Religion Discussion Thread

[Archeuland]

It wouldn't be a bad idea to abstain from meat or a general fast for, say, one day a week. It's probably very good for you.

[Unitaristic Regions]

I'm technical agnostic because I it seems possible for some kind of deism or pantheism to exist, but all the existing religions are way too specific to be correct.

[Constantinopolis]

Define "true".

If I write you a poem to express my feelings, and the feelings expressed in it are true (but the poem itself, being a poem, makes no sense at all when read literally), what do you call that? If I tell you a story to make an important point, and the point is true, and the story itself is mostly true but has the occasional inaccuracy in it, what do you call that? If I say, "the sea is blue tonight", but people disagree about which shade of blue I meant and some argue that I was actually wrong because the color of the sea at this place and time would be more accurately described as green, what do you call that?

True as in "The word of God/The Gods"

Ok. By that definition, it is true.

As in, Scripture is a message from God to human beings. This message, however, is not written in the style of a clinical, precise and emotionless observation of events. And it would be dumb to expect it to be.

[Cyrisnia]

I'm technical agnostic because I it seems possible for some kind of deism or pantheism to exist, but all the existing religions are way too specific to be correct.

How so?

[The Rich Port]

True as in "The word of God/The Gods"

Ok. By that definition, it is true.

As in, Scripture is a message from God to human beings. This message, however, is not written in the style of a clinical, precise and emotionless observation of events. And it would be dumb to expect it to be.

... It would be dumb for God to be clear, concise, and brief?

[Murkwood]

In response to the poll, no. It should never be viewed as correct no matter what.

As a Catholic, we believe that the Bible was created using divine inspiration from God, but it was copied down by fallible men, so there will always be mistakes.

[Murkwood]

Ok. By that definition, it is true.

As in, Scripture is a message from God to human beings. This message, however, is not written in the style of a clinical, precise and emotionless observation of events. And it would be dumb to expect it to be.

... It would be dumb for God to be clear, concise, and brief?

God didn't write the Bible. Fallible men with divine inspiration did. So of course it's not perfect.

[The Rich Port]

... It would be dumb for God to be clear, concise, and brief?

God didn't write the Bible. Fallible men with divine inspiration did. So of course it's not perfect.

God's too powerful to use a pen.

[Murkwood]

God didn't write the Bible. Fallible men with divine inspiration did. So of course it's not perfect.

God's too powerful to use a pen.

Can God create a pen so big he couldn't use it?

Ugh, I hate those things.

[Lalaki]

God's too powerful to use a pen.

Can God create a pen so big he couldn't use it?

Ugh, I hate those things.

An infinitely powerful God would be able to create one, and he could still use it.

[The Rich Port]

God's too powerful to use a pen.

Can God create a pen so big he couldn't use it?

Ugh, I hate those things.

Would it be a ballpoint pen or an ink well pen?

Actually, ballpoint pens were created by the Devil as instruments of spiritual torture, so never mind.

[Unitaristic Regions]

I'm technical agnostic because I it seems possible for some kind of deism or pantheism to exist, but all the existing religions are way too specific to be correct.

How so?

I have sympathy for 'intelligent design' or something divine that is impossible to perceive with the material senses we have, but it seems impossible to justify a believing in, for example, slaughtering pigs a certain way. The Christian God, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Vishnu, Zeus, Yahweh, they all have differing belief systems of which it is impossible to prove every single specific item, heck, even one item at all!

What I mean is, that I'm open to the idea of a Divine Being, not to the idea of an actual organized or non-organized religion.

[Constantinopolis]

Ok. By that definition, it is true.

As in, Scripture is a message from God to human beings. This message, however, is not written in the style of a clinical, precise and emotionless observation of events. And it would be dumb to expect it to be.

... It would be dumb for God to be clear, concise, and brief?

Actually, yes, it would be. Suppose God wrote His message in the style of a dry, technical scientific treatise - or theological treatise, to be more exact. Suppose God gave us a Holy Book written in the style of, say, The Critique of Pure Reason.

How many people do you think would be able to read it without being bored out of their minds, let alone understand it? How many people read theology textbooks right now? Extremely few.

So yes, it would indeed be dumb for God to write Scripture in the style of a textbook, because people wouldn't read it, and most wouldn't be able to understand it anyway. An important part of crafting your message is making it interesting to your audience.

[Murkwood]

Can God create a pen so big he couldn't use it?

Ugh, I hate those things.

An infinitely powerful God would be able to create one, and he could still use it.

I know, that's why it's so stupid.

[The Rich Port]

... It would be dumb for God to be clear, concise, and brief?

Actually, yes, it would be. Suppose God wrote His message in the style of a dry, technical scientific treatise - or theological treatise, to be more exact. Suppose God gave us a Holy Book written in the style of, say, The Critique of Pure Reason.

How many people do you think would be able to read it without being bored out of their minds, let alone understand it? How many people read theology textbooks right now? Extremely few.

So yes, it would indeed be dumb for God to write Scripture in the style of a textbook, because people wouldn't read it, and most wouldn't be able to understand it anyway. An important part of crafting your message is making it interesting to your audience.

I'm sorry, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

God is fucking Stephanie Meyer now?

God should miracle himself a fucking good advertising agency or something, then. Jesus Fucking Christ.

Also, I'm not asking for a textbook, I'm asking for CLARITY.

God, omnipotent being that he is, is a shitty writer who can't be clear and concise and interesting at the same time?

Also, the Critique of Pure Reason is one of the most widely read books of philosophy. Fucking shit.

[Murkwood]

Actually, yes, it would be. Suppose God wrote His message in the style of a dry, technical scientific treatise - or theological treatise, to be more exact. Suppose God gave us a Holy Book written in the style of, say, The Critique of Pure Reason.

How many people do you think would be able to read it without being bored out of their minds, let alone understand it? How many people read theology textbooks right now? Extremely few.

So yes, it would indeed be dumb for God to write Scripture in the style of a textbook, because people wouldn't read it, and most wouldn't be able to understand it anyway. An important part of crafting your message is making it interesting to your audience.

I'm sorry, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

God is fucking Stephanie Meyer now?

God should miracle himself a fucking good advertising agency or something, then. Jesus Fucking Christ.

Also, I'm not asking for a textbook, I'm asking for CLARITY.

God, omnipotent being that he is, is a shitty writer who can't be clear and concise and interesting at the same time?

Also, the Critique of Pure Reason is one of the most widely read books of philosophy. Fucking shit.

God didn't write the Scriptures, though, so your point is moot.

[Constantinopolis]

Despite the nominal respect that so many atheists have for science, the vast majority of people (including atheists) have never read a scientific article from an academic journal in their lives. Because, let's face it, unless you have a passion for the field in question (and have received training in it), real scientific articles are tedious, boring, and (without specialized training) incomprehensible. No human author - let alone a god - who wanted to spread some message to a wide audience would ever consider writing that message in the style of a scientific article.

What is the most effective literary format for spreading a message? Writing stories that contain the message in question.

[Benuty]

God didn't write the Bible. Fallible men with divine inspiration did. So of course it's not perfect.

God's too powerful to use a pen.

Speaking of which.
http://bob-rz.deviantart.com/art/God-is ... d-35556093

[The Rich Port]

Despite the nominal respect that so many atheists have for science, the vast majority of people (including atheists) have never read a scientific article from an academic journal in their lives. Because, let's face it, unless you have a passion for the field in question (and have received training in it), real scientific articles are tedious, boring, and (without specialized training) incomprehensible. No human author - let alone a god - who wanted to spread some message to a wide audience would ever consider writing that message in the style of a scientific article.

What is the most effective literary format for spreading a message? Writing stories that contain the message in question.

... Stop. Just stop.

No, see, IDIOTS only read stories. What are we, fucking children to you? I read everything. Lots of people read a whole shit ton of things. Also, considering you're addressing this, there's a whole genre of scientific writing that makes science palatable to the "unwashed masses" you've just character-assassinated.

Not everyone needs to be a fucking religious Twilight fan.

[Constantinopolis]

Also, I'm not asking for a textbook, I'm asking for CLARITY.

Well, I was talking about the literary style (or rather, styles) of the Bible and the reason why it is not written "in the style of a clinical, precise and emotionless observation of events."

If you think Scripture is not clear enough, that's a different subject (and, also, that's your problem). Clarity is not the same thing as style.

God, omnipotent being that he is, is a shitty writer who can't be clear and concise and interesting at the same time?

Well, as Murkwood pointed out, God didn't actually write the Scriptures, but that is a little beside the point (since He did cause them to be written, so He could have caused them to be written differently).

So to address your point: Since God has voluntarily decided not to exercise His omnipotence to screw with the human mind, this places some (voluntary) limitations on what He can do. He can't make us interested in something that we find boring, for example (because that would be messing with our minds), so He has to work within the constraints imposed by the sorts of things that humans find interesting.

Also, the Critique of Pure Reason is one of the most widely read books of philosophy. Fucking shit.

Of course it is. That was my point. That's why I picked it as an example. Even one of the most widely read books of philosophy is still only read by a tiny number of people.

For example, how many people here do you think have read Critique of Pure Reason? Do you want to start a poll?

[Constantinopolis]

No, see, IDIOTS only read stories. What are we, fucking children to you? I read everything. Lots of people read a whole shit ton of things. Also, considering you're addressing this, there's a whole genre of scientific writing that makes science palatable to the "unwashed masses" you've just character-assassinated.

Oh, you read "everything"? Good for you. But the message of God isn't written for you in particular. The intended audience is every human being who ever lived or ever will live. Including the idiots.

I'm not a Gnostic, so my God isn't some kind of elitist who only saves the chosen few that are smart enough to comprehend his esoteric message. The message of God is for everyone. The 108 billion people who have lived so far, and the countless others yet to be born.

Not everyone needs to be a fucking religious Twilight fan.

I think you may have an unhealthy obsession with Twilight...

[The Rich Port]

Also, I'm not asking for a textbook, I'm asking for CLARITY.

Well, I was talking about the literary style (or rather, styles) of the Bible and the reason why it is not written "in the style of a clinical, precise and emotionless observation of events."

If you think Scripture is not clear enough, that's a different subject (and, also, that's your problem). Clarity is not the same thing as style.

God, omnipotent being that he is, is a shitty writer who can't be clear and concise and interesting at the same time?

Well, as Murkwood pointed out, God didn't actually write the Scriptures, but that is a little beside the point (since He did cause them to be written, so He could have caused them to be written differently).

So to address your point: Since God has voluntarily decided not to exercise His omnipotence to screw with the human mind, this places some (voluntary) limitations on what He can do. He can't make us interested in something that we find boring, for example (because that would be messing with our minds), so He has to work within the constraints imposed by the sorts of things that humans find interesting.

Also, the Critique of Pure Reason is one of the most widely read books of philosophy. Fucking shit.

Of course it is. That was my point. That's why I picked it as an example. Even one of the most widely read books of philosophy is still only read by a tiny number of people.

For example, how many people here do you think have read Critique of Pure Reason? Do you want to start a poll?

No, actually, it is. He could have picked a style that was clear as opposed to pretentiously dense. Unless we're talking about Hipster!God.

That gets dumber the more you say it...

[Benuty]

Well, I was talking about the literary style (or rather, styles) of the Bible and the reason why it is not written "in the style of a clinical, precise and emotionless observation of events."

If you think Scripture is not clear enough, that's a different subject (and, also, that's your problem). Clarity is not the same thing as style.


Well, as Murkwood pointed out, God didn't actually write the Scriptures, but that is a little beside the point (since He did cause them to be written, so He could have caused them to be written differently).

So to address your point: Since God has voluntarily decided not to exercise His omnipotence to screw with the human mind, this places some (voluntary) limitations on what He can do. He can't make us interested in something that we find boring, for example (because that would be messing with our minds), so He has to work within the constraints imposed by the sorts of things that humans find interesting.


Of course it is. That was my point. That's why I picked it as an example. Even one of the most widely read books of philosophy is still only read by a tiny number of people.

For example, how many people here do you think have read Critique of Pure Reason? Do you want to start a poll?

No, actually, it is. He could have picked a style that was clear as opposed to pretentiously dense. Unless we're talking about Hipster!God.

That gets dumber the more you say it...

Define "Hipster"? .

[Bearon]

Hey wasn't the Bibble supposed to be divinely inspired?

[The Scientific States]

In response to the poll, no. It should never be viewed as correct no matter what.

As a Catholic, we believe that the Bible was created using divine inspiration from God, but it was copied down by fallible men, so there will always be mistakes.

And, most theologians believe that to be true, so thank you for not being naive enough to believe that everything in the bible is true. I'm an atheist, but I still do believe that some things in the bible happened given the historical evidence, while other portions are just stories written by men, particularly those in Babylonian exile, to explain the power of god, or sometimes said stories are "laws" that are often misinterpreted.