Rationalizing faith.

[skepticalbip]

My chronic refrain is region is no different than any other other group in terms of morality and actions.

There are variations, the Quran gives instructions to the faithful on how to deal with non believers, for instance.

The Koran is more structured and coherent written by one person as compared to the incoherent bible.

I would question the coherency. My reading of the Koran is as a collection of random thoughts (or revelations). The Bible isn't one book, it is a collection of several books (an anthology?). Each of the Bible's books is fairly coherent (though frequently silly) but trying to make sense of several of those books together is usually futile. Reading several books from the Bible and expecting consistency is like reading several books on almost any subject and expecting them all to agree.

However the Koran is open to interpretation. It does say tolerance for non believers who do not threaten Islam.

Yes if tolerance is understood as tax or convert non-believers rather than killing them. But, in general, the Koran says to kill non-believers if they will not convert or pay the non-believer tax.

But as for not making any representation of Mohammed, the command is much broader. It is from the Exodus 20 that no image should be made of anything in heaven, on the Earth, or beneath the Earth. The Muslims just take it more seriously than Christians. OTOH, Jehovah's Witnesses don't use a cross because they see it as idolatry but Islam does use the crescent moon and star.

 

[Learner]

the types of theology
(basic list taken from https://redeeminggod.com/types-of-theology/)

1. Natural theology - arguments for EoG based on reason and empirical evidence.

(IOW, rationalization of fantasy.)
​

2. Biblical theology - knowledge about God from the bible.

(IOW, indulging fantasies that will require rationalizations.)
​

3. Historical theology - knowledge about God from the ideas about God over time.

(IOW, rationalizing the fantasies using earlier rationalizations.)
​

4. Systematic theology - knowledge about God that synthesize the other types of theology.

(IOW, fantasizing a "big picture" from all the rationalizations about God.)
​

5. Dogmatic theology - knowledge about God that emphasizes church-approved ideas.

(IOW, deferring to authoritative assertions about which of the rationalizations are "true".)
​

6. Practical theology - ways to apply the "knowledge about God" to life.

(IOW, trying to squeeze pragmatic value from the haze of rationalizations.)
​

IOW, the parenthesis are in your words.

 

[Politesse]

the types of theology
(basic list taken from https://redeeminggod.com/types-of-theology/)

1. Natural theology - arguments for EoG based on reason and empirical evidence.

(IOW, rationalization of fantasy.)
​

2. Biblical theology - knowledge about God from the bible.

(IOW, indulging fantasies that will require rationalizations.)
​

3. Historical theology - knowledge about God from the ideas about God over time.

(IOW, rationalizing the fantasies using earlier rationalizations.)
​

4. Systematic theology - knowledge about God that synthesize the other types of theology.

(IOW, fantasizing a "big picture" from all the rationalizations about God.)
​

5. Dogmatic theology - knowledge about God that emphasizes church-approved ideas.

(IOW, deferring to authoritative assertions about which of the rationalizations are "true".)
​

6. Practical theology - ways to apply the "knowledge about God" to life.

(IOW, trying to squeeze pragmatic value from the haze of rationalizations.)
​

IOW, the parenthesis are in your words.

C'mon Learner, you know atheists are the ultimate experts on theology.

 

[DBT]

Faith is bias. Rejecting the theology of other religions while trying justify one's own.

 

[Learner]

I'm pretty sure no one will read all of this, least of all a religious apologist, but if you don't understand by now that "It's not Christianity's fault, it's human nature's fault" is a lie and a copout, that is your lack of intellectual honesty, no one else's.[/B]

Understandable why you put it that way...

I'll term it as: It's not Jesus's fault! Christianity should be soley based around, as according to Jesus, and If it's not, then it's the fault of humans, who were not abiding by His teachings.

I read your post which was quite long to respond instantly, which you put some interesting points and effort (mis-representation in some parts and errors in others imo). I'll would have to post them in seperate sections (I usually have problems doing long posts, multi quoting, directly in the reply box).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Faith is bias. Rejecting the theology of other religions while trying justify one's own.

I used to hold that "unskilled and unaware" was the religious norm, but maybe religious folk are indeed "aware" but simply unable or unwilling to reframe their group identity to be more inclusive and egalitarian. Learner appears to be comfortable sitting on the fence at times.

 

[Learner]

Faith is bias. Rejecting the theology of other religions while trying justify one's own.

Have you not considered the concept understanding that if one believes in God in their particular respected faiths, they will naturally believe their god or God as true? Rejection should be the natural reaction for many, all round.

 

[Learner]

C'mon Learner, you know atheists are the ultimate experts on theology.

Indeed Poli, I'm always learning new things and ways about the scriptures.

 

[steve_bank]

Indeed. I have no grasp of what a Christian pagan is. Seems mutually exclusive, at least according to scripture.

 

[Politesse]

Indeed. I have no grasp of what a Christian pagan is. Seems mutually exclusive, at least according to scripture.

"Scripture"? You mean the heavily Greek-influenced anthropology about a magician who inducted a small group of fellow-magic workers into a covert mystery religion? I think Pagans can come to a good enough understanding with the right kind of Christians pretty easily.

 

[skepticalbip]

Indeed. I have no grasp of what a Christian pagan is. Seems mutually exclusive, at least according to scripture.

It is easy to label yourself a Christian pagan. It only requires hijacking the terms Christian and pagan then giving the terms your own personal meanings. Of course that would mean that no one else would know what the hell you are talking about... but you would know.

 

[steve_bank]

Eclectic mythology goes far back. Here in the USA it took off in the 60s with drugs and pseudo spirituality.

The Unitarians is the church for people who don't want church. You can believe most anything and join in socializing.

Rosicrucian's are another. An eclectic mysticism.

If you d not see something that appeals to you, invent your own blend. That is what our western labral democratic freedom of thought, speech, and association is all about.

Here is the Seattle area are numerous small independent churches some in store fronts, each with its own interpretation.

Some years back I was invited by an Evangelical I knew to his group meeting. A core group of about 20 has been meeting since the 70s in a private out building on a mevers property.

It was actually a pleasant experience. There were musicians singing and playing. Kids running around. Bread and grape juice., Periodically when the spirit moved somebody they would start quoting scripture and interpreting. One woman had a vision and there was discussion on meaning. There was laying of hands for healing. There was no specking in tongues that night.

From the NT that was what early Christians did. Loose informal gatherings to read and interpret, and most important share food.

Before the pandemic I was meaning to go to Mt Zion Baptist invited by a friend. They are known for authentic down home black gospel music. I like gospel music, used to have a Mahalia Jackson CD. There is power in the music regardless of what you believe.

Back in the 70s there was American Sikh ashram in my neighborhood. Kundalini yoga. I spent time getting up early in the morning participating in their morning rituals, back then even thought about joining them. Turned out to be a cult run by an Indian guru. When joining he gave you an Indian Sikh name and he decided who married who. It s called 3HO, happy, healthy, holy. One of the rituals was sitting cross legged chanting sa-ta-na-ma s you touched thong to other fingers.

I may not know everything about religion, but I have seen and experienced a lot.

 

[DBT]

Faith is bias. Rejecting the theology of other religions while trying justify one's own.

Have you not considered the concept understanding that if one believes in God in their particular respected faiths, they will naturally believe their god or God as true? Rejection should be the natural reaction for many, all round.

Is that not the nature of bias?

 

[skepticalbip]

Eclectic mythology goes far back. Here in the USA it took off in the 60s with drugs and pseudo spirituality.

..,. snip....

Indeed. People invent all sorts of religions to believe in. As an extreme, Marshall Applewhite invented a UFO based religion he called Heaven's gate. He and all his followers committed suicide expecting the "mother ship" to "take them to a better place" after they shed their mortal anchors. There are still several other "religions" based on UFOs.

 

[DBT]

My chronic refrain is region is no different than any other other group in terms of morality and actions.

There are variations, the Quran gives instructions to the faithful on how to deal with non believers, for instance.

The Koran is more structured and coherent written by one person as compared to the incoherent bible.

Apparently the words of Mohammad were written down by various scribes in bits and pieces, which were collected after his death, sorted and compiled in the 'Quran,' and the rest disposed of.

However the Koran is open to interpretation. It does say tolerance for non believers who do not threaten Islam.

There is a far greater display of intolerance than tolerance in the Quran:

“About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. About seventy-five percent of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers.” – Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy


“He that chooses a religion over Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost.” Quran 3:85


“Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” Quran 48:29

 

[Politesse]

The Koran is more structured and coherent written by one person as compared to the incoherent bible.

Apparently the words of Mohammad were written down by various scribes in bits and pieces, which were collected after his death, sorted and compiled in the 'Quran,' and the rest disposed of.

Memorized and passed down orally, actually. The collecting into a book part came much later.

You are oddly convinced of some mistruths as to its contents. Really, it's not that long a read.

 

[DBT]

The Koran is more structured and coherent written by one person as compared to the incoherent bible.

Apparently the words of Mohammad were written down by various scribes in bits and pieces, which were collected after his death, sorted and compiled in the 'Quran,' and the rest disposed of.

Memorized and passed down orally, actually. The collecting into a book part came much later.

You are oddly convinced of some mistruths as to its contents. Really, it's not that long a read.

Actually?....well, it seems that it's pretty much as I said;

Quote:
''The Prophet Muhammad disseminated the Koran in a piecemeal and gradual manner from AD610 to 632, the year in which he passed away.

The evidence indicates that he recited the text and scribes wrote down what they heard.

Some of the Prophet's associates set out to collect into single volumes all the "suras" (chapters) that had been disseminated in this fashion.

This endeavour yielded a number of versions of the scripture belonging to different "Companions" of the Prophet, versions which today we call "Companion codices".

Around AD650, the Caliph Uthman, who himself had been a close associate of the Prophet, had a committee establish an official version of the Koran based on the existing copies of the scripture and the knowledge of experts.

It is reasonable to conjecture that he worried about textual diversity and wanted to promote textual uniformity.

He sent this official version to different cities and people began copying it.

This Uthmanic textual tradition dwarfed and ultimately replaced the traditions of Ibn Masud and other Companion codices everywhere in the Muslim world, thus fulfilling Uthman's aim of greater textual uniformity from place to place.

 

[Politesse]

Memorized and passed down orally, actually. The collecting into a book part came much later.

You are oddly convinced of some mistruths as to its contents. Really, it's not that long a read.

Actually?....well, it seems that it's pretty much as I said;

Quote:
''The Prophet Muhammad disseminated the Koran in a piecemeal and gradual manner from AD610 to 632, the year in which he passed away.

The evidence indicates that he recited the text and scribes wrote down what they heard.

Some of the Prophet's associates set out to collect into single volumes all the "suras" (chapters) that had been disseminated in this fashion.

This endeavour yielded a number of versions of the scripture belonging to different "Companions" of the Prophet, versions which today we call "Companion codices".

Around AD650, the Caliph Uthman, who himself had been a close associate of the Prophet, had a committee establish an official version of the Koran based on the existing copies of the scripture and the knowledge of experts.

It is reasonable to conjecture that he worried about textual diversity and wanted to promote textual uniformity.

He sent this official version to different cities and people began copying it.

This Uthmanic textual tradition dwarfed and ultimately replaced the traditions of Ibn Masud and other Companion codices everywhere in the Muslim world, thus fulfilling Uthman's aim of greater textual uniformity from place to place.

Your source describes more less what I did. Oral traditions, that only became textual well after the Prophet's death (he died in 630 CE).

Are you really trying to claim the scholarly high ground here? With your entirely made-up "statistics" and dubiously translated ayat?

 

[steve_bank]

The Korn IMO is relatively coherent compared to the Holy Babble. My opinion.

As to faith. Religion and philosophy asellm has always been about finding some peace in a chaotic dangerous world.

If you get upset over a few words om your beliefs than you do not understand religion or philosophy. It is about a sense of well being.

If not then your beliefs are just an affectation, an external ornament for show. That is why I ask theists how does faith manifest in their daily life and never get a real answer.

Academic debate does not equate to understanding religion. I doubt most theists of any kind really understand it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Korn IMO is relatively coherent compared to the Holy Babble. My opinion.

As to faith. Religion and philosophy asellm has always been about finding some peace in a chaotic dangerous world.

If you get upset over a few words om your beliefs than you do not understand religion or philosophy. It is about a sense of well being.

If not then your beliefs are just an affectation, an external ornament for show. That is why I ask theists how does faith manifest in their daily life and never get a real answer.

Academic debate does not equate to understanding religion. I doubt most theists of any kind really understand it.

If we're talking bible and koran we're discussing translations of translations of translations. That amounts to hearsay at best.