A Theology Question

[Saint Guinefort]

Anyone who claims to be having conversations with God is mentally ill.

It is a common symptom of schizophrenia.

Yet a HUGE portion of religious thought comes from this "divine inspiration" or "divine communication", aka "Revelation".

There are entire faiths encompassing millions or even billions of believers that are predicated directly on God or an angel talking to the founder of said religion.

 

[Cypress]

Yet a HUGE portion of religious thought comes from this "divine inspiration" or "divine communication", aka "Revelation".

There are entire faiths encompassing millions or even billions of believers that are predicated directly on God or an angel talking to the founder of said religion.

Divine inspiration is different than having a conversation with God.

I don't think Saint Augustine, Saint Paul, or Maimonides ever claimed to be actually having a direct conversation with God.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Divine inspiration is different than having a conversation with God.

I don't think Saint Augustine, Saint Paul, or Maimonides ever claimed to be actually having a direct conversation with God.

So just going to ignore the point that at least two major religions are predicated directly on conversations between the founder of said religion and God or his emissary?

And you seem to be ignoring the many Catholics who DID supposedly heard directly to God (St. Joan of Arc, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Bernadette of Lourdes, St. Patrick, etc. etc.

 

[Cypress]

So just going to ignore the point that at least two major religions are predicated directly on conversations between the founder of said religion and God or his emissary?

And you seem to be ignoring the many Catholics who DID supposedly heard directly to God (St. Joan of Arc, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Bernadette of Lourdes, St. Patrick, etc. etc.

I've never met a single mentally stable Christian, Jew, or Muslim in my life who claims to be having conversations with God.

The archangel Gabriel reciting the Qur'an to Muhammed is either is a myth or allegory.
God talking to Moses through a burning bush is a myth.

Reading the bible as allegory is common practice among Reform and Conservative Jews, mainline Protestants and Catholics

I have never accepted biblical literalism or the the bible is a work of historical scholarship. I reject claims by Orthodox Jews and conservative evangelicals that the bible is literal history

If Pope Francis claims to be divinely inspired, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I've never met a single mentally stable Christian, Jew, or Muslim in my life who claims to be having conversations with God.

The archangel Gabriel reciting the Qur'an to Muhammed is either is a myth or allegory.
God talking to Moses through a burning bush is a myth.

Reading the bible as allegory is common practice among Reform and Conservative Jews, Mainline Protestant and Catholic

I have never accepted biblical literalism or the the bible is a work of historical scholarship. I reject claims by Orthodox Jews and conservative evangelicals that the bible is literal history

If Pope Francis claims to be divinely inspired, I don't have a problem with that.

There is a huge difference between devoting oneself to studying one's religious texts, and immersing oneself in prayer in an effort to seek understanding, than there is claiming that your understanding stems from a direct conversation with God. That's what I hear you saying here.

I would hope that anyone seeking such understand is aware that gods really don't talk directly to humans, assuming that there are gods.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I've never met a single mentally stable Christian, Jew, or Muslim in my life who claims to be having conversations with God.

Nor have I, but then I am an atheist. I'm merely pointing out to you that the faith itself is often predicated on direct conversation with God. If you have met a Muslim you have met a person whose faith is BUILT AND PREDICATED directly on conversation with God or his Emissary.

The archangel Gabriel reciting the Qur'an to Muhammed is either is a myth or allegory.

So you don't think millions of Muslims don't consider it directly real? Interesting you should dismiss some based on your preferences.

God talking to Moses through a burning bush is a myth.

So you think all Christians are of that opinion? (You don't seem to know about a large swath of Christianity).

Reading the bible as allegory is common practice among Reform and Conservative Jews, Mainline Protestant and Catholic

Yes, it is, but you seem to be dismissing those who don't read all of it allegorically. You seem to think YOUR opinion of what is myth and what is not is somehow controlling.

I have never accepted biblical literalism or the the bible is a work of historical scholarship. I reject claims by Orthodox Jews and conservative evangelicals that the bible is literal history

Oh, obviously as an atheist, I agree, but you often defend religious traditions of others and maintain respect for them, so I'm curious why you carve out a special exemption for those with whom YOU disagree.

You and I do NOT in any way disagree on the "reality" of God talking to his followers directly or via his supernatural emissaries, but you cannot simply out of hand dismiss that they exist and that these views are held NOT by raving lunatics but by standard normal people who function just fine in our society.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

There is a huge difference between devoting oneself to studying one's religious texts, and immersing oneself in prayer in an effort to seek understanding, than there is claiming that your understanding stems from a direct conversation with God. That's what I hear you saying here.

I would hope that anyone seeking such understand is aware that gods really don't talk directly to humans, assuming that there are gods.

Again, there are MANY religious people today who worship God predicated on DIRECT COMMUNICATION from God (via an Angel) to the founders of those religions. You cannot really take Joseph Smith and Mormonism off the table in these discussions. Even though those of us who are atheists would say it wasn't real, I GUARANTEE you that Mormons believe in Mormonism and Joseph Smith's experience.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Again, there are MANY religious people today who worship God predicated on DIRECT COMMUNICATION from God (via an Angel) to the founders of those religions. You cannot really take Joseph Smith and Mormonism off the table in these discussions. Even though those of us who are atheists would say it wasn't real, I GUARANTEE you that Mormons believe in Mormonism and Joseph Smith's experience.

Oh, they certainly do. They have an entire tabernacle/museum dedicated to Smith and his "revelations" in Salt Lake City. Our mom dragged us there when we were on a family trip out West. Even at age 16 I sensed what felt like crazy to me.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Oh, they certainly do. They have an entire tabernacle/museum dedicated to Smith and his "revelations" in Salt Lake City. Our mom dragged us there when we were on a family trip out West. Even at age 16 I sensed what felt like crazy to me.

It seems obvious to an outside viewer such as myself that it isn't likely true, but my point to Cypress is and remains that there are perfectly functional people whom no one would diagnose as schizophrenic who believe it very much is.

I am mystified by why these same people would probably look askance if they were on a jury and the defense raised the idea that God commanded the defendant to do something.

People carve out exemptions in their "epistemology" all the time.

 

[Cypress]

There is a huge difference between devoting oneself to studying one's religious texts, and immersing oneself in prayer in an effort to seek understanding, than there is claiming that your understanding stems from a direct conversation with God. That's what I hear you saying here.

I would hope that anyone seeking such understand is aware that gods really don't talk directly to humans, assuming that there are gods.

Well said. Yes exactly right

I've met a lot of Bishops, Rabbis, and priests, and none of them ever claimed to be having conversations with God.

Pope Francis is a highly educated and literate man who is divinely inspired. The Quakers claim to be receiving inspiration from the divine inner light. Neither of those claims bother me in the least.

 

[Cypress]

Nor have I, but then I am an atheist. I'm merely pointing out to you that the faith itself is often predicated on direct conversation with God. If you have met a Muslim you have met a person whose faith is BUILT AND PREDICATED directly on conversation with God or his Emissary.



So you don't think millions of Muslims don't consider it directly real? Interesting you should dismiss some based on your preferences.



So you think all Christians are of that opinion? (You don't seem to know about a large swath of Christianity).



Yes, it is, but you seem to be dismissing those who don't read all of it allegorically. You seem to think YOUR opinion of what is myth and what is not is somehow controlling.



Oh, obviously as an atheist, I agree, but you often defend religious traditions of others and maintain respect for them, so I'm curious why you carve out a special exemption for those with whom YOU disagree.

You and I do NOT in any way disagree on the "reality" of God talking to his followers directly or via his supernatural emissaries, but you cannot simply out of hand dismiss that they exist and that these views are held NOT by raving lunatics but by standard normal people who function just fine in our society.

Yes, I dismiss all claims of inerrancy and universal historicity in the Bible, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon. Anyone on a street corner who is speaking to and having a conversation with God, I am going to assume is mentally unstable.

Prayer, meditation, divine inspiration, veneration of saints don't bother me in the least.

 

[Cypress]

Oh, they certainly do. They have an entire tabernacle/museum dedicated to Smith and his "revelations" in Salt Lake City. Our mom dragged us there when we were on a family trip out West. Even at age 16 I sensed what felt like crazy to me.

The revelation that men are allowed to have multiple wives seems pretty self serving

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Yes, I dismiss all claims of inerrancy and universal historicity in the Bible, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon. Anyone on a street corner who is speaking to and having a conversation with God, I am going to assume is mentally unstable.

Prayer, meditation, divine inspiration, veneration of saints don't bother me in the least.

I am curious why you throw SOME religious traditions under the bus while making an exception for others.

You don't mind if people venerate St. Bernadette but you don't want to talk about the fact that St. Bernadette heard voices from God and that is part of her whole thing.

 

[Cypress]

I am curious why you throw SOME religious traditions under the bus while making an exception for others.

You don't mind if people venerate St. Bernadette but you don't want to talk about the fact that St. Bernadette heard voices from God and that is part of her whole thing.

"Throw them under the bus". . now you're getting passive aggressive again.

Explain to me why I am required to defend every and all religious sects on the planet. I am never going to defend Islamic Wahhabism, the Jonesboro Baptist church, fire and brimstone televangelists, or Mormon sects who practice polygamy.

I don't believe Joan of Arc ever spoke to God, though she undoubtedly felt some kind of inspiration she interpreted as divine

 

[Saint Guinefort]

"Throw them under the bus". . now you're getting passive aggressive again.

Sorry if I use common expressions. I understand it can bother you when you overinterpret someone else's words. This is a common phrase that most people use every day.

Explain to me why I am required to defend every and all religious sects on the planet.

I'm fascinated that in the other thread you demand that morality be attributed to the Axial Age religious traditions as if the concepts weren't valid before the religion put them into words but you are VERY quick to dismiss those same religious traditions which are LOADED with God's direct communication to His people.

I don't believe Joan of Arc ever spoke to God,

Well, I guarantee you a very large number of French Catholics DO. And that is my point. YOU are cherry picking those parts of religious traditions that comport with your beliefs and jettisoning those that don't. It's alright. I'm not complaining... I do that too.

But it doesn't change my original point which is that I am mystified by how perfectly rational modern people can simultaneously hold a faith that contains God's direct communication to believers AND who wouldn't accept that excuse in a court of law.

though she undoubtedly felt some kind of inspiration she interpreted as divine

That isn't how Joan apparently felt about it. You are free to disagree with Joan as is your right, but I doubt you would be able to convince her otherwise.

 

[Cypress]

Sorry if I use common expressions. I understand it can bother you when you overinterpret someone else's words. This is a common phrase that most people use every day.



I'm fascinated that in the other thread you demand that morality be attributed to the Axial Age religious traditions as if the concepts weren't valid before the religion put them into words but you are VERY quick to dismiss those same religious traditions which are LOADED with God's direct communication to His people.



Well, I guarantee you a very large number of French Catholics DO. And that is my point. YOU are cherry picking those parts of religious traditions that comport with your beliefs and jettisoning those that don't. It's alright. I'm not complaining... I do that too.

But it doesn't change my original point which is that I am mystified by how perfectly rational modern people can simultaneously hold a faith that contains God's direct communication to believers AND who wouldn't accept that excuse in a court of law.



That isn't how Joan apparently felt about it. You are free to disagree with Joan as is your right, but I doubt you would be able to convince her otherwise.

I am allowed to reject any religious practice, tradition, or dogma I disagree with, just like I am allowed to disagree with any political, legal, economic practice I find objectionable

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I am allowed to reject any religious practice, tradition, or dogma I disagree with, just like I am allowed to disagree with any political, legal, economic practice I find objectionable

I think you have lost sight of my original point. I merely noted I am mystified by how people can simultaneously hold a religious belief predicated on God's direct communication but who wouldn't believe it in a modern day court room as a defense.

You simply decreed those things are signs of schizophrenia (which I agree with). I merely pointed out that many religious traditions are built EXACTLY on that foundation.

And, in addition, you seem to feel that religion has some "edge" on the development of morality that couldn't have arisen naturally in social animals (as we were discussing elsewhere).

You didn't seem open to that more prosaic explanation in preference for "religious traditions". It was a curious disjunct.

 

[Cypress]

I think you have lost sight of my original point. I merely noted I am mystified by how people can simultaneously hold a religious belief predicated on God's direct communication but who wouldn't believe it in a modern day court room as a defense.

You simply decreed those things are signs of schizophrenia (which I agree with). I merely pointed out that many religious traditions are built EXACTLY on that foundation.

And, in addition, you seem to feel that religion has some "edge" on the development of morality that couldn't have arisen naturally in social animals (as we were discussing elsewhere).

You didn't seem open to that more prosaic explanation in preference for "religious traditions". It was a curious disjunct.

Religion, like science, law, economics evolve and change.

I do not accept that one can't be a Jew unless they believe in biblical literalism.

If we could just let nature take it's course, and just emulate the ethics of chimpanzee troupes or gorilla families, we wouldn't have needed a three thousand year long debate, from Plato to Martin Luther King, on what constitutes the nature and practice of a moral human life

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Religion, like science, law, economics evolve and change.

I do not accept that one can't be a Jew unless they believe in biblical literalism.

If we could just let nature take it's course, and just emulate the ethics of chimpanzee troupes or gorilla families, we wouldn't have needed a three thousand year long debate, from Plato to Martin Luther King, on what constitutes the nature and practice of a moral human life

But the point is, these philosophers only "fine tuned" and "explained" that which may have its origins in our biology. Plato didn't invent morality.

I don't know what you are talking about in regards to Jewish literalism.

I am, however, curious why you seem so resistant to morality without a philosopher's hand or some religious groups' hand. It seems like you really dislike the idea that much of what we call "morality" can easily be explained by more prosaic concepts that arose in early humans long before any sort of philosopher or religious edict came into play.

 

[BidenPresident]

But the point is, these philosophers only "fine tuned" and "explained" that which may have its origins in our biology. Plato didn't invent morality.

I don't know what you are talking about in regards to Jewish literalism.

Everything is about religion for Cypress.