Why Aren't Religions Generally More Rational?

[lovemuffin]

I don't really have a lot of interest in liberal Christian churches, they pick and choose their beliefs even more ridiculously than the fundamentalists do. While I'm not pleased with the fundies, at least most of them follow the majority of their book, whereas liberal theists follow what they want to and make excuses why they ignore the rest.

I've seen this attitude expressed before, but I've never really understood it. Presumably, from your point of view, the members of the liberal churches both believe and act more rationally than fundamentalists, and are less likely to either act, or hold beliefs that provide support for actions that you would consider harmful to others. How can "following the majority of the book" be more rational than following less of the book when attributing absolute authority to the book is unjustified?

 

[sojourner]

Informed dissent? How is that the same as teaching their congregants to question their core religious beliefs? And allowing freedom of thought is pretty pointless since they have no actual ability to stop it. Unless they've developed some very powerful mind-control abilities, their allowing freedom of thought is about as pointless as allowing blood to flow.

You're really grasping at straws. By "allowing freedom of thought," I mean that these bodies don't dictate "what must be believed." They point out, rather than dictate, their doctrine. Many congregations also provide open forums where members are allowed to express doubts and question and consider things.

I didn't give you the JWs as a response to progressivism, but as a very recent example.

The JWs have been pulling this kind of crap for decades. This isn't anything new. Why not find some progressive examples (unless, of course, you simply have an agenda to tear down religion)?

I don't really have a lot of interest in liberal Christian churches, they pick and choose their beliefs even more ridiculously than the fundamentalists do.

That's a gross misrepresentation, because every religion "picks and chooses their beliefs." Every denomination, every congregation decides what's important to them and what isn't. "Ridiculous" is an undemonstrable opinion and, therefore, according to you, not "real."

While I'm not pleased with the fundies, at least most of them follow the majority of their book,

Who said Xy is about "following a book?" Except for the sola scriptura fundies, Xy has never been about "following a book." For the first 450 years of the faith, there was no book to follow.

whereas liberal theists follow what they want to and make excuses why they ignore the rest.

It's not a matter of "following what they want to," as if 1) there's some arbitrary "standard" for belief and praxis, and 2) it's a matter of personal preference. And it's not a matter of "ignoring the rest." It's a matter of setting priorities and discerning what path a) has some historical continuity, tempered by b) current needs of the culture and society. The church has always done that since the beginning. It has also always wrestled with the tough questions (as progressives do in our own time). Progressives don't just dismiss stuff they don't like out of hand. They wrestle with it, question it, raise doubts, which is precisely what you want them to do!

The ideas contained in a book don't fly airplanes into buildings, people who profess to believe them right now do.

Yet, out the other side of your mouth, you applaud these fundies for doggedly adhering to their interpretation of what's written in a book, as if that's a good thing.

The only thing that really matters is what people believe right now and why.

Uh huh. And yet, doing that -- according to you -- constitutes "ridiculous" picking and choosing. You're really presenting a damned-if-they-do/damned-if-they-don't argument. Your own tightly-held bias simply cannot acknowledge any inherent goodness in religion.

Then you're not testing things rationally.

"You're?" Who's "You're?"
And yes, they are testing things rationally, because textual exegesis is a rational endeavor.

If you're not allowed to question the most central core beliefs of your faith, then you cannot possibly consider any inquiry to be rational.

Using the bible does not constitute "not allowed to question."

That's why people have to be able to question the validity of the Bible and the existence of God, otherwise you're only talking about questioning doctrine, not belief.

Exegesis does test the validity of the texts. And if the notion of God is taken as mythic, rather than ontologically, its validity as a tool for making meaning can be rationally evaluated. That's part of the job of theology.

God cannot be rationally justified, there is no objective evidence for the existence of God and without God, the whole of the Bible becomes nothing more than bronze age mythology.

Well, that's basically what the bible is ... as if that's a bad thing... Religion is, after all, a largely mythic, metaphorical endeavor.

Without the Bible, which is the only source of information on God, then there's nothing to base any belief about God on.

No. The bible isn't "the only source of information on God."

You can't count those two out or you're not being open to critically evaluating your beliefs.

No one's "counting them out" (except for you). Most responsible people simply treat them for what they realistically are and go from there.

Because you're trying to make a special case for religion and I think that's dishonest.

No I'm not. I'm simply insisting that we all be real about religion -- on both sides of the argument.

There isn't anything demonstrably real that religion can provide that cannot be achieved just as well or better through purely secular means. So you tried to sneak in things that are not demonstrably real, as though they proved it wrong.

Hmmm... I said: "I do think religion should have a better grasp of the mythic, out of which meaning is made. I think religion, by and large, does have a better grasp of theology." So mythology isn't demonstrably real? I can pick up any number of books and study it; there's a dictionary definition for it. Theology isn't demonstrably real? Again, tons of serious books on the subject -- and people use it All. The. Time. -- even in the secular world. Movies and novels are rife with it.

Whether religion makes people feel good is irrelevant.

Bringing comfort to the afflicted isn't irrelevant. Just ask anyone who's ever been given a placebo for pain. Their non-pain is just as real as it gets.

So we have to go back to religion and ask ourselves if this position is the one best supported by the objective evidence.

One has to ask if mythic characters and stories are supported by objective evidence??? What planet are you from???

Not does it make us feel good, not do we want it to be true, but is it an intellectually honest and valid position to take, based solely on the evidence at hand?

I think that the mythic and metaphorical are intellectually honest and valid, so long as they do not replace cosmology and ontology.

Without a doubt, it is not. That's what people need to deal with.

I disagree. the mythic and metaphorical are extremely important to human experience.

 

[Cephus]

Your sig does not logically support the conclusion that the things I mention religion provides are not real.

Sigs are not large enough for logical proof and discourse, are they?

 

[Cephus]

I've seen this attitude expressed before, but I've never really understood it. Presumably, from your point of view, the members of the liberal churches both believe and act more rationally than fundamentalists, and are less likely to either act, or hold beliefs that provide support for actions that you would consider harmful to others. How can "following the majority of the book" be more rational than following less of the book when attributing absolute authority to the book is unjustified?

No, I don't think they act more rationally at all, they still believe in gods, which is an irrational belief by it's very nature. While I will admit that liberal theists tend to have less crazy actions than fundamentalists, that doesn't improve the rationality of their core beliefs. When the core of the belief is that this book contains truths about the God they follow, how can picking and choosing which parts of the book, which says that every single word is the Word of God, be rational? Either it's all true or it isn't worth taking seriously. Pick one.

 

[lovemuffin]

Either it's all true or it isn't worth taking seriously

Is this a rational position to hold? It doesn't appear to be. I am unaware of any area of human knowledge or endeavor wherein the writings that belong to the field could be legitimately characterized in this way. I suspect this conclusion is based on assumptions which are entirely irrational.

 

[sojourner]

they still believe in gods, which is an irrational belief by it's very nature.

Unless they're admitting the mythic nature of that belief. Then it's rational.

When the core of the belief is that this book contains truths about the God they follow

I don't think that's the core of the belief.

how can picking and choosing which parts of the book, which says that every single word is the Word of God, be rational?

The book doesn't, in fact, say that. Nor do most progressives treat it as such.

Either it's all true or it isn't worth taking seriously.

Or, it's all highly mythic. That's a real option you haven't listed here. I wonder why? The mythic is worth taking seriously for what it is.

 

[lovemuffin]

I suppose I didn't read closely enough, but yeah it should be mentioned that the idea that words in the Bible are literal words of God is not actually supported by the text, and it's a minority belief among Christians, both presently and historically, to the best of my knowledge.

But in any case, obviously liberal Christians do not hold that the Bible is the literal word of God in that way, inerrant in every single word, etc etc. Nor do they hold that scripture would have to be such to have value. That's the problem with the "all or nothing" conclusion, it depends upon an understanding of the nature of inspiration which isn't actually in the text, or in much Christian tradition.

edit: I'm working and skimming at the same time, pardon me being scattered. Part of the point in saying I didn't understand the attitude about liberal vs fundamentalist belief is that from an atheistic standpoint the liberal attitude towards biblical inspiration is far more rational than the most extreme fundamentalist one. And even not all fundamentalists hold the Bible to be the literal word of God in that regard. And the response that it doesn't matter because liberal Christians are still irrational kind of misses the point. They are at least, from that perspective, less irrational. Which should matter. It doesn't make sense to fault a group of people for having a more reasonable belief, if you hold rationality to be the highest principle.

 

[allfoak]

Religions seem to be irrational because they have lost their substance.
Religion has become all about belief in the right doctrine or god.

The main portion of the manual is missing.

And one of them said, "Teacher, it is written of old, 'The Elohim made man in their own image, male and female created they them.' How can you say then that the Lord is one?"



And Jesus said to them,

"Verily I say to you, in the Lord there is neither male nor female and yet both are one, and the Lord is the Two in One.

He is She and She is He. The Lord is Perfect, Infinite, and One... the Elohim created man in the Divine Image male and female, therefore is the Lord both male and female, not divided, but the Two in One, Undivided and Eternal."

- Nazirenes 64:2, 6

And one said to him,

"Teacher, when shall the Kingdom come?"

And he answered and said,

"When that which is without shall be as that which is within, and that which is within shall be as that which is without, and, the male with the female, neither male nor female, but the Two in One.



They who have ears to hear, let them hear."

- Nazirenes 66:12

 

[Cephus]

You're really grasping at straws. By "allowing freedom of thought," I mean that these bodies don't dictate "what must be believed." They point out, rather than dictate, their doctrine. Many congregations also provide open forums where members are allowed to express doubts and question and consider things.

Sure they do. That's what they preach from the pulpit and tell people are part of the doctrine. That's what defines sectarian religion. They have positions which you must believe to be considered part of the denomination. Now sure, they probably won't throw you out for holding other views, they value your money too much, but that doesn't mean that they probably don't think you're going to hell for being a heretic.

The JWs have been pulling this kind of crap for decades. This isn't anything new. Why not find some progressive examples (unless, of course, you simply have an agenda to tear down religion)?

Again, never said they didn't. There are plenty of other examples.

That's a gross misrepresentation, because every religion "picks and chooses their beliefs." Every denomination, every congregation decides what's important to them and what isn't. "Ridiculous" is an undemonstrable opinion and, therefore, according to you, not "real."

Which only shows that they are all irrational. If someone believes that the Bible teaches truth, then everything in the Bible must be true. The Bible even says so. Now I'll be the first to say that anyone who actually followed everything in the Bible would be in prison or the madhouse and they'd deserve to be, but taking a book that you believe in, then spinning it so that you can justify ignoring large swaths of it seems a bit silly.

Who said Xy is about "following a book?" Except for the sola scriptura fundies, Xy has never been about "following a book." For the first 450 years of the faith, there was no book to follow.

True, but every modern denomination has arisen from a particular reading of the book, and even back in antiquity, there were texts that they did follow because they had nothing else. Every early Christian church had their own pet letters and writings that they believed in. Christianity has never been totally freeform.

It's not a matter of "following what they want to," as if 1) there's some arbitrary "standard" for belief and praxis, and 2) it's a matter of personal preference. And it's not a matter of "ignoring the rest." It's a matter of setting priorities and discerning what path a) has some historical continuity, tempered by b) current needs of the culture and society. The church has always done that since the beginning. It has also always wrestled with the tough questions (as progressives do in our own time). Progressives don't just dismiss stuff they don't like out of hand. They wrestle with it, question it, raise doubts, which is precisely what you want them to do!

In other words, it's picking what you want to and ignoring the rest. You're just trying to spin it to sound better. However, reality is not a matter of personal preference. You can believe that the sun revolves around the earth all you want, you're just wrong. Likewise, if there is a God and if this God has things it wants, then you either acknowledge those things or you are just wrong. The problem is that nobody has any means of showing if God is real, or if God wants anything, they just come up with their own list of things that personally appeal to them, declare that it has to be true and hold complete and unvarying faith without ever putting it to the test or asking any questions. The fact remains that you cannot get from reality to the position any church takes using only evidence, reason and critical thinking.

Yet, out the other side of your mouth, you applaud these fundies for doggedly adhering to their interpretation of what's written in a book, as if that's a good thing.

I'm not applauding them by any means, I keep calling them crazy. They're just more consistent than the liberal theists.

Uh huh. And yet, doing that -- according to you -- constitutes "ridiculous" picking and choosing. You're really presenting a damned-if-they-do/damned-if-they-don't argument. Your own tightly-held bias simply cannot acknowledge any inherent goodness in religion.

Picking and choosing without rationality is foolish no matter who does it. Someone who accepts gravity and rejects evolution is just as irrational as someone who accepts one Bible verse and rejects another. There is one reality, one that we all share, anything that falls outside of that reality is wrong.

And yes, they are testing things rationally, because textual exegesis is a rational endeavor.

Exactly how are they doing that? Textual exegesis means nothing if you haven't demonstrated the text to be factually reliable in the first place.

Using the bible does not constitute "not allowed to question."

Can you question the usefulness or truthfulness of the Bible? Can you question the existence of God and not be thought badly of?

No. The bible isn't "the only source of information on God."

Then what other testable source of information is there? Please demonstrate how someone could come with no Bible and no information on the Christian deity and still come to the same beliefs as Christians. That shows me that the Bible is instrumental in belief in the specific Christian deity.

Hmmm... I said: "I do think religion should have a better grasp of the mythic, out of which meaning is made. I think religion, by and large, does have a better grasp of theology." So mythology isn't demonstrably real? I can pick up any number of books and study it; there's a dictionary definition for it. Theology isn't demonstrably real? Again, tons of serious books on the subject -- and people use it All. The. Time. -- even in the secular world. Movies and novels are rife with it.

I don't know, do you think Thor actually existed? Or is it just a story? How about Osiris? Are these factual accounts of things that happened in reality, or mythical stories?

Bringing comfort to the afflicted isn't irrelevant. Just ask anyone who's ever been given a placebo for pain. Their non-pain is just as real as it gets.

But given a choice between a placebo and actual medication, which is better? Something which demonstrably helps your pain, or something that only works if you believe in it enough? Likewise, what would you rather get for cancer? Chemotherapy, which might suck a lot, but works, or prayer, which might not suck, but you still end up dead.

One has to ask if mythic characters and stories are supported by objective evidence??? What planet are you from???

So you're saying Jesus was a myth? You're saying God is a myth? They're both imaginary?

 

[Cephus]

Is this a rational position to hold? It doesn't appear to be. I am unaware of any area of human knowledge or endeavor wherein the writings that belong to the field could be legitimately characterized in this way. I suspect this conclusion is based on assumptions which are entirely irrational.

The Bible is clear that the entire Bible is true. Read 2 Timothy 3:16. If it's not all true, how do you determine which parts are reliable and which parts ought to be ignored? How did you discover this method and how did you objectively test your beliefs? Then come back and tell me how rational you've been.

 

[lovemuffin]

The Bible is clear that the entire Bible is true. Read 2 Timothy 3:16. If it's not all true, how do you determine which parts are reliable and which parts ought to be ignored? How did you discover this method and how did you objectively test your beliefs? Then come back and tell me how rational you've been.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness". The word true does not appear in that passage. A text does not need to be entirely without error to be profitable. I think in any other context you would agree with that. Neither does inspiration (god-breathed) mean "true" or "correct" in this way. And it's not just a question of my interpretation, there are very few interpreters who have ever held to the interpretation you are suggesting. There's an interesting problem there for you also, with regard to interpretation, or how you know how to interpret the text, if you are going to assert that your reading is correct over the objections of most actual Christians.

As to the rest of your question, it's a question of authorities and the nature of authority, and it's clearly more complex of a problem for people who do not hold the Bible to be inerrant in the way you are, but I'll return to it later, I have to go.

 

[Cephus]

Unless they're admitting the mythic nature of that belief. Then it's rational.

But most people don't do that and you know it. Are you suggesting that millions of Christians get on their knees and pray, knowing that they're just talking to themselves? How many people on this forum do you think would agree with that?

 

[sojourner]

Sure they do.

Not the ones I mentioned.

That's what they preach from the pulpit and tell people are part of the doctrine.

That's part of "pointing out doctrine."

That's what defines sectarian religion. They have positions which you must believe to be considered part of the denomination.

Nope. Not anymore. Not the ones I mentioned.

but that doesn't mean that they probably don't think you're going to hell for being a heretic.

Actually most of the progressive denominations don't condemn people like that.

Again, never said they didn't. There are plenty of other examples.

And there are plenty of examples of groups who don't do those things. Are you really posing a "my brother an beat up your brother" argument??

Which only shows that they are all irrational.

No it doesn't.

If someone believes that the Bible teaches truth, then everything in the Bible must be true.

Nope. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. There are shades and degrees. And historic fact is differentiated from spiritual truth.

taking a book that you believe in, then spinning it so that you can justify ignoring large swaths of it seems a bit silly.

Again, it's not about "ignoring." Could have sworn I said that before...
It's about wrestling with the messages and retaining what presents an historical continuity that makes sense for our time and culture. Even Jesus did that in the bible: "It is written... but I tell you..."

even back in antiquity, there were texts that they did follow because they had nothing else.

I don't believe that's true. I don't believe that every group had texts. Most people couldn't read back then. It was an oral society.

In other words, it's picking what you want to and ignoring the rest. You're just trying to spin it to sound better.

No. There's an intentionality that belies the arbitrariness you're trying to push on the practice. You're just trying to spin it to make it sound worse. My post advocates for responsible reading within a sense of the community. Yours merely decries it as irresponsible anarchy.

Likewise, if there is a God and if this God has things it wants, then you either acknowledge those things or you are just wrong.

The issue isn't determining "if there's a God." The issue is discerning a message that makes sense.

The problem is that nobody has any means of showing if God is real, or if God wants anything, they just come up with their own list of things that personally appeal to them, declare that it has to be true and hold complete and unvarying faith without ever putting it to the test or asking any questions.

I don't think that's true of progressives. It's likely true of many fundies.

The fact remains that you cannot get from reality to the position any church takes using only evidence, reason and critical thinking.

Not if you're juxtaposing myth and metaphor for cosmology and ontology.

They're just more consistent than the liberal theists.

Depends on what you mean by "consistent." Progressives are pretty consistent in their approach to things, but not necessarily as implacably dogmatic in their beliefs.

Picking and choosing without rationality is foolish no matter who does it.

Picking and choosing in the manner I suggest isn't done irrationally.

Someone who accepts gravity and rejects evolution is just as irrational as someone who accepts one Bible verse and rejects another. There is one reality, one that we all share, anything that falls outside of that reality is wrong.

I'm not talking about fund wackos.

Exactly how are they doing that? Textual exegesis means nothing if you haven't demonstrated the text to be factually reliable in the first place.

<sigh> That's what exegesis does. It determines the veracity of the text (among other things).

Can you question the usefulness or truthfulness of the Bible?

Absolutely!

Can you question the existence of God and not be thought badly of?

Sure!

Then what other testable source of information is there?

The mythic requires some "test?"

Please demonstrate how someone could come with no Bible and no information on the Christian deity and still come to the same beliefs as Christians.

Word of mouth works real good. So do oral tradition and extra-biblical writings.

That shows me that the Bible is instrumental in belief in the specific Christian deity.

Instrumental, but not exclusive.

I don't know, do you think Thor actually existed? Or is it just a story?

Did Noah, or Moses, or Abraham actually exist? Or are they just mythic stories? Does God exist as the bible portrays -- walking the garden, and appearing in burning bushes? Or are those mythic portrayals? To me, the "mythic portrayal" route seems more honest and useful.

But given a choice between a placebo and actual medication, which is better?

Doesn't matter. Pain relief is the issue, not the route to get there.

Something which demonstrably helps your pain, or something that only works if you believe in it enough?

Doesn't make any difference, if the end result is the same.

Chemotherapy, which might suck a lot, but works, or prayer, which might not suck, but you still end up dead.

Why not both?

So you're saying Jesus was a myth?

There is an historical Jesus who is radically different from the mythic representation of Jesus.

You're saying God is a myth?

Any representation of God is necessarily mythic.

They're both imaginary?

There's a difference between "mythic" and "imaginary." I prefer the term "imaginative" to "imaginary."

 

[sojourner]

Cephus said: ↑
The Bible is clear that the entire Bible is true. Read 2 Timothy 3:16.
Timothy wasn't referring to anything but the recognized Hebrew texts -- probably the LXX.

 

[sojourner]

But most people don't do that and you know it.

So? Is this a popularity contest? Some do.

Are you suggesting that millions of Christians get on their knees and pray, knowing that they're just talking to themselves?

I don't think they're talking to themselves.

How many people on this forum do you think would agree with that?

I don't give a tinker's dam how many people here agree with me. This forum isn't really a good cross section of scholastic Xy.

 

[Cephus]

That's part of "pointing out doctrine."

If it's doctrine, then they're saying "this is what you're supposed to believe". They're explaining what, in their opinion, is the required belief structure to get into heaven or whatever. That they don't hold a gun to people's head and force them to change their mind, which wouldn't work anyhow, they still think that people who waver from their "truth" are going to get punished down the line anyhow.

Again, it's not about "ignoring." Could have sworn I said that before...
It's about wrestling with the messages and retaining what presents an historical continuity that makes sense for our time and culture. Even Jesus did that in the bible: "It is written... but I tell you..."

Too bad God was so ****-poor telling the anonymous writers of the Bible what he wanted them to say, isn't it?

I don't believe that's true. I don't believe that every group had texts. Most people couldn't read back then. It was an oral society.

Which is why the churches had texts that the pastors read from. They weren't illiterate. Many of the people were.

No. There's an intentionality that belies the arbitrariness you're trying to push on the practice. You're just trying to spin it to make it sound worse. My post advocates for responsible reading within a sense of the community. Yours merely decries it as irresponsible anarchy.

Of course it's intentional, do you think that reading through a book that tells you not to wear mixed fabric, which is difficult in the modern world, so you don't take that seriously, then finding something that says that you shouldn't suffer a witch to live, but that would get you thrown into prison so you ignore it, but then picking a couple of the Ten Commandments that you can do without much difficulty so you declare those actually matter is all accidental?

The issue isn't determining "if there's a God." The issue is discerning a message that makes sense.

But there's no message that's worthwhile without a god. If there are no gods, you can certainly take some lessons from the Bible or the Qur'an or the Vedas or whatever, but bowing down to the gods is a pointless gesture.

Did Noah, or Moses, or Abraham actually exist? Or are they just mythic stories? Does God exist as the bible portrays -- walking the garden, and appearing in burning bushes? Or are those mythic portrayals? To me, the "mythic portrayal" route seems more honest and useful.

I don't know. I don't really care. Lots of things in their stories are mythic, certainly we know that there was never a worldwide flood, we know that a lot of the Moses story comes from the Egyptian Mises, etc. Probably, like the story of Jesus, there is some truth as the kernel of the story, with a lot of nonsense built up over the years. So if you're going to accept that these people might be mythic, why not just say God is mythic and drop the whole thing?

There is an historical Jesus who is radically different from the mythic representation of Jesus.

How do you know that? Where do you get that information?

Any representation of God is necessarily mythic.

Then why worship it?

There's a difference between "mythic" and "imaginary." I prefer the term "imaginative" to "imaginary."

But "imaginary" is more accurate. It is factually untrue.

 

[Cephus]

I don't think they're talking to themselves.

Sure they are. If you think God is mythic and factually untrue, who else are they talking to?

 

[sojourner]

Sure they are. If you think God is mythic and factually untrue, who else are they talking to?

I didn't say "God is factually untrue." I said that God is factually not provable. And I said that all our concepts of God are mythic -- not that God is mythic.

 

[sojourner]

If it's doctrine, then they're saying "this is what you're supposed to believe".

No, they're saying, "This is what the community believes."

They're explaining what, in their opinion, is the required belief structure to get into heaven or whatever.

No, they're saying what they, as a community, believe to be true about God.

they still think that people who waver from their "truth" are going to get punished down the line anyhow.

No. They don't. Not progressives, at any rate.

Too bad God was so ****-poor telling the anonymous writers of the Bible what he wanted them to say, isn't it?

God didn't "tell [them] what [God] wanted them to say."

Which is why the churches had texts that the pastors read from.

Not every group.

They weren't illiterate.

Some were. Probably most were.

Of course it's intentional, do you think that reading through a book that tells you not to wear mixed fabric, which is difficult in the modern world, so you don't take that seriously, then finding something that says that you shouldn't suffer a witch to live, but that would get you thrown into prison so you ignore it, but then picking a couple of the Ten Commandments that you can do without much difficulty so you declare those actually matter is all accidental?

That's not intentionality. Intentionality means finding out why and to whom the text was written, and what it means, then making decisions based upon what's best for a particular group to retain fidelity to an historical and theological continuity. Do you know why mixed fabric isn't allowed? Do you know where the sentiment comes from that one shouldn't suffer a witch to live? If you do, then you know why it's no longer rational for Christians to follow those particular injunctions.

But there's no message that's worthwhile without a god.

That's not what your signature line says. or are you talking out both sides of your mouth now?

If there are no gods, you can certainly take some lessons from the Bible or the Qur'an or the Vedas or whatever, but bowing down to the gods is a pointless gesture.

Whoever said there are no gods?

I don't know. I don't really care.

Your lengthy, dismissive, and biased posts here say otherwise...

Probably, like the story of Jesus, there is some truth as the kernel of the story, with a lot of nonsense built up over the years.

How is it "nonsense?" "Nonsense" is a biased opinion and, therefore, not cogent to the argument.

So if you're going to accept that these people might be mythic, why not just say God is mythic and drop the whole thing?

Our representations of God are mythic. But that's hardly the issue.

How do you know that? Where do you get that information?

From a thorough exegetical study of the texts that mention Jesus.

Then why worship it?

What's wrong with worshiping God, even if the representations of God are mythic?

But "imaginary" is more accurate. It is factually untrue.

It's not factually "untrue." That would suggest that there's solid evidence against it. It is factually "unproved." That suggests that we simply lack the information needed to state facts. Just because the ancients didn't know about viruses didn't mean they didn't exist.

 

[Cephus]

No, they're saying, "This is what the community believes."

Yet that's not how it works, I went to a Christian high school that routinely expelled anyone who fell away from the faith. Oh, I know you're going to claim "that's them, not me", but you have to realize that your personal beliefs represent a minuscule minority of Christianity. I'm not arguing with your views, I'm arguing against all of Christianity.