Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory

[Ultimate Paragon]

I'll prepare us for the Nine Great Riders of the Church of EMACs, as appointed by his majesty Ironchew, lord of the Church Militant.

By the way, do you have a box to put him in?

[Witchyjoshy]

I keep confusing Ghoti for Madman because of their similar avatars @_X

[Canadian Mojo]

Why would you need to edit a book if you understand that it is written metaphorically?

(Hypothetically) You don't even need to remove its divine origin.
 
God is a father figure, and as a father his purpose is to guild his children successfully into adulthood. As a father myself, I can tell you that you need to dumb a lot of shit down so a child can even rudimentally understand it. Sometimes you even need to make stuff up. As children get older they can handle the more complex answers and see how fictions can encapsulate a truthful underlying concept.

The bible was written for a simple and fairly brutal culture with very limited understanding of how anything works. God couldn't come down and say pork frequently contains a parasite which is undetectable given your current level of technology so you need to cook it until it reaches an internal temperature of 120C for a minimum of 7 minutes (which is also something beyond you technical capabilities at this juncture) so instead you get don't eat pork. It's telling your kid not to play with knives on a societal level.

There is no need to re-write the book. There is a need to add explanations to it. God apparently does not want to come down and say "okay guys, you're older and wiser now so I have a few more things to tell you" so I guess the job falls to the clergy. I guess they would be filling the role of older sibling -- a little bit wiser and more worldly but still a long way off from real understanding.

[Random Gal]

There is no need to re-write the book. There is a need to add explanations to it. God apparently does not want to come down and say "okay guys, you're older and wiser now so I have a few more things to tell you" so I guess the job falls to the clergy.

Except according to the Bible, God did in fact do that once.

[Canadian Mojo]

There is no need to re-write the book. There is a need to add explanations to it. God apparently does not want to come down and say "okay guys, you're older and wiser now so I have a few more things to tell you" so I guess the job falls to the clergy.

Except according to the Bible, God did in fact do that once.

True, but for the record I meant right now.

[Ironchew]

Why would you need to edit a book if you understand that it is written metaphorically?

I said you could put a disclaimer on the front that says "This is a work of fiction." That isn't too hard.

(Hypothetically) You don't even need to remove its divine origin. 

As that is a literal interpretation, yes, you would need to remove that. Again, the disclaimer takes care of that.

God is a father figure, and as a father his purpose is to guild his children successfully into adulthood. As a father myself, I can tell you that you need to dumb a lot of shit down so a child can even rudimentally understand it. Sometimes you even need to make stuff up. As children get older they can handle the more complex answers and see how fictions can encapsulate a truthful underlying concept.

If Christians think they have the truth, they should be okay with teaching people about Christianity at age 15 and up. I mean, it's not like it's a mountain of laughable bullshit to anybody that hasn't been indoctrinated into it at a young age. It's the truth, isn't it?

The problem isn't that children need different methods of learning than adults. The problem is that religion necessarily perpetuates itself by indoctrinating little kids during that critical stage where they uncritically absorb information from authority figures and they have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Fundamentalist and liberal Christians alike feel this indoctrination at this age is of utmost importance; it is for any religion, simply because that religion would die within a few generations otherwise.

The bible was written for a simple and fairly brutal culture with very limited understanding of how anything works. God couldn't come down and say pork frequently contains a parasite which is undetectable given your current level of technology so you need to cook it until it reaches an internal temperature of 120C for a minimum of 7 minutes (which is also something beyond you technical capabilities at this juncture) so instead you get don't eat pork. It's telling your kid not to play with knives on a societal level.

Great. You've given a very concise explanation of why we should no longer learn about the world through reading the Bible. I don't mind throwing the whole thing out.

There is no need to re-write the book. There is a need to add explanations to it. God apparently does not want to come down and say "okay guys, you're older and wiser now so I have a few more things to tell you"

Joseph Smith would disagree. God spoke to them as late as the 1970s to let nonwhites into the priesthood, didn't he? Oh right, humans revised their religion.

I guess they would be filling the role of older sibling -- a little bit wiser and more worldly but still a long way off from real understanding.

I really can't agree with you there. Priests in that capacity can be too easily replaced with psychics, otherworldly mediums, and other charlatans. At least science is honest when it's looking for the answer but doesn't have it yet; I prefer not to get warm and fuzzy answers from bullshitters-in-chief.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Why would you need to edit a book if you understand that it is written metaphorically?

I said you could put a disclaimer on the front that says "This is a work of fiction." That isn't too hard.

Not only would that be offensive, it would also be incorrect.  There's a huge difference between religion and fiction.

(Hypothetically) You don't even need to remove its divine origin. 

As that is a literal interpretation, yes, you would need to remove that. Again, the disclaimer takes care of that.

Most Christians don't take everything in the Bible literally.

God is a father figure, and as a father his purpose is to guild his children successfully into adulthood. As a father myself, I can tell you that you need to dumb a lot of shit down so a child can even rudimentally understand it. Sometimes you even need to make stuff up. As children get older they can handle the more complex answers and see how fictions can encapsulate a truthful underlying concept.

If Christians think they have the truth, they should be okay with teaching people about Christianity at age 15 and up. I mean, it's not like it's a mountain of laughable bullshit to anybody that hasn't been indoctrinated into it at a young age. It's the truth, isn't it?

The problem isn't that children need different methods of learning than adults. The problem is that religion necessarily perpetuates itself by indoctrinating little kids during that critical stage where they uncritically absorb information from authority figures and they have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Fundamentalist and liberal Christians alike feel this indoctrination at this age is of utmost importance; it is for any religion, simply because that religion would die within a few generations otherwise.

That's simply not true.  Have you ever seen The Sound of Music?  Well, what they don't tell you is that Maria von Trapp was raised an atheist and only found religion as an adult.  And she's only one example.

Besides, if the human brain worked like you say it does, atheism wouldn't exist.  Not only that, but the vast majority of American adults would believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

The bible was written for a simple and fairly brutal culture with very limited understanding of how anything works. God couldn't come down and say pork frequently contains a parasite which is undetectable given your current level of technology so you need to cook it until it reaches an internal temperature of 120C for a minimum of 7 minutes (which is also something beyond you technical capabilities at this juncture) so instead you get don't eat pork. It's telling your kid not to play with knives on a societal level.

Great. You've given a very concise explanation of why we should no longer learn about the world through reading the Bible. I don't mind throwing the whole thing out.

You're probably right to say that the Bible shouldn't be used as a science textbook, but that doesn't mean it's worthless.  Thinking that is just plain crazy.  If that were the case, thousands of philosophical books that fail to meet your requirements would also have to be "thrown out".

There is no need to re-write the book. There is a need to add explanations to it. God apparently does not want to come down and say "okay guys, you're older and wiser now so I have a few more things to tell you"

Joseph Smith would disagree. God spoke to them as late as the 1970s to let nonwhites into the priesthood, didn't he? Oh right, humans revised their religion.

There's some serious debate as to whether Mormons should be considered true Christians, primarily because of a number of significant theological differences.  For example, they reject the idea of the Trinity, something that's been part of Christianity since the Fourth Century.  And even if they are, to say that they represent mainstream Christianity makes no sense.

I guess they would be filling the role of older sibling -- a little bit wiser and more worldly but still a long way off from real understanding.

I really can't agree with you there. Priests in that capacity can be too easily replaced with psychics, otherworldly mediums, and other charlatans. At least science is honest when it's looking for the answer but doesn't have it yet; I prefer not to get warm and fuzzy answers from bullshitters-in-chief.

And you end by brushing off all clerics as "charlatans".  How charming.

[Sleepy]

The definition of fiction:

Fiction is the form of any work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not real, but rather, imaginary and theoretical—that is, invented by the author.

The bible would certainly qualify there. The definition doesn't get into the intent of the work or anything like that.

[Art Vandelay]

Not only would that be offensive, it would also be incorrect.  There's a huge difference between religion and fiction.

No, there isn't.

[Ironchew]

I said you could put a disclaimer on the front that says "This is a work of fiction." That isn't too hard.

Not only would that be offensive, it would also be incorrect.  There's a huge difference between religion and fiction.

Oh come on. When Christians are backed into a corner on the heinous parts of the Bible they say not to take it literally. I enjoy fiction; I even think well-written fiction can explore moral problems in an enlightening way. Why should it be offensive to label scripture as fiction?

Most Christians don't take everything in the Bible literally.

The fiction tag shouldn't be an issue, then.

God is a father figure, and as a father his purpose is to guild his children successfully into adulthood. As a father myself, I can tell you that you need to dumb a lot of shit down so a child can even rudimentally understand it. Sometimes you even need to make stuff up. As children get older they can handle the more complex answers and see how fictions can encapsulate a truthful underlying concept.

If Christians think they have the truth, they should be okay with teaching people about Christianity at age 15 and up. I mean, it's not like it's a mountain of laughable bullshit to anybody that hasn't been indoctrinated into it at a young age. It's the truth, isn't it?

The problem isn't that children need different methods of learning than adults. The problem is that religion necessarily perpetuates itself by indoctrinating little kids during that critical stage where they uncritically absorb information from authority figures and they have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Fundamentalist and liberal Christians alike feel this indoctrination at this age is of utmost importance; it is for any religion, simply because that religion would die within a few generations otherwise.

That's simply not true.  Have you ever seen The Sound of Music?  Well, what they don't tell you is that Maria von Trapp was raised an atheist and only found religion as an adult.  And she's only one example.

I'm not discounting converts later in life. I just don't think there are nearly enough of them to stop a religion from dying within a century or two.

Besides, if the human brain worked like you say it does, atheism wouldn't exist.  Not only that, but the vast majority of American adults would believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

The critical difference between religion and Santa Claus/the Easter Bunny is that society doesn't encourage faith in the latter for your whole life. Almost everyone grows out of it on their own and it's not a big deal.

The bible was written for a simple and fairly brutal culture with very limited understanding of how anything works. God couldn't come down and say pork frequently contains a parasite which is undetectable given your current level of technology so you need to cook it until it reaches an internal temperature of 120C for a minimum of 7 minutes (which is also something beyond you technical capabilities at this juncture) so instead you get don't eat pork. It's telling your kid not to play with knives on a societal level.

Great. You've given a very concise explanation of why we should no longer learn about the world through reading the Bible. I don't mind throwing the whole thing out.

You're probably right to say that the Bible shouldn't be used as a science textbook, but that doesn't mean it's worthless.  Thinking that is just plain crazy.  If that were the case, thousands of philosophical books that fail to meet your requirements would also have to be "thrown out".

Philosophical texts that cannot stand on their own merits but must instead rely on the Bible aren't worth my time. Throw them out too.

There is no need to re-write the book. There is a need to add explanations to it. God apparently does not want to come down and say "okay guys, you're older and wiser now so I have a few more things to tell you"

Joseph Smith would disagree. God spoke to them as late as the 1970s to let nonwhites into the priesthood, didn't he? Oh right, humans revised their religion.

There's some serious debate as to whether Mormons should be considered true Christians, primarily because of a number of significant theological differences.  For example, they reject the idea of the Trinity, something that's been part of Christianity since the Fourth Century.  And even if they are, to say that they represent mainstream Christianity makes no sense.

Oh, but no true Christian would do silly things like that.

Your theology is so riddled with disagreements that any attempt to categorize "true" Christians beyond their own say-so immediately invokes no true Scotsman.

I guess they would be filling the role of older sibling -- a little bit wiser and more worldly but still a long way off from real understanding.

I really can't agree with you there. Priests in that capacity can be too easily replaced with psychics, otherworldly mediums, and other charlatans. At least science is honest when it's looking for the answer but doesn't have it yet; I prefer not to get warm and fuzzy answers from bullshitters-in-chief.

And you end by brushing off all clerics as "charlatans".  How charming.

Priests are charlatans. If you've got a problem with that, you should stop supporting them.

[dpareja]

Is Greek, Egyptian or Norse mythology fictional? Those were once religions, very prosperous ones.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Is Greek, Egyptian or Norse mythology fictional? Those were once religions, very prosperous ones.

I don't think so.  I think mythology and religion occupy a gray area between fiction and non-fiction.

[Witchyjoshy]

Is Greek, Egyptian or Norse mythology fictional? Those were once religions, very prosperous ones.

Yeah, they are definitely fictional.

The question I have is, did their adherents believe they were fiction or reality?

From what I understand of the Greeks, it definitely leans more towards "Fiction."  Most mythology was stories told around a campfire.

Personally, I see no problem with the fact that my mythology is fiction.  Just because something is fiction doesn't mean it's worthless.

[dpareja]

Is Greek, Egyptian or Norse mythology fictional? Those were once religions, very prosperous ones.

Yeah, they are definitely fictional.

The question I have is, did their adherents believe they were fiction or reality?

From what I understand of the Greeks, it definitely leans more towards "Fiction."  Most mythology was stories told around a campfire.

Personally, I see no problem with the fact that my mythology is fiction.  Just because something is fiction doesn't mean it's worthless.

Fiction isn't worthless. I just object to people trying to pass it off as reality.

[Sleepy]

Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.

This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.