If you think Mormonism is retarded, why you think the Bible is any different?

[Tamas]

My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".

Wasn't that already answered? Many individuals don't feel that way. Some do because they feel that a conflicting religion doesn't mesh with their religion and they can't hold both to be true.  And then there's also what was said about the fact that Joseph Smith supposedly did all these miraculous things in the 19th century, which is well within the time-frame of solidly recorded history and seems completely outlandish.

I don't want to re-start this, but I don't see how it was more feasible to walk on water around 30AD or whatever.

[merithyn]

My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".

But I must retreat from this now because you guys are trying to handle this on a theological level, and that is something I am not capable of, as I consider religion to be either a byproduct of human existential fears, vanity, and father complexes, or a necessary byproduct of our social constructs, depending on my mood.

The thing is, no one says that they don't understand why atheists are atheists. Partly because atheists love to tell everyone why they're atheists, but also, partly, because when you do have faith in a philosophy, you understand others doing the same. It's just that with atheism, the philosophy is that there is no god. That's also why a lot of people define atheism as a religion.

[Razgovory]

Meri, he's just trolling.

[Tamas]

Meri that puts an other twist on the thread

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Or not thinking that I am Napoleon is a form of insanity.

[Valmy]

My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".

Well I think we relay the fairytales to discuss spiritual truths so I do not.  I simply use Christianity because that is the common language of communicating that shit down here.  But, even though like 85% of what we do comes from our own tradition, we use other religions stuff as well.  Mostly I think we are talking about the same sort of stuff.

But I must retreat from this now because you guys are trying to handle this on a theological level, and that is something I am not capable of, as I consider religion to be either a byproduct of human existential fears, vanity, and father complexes, or a necessary byproduct of our social constructs, depending on my mood.

That strikes me as a theological position.  Your position is 'religion is a thing humans made for various human reasons' is hardly some sort of massive bombshell but thanks for the input.

[garbon]

My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".

Wasn't that already answered? Many individuals don't feel that way. Some do because they feel that a conflicting religion doesn't mesh with their religion and they can't hold both to be true.  And then there's also what was said about the fact that Joseph Smith supposedly did all these miraculous things in the 19th century, which is well within the time-frame of solidly recorded history and seems completely outlandish.

I don't want to re-start this, but I don't see how it was more feasible to walk on water around 30AD or whatever.

Presumably because it is more in the realm of legend. But really you also struggle because you're talking with a group of people who don't necessarily believe Jesus did said thing.

Btw, as a comparison to Scientology, I could so much more easily believe that someone walked on water than than aliens that came to earth in prehistoric times in DC-8s.  After all, one can literally walk on water when it is frozen.

[merithyn]

That last point is true.

HOWEVER, at one point in ancient history, somebody HAD to want listeners/readers to believe things like Genesis be actual truth. Maybe the first one to doubt that and start teaching it as allegory was born millenias ago, but then he was the first who realized he is believing in made-up stuff but kept from admitting it even to himself

I'm afraid that you're way off on this. You're assuming that people thousands of years ago saw the world the same way that you do - literal and absolute - but historical texts show us otherwise. The majority of people spoke in metaphor, history was told in stories that changed in the telling (and that was considered a good thing), and while the Romans may have been far stricter with the concept of "fact", they were an abberation.

[merithyn]

Meri that puts an other twist on the thread

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Or not thinking that I am Napoleon is a form of insanity.

Since no one knows the "truth", Agnostics are the only non-religion. Others have made a decision and hold to it rather tightly.

[The Minsky Moment]

YOU are missing MY point. Where is it stated in the Bible that it is not to be taken literally? .

The Bible was not written to be taken literally, the people that wrote the texts did not understand it literally, and the people that read and used them contemporaneously and for very long thereafter did not understand them in a purely literal sense.  The Bible does not "state" it is not to be taken literally because the modern concept of a timeless, "literal" reading of a text was completely foreign to the people who wrote it, and the people who read and interpreted it for many centuries.   

The notion of a literal reading as adopted and promoted by so-called "fundamentalist" movements is in fact novel and highly radical.  It is a product of the 19th century, conservative reaction against liberal theology and the "Higher Criticism" which applied literary critical methods of the Bible to reveal the contribution of multiple authors and editors across time.  As a 19th century religious phenomena arising in an increasing skeptical and scientistic age, fundamentalist literalism and Mormonism are two sides of the same coin.

[Tamas]

That last point is true.

HOWEVER, at one point in ancient history, somebody HAD to want listeners/readers to believe things like Genesis be actual truth. Maybe the first one to doubt that and start teaching it as allegory was born millenias ago, but then he was the first who realized he is believing in made-up stuff but kept from admitting it even to himself

I'm afraid that you're way off on this. You're assuming that people thousands of years ago saw the world the same way that you do - literal and absolute - but historical texts show us otherwise. The majority of people spoke in metaphor, history was told in stories that changed in the telling (and that was considered a good thing), and while the Romans may have been far stricter with the concept of "fact", they were an abberation.

Maybe. Or back then masses were much, much more illiterate, and to gain and maintain control over them (and to TEACH them!) you could/had to feed them bullshit.

[Tamas]

Meri that puts an other twist on the thread

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Or not thinking that I am Napoleon is a form of insanity.

Since no one knows the "truth", Agnostics are the only non-religion. Others have made a decision and hold to it rather tightly.

I consider the lack of evidence to be more leaning toward the conclusion of something non-existing than the opposite, which makes it impossible to consider atheism and faith in a higher being impossible.

[Tamas]

But really you also struggle because you're talking with a group of people who don't necessarily believe Jesus did said thing.

Yes.  But do you believe in him being the son of God and the whole sin-redeeming stuff. If yes, why you do not believe in the water-walking part. It was written in the same book. If you do not, I am sorry, but you are not a real Christian!

[Tamas]

YOU are missing MY point. Where is it stated in the Bible that it is not to be taken literally? .

The Bible was not written to be taken literally, the people that wrote the texts did not understand it literally, and the people that read and used them contemporaneously and for very long thereafter did not understand them in a purely literal sense.  The Bible does not "state" it is not to be taken literally because the modern concept of a timeless, "literal" reading of a text was completely foreign to the people who wrote it, and the people who read and interpreted it for many centuries.   

The notion of a literal reading as adopted and promoted by so-called "fundamentalist" movements is in fact novel and highly radical.  It is a product of the 19th century, conservative reaction against liberal theology and the "Higher Criticism" which applied literary critical methods of the Bible to reveal the contribution of multiple authors and editors across time.  As a 19th century religious phenomena arising in an increasing skeptical and scientistic age, fundamentalist literalism and Mormonism are two sides of the same coin.

Ok, that is rather convincing, and a good summary of what the others tried to write when they were not engaged in the defense of their beliefs.

[Valmy]

Maybe. Or back then masses were much, much more illiterate, and to gain and maintain control over them (and to TEACH them!) you could/had to feed them bullshit.

This is completely ahistorical garbage.  Please show me these ancient leaders who considered religion bullshit.

[Viking]

YOU are missing MY point. Where is it stated in the Bible that it is not to be taken literally? Nowhere right? Sure, the smarter Christian folks realized that it must be a load of BS, but liked the general message and couldn't want to ruin their own livelihood anyways, so they come up with convinient explanations of why a bunch of backward tribals wrote backward tribal superstitions, and why the life of Jesus was "enchanced" by various stuff stolen from other religious myths in what probably was the biggest marketing battle of history.

Where does it say in the Bible that it should be taken literally? And I didn't say it was BS. I said that it's a guide. It's primarily allegorical, imo. That's not BS anymore than fables or legends are. The stories are told to make a point, not to try to give a prime directive to life.

With that argument you have just dismantled christianity itself. That is what Tamas is getting at. He like me has found it hard to reconcile two contradictory facts

one - the claim that some of the bible is allegorical and thus not factual without giving us some means of figuring out which bits are fiction and which bits are fact

two - that the christian faith says something concrete about life, the universe and everything

Ultimately this means that the faith says nothing concrete, which means it says nothing, which means it has no content, which means it has no point. You yourself, meri, have amply demonstrated how without actual content religion becomes a hermaneutical game of three card monty playing hide the god of the gaps. All assertions have to be couched with caveats like "maybe" and "possibly" about undefined experiences like "understanding" and "experience" which are made significant with nebulous undefinable adjectives like "deep" and "profound".

In the end you end up sounding like Deepak Chopra.