The Christian Theology Education Thread

[Loonytoons]

2 minutes ago, CityDave94 said:

Any evidence would be from writings outside any Christian texts, such as Jewish or Roman historians referring to Jesus and or his followers, that would be reasonable evidence for the existence of Jesus.

 

I don't think anyone is questioning his existence, just what he and/or others claimed what he was. 

Other religions had him as a prophet did they not?

 

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, Loonytoons said:

I don't think anyone is questioning his existence, just what he and/or others claimed what he was. 

Other religions had him as a prophet did they not?

 

I bet he was a cartoon character in the Nazereth post, the Oor Wullie of his day. 

[Loonytoons]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I bet he was a cartoon character in the Nazereth post, the Oor Wullie of his day. 

Pontius Pilate being Pc Murdoch of his day.

[Granny Danger]

There’s plenty of evidence that there was a guy kicking around Galilee a couple of thousand years ago who we refer to as Jesus.

He was a charismatic and had followers.

He was not the son of god, he did not perform miracles and he did not rise from the dead.

 

[jimbaxters]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

There’s plenty of evidence that there was a guy kicking around Galilee a couple of thousand years ago who we refer to as Jesus.

He was a charismatic and had followers.

He was not the son of god, he did not perform miracles and he did not rise from the dead.

 

You'd better hope not!

[carpetmonster]

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I bet he was a cartoon character in the Nazereth post, the Oor Wullie of his day. 

Five loaves and two fishes was what St Boab had for his lunch every day, the fat c**t. 

[Loonytoons]

4 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

You'd better hope not!

Not very Christian of him if he punishes Granny.

[coprolite]

40 minutes ago, CityDave94 said:

Why is it that almost every civilisation or tribe has a God, Gods or some other supreme being or spirits? Completely unconnected with each other over thousands of years.

Ancestors all over the world over thousands of years having the same concept of higher beings without knowing that others around the world understand the very same concept.

 

That’s a good question, to which i don't know the answer. 

My guess is that as a species, we've evolved intelligence largely to be able to live in complex societies. That means we  understand things about how humans act really well, instinctively. When we see nature doing stuff we're prone to anthropomorphise it to try to understand it. Aspects of nature can get personified, or all of it can. 

We do this outside nature too: father time, father Christmas, Britannia, Uncle Sam etc. 

The fact that we've personified countries doesn't mean that they have any sort of consciousness or agency. 

 

[carpetmonster]

9 minutes ago, coprolite said:

That’s a good question, to which i don't know the answer. 

My guess is that as a species, we've evolved intelligence largely to be able to live in complex societies. That means we  understand things about how humans act really well, instinctively. When we see nature doing stuff we're prone to anthropomorphise it to try to understand it. Aspects of nature can get personified, or all of it can. 

We do this outside nature too: father time, father Christmas, Britannia, Uncle Sam etc. 

The fact that we've personified countries doesn't mean that they have any sort of consciousness or agency. 

 

Boston's apparently a couple of furries

 

And here was me thinking it was just racists and bad sitcoms

[welshbairn]

None of us understand the maths that explain the Big Bang, we put our faith in the people who do, and that there aren't many credible counter theories, though if people believe in them I'm in no position to judge them for it. 

[Raven]

On 02/09/2024 at 20:50, Jedi2 said:

The Scientific view of creation obviously rests on the Big Bang..developed in the mid-1960s.

The big bang isn't a view of creation, in the way implied by a singularity 'popping into existence'.

Edited September 3 by Raven

[Fullerene]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

There’s plenty of evidence that there was a guy kicking around Galilee a couple of thousand years ago who we refer to as Jesus.

He was a charismatic and had followers.

He was not the son of god, he did not perform miracles and he did not rise from the dead.

 

Performing miracles might have been easier back then such as giving fruit to somebody who has scurvy. 

Yes, anybody else could do then do the same but if you did it first and said you had blessed the fruit with healing properties would anyone have challenged you.

[Salt n Vinegar]

14 hours ago, GordonS said:

That's called the golden rule and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

An extreme religious homophobe would say that if they had sex with a with someone of the same sex as them, they should be stoned to death. Does that make it ok for them to stone gay people to death? 

Most people who do things we would consider bad don't go around thinking they're bad. They have justifications for them and think other people do, or should, live their lives the same way.

We like different things, we hate different things, so if we treat others the way we want to be treated, we're not treating them the way they want to be treated. 

You'll maybe be in a bit of bother finding an atheist who thinks that gay people should be stoned to death.  I would no more stone a gay person to death than I'd have my son stoned to death at the outskirts of the city for being rebellious.  I leave institutionalised, irrational  behaviour like that to the religious. Psychopaths obviously exist, but their behaviour is certainly not representative of the majority and for the majority, the golden rule works pretty well.  There can't be many patients who have never said to their child "you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you".  No religious source or justification is needed for that at all.

The golden rule - which certainly pre-dates Christianity, isn't perfect.   I dare say that psychopaths and masochists would have a different view on the treatment of others and themselves to those that I hold. For the overwhelming majority of people, it's still a pretty acceptable approach. (It is of course fair to point out that as "we" are all apparently created in "God's" image, that same "God" made, caused, or allowed the birth of the said psychopaths and masochists.  Praise the Lord for his/her/it's divine creation?

Its no surprise to me that so many folk are religious.  In the schools I attended in the 60s and 70s,, which were not "denominational", religion was imposed via daily religious worship led by school authority figures, usually the Head Teacher.  Children could scarcely grow up in a way that allowed them to avoid religious indoctrination.  So we had stories of rainbows, whales, miracles, burning bushes, talking snakes, apples, raising the dead, hymns, psalms and bible readings every day at morning assembly.  Attendance was compulsory, except for one Jewish lad, who, in the finest traditions of organised religion, was made to stand outside the hall door on his own. Shortly after, the same kids would be studying physics, chemistry and biology.  No wonder folk grow up confused about what evidence, experimentation and those "fact" things really are.

Nah. Like many people who are non-believers, I have no idea what it would take to convince me to become a believer in one of the thousands of sects that worship one or more deities, be they geographically nearby or not, but if he/she/it really exists, he/she/it certainly knows.  So far, tumbleweed. I'll let P&Bers know as soon as satisfactory evidence "reveals" itself to me.

To a certain extent we are still prisoners of religion in the UK whether we like it or not.  Our unelected Head of State is also the head of a church and as I understand it, we are one of only 2 countries that reserve places in our legislature for individuals who are only there because they are religious figureheads - the 20-odd Bishops who sit in the Lords. (The other country is Iran.)  

Nah, not for me ta.  I dare say that yes, many folk get a lot out of religion, but for me the main difference between religion and other myths/legends is that when kids get to the age where certain a level of curiosity and scepticism kicks in, adults in position of authority don't tell them every day that Odin, Poseidon, Nessie, the Tooth Fairy, Santa etc are real and suggest that bad things will happen to them if they don't carry on believing in them. 

As for "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ", get that in the sea.  

Busy day ahead, so I'll leave any further debate on the forum to others for a while. Have a good day, all.

[Granny Danger]

2 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

You'll maybe be in a bit of bother finding an atheist who thinks that gay people should be stoned to death.  I would no more stone a gay person to death than I'd have my son stoned to death at the outskirts of the city for being rebellious.  I leave institutionalised, irrational  behaviour like that to the religious. Psychopaths obviously exist, but their behaviour is certainly not representative of the majority and for the majority, the golden rule works pretty well.  There can't be many patients who have never said to their child "you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you".  No religious source or justification is needed for that at all.

The golden rule - which certainly pre-dates Christianity, isn't perfect.   I dare say that psychopaths and masochists would have a different view on the treatment of others and themselves to those that I hold. For the overwhelming majority of people, it's still a pretty acceptable approach. (It is of course fair to point out that as "we" are all apparently created in "God's" image, that same "God" made, caused, or allowed the birth of the said psychopaths and masochists.  Praise the Lord for his/her/it's divine creation?

Its no surprise to me that so many folk are religious.  In the schools I attended in the 60s and 70s,, which were not "denominational", religion was imposed via daily religious worship led by school authority figures, usually the Head Teacher.  Children could scarcely grow up in a way that allowed them to avoid religious indoctrination.  So we had stories of rainbows, whales, miracles, burning bushes, talking snakes, apples, raising the dead, hymns, psalms and bible readings every day at morning assembly.  Attendance was compulsory, except for one Jewish lad, who, in the finest traditions of organised religion, was made to stand outside the hall door on his own. Shortly after, the same kids would be studying physics, chemistry and biology.  No wonder folk grow up confused about what evidence, experimentation and those "fact" things really are.

Nah. Like many people who are non-believers, I have no idea what it would take to convince me to become a believer in one of the thousands of sects that worship one or more deities, be they geographically nearby or not, but if he/she/it really exists, he/she/it certainly knows.  So far, tumbleweed. I'll let P&Bers know as soon as satisfactory evidence "reveals" itself to me.

To a certain extent we are still prisoners of religion in the UK whether we like it or not.  Our unelected Head of State is also the head of a church and as I understand it, we are one of only 2 countries that reserve places in our legislature for individuals who are only there because they are religious figureheads - the 20-odd Bishops who sit in the Lords. (The other country is Iran.)  

Nah, not for me ta.  I dare say that yes, many folk get a lot out of religion, but for me the main difference between religion and other myths/legends is that when kids get to the age where certain a level of curiosity and scepticism kicks in, adults in position of authority don't tell them every day that Odin, Poseidon, Nessie, the Tooth Fairy, Santa etc are real and suggest that bad things will happen to them if they don't carry on believing in them. 

As for "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ", get that in the sea.  

Busy day ahead, so I'll leave any further debate on the forum to others for a while. Have a good day, all.

I remember at school being told we should respect people’s religious beliefs.  No one ever explained why.  No one ever suggested that we should question people’s religious beliefs.

Hopefully schools teach more critical thinking these days.

[CityDave94]

32 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I remember at school being told we should respect people’s religious beliefs.  No one ever explained why.  No one ever suggested that we should question people’s religious beliefs.

Hopefully schools teach more critical thinking these days.

Our Headmaster in Primary School was very religious, a very serious man. Not once in the seven years I was there did I ever see him smile. We never questioned him or his beliefs because we were kids and it seemed completely normal and we didn't care or understood the concept of religion anyway. If your parents aren't religious then its not a big deal. You would put your parents advice and guidence ahead of teachers in school, because you trust them more to be correct in their judgement and they are your parents who you care about.

So in our Primary school Christainity was pretty much rammed into our brains through one ear and for most of us out the other ear. Looks like a bit less progressive than your one as no other religion was tolerated 'because there was only one God' and as with denominations the Catholics had their own preferred schools in Inverness anyway. But out of school we all mixed and didn't care, religion never came into any chat and was regarded as old and boring, not cool. Our headmaster was regarded as a dinosaur.

Secondary School was far more open and a lot less claustriphobic although there was always Assembly first thing on a Monday morning which was nothing more than a formality to get though. A lot less emphasis on religion, there was religious studies which everyone took for the first two years (if I remember), that was it.

As you get older you do start to question the world and why things are the way they are, plus you become more aware of other influences outside our own little worlds.

You can see where apathy and rejection of religion starts, right back in your early school years.

Any religion worth its salt should welcome questions even if they are critical of certain aspects. Its all part of learning and understanding. As you say if no one explains anything then there is no learning and understanding, but then you would need to ask the questions first.

 

[The Moonster]

16 hours ago, jimbaxters said:

So is it better to just hate or ridicule everyone who professes a faith?

I think when they say stupid things it's fine to ridicule anyone. I only hate the people who feel their religion needs pushed on others, or those who hate others for believing something else. 

13 hours ago, jimbaxters said:

That's not true pal. There is written evidence of it. Much akin to scientifically written evidence.

This would be saying something stupid. Completely disengenous to suggest that the Bible (or any religious text) holds the same evidential credence as modern science. 

11 hours ago, welshbairn said:

None of us understand the maths that explain the Big Bang, we put our faith in the people who do, and that there aren't many credible counter theories, though if people believe in them I'm in no position to judge them for it. 

This is just silly though, if there was one group of scientists claiming something that they couldn't prove nobody would put their faith in them. They'd be largely ignored by the scientific community until such time as they could present evidence. Equating this "faith" to religious faith is stupid. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

13 hours ago, jimbaxters said:

I'm not going to go into details to invoke more sniggers

 

[Vietnam91]

My take is that in an information vacuum people make stuff up to fill the void. That happens now on Twitter, gossip between neighbours or colleagues and in ancient times it was trying to make sense of natural phenomenon beyond the knowledge base or learning at the time.

An earthquake was an all powerful beings wrath, not tectonic plates shifting. A flood was punishment, comets were an omen.

It was a time of oral tradition where stories were passed down in families and communities and circulated by travelling story tellers. Over time stories lose detail and are embellished. Religion therefore borrows from what has gone before it. There's striking links from Mesopotamia in Judiasm, Noah's Ark borrows so much from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Christianity borrowed the Torah and itself was influenced by Egyptian mythology. Islam credits Abraham and see's Jesus as a profit, just not THE profit.

I was offered this recently by the youtube algorithm and found it interesting:

 

 

Tony Robinson of Baldrick fame did a Channel 4 documentary shining a light on how the natural disasters were probably factors in myths, he didn't say it outright he left the audience to deduce that themselves. It is pretty compelling, explaining how the Bosphorus cill being breached probably was the origin of the biblical flood and Santorini's volcano accounting for a few of the plagues of Egypt (certainly hail and darkness). However, this series has never been rerun and it's incredibly hard to find on streaming sites and torrents. I'm not into conspiracies but it does seem to be suppressed.

Coming back to Christianity, it's worth remembering the councils of Nicea met to basically cherry pick what was to be included in the bible to suit those in attendance from the Western and Eastern churches. If the words are divine, they don't need an editor.

[GordonS]

4 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

You'll maybe be in a bit of bother finding an atheist who thinks that gay people should be stoned to death. 

Maybe not in the UK today, but you don't have to look too far back to see it. Gay people were targeted and murdered as part of the holocaust, and religion had nothing to do with the motives.

I used homosexuality as one quick example but I could have used others. There have been plenty of atheists in living memory who thought you should be locked up, forced into labour, tortured or killed just for believing in capitalism or speaking in opposition to communism.

There are plenty of atheists around us now who think that identifying as a different gender from the one you were born as should be criminalised.

These people aren't psychopaths or masochists, as you suggest. They're not consciously malevolent. With a clear head and knowing all that we know, they think that's how a person like that should be treated, and would say they themselves should be treated in like that if they behaved in that way.

The golden rule doesn't help with any of these things. It's a useless philosophical concept.

Quote

There can't be many patients who have never said to their child "you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you".  No religious source or justification is needed for that at all.

That's little more than manners. If either of my sons battered a Nazi I would take them out for ice cream. This does not mean I think it's ok for someone else to batter them.

Generally I share your view of religion btw, I'm just talking about the golden rule. We need a better philosophy than that. Something more like 'we're all different, I'll never know what it's like to be you, each to their own, if you're not harming anyone else then crack on.'  The 'harming others' bit is the hard part though, we'll never all agree on that and many will fabricate, exaggerate and weaponise it to spread fear of immigrants, gay people, trans men etc.

The veil of ignorance is also useful in thinking about fairness - imagine you could design the world before you were born, not knowing who you would be or where you would be born. 

Edited September 4 by GordonS

[Jacksgranda]

4 hours ago, Vietnam91 said:

My take is that in an information vacuum people make stuff up to fill the void. That happens now on Twitter, gossip between neighbours or colleagues and in ancient times it was trying to make sense of natural phenomenon beyond the knowledge base or learning at the time.

An earthquake was an all powerful beings wrath, not tectonic plates shifting. A flood was punishment, comets were an omen.

It was a time of oral tradition where stories were passed down in families and communities and circulated by travelling story tellers. Over time stories lose detail and are embellished. Religion therefore borrows from what has gone before it. There's striking links from Mesopotamia in Judiasm, Noah's Ark borrows so much from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Christianity borrowed the Torah and itself was influenced by Egyptian mythology. Islam credits Abraham and see's Jesus as a profit, just not THE profit.

I was offered this recently by the youtube algorithm and found it interesting:

 

 

Tony Robinson of Baldrick fame did a Channel 4 documentary shining a light on how the natural disasters were probably factors in myths, he didn't say it outright he left the audience to deduce that themselves. It is pretty compelling, explaining how the Bosphorus cill being breached probably was the origin of the biblical flood and Santorini's volcano accounting for a few of the plagues of Egypt (certainly hail and darkness). However, this series has never been rerun and it's incredibly hard to find on streaming sites and torrents. I'm not into conspiracies but it does seem to be suppressed.

Coming back to Christianity, it's worth remembering the councils of Nicea met to basically cherry pick what was to be included in the bible to suit those in attendance from the Western and Eastern churches. If the words are divine, they don't need an editor.

All religions are the same - just interested in money.