Lasto beth Lammen - Is your religion nuts?

[halplm]

Some flavors of Christian believe that every word in the Bible must be taken as fact. No metaphors, no myths. The insanity Alatar described can follow from that.

I'm sorry, believing that God wanted to clearly and accurately state what he needed believers to hear is insane now? I don't think that was anything in what Alatar posted.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I have moved this thread to Tol Eressëa because, despite the introductory comments in the opening post, it clearly belongs in this forum since it is a thread about religion. The Marshals and I appreciate the spirit that the thread was started in, but we are also concerned about comments that insult other people's beliefs with adding productively to the discusssion. We are going to leave it open for now, but will be watching it closely and won't hesitate to close it if it continues in that direction.

[River]

Some flavors of Christian believe that every word in the Bible must be taken as fact. No metaphors, no myths. The insanity Alatar described can follow from that.

I'm sorry, believing that God wanted to clearly and accurately state what he needed believers to hear is insane now? I don't think that was anything in what Alatar posted.

I was responding to Faramond's post ahead of mine. Namely his wondering about why people who self-identify as Christian (like the people Alatar encountered) try to pound the square peg that is modern science into the round hole that is the Biblical creation myth and re-work the entire timeline of the planet and universe as a whole to fit their dogma.

Now, kindly explain why, out of everyone who has posted in this thread, you chose to single me out.

ETA: Oh bugger it, this is pointless. Can you guys just lock me out of Tol Eressëa? kthxbai

[Alatar]

And this is precisely why I wanted this to stay in Lasto. The rules for discussion in Tol Eressëa make it impossible to hold that discussion here.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But those rules exist for a reason, and you can't get around them by starting a discussion about religion, putting it some place other than TE, and thus saying that the rules don't apply.

[Alatar]

But this isn't a religious discussion. Its a discussion about how religions can be realistically considered in line with known science. That can't be done if we can't question religion, which is the case here.

Unless you prefer the discussion not take place at all, the shackles need to come off.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Its a discussion about how religions can be realistically considered in line with known science. That can't be done if we can't question religion, which is the case here.

There is no reason why that discussion can not take place in the context of the rules for this forum, without insulting other people's beliefs, as several people in this thread have done. It just requires a certain amount of discipline and tact. If people are not capable of that, then yes the discussion will not be able to take place here.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Its a discussion about how religions can be realistically considered in line with known science. That can't be done if we can't question religion, which is the case here.

There is no reason why that discussion can not take place in the context of the rules for this forum, without insulting other people's beliefs, as several people in this thread have done. It just requires a certain amount of discipline and tact. If people are not capable of that, then yes the discussion will not be able to take place here.

Forgive my intrusion on what may be a private spat, but what exactly are the rules of this forum? Jnyusa writes

We encourage participants here to make an extra effort to understand why others believe as they do and to inquire about other belief systems with an open mind.

but there is surely some distinction between having an open mind and being restricted from saying a stone is a stone. To a solipsist, existence itself could be explained as a simple projection, like Macbeth's dagger, but it would seem perverse to be unable to counter the solipsist's assertion that the pebble in my pocket I rotate for good luck is but a figment of her imagination.
So is the instruction here that an argument, or belief, can be described as nonsense, as long as the description of nonsense is done politely? Or must all beliefs be treated as equivalent and inviolable?
Or is that choice a false dichotomy?

[Alatar]

What the Wild Man said.

[Nin]

First of all I want to state that as a complete atheist I don't see any insult to anybody's beliefs in this thread and I have read it entirely. Not did I see anybody complaining about being or feeling insulted. I am sorry but I don't understand the intervention of Marshals at all and would be glad to understand where any insult should have taken place to see where I lack sensibility.

Now, to religion. As stated often, I am an atheist. Culturally christian, so basically, christian rules, names and refernces are known and familiar to me, whereas those of other religions are not. But the fact that this religion is more familiar and thus better aceepted on my behalf, as on behalf of most of the posters here, regardless of the fact weather they believe in christianity or not does not make it any "better" than other religions. It often keeps from taking a close look at this religion which we believe to know.

Anyway: why should any religion be "better" ore "more true"? All religions are based on the very principle that there is some higher being, over human that created the world and some underlying principles to which humanity must obey. The circumstances of creation and the rules to be obedient to vary. Some are closer to our own cultural heritage, thus we accept them better (like to baptize a child), others are further (like human sacrifice to a God) and we accept them less. But all of them are based on that very principle and if you accept it, the rest is just a question of degree and tradition.

Now, even if it might offend some: to me the principle that any higher being exists is nonsense (or nuts, if you prefer) and thus all religions are nuts. Yet, I can find some more interesting and in their every day application more respectful of the human being as others, but this is a question of culture and not of religion.

[Inanna]

Personally, I would like to have this discussion. I was looking forward to learning and laying down the basic tenets of Hinduism, so I could, in fact, explore what they are!! And get everyone's reactions for it.

Like Nin, I don't see anything offensive in this thread (other than maybe hal saying that his religion is better than others, but I can concede that is often the basis of religious belief as well). Maybe people who do not feel they can have a discussion of religious beliefs in line with science can keep out of it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The only intervention that we have made thus far is to move the thread to the correct forum. I continue to maintain, consistent to what Ghân said, that this discussion can successfully be maintained in this forum, following the rules of this forum. The post that has come closest to being unacceptable under those rules was vison's post, and she indicated that she was bowing out, though others have also edged in that direction. We will continue to watch the thread, and so long as it remains productive and polite, we see no need to lock it.

[Lalaith]

Personally, I would like to have this discussion. I was looking forward to learning and laying down the basic tenets of Hinduism, so I could, in fact, explore what they are!! And get everyone's reactions for it.

Like Nin, I don't see anything offensive in this thread (other than maybe hal saying that his religion is better than others, but I can concede that is often the basis of religious belief as well). Maybe people who do not feel they can have a discussion of religious beliefs in line with science can keep out of it.

Mahima, that would be interesting to me. I do not know much about Hinduism and what I do know has been learned through a Christian filter, if that makes sense.

God has done real things in my life that I've known. I hold to the fulfilled biblical prophecies as my "proof" that the Bible is the word of God. However, having gone down this road many times before, I am not particularly interested in a discussion on why I shouldn't believe those things or how those things are false, etc.

Someone is certainly free to say that he thinks it's crazy for me to believe those things, and I will choose not to be offended by that terminology because I know that everyone here has devoted much thought and time to developing his beliefs (and could defend them beyond just saying, "You're crazy!").

Anyway, this seemed apropos. Our church building used to be on Franklin Street. The founders of the church, in their originality, then, named it Franklin Street Baptist Church. When we built a new building on a different road about 5 years ago, we obviously needed to rename the church. However, we opted not to rename it after our new street. Why? We'd built on a road called Nutt.

[Alatar]

I'm curious about these Lali. I can understand if you'd prefer not to go into it, but I'm interested in hearing about the Biblical prophecies in particular. Also, I'm curious to know if you have a "you can't pick and choose" approach, cause my own personal faith is very much of the A La Carte variety.

[vison]

The only intervention that we have made thus far is to move the thread to the correct forum. I continue to maintain, consistent to what Ghân said, that this discussion can successfully be maintained in this forum, following the rules of this forum. The post that has come closest to being unacceptable under those rules was vison's post, and she indicated that she was bowing out, though others have also edged in that direction. We will continue to watch the thread, and so long as it remains productive and polite, we see no need to lock it.

I did bow out and I remain bowed out since this post is not to further the discussion but to say: this discussion cannot be useful or successful if posters cannot express their honest opinions. If someone says, "YOU are nuts for believing as you do", then that's an insult. So far, no one has said anything like that.

And that's why I popped in. I rather doubt that my post surprised anyone, since my views are pretty well known. Still, I had hoped that the discussion could amount to something good, and I've been following it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Mahima and Lali, I would be interested in hearing more. In general, I would most interested to hear about issues that people have with their own religions that they still practice to some degree. Although posts from people explaining why they ended up leaving their religion because they determined that x, y and/or z was irrational would also be acceptable. What would not be acceptable are general statements about how all religion is nonsense without any supporting facts, or diatribes about how religion is evil. And even when explaining why you personally determined that a certain religion is irrational, or that aspects of it is irrational, it still needs to be done politely and with respect to those people who may be reading who do adhere to those beliefs. As I said earlier, that requires a certain degree of tact and discipline, but there is no reason why that can't be done.

[Lalaith]

If you had asked me about 10 years ago, I would absolutely have said, "You can't pick and choose." Being around you guys for so long, however, has definitely changed that. (And I feel like that's a positive thing, so don't misunderstand me.) Remember, I wouldn't be Baptist if I felt free to follow my own conscience. (That is something I've been pondering lately, though. Is it wrong to deny my own conscience? But that's a different discussion.)

So I'm all about the Nicene Creed or Apostles' Creed. I don't think you can pick and choose on that and still be a Christian. Beyond that, my faith would probably seem quite mixed up to someone who prefers things to be black and white. That part is too personal for me to want to open it up for ridicule or condemnation. (And I know that people here would be decent about it, but they could still rip it all to shreds.)

Biblical prophecy.

Here are some:

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible

(Of course, I'm not crazy about the link, but the article is a good summary of a few fulfilled prophecies.)

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm

(I am especially impressed by the prophecies regarding Tyre.)

I'm sure you're familiar with the prophecies about Jesus:

http://www.bible.ca/b-prophecy-60.htm

(I have read the counter-argument that Jesus, being a scholar of the Scriptures, arranged his life so that he fulfilled these prophecies on purpose. That's all well and good, except for the fact that you can't possibly arrange where you were born.)

Again, I'm just pulling these links from a google search. I'm too lazy to get out my theology book and type up excerpts.

[Primula Baggins]

Posting quickly on my last day before vacation to say that having someone say my own faith was nuts would have the flavor of a passerby in a grocery store telling me my baby was ugly. They're forming a judgment of something that doesn't matter to them but that is dearly important to me.

That doesn't mean I think the stranger wouldn't have a right to say what he did; I'm just trying to describe the feeling I would have under the circumstances. I would hardly be shattered to the core and start re-evaluating whether my baby really was the wooga wooga woogiest cutiest li'l ootsie boo. I might find the remark annoying, or easy to dispute, but I can't imagine hitting the guy. I'd probably just nod pleasantly; there is no point, to my mind, in arguing when the stakes are high for me and trivial for the other person.

This applies even more strongly when the other person is a friend.

ETA: I don't mean to imply that a nonbeliever's view of the world is not important to the nonbeliever. It's the details of other people's beliefs that don't matter (at least insofar as they don't affect the rights or safety or conversational enjoyment of the nonbeliever). It's like complaining about the plot of a novel you've never read and never will read.

[nerdanel]

Posting quickly on my last day before vacation to say that having someone say my own faith was nuts would have the flavor of a passerby in a grocery store telling me my baby was ugly. They're forming a judgment of something that doesn't matter to them but that is dearly important to me.

That doesn't mean I think the stranger wouldn't have a right to say what he did; I'm just trying to describe the feeling I would have under the circumstances. I would hardly be shattered to the core and start re-evaluating whether my baby really was the wooga wooga woogiest cutiest li'l ootsie boo. I might find the remark annoying, or easy to dispute, but I can't imagine hitting the guy. I'd probably just nod pleasantly; there is no point, to my mind, in arguing when the stakes are high for me and trivial for the other person.

This applies even more strongly when the other person is a friend.

ETA: I don't mean to imply that a nonbeliever's view of the world is not important to the nonbeliever. It's the details of other people's beliefs that don't matter (at least insofar as they don't affect the rights or safety or conversational enjoyment of the nonbeliever). It's like complaining about the plot of a novel you've never read and never will read.

As far as I know, the details of your faith, Prim, are not "important" to me in the sense of having any adverse impact on my life. To the extent we might disagree about moral and spiritual matters, you are not seeking to legislate your faith into law. But many other believers are trying to do so. It is the efforts of believers that have restricted the ability of many of my friends to marry; it is the efforts of believers that might restrict my access to reproductive service; it is the efforts of believers that are hindering scientists' efforts at productive stem cell research; it is the efforts of believers that exclude me from full participation in the pledge of allegiance and remind me that I am in a disfavored minority when I even use our country's currency; and so forth. You acknowledge this point in your ETA, when you mention rights, but I believe it needs underscoring.

The reason that a non-believer may feel that a believer's views are nuts is often tied to the believer's attempt to support or enact laws based on his or her supernatural beliefs. It is such attempts that leads to anger on the part of many non-believers and to understandably strong words such as "nonsense" being used. If believers live according to their own beliefs without seeking to legislate them, then no matter how irrational I may think their beliefs are, it's not my problem (just as a parent's feelings about the attractiveness of their children are not my concern.) But all too many believers have not afforded us this ability, by seeking to taint our country's secular laws with their supernatural beliefs.

[Maria]

All religions are based on the very principle that there is some higher being, over human that created the world and some underlying principles to which humanity must obey.

Not so. See pantheism (link)

Very few people believe what I do about the nature of the underlying reality of the universe- therefore almost by definition my "religion" is nuts. I formed my beliefs in trying to understand some paranormal experiences I'd had- and since science had no explanations, I had to turn to religion for some sort of answers to supernatural questions.

Many religions had a few useful bits that helped me - but none of them were an all out Answer that fit the data I had. So, I'm definitely of the pick and choose variety of religion. This bit about reincarnation fits. This bit about not vainly repeating the same prayers over and over fits. This part about energy healing makes sense. It's like a puzzle that's never done.

And since my patchwork of beliefs about supernatural energy, where it comes from, how we use it and what it can do is so highly personal, I'm probably a minority of one in my beliefs and just about everyone would probably think I'm crazy if I tried to explain myself. So I don't, for the most part.

But just because I'm not part of a group doesn't mean I'm not right! The nature of the universe isn't proved by a vote. It is what it is.

Unless, of course, it isn't.