Does God Exist?

[Hollie]

That was certainly the case in Medieval Europe when the Church brutalized thinkers and explorers.

This is patently untrue. Most schools in those days were founded by the Church. Many scientists, thinkers, and explorers were of the Church or had a solid church background. Now...as with every age, every profession, every incident...there are the good and the bad. For example, take inquisitions. When studied as a whole we see where many people insisted on Church review because the State was being too harsh. Remember, in those days, there was no separation of the two. However, one Church person, in Spain, was so brutal that when the word Inquisition pops up today, his horrors are what are remembered. All the people who were satisfied with the mercy of the Church have long been forgotten.

Galileo is another example of people not knowing the full story. The basic argument between him and the Church is not whether the earth revolved around the sun, or vice-versa, Galileo was adamant that everything written in the Bible be rewritten to reflect the sun revolving around the earth be changed. The Church was fine with Galileo presenting his theory of the earth revolving around the sun, but they were not going to allow him to change what was written and read in the Bible.

This is why researching history is so much fun. In depth study is fascinating. We find, amidst all the horrors, good surviving as well, plus two sides (as well as many perspectives) to almost every story.

I have to acknowledge that the Church crushed the pursuit of knowledge. The Church literally held back civilization for 800 years.

 

[Meriweather]

Your interpretation is as valid as anyone's but you must know there are nearly as many interpretations of this line as there are Christian sects.

Yes. Keep in mind it is not 'my' interpretation. You will find the same presented in many Catholic and some Protestant commentaries. Where you will probably not find it is in the Christian denominations who believe everything in the Bible is strictly literal. It is good to remember that the latter are a very vocal minority. Why doesn't the majority speak up? Because we don't see a huge problem with people taking the Bible literally. Those who study science, culture, history, and language along with the Bible have a much different perspective, but nor do we have the trouble atheists seem to have with others taking it from a literal perspective.

 

[Hollie]

theists may happen to think the vehicle is unreliable

Broad brushing. Is it possible you are thinking of what is a minority percentage belief that everything in the Bible should be taken literally? The majority of Christians and Jews hold no such belief, yet it appears many atheists are of the mind all people of faith are literalists. Are you aware of when the big push for taking the Bible literally occurred? In the 1970s from the Evangelical community. Not being of that community, I ignored them, but I am seeing that many took them very, very seriously and decided they represented all of Christianity. They do not; they are just a small vocal part. While taking the Bible literally is obviously not for everyone, I still have no trouble with their beliefs as long as they keep it as part of their religious faith, not as part of their training in science and history. Too narrow.

That’s fine that some take the Bible literally while others do not. But then, we get into that weird place where who decides what is literal and what is not. We see that in these forums where both camps, (the literalists vs. the “it kinda’, sorta’ means this”), crowd rail against each other as everything from entire portions of the Bible to individual verses are the subject of varying interpretation.

 

[Meriweather]

What’s wrong with asking, “ I want to know the truth, wherever it leads”?

You mean as long as it doesn't lead back to religion?

It astonishes many of us that some atheists believe see religion as a safety net or a soothing ointment for fear. Religion is neither. Rather, religion is the trapeze swing, not the safety net; the adventure and not for those who are satisfied with staying in one place and doing things the same way, only allowing for a single variable so as not to upset the outcome. You know, like in science labs.

 

[Meriweather]

I have to acknowledge that the Church crushed the pursuit of knowledge. The Church literally held back civilization for 800 years.

Read again, or read more. It was the Church who moved civilization forward. No, it was not smooth sailing, and historical research will outline everything else that was going on at the time that people were living through. Blaming all the wrong on one entity is short-sighted. So is crediting one entity. History is much more complex than that.

 

[Meriweather]

That’s fine that some take the Bible literally while others do not. But then, we get into that weird place where who decides what is literal and what is not. We see that in these forums where both camps, (the literalists vs. the “it kinda’, sorta’ means this”), crowd rail against each other as everything from entire portions of the Bible to individual verses are the subject of varying interpretation.

Is there a reason why everyone has to have the same perspective? Not even my daughters have the same perspective of me, let alone something as complex as the Bible. There is no problem with some seeing it one way, and others seeing something entirely different. Life is not like a simple multiplication problem where there is only one answer. We each build upon our own experiences. Look at it like art, not math. Is great art multiple copies of the same thing--or does it branch out into a multiple of areas?

There would be no religion forums if we were all in lockstep with one another. I am here because I know my perspective. I like to look at and study the perspectives of others. It broadens and expands the outlook.

 

[Hollie]

What’s wrong with asking, “ I want to know the truth, wherever it leads”?

You mean as long as it doesn't lead back to religion?

It astonishes many of us that some atheists believe see religion as a safety net or a soothing ointment for fear. Religion is neither. Rather, religion is the trapeze swing, not the safety net; the adventure and not for those who are satisfied with staying in one place and doing things the same way, only allowing for a single variable so as not to upset the outcome. You know, like in science labs.

Atheism is hardly a safety net. It really is something of a frank admission that there is no reason to believe that Amun Ra or any of the other gods are going to give us rewards in paradise after we die.

If the truth leads to various gods, that’s fine. But we’re still left with the fact that of all the gods ever invented by mankind, the currently configured gods bear a rather consistent theme to those earlier gods. The new ones just have less to do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Is there a reason why everyone has to have the same perspective?

Well that depends on what you are talking about. Religious belief? Absolutely no reason why people cant believe any religious dogma they like.

Evolution in a science class, and as a topic? Yes, there is a reason everyone should have the same perspective.

 

[Blues Man]

Religion makes too much money to say that.

Which is why no one should buy a house--banks and mortgage companies make too much money to make it worthwhile to have a home.....wait.....

What the businesses are doing is always quite different than what the individual is doing. One working with the other should, in the long run, benefit both.

I own my house when I'm done paying for it.

And at least you seem to realize that religion is a business and a very profitable one at that

 

[Hollie]

That’s fine that some take the Bible literally while others do not. But then, we get into that weird place where who decides what is literal and what is not. We see that in these forums where both camps, (the literalists vs. the “it kinda’, sorta’ means this”), crowd rail against each other as everything from entire portions of the Bible to individual verses are the subject of varying interpretation.

Is there a reason why everyone has to have the same perspective? Not even my daughters have the same perspective of me, let alone something as complex as the Bible. There is no problem with some seeing it one way, and others seeing something entirely different. Life is not like a simple multiplication problem where there is only one answer. We each build upon our own experiences. Look at it like art, not math. Is great art multiple copies of the same thing--or does it branch out into a multiple of areas?

There would be no religion forums if we were all in lockstep with one another. I am here because I know my perspective. I like to look at and study the perspectives of others. It broadens and expands the outlook.

“Perspective” is a term that tends to diminish the authority of religion. We’re talking about your eternal salvation or damnation. Heaven or Hell suggests that your perspective better be pretty spot on.

Of course, that suggests to me some carelessness on the part of the gods. In terms of perspective, how fast and loose can I play with interpretation of the Bible before I cross that threshold of correct vs, false interpretation or perspective?

For arguments sake, Genesis is allegory but the flood is literally true. Is that perspective true or false? If you tell me it’s true and the gods disagree, I’m going to Hell?

You better choose correctly. I’m counting on you.

 

[Meriweather]

Atheism is hardly a safety net. It really is something of a frank admission that there is no reason to believe that Amun Ra or any of the other gods are going to give us rewards in paradise after we die.

If the truth leads to various gods, that’s fine. But we’re still left with the fact that of all the gods ever invented by mankind, the currently configured gods bear a rather consistent theme to those earlier gods. The new ones just have less to do.

Nor am I calling atheism a safety net, just pointing out religion is far from being one as well. I have found most people of faith are not centered on what comes next, but rather on what is happening now. Further, religion is not a matter of following God(s) around like puppies. Rather, it more like being concentrated on the best version of oneself, the best version of life one can create for those around them, and having a mentor. The concentration is on the creation, while advice/direction is from the Mentor. I am not sure whether atheists understand that part of religion.

 

[Blues Man]

Remember that any system that doesn't allow self-criticism and/or questioning is a system that has something to hide.

Haven't had that problem in the Catholic faith. We have story after story after story of great Saints heartily disagreeing with one another.

And then there’s the Dark Ages when people’s torsos were separated from their heads for disagreeing with the Church.

The god of the Old Testament was pretty vicious.

Not to mention insecure, egotistical and envious

 

[Meriweather]

And at least you seem to realize that religion is a business and a very profitable one at that

So is grocery shopping. Yet see how I benefit from it.

 

[Blues Man]

What’s wrong with asking, “ I want to know the truth, wherever it leads”?

You mean as long as it doesn't lead back to religion?

It astonishes many of us that some atheists believe see religion as a safety net or a soothing ointment for fear. Religion is neither. Rather, religion is the trapeze swing, not the safety net; the adventure and not for those who are satisfied with staying in one place and doing things the same way, only allowing for a single variable so as not to upset the outcome. You know, like in science labs.

No religion tells you that you will live forever in paradise if you do the things necessary to earn a god's conditional love.

That is a safety net.

I know there is no eternal reward, no afterlife in paradise. I know there is no supernatural safety net.

 

[Meriweather]

In terms of perspective, how fast and loose can I play with interpretation of the Bible before I cross that threshold of correct vs, false interpretation or perspective?

The foundation of the Bible: Love God, love one's fellow man. The rest is commentary.

 

[Blues Man]

And at least you seem to realize that religion is a business and a very profitable one at that

So is grocery shopping. Yet see how I benefit from it.

Actually the grocery business is a high revenue low net industry.

Religion is all tax free profit

 

[Hollie]

I have to acknowledge that the Church crushed the pursuit of knowledge. The Church literally held back civilization for 800 years.

Read again, or read more. It was the Church who moved civilization forward. No, it was not smooth sailing, and historical research will outline everything else that was going on at the time that people were living through. Blaming all the wrong on one entity is short-sighted. So is crediting one entity. History is much more complex than that.

During the reign of the church in Medieval times, questioning the authority of the church could be a fate punishable by death. That’s hardly moving humanity forward.

 

[Blues Man]

In terms of perspective, how fast and loose can I play with interpretation of the Bible before I cross that threshold of correct vs, false interpretation or perspective?

The foundation of the Bible: Love God, love one's fellow man. The rest is commentary.

I'll skip the loving god thing and just worry about my fellow man

 

[Meriweather]

For arguments sake, Genesis is allegory but the flood is literally true. Is that perspective true or false? If you tell me it’s true and the gods disagree, I’m going to Hell?

What is the literal interpretation of the flood? In Hebrew, the earth was covered. In modern English, the planet was covered. The earth in my backyard is sometimes flooded. Very different from the Earth being flooded.

Love God (or the ways of goodness and love if one cannot believe in a Supreme Being); love your fellowman. If we concentrate on these two issues, we will be fine. The lessons we should learn from the flood are far apart from the lesson of whether the earth was covered or whether the Earth was covered. Neither has anything to do with the lessons of the story.

 

[Hollie]

In terms of perspective, how fast and loose can I play with interpretation of the Bible before I cross that threshold of correct vs, false interpretation or perspective?

The foundation of the Bible: Love God, love one's fellow man. The rest is commentary.

So..... we can dismiss all of Genesis, all of the flood as not just commentary but superfluous?

What other portions of the Bible are commentary?