Can you be religious yet rational?

[Plow Boy]

Yes, and he defended Сhrimtianism with this fraudulent and stupid sophistry.

Tertullian? He is one of the most influential Christian writers.
Sophistry? I beg to differ.

 

[rupol2000]

Tertullian? He is one of the most influential Christian writers.
Sophistry? I beg to differ.

Almost all of them were followers of the ancient sophists, who proved anything by witty forgeries.
Tetrulian went even further, he abandoned logic, declaring that what is true is that which is false (absurd). In fact, he urged to believe lies instead of truth

 

[rupol2000]

One of the modern Christian apologists Dostoevsky said about the same thing, one of his heroes makes a choice between truth and Christ and chooses Christ

 

[rupol2000]

Christianity is, of course, a whole complex of various ancient movements. It also incorporated a lot from Eastern culture, the cult of fire, the concept of a heavenly father, the image of a snake fighter, all this came from the Vedic religion, it remained even in the vocabulary, for example, "divine", directly inherited from the Vedic "div", where it meant heaven, in counterbalance to the "god" / "diabol" vocabulary from Hades / Div, complete inversion. But on the whole, the Christian religion conceptually and ritually inherits from Chthonism, Dionysianism and pagan cults. The heavenly rhetoric there is just mimicry. Christians disliked heavenly themes.

 

[Plow Boy]

One of the modern Christian apologists Dostoevsky said about the same thing, one of his heroes makes a choice between truth and Christ and chooses Christ.

“If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth."

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Russian novelist of spiritual depth

www.christianitytoday.com

I think that I understand what he meant.

 

[rupol2000]

Almost all the epithets of Yahweh's opponents carry the semantics of the ancient heavenly gods. Satan apparently descended from Set, the sun god of Egypt, Lucifer means the luminiferous, the "Devil" comes from heaven's aryan "Dev". The horned image of the devil is copied from Saman, the Celtic analogue of the heavenly god of the Aryans in the form of a bull, the good god of the Celts.
And the opposite is also true. "God" from "Hades", underground serpentine king, Slavic version of "Bog" is also identical to Sanskrit "Bhoga"(Serpent)

 

[rupol2000]

“If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth."

Well, yes, this is just about the fact that Christ is above the truth. The same trend.
Dostoevsky proved this by his own example. He was a ludoman, cocaine addict, and had sex with little girls.

 

[rupol2000]

The very concept of truth apparently comes from the ancient Vedic concept of Rta, apparently from here came the English words "right" and "root"

 

[Mac1958]

So, is it possible? Can you truly be rational, respect science, yet be a true believer?

What do you think?

I think it depends on whether a person is comfortable admitting that this is no more than "faith", or if they have convinced themselves that what they believe is "fact".

That seems to be a place where things go off the rails.

And then, of course, there are those who only seem to leverage "their religion" when they can use it as a weapon. It's a little tough to take them seriously at all. No shortage of those people, unfortunately.

 

[Votto]

There are many things about religions I like, such as their goal of encouraging good behavior, spirituality and so on ... but I'm somewhat annoyed when people hold obviously irrational religious beliefs. Lately, I kind of angered a friend when I involuntarily made fun of him claiming he believes in demons "because the Bible says they exist". I felt kind of sorry about that.

I know Christians who practize their faith in a very rational manner, but they don't take every word of the Bible literally. "Don't confuse the Bible with a history book, it's not about historical or scientific accuracy, but about moral and spiritual truths", they say. "It's not God's word, it's a collection of stories written by humans who explain their experiences with God." Fair deal.

Nevertheless, many Christians see it differently and often get in fights with atheists, who turn it into a battle of "science vs. religion". Atheists make fun of Christians who irrationally believe in supernatural phenomena like miracles, angles, spirits, demons and so on -- or a personified, anthropomorphic God. They point to beliefs that obviously contradict scientific evidence, such as creationism.

So, is it possible? Can you truly be rational, respect science, yet be a true believer?

What do you think?

Sure.

Meet Gerald Schroeder who is a scientist and addresses Genesis and the Big Bang



As for history, the Bible is the only religious book I know that has a scientific pursuit, which is Biblical Archeology. Those in that field don't all believe that the Bible is 100% correct, but understand that is has enough veracity to base an entire scientific field in it.

For example, the Bible is the only source that showed the world that the Philistines existed. So they simply read where they should have been and went digging and found them.

 

[pknopp]

There are many things about religions I like, such as their goal of encouraging good behavior, spirituality and so on ... but I'm somewhat annoyed when people hold obviously irrational religious beliefs. Lately, I kind of angered a friend when I involuntarily made fun of him claiming he believes in demons "because the Bible says they exist". I felt kind of sorry about that.

I know Christians who practize their faith in a very rational manner, but they don't take every word of the Bible literally. "Don't confuse the Bible with a history book, it's not about historical or scientific accuracy, but about moral and spiritual truths", they say. "It's not God's word, it's a collection of stories written by humans who explain their experiences with God." Fair deal.

Nevertheless, many Christians see it differently and often get in fights with atheists, who turn it into a battle of "science vs. religion". Atheists make fun of Christians who irrationally believe in supernatural phenomena like miracles, angles, spirits, demons and so on -- or a personified, anthropomorphic God. They point to beliefs that obviously contradict scientific evidence, such as creationism.

So, is it possible? Can you truly be rational, respect science, yet be a true believer?

What do you think?

You answered your own question so I don't see the point here.

 

[Crepitus]

There are many things about religions I like, such as their goal of encouraging good behavior, spirituality and so on ... but I'm somewhat annoyed when people hold obviously irrational religious beliefs. Lately, I kind of angered a friend when I involuntarily made fun of him claiming he believes in demons "because the Bible says they exist". I felt kind of sorry about that.

I know Christians who practize their faith in a very rational manner, but they don't take every word of the Bible literally. "Don't confuse the Bible with a history book, it's not about historical or scientific accuracy, but about moral and spiritual truths", they say. "It's not God's word, it's a collection of stories written by humans who explain their experiences with God." Fair deal.

Nevertheless, many Christians see it differently and often get in fights with atheists, who turn it into a battle of "science vs. religion". Atheists make fun of Christians who irrationally believe in supernatural phenomena like miracles, angles, spirits, demons and so on -- or a personified, anthropomorphic God. They point to beliefs that obviously contradict scientific evidence, such as creationism.

So, is it possible? Can you truly be rational, respect science, yet be a true believer?

What do you think?

Yes, you can be religious and rational. The problem comes when you throw conservatism in mix.

 

[Meriweather]

Nevertheless, many Christians see it differently and often get in fights with atheists, who turn it into a battle of "science vs. religion".

To be precise, 31% of Christians take the Bible literally, down from 38% in the 1970s when there was a big Evangelical push that everyone take the Bible literally. Fact: Over 60% of Christians never took the Bible literally. What I find irrational is atheists arguing with a minority belief over stories instead of philosophies.

Wouldn't it be more rational for atheists to argue over the philosophies--i.e., the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, Wisdom, etc.? Also, most Biblical references to Satan (HaSatan) reference temptation or a Tempter. In other words, in most cases, temptation is personified. Both in the desert and with Peter, Jesus insisted that these temptations get behind him.

I have read enough current studies on possession that there do seem to be rare cases of demon possession. The interesting part of these various studies make the observation that in the rare, true cases the person does, in some way, invite Satan (or demon) to enter within.

What is irrational for atheists disdaining Bible stories is that they never see past the setting to the purpose--which is the lessons or moral--of that story. They argue with the minority, truly a case of the blind leading the blind.

 

[Votto]

Yes, you can be religious and rational. The problem comes when you throw conservatism in mix.

Indeed. The Left has no problem with Christianity, for example, so long as Jesus bows his knee to the DNC, such as Christians supporting abortion or children transitioning into another sex, etc.

 

[Crepitus]

Indeed. The Left has no problem with Christianity, for example, so long as Jesus bows his knee to the DNC, such as Christians supporting abortion or children transitioning into another sex, etc.

Nope. You've missed my point completely.

Not a surprise, really.

Adding conservatism to the mix adds authoritarianism. Then they believe that their way is the only way and there are few limits in what they will.do to enforce it.

 

[Votto]

Nope. You've missed my point completely.

Not a surprise, really.

Adding conservatism to the mix adds authoritarianism. Then they believe that their way is the only way and there are few limits in what they will.do to enforce it.

The US government passes about 40,000 new laws every year.

And the more laws that are passed, the less freedoms we have

I'll give you a hint, this is not the work of conservatives.

 

[Clyde 154]

There are many things about religions I like, such as their goal of encouraging good behavior, spirituality and so on ... but I'm somewhat annoyed when people hold obviously irrational religious beliefs. Lately, I kind of angered a friend when I involuntarily made fun of him claiming he believes in demons "because the Bible says they exist". I felt kind of sorry about that.

I know Christians who practize their faith in a very rational manner, but they don't take every word of the Bible literally. "Don't confuse the Bible with a history book, it's not about historical or scientific accuracy, but about moral and spiritual truths", they say. "It's not God's word, it's a collection of stories written by humans who explain their experiences with God." Fair deal.

Nevertheless, many Christians see it differently and often get in fights with atheists, who turn it into a battle of "science vs. religion". Atheists make fun of Christians who irrationally believe in supernatural phenomena like miracles, angles, spirits, demons and so on -- or a personified, anthropomorphic God. They point to beliefs that obviously contradict scientific evidence, such as creationism.

So, is it possible? Can you truly be rational, respect science, yet be a true believer?

What do you think?

Your first false premise. The Bible is not a history book? The very word TESTIMENT........means a book of TESTIMONIES. The Bible is a collection of books, all written by men of different walks of life (approx. 38 different authors) ranging from Physicians to Sheep herders, to Tax collectors, to Royalty.........all in total agreement because they claim divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit of God. Its a collection of EYE WITNESS TESTIMONIES. Eye witness testimony can stand as truth until proven false via objective evidence.


Question? What experiment can you present within the boundaries of the Scientific Method that falsifies the creation model explained in the Holy Scriptures? You made the statement that you have scientific evidence that falsifies creationism.

Next: Look at the Pasteur Model working on the experiment via use of the scientific method on the possibility of life coming from non living matter aka, abiogenesis. Pasteur demonstrated through the scientific method that life can only be reproduced via preexisting life within the same species............completely in agreement with the Holy Scriptures passages concerning LIFE and REPRODUCTION (Genesis 1:24-26)

Then of course there have been countless scientific experiments that have attempted to reproduce life (the basic tenet of evolution) from dead non living matter via stimulation of external energies ..........all have been falsified via the scientific method.

Present the facts of science that falsifies creation.

Scientific Method: Empirical evidence derived through Observation, Reproduction and Consistent results.

I am just curious as to what evidence you might present that does not involve Theory, Hypothesis, Conjecture, and Assumption. Just what method you might use to quantify/measure the supernatural events recorded in scripture. What? How can the natural laws of physics measure that which is Super (superior) Natural (to nature)? Its called supernatural for a reason. You must demonstrate just how your Super Natural -0- Meter works.

On one hand you suggest that the prima facie evidence be not considered as truth when dealing with religion (truth derived through recorded eyewitness testimony)........on the other hand that's all you have...........subjective Conjectures, Assumptions, etc., and claim they are valid because they came about through the process of THEORY (a position that does not contain the facts sufficient to prove truth) and HYPOTHESIS (a thought process akin to philosophy). Theories and Hypothesis equal truth only in between the ears of the ones making the conjectures and assumption i.e., in a PRIMA FACIE manner.....(as it first appears).

There is to this day no LAW OF EVOLUTION. Why? Because Physics refute the basic tenet of abiogenesis.

Your faith in science is more powerful and than one's faith in religion? It appears to me that its YOU and PEOPLE such as you that attempts to draw battle lines between science and religion....where none exists.

I will yield to the greatness of Theory if you can present the evidence that proves how the universe was created, explained via use of the natural laws of physics. Don't attempt a "Hawking" and suggest that the universe created itself from nothing because of gravity (which is something, not nothing, if gravity where nothing it would not be subject to quantification through physics)

 

[Mac-7]

And then, of course, there are those who only seem to leverage "their religion" when they can use it as a weapon.

And that includes libs who are dripping with anti Christian hate

but being a lib I suppose you cant see that

 

[Mac1958]

And that includes libs who are dripping with anti Christian hate

but being a lib I suppose you cant see that

Right on cue.

 

[Mac-7]

Right on cue.

Is that a yes or a no?