Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Magical Realist, May 8, 2013.
Captain Easter says you're wrong.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Another thing about Christianity is it was a religion of the poor and slaves and not the rich and powerful. Even today, Christianity grows the best in poor countries, but tends to decline in rich countries. This was smart because there are more poor people. This allowed Christianity to perpetuate, even during centuries of persecution. The poor have nothing to leverage away from faith.
What is always neglected by atheists, is in the 4th century AD, Christianity becomes the official religion of Rome. Rome was the main super power of the ancient western world; pinnacle culture. This merger has Rome as the overlord, with Rome therefore placing its stamp on Christianity. Rome was a huge empire, who allowed considerable freedom of religion in its colonies, as long as they serve secular Rome. This was the stamp placed on Christianity. Pagan holidays were added in terms of a composite. Rome was not the official secular of Christianity, which is often misunderstood on purpose, since atheism is a competing religion under the guise of rational.
An analogy would the USA adopting Christianity. If the USA was the top dog, it would modify the religion. It would add abortion and try to make the power structure subject to propaganda elections. This would satisfy powers to be.
In the Middle Ages, the merger of the secular side of Christianity, which began at Rome, starts to separate. Separation of church and state helped to complete the cell division. This is all new.
It's a delusion for everybody. Let's all calm down.
Seems to me this is a bit like saying humans are crap because they're no more than rip-offs of an ape.
Surely what your observation shows is that Christianity is descended from earlier religions. This raises at least the possibility that it may have learnt something in the process of assimilating the older ideas - and possibly may be, in some ways, an improvement on them.
Easter says I'm wrong?
A lot of people forget this, for some reason. Even though admonition of the wealthy and lionising the poor and downtrodden was all over the Gospels.
It spread well in urban areas and border provinces. Its burst in popularity, though, can be attributed to two main things: the cult of martyrdom that made people sympathetic towards it, and the Crisis of the Third Century. The latter saw the empire torn asunder and everything kinda suck for everyone, economically speaking; so the common Roman started to turn towards the poor man's religion, for the same reasons: it offered a message of hope for people in a really dark time. It's not my bag, but I can completely understand why someone would go for it.
Only if men still climbed trees, used sticks to eat bugs with, and banged on their chests while claiming they originated all these customs themselves. The thing about christianity is this: it doesn't claim its information came from other cultures and religions. It wants nothing to do with this idea of historical descent or religious syncretism. It insists all of it's customs and dogmas are revelations straight from God Himself. For them to admit any other source for them is to undermine their own authority as God's sole spokesman on earth.
How can anybody accept a scientific theory that is obviously built on previous theories?
That's the way science works. It preserves the good ideas and removes the bad ideas from the past. Why should religion work to a different standard?
Scientists don't insist they have special revealed information from God. Religion does. Thus stealing your rituals and doctrines from other religions and claiming them as revealed to you from God is pretty shoddy.
That's an over-generalization. Christianity postulates a progressive revelation; its members see it as an "improvement" on Judaism, a change that God revealed in His own good time. (Of course, they don't accept the further improvement of Islam - that would be a failed hypothesis.)
Or the further improvement of Rastafari or Baha'i. Most of them don't accept the further improvement of Joseph Smith. And about half of them don't accept the further improvement of Martin Luther and the other leaders of the Protestant movement.
The Quran isn't an improvement so much as it is a restoration of the fullness of historical and theological truth. The Bible has been irreparably corrupted by man, and although it still contains elements of truth, it simply can not be relied upon. I'd be careful to study the correct book if I were you. One must always strive to remain in Allah's true light, lest one become susceptible to the cunning suggestiveness of Iblīs and be lead by him into eternal darkness.
Because science is based on rational faith. "This theory has been tested exhaustively for 500 years and never come close to falsification, so it's true beyond a reasonable doubt."
Religion is based on irrational faith. "This theory has never been tested at all because there's been no supporting evidence since the Stone Age, but we believe it anyway."
I hope you're being sarcastic.
I don't think it's irrational so much as just a different logic. Religious logic is internally consistent. According to their logic, they have tested their "theory" and it has passed the test. I don't think the process of religious thought is fundamentally different from scientific thought. What makes science more reliable is the rigor.
And the topic here isn't just religion in general; it's Christianity as the "least original" religion. My point is that originality is not in and of itself necessarily a good thing.
I think religion is based on rational faith.
Just that most people have no clue, and are totally never felt empathy at all.
Emapthy is the most important reason why religion started, but most people have no idea what empathy is.
I think religion is rational, just that most people have no idea.
I can understand why humans do animals sacrifice, and all human religion are based on sex and satanism.
But most people will have no idea, as they do not feel anything really, and are taught that way.
People whom do feel, these things are rational. Look at how many thinkers and science people have worked for the vatican?
There is no such thing as different logic. Logic is logic. And rigor means having standards of judging what is likely to be true. Without it, you are lost.
Faith is by definition irrational. And people reject it who are also empathetic. Empathy can go too far, and connect to things that aren't personalities. It's wrong to see the universe as a personality. It's myopic and arrogant to see something that large as akin to one's self.
The idea that since "scientists" were associated with the Church, therefore everything the church says is rational is a fallacy, appeal to authority. In fact, their rationality always contains flaws and blind spots. This is inevitable when your faith comes first and facts follow from that.
Call it a "framework for thinking" if you like.
Exactly. Religious thinking has different standards of judging what is likely to be true - different rules of evidence. But the process being used, going back to the scriptures to find evidence for one hypothesis or another, is not so very different from science.
Separate names with a comma.