology.
I agree. However it seems also that you don't have to have an interest in theology to be posting on a thread actively discussing it. 🤷♂️
🙂
It rather seems that you want to counter this by hanging a pejorative label on it instead.
Organised religion has done a lot of harm over the years.
Organised religion has done a lot of good over the years.It’s unfair to cherry-pick one over the other depending on whichever suits your narrative. Whilst personally I’m in agreement with most of the anti-religion sentiment expressed here, I’m not sure that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the solution.*
And whilst I’m lobbing metaphors around – play the ball not the man hey? I’m reasonably sure that SR is one of the good guys.
Science has done an awful lot of harm, are we to abandon it? No because it is about the pursuit of truth and knowledge, and its principles are founded in the truth. the bad it has done can be countered with more science..
Religions foundation is based on a huge untruth and a scam - god is real, faith, absence of evidence. These all provide a toolkit for the scammers. So it has done good? No, people have done good, end of story. Abandon religion and those people will not do good? I don't think so.
Same with SR - he may well be a good guy, I know some flat earthers and brexiteers that are all lovely people. So what, their beliefs are founded on something "bad." I cannot abide intellectual dishonesty. "God" is founded on it.
play the ball not the man - assume this is a response to my objection to SR's offer to counter some objections. It is my assumption that he may will be doing this in good faith (sic) however his own indoctriantion drives this. Despite not wanting to convert people, any believer still wants to present their own religion in a good light. Its just furthering the indoctriantion, deliberate or not. I feel this needs to be pointed out and is not personal.
So it has done good? No, people have done good, end of story. Abandon religion and those people will not do good? I don’t think so.
I was thinking more, as a random example, providing comfort to people who've lost loved ones. I see posts from people all the time, "nana's smiling down on us from heaven" or variations thereof. It's nonsense of course, and sometimes it's saccharin nonsense (the latest term seems to be "passing over the rainbow bridge" whateverTF that means🤢), but if it helps someone come to terms with their grief then does that really matter? Are you going to go up to them going "it's all lies, she's nothing more than organic fertiliser now, deal with it"?
Or another, in some places the church is the local community centre, especially more rural locations. There was a STW member (whose name I can't remember right now, irritatingly) who explained this at some length on a previous thread. Where I live, one of the churches runs a food bank. I grant you that belief in a deity is kinda superfluous at the ground level for all this (and a cynic might argue that it could be a stealth recruitment drive) but if the motivation is that they're doing god's work then is feeding people not a worthy application of that 'faith'?
I dislike organised religion, on several levels. It's born of times where we sought answers to big questions and we had nothing better. Now that we do have something better it boggles my mind that it still persists in any sort of numbers in a civilised society, I don't see it as relevant. But if modern-day Western Christianity is less god-fearing power and control and more "I'm sure it'll all be OK, love" then I think I'm OK with that incarnation of it at least. I know plenty of self-identifying Christians whose idea of practising is to go to Midnight Mass at Christmas. As far as I can tell they light candles and sing dreary songs and it seems to make them happy.
I feel this needs to be pointed out and is not personal.
Are you planning to attend his vPub to find out?
He’s not forcing anyone to join in though. I’m not in the least bit religious but do find the subject fascinating. Can’t imagine that I’m going to be indoctrinated by listening to and conversing with someone who is more knowledgeable in the history of religion than I am.
On a slight tangent I’m pleasantly surprised by this thread as a whole. The majority of participants have been civil.
Are you planning to attend his vPub to find out?
No. I have a good mate who is into crystals and vibrations. Would I go to one of her lectures? No chance. She knows I think its shite, but that does not stop me liking her or being friends with her.
Crystals and vibrations help people in the same way you describe. I don't think they deserve a degree course to study the evolution of crystal and vibration nonsense through the ages as a furtherance of human knowledge, its just a study in chinese whispers, bullshit and petty squabbles - a reasonable metaphor for theology since it began, and a lot like watching Eastenders.
I am happy for people to waste their own time in the study of theology, or crystals and vibrations, but I just don't want that study to falsly assign credence. I think in the case of theology it does, and this should be addressed.
Remember the uproar about the labeling of "supplements". I felt it was fair approach, by all means sell it but any claim of efficacy needs to be made clear. And to me just offering for sale is making a claim, so it needs to be labelled as "not proven" or whatever.
We need the same labelling on religion and crystals. They do it with financial products...
i’m intrigued by, amongst others, citizens of the USA who seem to be, as far as i understand things, very very far from the teachings of christ but seem to think they are christians.
But if modern-day Western Christianity is less god-fearing power and control and more “I’m sure it’ll all be OK, love” then I think I’m OK with that incarnation of it at least. I know plenty of self-identifying Christians whose idea of practising is to go to Midnight Mass at Christmas. As far as I can tell they light candles and sing dreary songs and it seems to make them happy.
Also, I think this is a little underplayed. European christianty may fall in to this but american does not.
I clearly remember my grandparents and aunts and uncles in Ireland being exactly as you describe, but when Billy Graham was due for a visit, they all paid loads to see him and even more for a blessing. Once you fall for "faith" then you fall for it all.
Try and justify tele-evangalism.
EDIT - Cross post with LAT.
How do you know crystals and vibrations are rubbish?
Defects in crystals are being studied by scientists in my group as generators of very interesting quantum phenomena. Not understood yet is not the same as wrong.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.2549
How do you know crystals and vibrations are rubbish?
Defects in crystals are being studied by scientists in my group as generators of very interesting quantum phenomena. Not understood yet is not the same as wrong.
1) huge leap from crystal defects and quantumn phenomena to healing and bodily vinbration and the ability to bring riches on the wearer.
2) Not understood yet - This is exactly the same argument used by alt medicine, homepaths etc. Show me a single study that hints that crystals can heal or bring riches. Anything done scientifically?
Think about telepathy for example. A mobile phone - hell even a tiny chip can send complex signals a loong way. who is to say that the brain cannot do this also?Tthe power and hardware are there. The problem is, lots of people have tried, and nobody has proven it yet. Look at James Randi for this.
quantum entanglement is definitely a thing, we don't have the sophistication to harness it properly yet but could it provide a pathway or explanation to interactions between crystals and healing? It sounds far fetched but 100 years ago the thought of a video call on a handheld device with someone the other side of the world would sound equally far fetched. The pace of progress is astonishing.
lots of people have tried, and nobody has proven it yet.
Key word = yet
your mind is closed based on what we know now, mine's open based on what we have yet to discover
Not at all, call it Scam and Manipulations Studies and I’d be happy…
It isn't that, though.
I cannot abide intellectual dishonesty. “God” is founded on it.
No, you really don't get it. If you spent some time actually talking to a theologian you might appreciate this.
Despite not wanting to convert people, any believer still wants to present their own religion in a good light. Its just furthering the indoctriantion, deliberate or not.
Ok look. I've been on lots of bike rides with the OP and had many philosophical and theological discussions and not once, EVER has he said anything that suggests he even thinks that his world view is any better than mine, never mind actually articulating that thought. And believe me I would have noticed as I am very tetchy about this kind of thing. He has shown nothing other than respect and curiosity about my world view. That's one of the reasons I respect him so much.
I am happy for people to waste their own time in the study of theology, or crystals and vibrations, but I just don’t want that study to falsly assign credence.
But that's not what it's for. It's not justifying it, it's studying it. You cannot counter something unless you know about it. That's why arguments from ignorance are so frustrating.
I think in the case of theology it does, and this should be addressed.
Put your money where your mouth is then.
your mind is closed based on what we know now, mine’s open based on what we have yet to discover
Bollocks is it.
My issue is that if it worked now, we would see some evidence. There is none. What you are proposing however, is that by studying QE we may find a way to harness crystal defects to heal illness or inury, I offer no resistance to that and would happliy see public funds spend studying this. But they defo do not do any healing currently, there is zero evidence.
The analogy you offer
100 years ago the thought of a video call on a handheld device with someone the other side of the world would sound equally far fetched. The pace of progress is astonishing.
is actually crystals doing the magic, silicone chips are made of single crystals. Your video analogy is like saying that lumps of crytal silicon were always sending video pictures, we just coudlnt see it. when in fact we needed to manipulate the silicon in a certain way and engineer it, and pass electricity through it to get it to send/receive video pictures.
So whilst I am open minded that the crystals may be able to heal us, if we manipulate them, but as it is they don't do it spontaneously. Same as silcon crystals don't send video spontaneously.
No. I have a good mate who is into crystals and vibrations. Would I go to one of her lectures? No chance. She knows I think its shite
So why on earth are you posting in here?
If you're standing there with no other intent other than to go "it's all shite!" - which you mostly haven't until now - then well done, you've made your point, there's not much more to add. If not and you're happy to spend hours typing away in the discussion here then what's the difference between that and talking for an hour?
Not understood yet – This is exactly the same argument used by alt medicine, homepaths etc
There is a grand canyon between "how" and "if." As I'm sure you know, really.
If something demonstrably works then we can work on trying to explain it afterwards. We didn't understand how homeopathy worked so we tested it and demonstrated it to have the same efficacy as placebo, so the "how" no longer mattered - it didn't work. What we didn't do is go "well, it can't possibly work because we don't understand how it could."
Healing crystals almost certainly "don't work" either, but tell that to the quartz crystal oscillator in my watch.
molgrips
Full MemberYou cannot counter something unless you know about it. That’s why arguments from ignorance are so frustrating.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere!
My questions for SR revolve around objectivity and faith.
A study of theology tells us much about humanity, faith and belief, but I do not believe it can tell us anything about the existance of a supreme being. An entirely different question.
Your view on arguments from ignorance applies in some cases, but not all.
not necessarily, some crystal defects undergo spontaneous emission, they don't need to be manipulated or stimulated to do this. Maybe they spontaneously emit radiation of a form that is as yet unknown?
Do I believe that crystal healing is a thing? No, I agree with you that thus far any proof is at best sketchy, more accurately it is in the realms of wuwu dust. Does that mean that in a future state of understanding that will still be true, not necessarily.
Good point Cougar.
1) The discussion is here, it represents something I am passionate about, so I am engaging here, why do I need to join a 2nd discussion.
2) It is implied in the Op that he sets the agenda. Down that road manipulaton lies. See James Randi million dollar challenge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge
3) If there is not much more for me to add, why do people keep asking me questions? I am just answering them.
4) I have not been rude or personal, I pointed out my concerns about the language used by the OP, it is the same as language used by all religious types. I don't mean to be rude, insulting or anything.
5) I happen to have a good mate who is also a russian orthodpox academic, quite a famous guy in fact. I've had these exact conversationw with him... IF SR wants to PM me I'll tell you his name and send you a selfie of me and him together, I feel sure SR will know him.
There is a grand canyon between “how” and “if.” As I’m sure you know, really.
If something demonstrably works then we can work on trying to explain it afterwards. We didn’t understand how homeopathy worked so we tested it and demonstrated it to have the same efficacy as placebo, so the “how” no longer mattered – it didn’t work. What we didn’t do is go “well, it can’t possibly work because we don’t understand how it could.”
Healing crystals almost certainly “don’t work” either, but tell that to the quartz crystal oscillator in my watch.
Exactly, agreed. And pretty much what I said, but probably said in a better way.
European christianty may fall in to this but american does not.
...
Try and justify tele-evangalism.
We aren't American.
There will always be extremist minorities. Tele-evangelism does not represent the majority of Christianity any more than ISIS represents Islam, TERFs represent feminism or PETA represents vegans. You can't simply conclude "well without [cause] they wouldn't exist because the fundamental problem with people like these is that they'd then simply latch on to [another cause] instead.
We aren’t American.
There will always be extremist minorities. Tele-evangelism does not represent the majority of Christianity any more than ISIS represents Islam
No but my experience with irish catholic christians was that there were well prepared to behave like the americans when given the chance.
I cannot abide intellectual dishonesty. “God” is founded on it.
No, you really don’t get it. If you spent some time actually talking to a theologian you might appreciate this.
MOlgrips - if you are arguing from false postulates then nothing derived from those false postulates is valid. "god exists" is a false postulate.
You are falsely giving equivalence to both positions " god exists" and "god does not exist" Thus undermining your point and badly missing others pioints
1) The discussion is here, it represents something I am passionate about, so i am negaging here, why do I need to joind a 2nd discussion.
Well, it'd be a lot more efficient.
You're passionate about it, but on only your own terms? I thought you were the open-minded one. 😁
2) It is implied in the Op that he sets the agenda. Down that road manipulaton lies. See James Randi million dollar challenge.
No, you've inferred that. And in fact, you've been told the opposite from several quarters now.
That's the second time you (or someone?) has mentioned Randi. I'm reasonably confident that most contributors here are familiar with his work and the challenge. I certainly am, I've watched loads.
3) If there is not much more for me to add, why do people keep asking me questions? I am jsut answering them.
I said, there's nothing to add if all you want to say is "it's shite."
4) I have not been rude or personal, I pointed out my concerns about the language used by the OP, it is the same as language used by all religious types. I don’t mean to be rude, insulting or anything.
That's not for me to say, I don't think.
5) I happen to have a good mate who is also a russian orthodpox academic, quite a famous guy in fact. I’ve had these exact conversationw with him… IF SR wants to PM me I’ll tell you his name and send you a selfie of me and him together, I feel sure SR will know him.
"I can't be racist, I have a brown friend!" 😁
That's interesting actually. Maybe he'd like to join in with SR's vPub session?
Depends on your definition of 'God'
Is 'Love exists' a false postulate?
Love is a chemical reaction based on evolutionary pressures to stop you killing your children. Oxytocin mainly IIRC
It does not depend on your definition of god - god is not real. Its a construct of medieval and older superstition. No definition of god has any validity
Do I believe that crystal healing is a thing? No, I agree with you that thus far any proof is at best sketchy, more accurately it is in the realms of wuwu dust. Does that mean that in a future state of understanding that will still be true, not necessarily.
This is just restating my response to you calling me closed minded, we agree 100% on crystals.
Therefore recant your claim on my so called closed mind.
Isn't love just the delusion that one person is better for you than eight billion others? (-:
Ooh. Where do we stand on people who say they love Jesus?
Love is a chemical reaction based on ev9oltionarty pressures to stop you killing your children. Oxytocin mainly IIRC
Exactly, therefore does love exist?
The concept is a human interpretation of the emotional reaction to procreate and ensure your progeny survive. I don' think anyone here could define what love is, so arguing if it exists is a waste of time.
“I can’t be racist, I have a brown friend!” 😁
Mate that is lame and you know it, I mentioned it as response to molgrips saying that I should discuss theology with someone who knows it well and implying that I am ignorant of it.
Plus am not saying that I am not "theologian-ist", I think he is full of shit too and I've told him..
I think most of us wouldn't question the existence of love, given that most of us will have experienced it.
However, it would take a scientist to explain the chemistry and biology behind it.
A sociologist, therapist, philosipher or divorce lawyer may be able to discuss the history and affects of love on humanity, but they have no greater claim to explain the physical process behind it than the layman.
Hence my argument with Molgrips' position on theology.
Mate that is lame and you know it
Of course I do, it was a joke. That's why there was a smiley in the quote you, er, quoted.
This is just restating my response to you calling me closed minded, we agree 100% on crystals.
Therefore recant your claim on my so called closed mind.
You said they were shite, and then said you were open minded that under manipulation they might. Actually they might even without manipulation using mechanisms we don't yet know or understand. I don't need to recant, you already did. But we're now on the head of the same pin, albeit not in 100% agreement.
No definition of god has any validity
God is a human construct, not a physical manifestation. But the effect of that construct is to give some people a sense of belonging, a higher purpose to their lives, and a rationale for things that happen in their lives. It brings them comfort when they need it, and stimulates chemicals in their systems that manifests in real, measurable effects.
Is that not valid as a definition?
God is a human construct, not a physical manifestation. But the effect of that construct is to give some people a sense of belonging, a higher purpose to their lives, and a rationale for things that happen in their lives. It brings them comfort when they need it, and stimulates chemicals in their systems that manifests in real, measurable effects.
Is that not valid as a definition?
The bold highlight is a fancy pseudo academic way of saying that God is is made up.
I think most of us wouldn’t question the existence of love, given that most of us will have experienced it.
However, it would take a scientist to explain the chemistry and biology behind it.
A sociologist, therapist, philosipher or divorce lawyer may be able to discuss the history and affects of love on humanity, but they have no greater claim to explain the physical process behind it than the layman.
Hence my argument with Molgrips’ position on theology.
This is a great analogy.
Don't you find it fascinating that humans seem to need to make up such things?
How does science and rational belief affect our acceptance of this need?
Is 'progression' linear, cyclical or chaotic?
What can history tell us about the nature of faith?
This of course leads to a discussion about views on spirituality, fake news, social media, everything really.
But people living in other societies accept limits on personal freedom and autonomy that we in the West would not. Why is that?
State sovereignty (Western style) is a position of extreme privilege considering indigenous sovereignty still struggles for a definition after contact/colonialism. Of course self-determination and autonomy of indigenous/aboriginal peoples was first taken away/eroded before being in some small parts ‘handed back’ in unrecognisable tatters. It’s a very complex subject. Aboriginal peoples in general had (for instance) far more sex & gender equality before colonialism. Moreso than the European settlers/invaders.
An interesting historical overview here:
American Indian Women
(Illustration: Obleka, an Eskimo woman 1907)
Question: What were women treated like in the tribes of the Indians?
And let’s be honest, when comparing western world views with aboriginal world views how many of us could even list a handful of differences?
Eight differences between Indigenous and western worldviews
Indigenous worldviews (I) vs Western worldviews (W)
1.(I) Spiritually orientated society. System based on belief and spiritual world.
1.(W) Scientific, skeptical. Requiring proof as a basis of belief.
2.(I)There can be many truths; truths are dependent upon individual experiences.
2.(W) There is only one truth, based on science or Western style law.
3.(I) Society operates in a state of relatedness. Everything and everyone is related. There is real belief that people, objects and the environment are all connected. Law, kinship and spirituality reinforce this connectedness. Identity comes from connections.
3.(W)Compartmentalized society, becoming more so.
4.(I) The land is sacred and usually given by a creator or supreme being.
4.(W) The land and its resources should be available for development and extraction for the benefit of humans.
5.(I) Time is non-linear, cyclical in nature. Time is measured in cyclical events. The seasons are central to this cyclical concept.
5.(W) Time is usually linearly structured and future orientated. The framework of months, years, days etc reinforces the linear structure.
6.(I) Feeling comfortable is measured by the quality of your relationships with people.
6.(W) Feeling comfortable is related to how successful you feel you have been in achieving your goals.
7.(I) Human beings are not the most important in the world.
7.(W) Human beings are most important in the world.
8.(I) Amassing wealth is important for the good of the community
8.(W)Amassing wealth is for personal gain
The bold highlight is a fancy pseudo academic way of saying that God is is made up.
Does it negate the rest of his post though?
Spider-Man is a man-made construct. Would you criticise someone for enjoying it?
Spider-Man is a man-made construct. Would you criticise someone for enjoying it?
Of course not, I said earlier I don't object to people doing religion, theology, seances etc. As long as nobody claims its true. You don't see marvel claiming spiderman is real and we should do as he says.
Because people have claimed god is true since whenever, we need to give it a health warning.
On a personal note, I don't go around christian baiting. The OP opened up the discussion. IF someone tells me they are christian etc, I tend to leave well alone. None of my business.
However if I see people using religion to manipulate people then its a different matter...
At least Potter fans know it is imaginary.
I'm not so sure.
Don’t you find it fascinating that humans seem to need to make up such things?
It's human nature to be inquisitive and I guess to feel... important? Or rather, just not utterly insignificant maybe. Why are we here, where did we come from, these aren't just big questions but blindingly obvious questions and it's wholly unsurprising that we've been asking them since the dawn of thought.
If we're going to cling on to millennia-old superstitions as The Answers then it's perhaps less surprising that we have things like 'fake news'. Fake news is affirming, it tells people "hey, you know what, you were right all along!" and "yeah, your life is a bit shit right now, but it's all someone else's fault." Conspiracy theories are compelling because those who believe are convinced that they know something no-one else does (and also it makes them part of a tribe of fellow believers). Yeah, totally not seeing any parallels here with religion.
Don’t you find it fascinating that humans seem to need to make up such things?
How does science and rational belief affect our acceptance of this need?
I don't quite see it the same way.
Making things up based on observations and the best knowledge you have at the time, to explain the world around us, or why we are here, is not religion. Making things up is he start of science..
It becomes religion when the made up thng becomes unquestionable or protected by faith and power. (edit - this is the same as cougars line -
If we’re going to cling on to millennia-old superstitions as The Answers
)
Religion is the suppression and the end of science.
I would argue that the start of any of the relgious concepts out there were the first steps on the scientific journey.
This to me is how many people confuse religion and scientifc progress, they are intertwined with people seeking answers about life.
(I see this as a cross post with cougar above - its kind of the same point)
p7eaven
Free MemberAn interesting historical overview here:
Thank you, this (and the whole thread) is the kind of stuff I come here for.
Just out of interest, I'm fascinated by how different societies throughout history appear to share intrinsic common myths, beliefs and stories.
Another one for the sociologists/theologists.
Just reading last night about Otzi's tattoos and the widespread belief in the benefits of accupuncture.
Of course not, I said earlier I don’t object to people doing religion, theology, seances etc. As long as nobody claims its true.
So if the bible had a disclaimer at the start saying it was fictional, that'd be case closed for you?
For what it's worth I kind of agree with you. I've thought for a while that a lot of religion could use a reboot, take all the good bits like being nice to each other and excise all the patently nonsense bits like stars hanging on the firmament or whatever. But then we hit the thorny problem of "it's the word of god except the bits which aren't" and as soon as you start crossing parts of it out the whole thing unravels.
I made this point on a previous discussion and was told something like "well, of course it's not expected to be taken literally, no-one thinks that, it's allegorical." But that's surely revisionism, it may be (mostly) true today but people didn't get persecuted or worse historically for disagreeing with allegory.
You don’t see marvel claiming spiderman is real and we should do as he says.
Mattel tried it with He-Man. "Remember kids..." (-:
Role models are role models I guess.
However if I see people using religion to manipulate people then its a different matter…
One of my bones of contention also. I reject the notion that it should receive special privilege and I find it weird that it still has an influence in our political system.
So if the bible had a disclaimer at the start saying it was fictional, that’d be case closed for you?
To be fair, yes. I think it needs to be more than this, but as a metaphor yes.
The rest of your post is us agreeing so no more need be said.
Eg good bits - 10 Commandments
One which is forgiveness, turn the other cheek.
If I could teach my kids anything it is this, took me a long time to learn that I was wasting my life hating or plotting revenge on those who have "wronged me". Forgivness is a ridiculously selfish act, its about you letting go of any pressure to "seek justice" or "put things right".
The act of letting go is a blessed relief.
A sociologist, therapist, philosipher or divorce lawyer may be able to discuss the history and affects of love on humanity, but they have no greater claim to explain the physical process behind it than the layman.
Hence my argument with Molgrips’ position on theology.
Not sure I follow. I don't think that theology is an attempt to explain the creation of the world, is it?
Your edit:
I made this point on a previous discussion and was told something like “well, of course it’s not expected to be taken literally, no-one thinks that, it’s allegorical.” But that’s surely revisionism, it may be (mostly) true today but people didn’t get persecuted or worse historically for disagreeing with allegory.
This is present strongly in this thread, the implication that you can't understand what god means without theological study - which makes the theoligans the gate keepers, the high priests...
That’s pretty much my main problem with it too. Not just our political system but education too. We purposefully found a school with no religious affiliation for our kids. Still learn about Jesus, Christianity etc and it is taught as fact. I had a good conversation with my sons teacher about it. My main gripe is that they should teach evolution first and then cover all the main religions as a ‘Some people believe x’ exercise. Don’t be filling a six year olds head with fantasy and passing it off as fact.
That leads me to the fact that I believe the bible does Jesus a massive disservice if he was a real man. His general philosophy seems pretty sound and I think he was a bit of a rebel. Flipping tables over, sticking up for prostitutes, feeding the poor etc. Add in the miracles, resurrection, son of God bit etc and it takes away from the story of the man in my opinion. On a cheeky side note I always find it amusing that a carpenter was killed using wood and nails.
I made this point on a previous discussion and was told something like “well, of course it’s not expected to be taken literally, no-one thinks that, it’s allegorical.” But that’s surely revisionism, it may be (mostly) true today but people didn’t get persecuted or worse historically for disagreeing with allegory.
No.. see, that's not why people were persecuted. I posted earlier on this thread about St Augustine describing Genesis as allegorical in the 5th century, and some Roman dude in 130AD. You've all seen clips of someone from a tribe in the Americas saying that 'our people believe that the god XYZ fought the god ABC, ripped off his head and tossed it in the sea and that's how our island appeared. Do you think they actually believe that really actually happened? Or is there something deeper going on here? Maybe the stories themselves have value to those people regardless of how the world was actually created?
5plusn8
Free Member
Don’t you find it fascinating that humans seem to need to make up such things?How does science and rational belief affect our acceptance of this need?
I don’t quite see it the same way.
Making things up based on observations and the best knowledge you have at the time, to explain the world around us, or why we are here, is not religion. Making things up is he start of science..
Hmm.
We have astrology columns in most newspapers. They are devoured by people who have had the privilege of a scientific education.
People seem to need to believe in the irrational.
It becomes religion when the made up thng becomes unquestionable or protected by faith and power.
Many, many irrational beliefs become unquestionable when protected by faith and power.
The denial of the Armenian holocaust as one example.
The very malleability of faith is what makes it so fascinating.
Don’t you find it fascinating that humans seem to need to make up such things?
Well especially in light of this current debate.
What I find fascinating though is in this construct, of a religion , for want of a better word.. invented.. millennia ago is their use of language and demographics mostly pertaining to the darker side of religion, the part mean to keep the faithful, faithful.
Here we are obviously talking about the concept of hell, or of a vengeful god, wreaking destruction on the enemies of said religion.
God in these stories is depicted as using his weapon of choice which was a Flaming Sword.
Not a Laser, not some sort of trans-matter device, or even a waving of his magical fingers rendering these enemies unto instant death. No, its a Flaming Sword.
So why or how did were get this weapon as the instrument of gods vengeance. Simply put it was the weapon of mass destruction X number of thousands of years ago. Everyone knew in those times the dangers of swords, the main weapon used to dispatch enemies in war and also criminals. so it would be easy for the faithful to picture the concept. But to give it omnipotent power, the sword becomes flaming, fire being another hardwired fear of the average human.
This now, in modern times doesn't compute. because if an omnipotent being was to 'wreak vengeance' and nothing is off the table so to speak, a sword would be the last thing is such a beings arsenal.
The god who supposedly created the universe could simply 'unmake' anyone who displeased hit/it.
This is one of the points, for me at least, the concept of a supreme being cannot possible exist. He/it(theres 99/100 never a she) it could only exist in a time when the mass majority of the population were superstitious, and had little understanding of the world about them.
Do you think they actually believe that really actually happened?
Do you think they don't?
You're essentially describing a believe system which people don't believe in. If the head-ripping god (or Genesis) isn't true then what is its purpose?
This is why Galileo was put on trial - he was challenging the geocentric model described (and alluded to multiple times) in the bible. Doesn't sound to me like they interpreted it as much of an allegory back then.
molgrips
Full Member
A sociologist, therapist, philosipher or divorce lawyer may be able to discuss the history and affects of love on humanity, but they have no greater claim to explain the physical process behind it than the layman.Hence my argument with Molgrips’ position on theology.
Not sure I follow. I don’t think that theology is an attempt to explain the creation of the world, is it?
Would you mind very much if I addressed your point tomorrow? Rather enjoying his btw, but time for bed.
it could only exist in a time when the mass majority of the population were superstitious, and had little understanding of the world about them.
We've clearly come a long way. (-:
Having read many of your posts on this subject, including the posts in this thread, you seem to believe that a theologian has a greater claim as to the opinion of the existence of a supreme being than any other non-scientific layman.
This also seemed pretty clear to me.
We’ve clearly come a long way. (-:
😂😂😂😂
I swear this is a coincidence. I just refreshed Twitter and:
https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1523929945365483520
Just a quick one.
I have been so lucky to have actually met Cougar & Molgrips, both genuinely lovely people.
The bold highlight is a fancy pseudo academic way of saying that God is is made up.
He is made up and used as a tool by the church to generate untold wealth and power by literally putting the fear of god into then to comply. It’s an amazing thing the church has pulled off over the centuries and get away with it. That doesn’t change the fact that so far no one has ever managed to provide any evidence that any religions god has ever existed.
I often wonder how Jenny’s is portrayed and if that changes round the world. In the West he is depicted and a white guy with brown hair. Given where he lived sorry it’s more likely that he works have been alot more Arabic in appearance
It does. "Chinese Jesus" is a thing, as a random example. There's probably others.
You’re essentially describing a believe system which people don’t believe in. If the head-ripping god (or Genesis) isn’t true then what is its purpose?
Well that's a very good question. It clearly has one, I think that you just don't know what it is. I don't either, but I suspect there is quite a deep one that includes some deep aspects of humanity.
I mean, why do we have to be obsessed with the scientific search for how the universe was created? Why can't other stories have value and meaning? It could be considered rather prosaic to only consider that which can be proved. Why can't we inhabit multiple realities at the same time? I think we are now talking about epistemology, something that I, even as a fairly intellectual person (or so I thought) had not even heard of before @SaxonRider mentioned it.
I mean, yeah, there is a physical world, but that is not the same as the world that exists in your head. Even I know this from a Physics point of view.
I have been so lucky to have actually met Cougar & Molgrips, both genuinely lovely people.
Aw shucks.
Here we are obviously talking about the concept of hell, or of a vengeful god, wreaking destruction on the enemies of said religion.
God in these stories is depicted as using his weapon of choice which was a Flaming Sword.
Those stories are far from universal.
This is why Galileo was put on trial – he was challenging the geocentric model described (and alluded to multiple times) in the bible. Doesn’t sound to me like they interpreted it as much of an allegory back then.
I doubt the authorities really cared about what went round what. They cared about power, and they didn't want anyone going round saying they were wrong because it made them look bad. Politics not cosmology.
I have been so lucky to have actually met Cougar & Molgrips, both genuinely lovely people.
Thanks Rusty, who is also lovely 🙂
Was there a deleted post?
Having read many of your posts on this subject, including the posts in this thread, you seem to believe that a theologian has a greater claim as to the opinion of the existence of a supreme being than any other non-scientific layman.
SaxonRider does know a hell of a lot more about religion than most people do, that's for sure. And I don't mean just extant Christianity.
What do people think theologians actually do all day?
I have been so lucky to have actually met Cougar & Molgrips, both genuinely lovely people.
What do people think theologians actually do all day?
Eat sweeties?
SaxonRider does know a hell of a lot more about religion than most people do, that’s for sure. And I don’t mean just extant Christianity.
But ( no offense intended) thats like knowing a lot about Harry Potter. All very interesting and everyone needs a hobby but what relevance to reality is this knowledge? The whole construct is based on a false premise therefore is meaningless
but what relevance to reality is this knowledge? The whole construct is based on a false premise therefore is meaningless
Are you really going to argue that knowledge about religion - Given it's impact on humanity is meaningless? Really?
There may be some validity in using it to understand why people are so weird but the idea that religion has any value, truth or anything to teach us in the 21st century is absurd. Its a load of primitive superstition.
So yes - religion has no meaning at all.