The Reformation began in the 16th century. A lot happened before then. For example, the massacre of the Cathars in 1209 in Beziers, where the papal legate when asked how to distinguish Cathars from others famously replied (to the glory of God, of course) "Kill them all. God will know his own."

Hmm. That's terrible.

I could spend hours, days, weeks trying to explain. In fact, I have done so for years. But when someone doesn't read what is on the page and instead injects his own projections, there's just no point in trying to discuss anything. — baker

That is beautifully said, and it is not restricted to religious differences. It would be wonderful if all replies were about the subject and not the person who wrote the reply. :lol:

While reading the arguments, my mind drifted to the videos I have been watching about humans surviving an ice age and the flooding that followed. One might think if humans recorded their history, they might have said something about surviving an ice age. Humans evolved in Africa long before the ice age, and the story of them surviving the climate change from extremely hot to extremely cold and then moderate temperatures is fascinating. The story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden doesn't even come close to the real human experience.

In the past, it might have been understandable for humans to believe their different creation stories, but continuing to do so with our greatly improved understanding of reality makes the continued success of past religions a curious question. How can people maintain a false belief when the evidence gives us such a different story of our creation and amazing survival? :worry: We are supposed to be rational, but to continue to believe a false story of creation when the evidence is so different is an extremely strange human behavior. I eagerly wait for an explanation of that. And what is really nuts about this is how easily they see all the other stories as false. It is only their own creation story that isn't based on superstition. :roll:

Of course. They've even killed eachother over who has the right understanding of God. — baker

I am sure Constantine regretted making Christianity an acceptable religion when the Christians began killing each other. The disagreement about Jesus being the son of God or God himself led to a lot of killing, and then the argument over baptism led to more killing for a long time.

This might be blunt, but the success of Christianity is about winning by killing. Another successful move for Christians is reinterpreting people's beliefs and celebrations to be Christian stories. So the Easter Bunny and Easter Egg, Egyptian symbols of fertiality becoming a Christian holy day. The Tree of Life, a pagan tree, becomes the Christian Tree of Life. I think only the Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge the pagan history of these celebrations.

Imagine celebrating your favorite pagan days and discovering you are a Christian. :gasp:

Everyone: I don’t understand why you are offering me a false dichotomy for resolution, outside the context in which I explained my position? — Astorre

What false dichotomy?

I've known Christians who said God was "lovingly condemning". Apparently, it is an act of "love" when God sends people off to eternal torment.
Or when the Holy Inquisition condemned people to be burned at the stake: surely the inquisitors considered this an act of "love", no?

One thing I've learned (and the hard way, at that) is that religious/spiritual people tend to have vastly different ideas than I about what constitutes "good" and "bad", "love" and "hate", and so on. To the point like we're from different universes, hence my question to you earlier.

I must confess I'm unimpressed by explanations of Christianity's success which are variations of DEUS VULT! — Ciceronianus

Someone who claims to believe in God but doesn't base his explanations in claims of God's will, is not a proper theist, so beware of such a person!

It's common for theistic apologists to present quasi-rational and quasi-scientific reasoning for theism (and they'll even say they do it for you, to appease the atheist/the atheist's ego (sic!)). But according to theism itself, such apologists are wrong, for they are not acknowledging God's place.

If they really believe in God, they should have no qualms stating that such and such is God's will. And if there's reason to bellieve they do have such qualms (as mentioned above) then they're not to be taken seriously in a discussion.

, or which are based on claims regarding the workings of the Holy Spirit, or Christianity's preaching regarding love, justice etc. which is, I think it must be acknowledged given our history,

more honored in the breach than in the observance.

This is hardly limited to Christians, though.

Just look at this forum, for example. There are, for example, some prominent posters here who are vocal proponents of charity, humanism, and liberalism. And yet from the way they treat other posters here it's clear that they themselves don't practice what they preach. And what is more, they and their defenders take umbrage at being reminded of that. Apparently, it's somehow beyond the pale to point out that the preacher doesn't practice what he preaches.

Perhaps this points at something more fundamental about humanity: Namely, that moral claims are not supposed to be taken seriously. That it's important to talk the talk -- but that this is all there is to it. The walk is supposed to be quite different than the talk.

The story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden doesn't even come close to the real human experience. — Athena

Actually, it does come close. Adam and Eve are enjoined from eating from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. This (I maintain) represents the advent of civilization, when moral rules must become codified, and knowledge of good and evil explicit. They are expelled from Eden, and must labor for their food (Abel becomes a herdsman, Cain a farmer). This suggests the move from hunting and gathering to agriculture -- which happened in the not distant past for those who first told the story.

I studied cultural anthropology in grad school, and some of my profs had studied with people who had recently made this switch. They all hated it. They hated the work; they hated being tied to the land. Many couldn't handle it, and though their slash and burn fields doubled their yield with an hour-a-day of daily weeding, they were often abandoned by the former hunters and gatherers, who wanted to visit their cousins in the next valley.

The physical record bears this out. Measures of health -- average height and longevity - decreased at the advent of civilization. This makes sense. A diet based mainly on the staple crop and contagious diseases that spread with crowded, urban conditions were probably the main culprits.

So the "Eden" of primitive life morphed into agriculture and civilization -- and slavery for huge swaths of the population. No wonder they longed for an Edenic past.

IN more general terms, a religious world view differs from a scientific one in that the scientific world view thinks we are progressing; the religious thinks we have fallen from an idyllic past. This is true for many religions (including the ancient Greeks', Athena) who told stories about the Gods walking the earth and breeding heroic children with humans in a glorified past.

Actually, it does come close. Adam and Eve are enjoined from eating from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. This (I maintain) represents the advent of civilization, when moral rules must become codified, and knowledge of good and evil explicit. They are expelled from Eden, and must labor for their food (Abel becomes a herdsman, Cain a farmer). This suggests the move from hunting and gathering to agriculture -- which happened in the not distant past for those who first told the story. — Ecurb

I don't think the Hebrews were the first to tell the story of Adam and Eve. I think that was a Sumerian story that told of real events. The Hebrews in Ur plagiarized the story and adjusted it to fit the idea of one God. Fortunately, the Sumerian story was written in clay, and geologists and related scientists could find evidence of the truth behind the story and the fact that the Hebrews plagiarized the original story.

I studied cultural anthropology in grad school, and some of my profs had studied with people who had recently made this switch. They all hated it. They hated the work; they hated being tied to the land. Many couldn't handle it, and though their slash and burn fields doubled their yield with an hour-a-day of daily weeding, they were often abandoned by the former hunters and gatherers, who wanted to visit their cousins in the next valley.

The physical record bears this out. Measures of health -- average height and longevity - decreased at the advent of civilization. This makes sense. A diet based mainly on the staple crop and contagious diseases that spread with crowded, urban conditions were probably the main culprits.

So the "Eden" of primitive life morphed into agriculture and civilization -- and slavery for huge swaths of the population. No wonder they longed for an Edenic past.

IN more general terms, a religious world view differs from a scientific one in that the scientific world view thinks we are progressing; the religious thinks we have fallen from an idyllic past. This is true for many religions (including the ancient Greeks', Athena) who told stories about the Gods walking the earth and breeding heroic children with humans in a glorified past.

I studied cultural anthropology in grad school, and some of my profs had studied with people who had recently made this switch. They all hated it. They hated the work; they hated being tied to the land. Many couldn't handle it, and though their slash and burn fields doubled their yield with an hour-a-day of daily weeding, they were often abandoned by the former hunters and gatherers, who wanted to visit their cousins in the next valley.

Yes, the Greeks had a golden age, a silver age, and a bronze age. Today, we do the same thing, believing in a better past and the decline in the present.

As you mentioned, the story of Cain and Abel does appear to be a moral crisis. As I understand, the moral crisis was about the shift from being herders who shared everything in common to being farmers who held land individually. That created division and competition, which was not the way of herders. With ownership of land comes inequality and slavery, and lying, and cheating, as Genghis Khan pointed out when he told his people to never settle in one place and start accumulating things, and never choose one religion over another. Genghis Khan thought city people were very immoral.

Can we go back to the Sumerian story that became the Hebrew story of Adam and Eve? The Sumerian story tells us of a terrible, very long drought that killed a river, and then there was flooding. Then a return of mild weather that made farming in the valley possible again. A story that recorded important information became nothing but a myth when people forgot the events that began the story, the long drought, and then the flood.

It is important which story we believe. The Sumerian one does not throw us out of an Eden and give us a God's curse that requires us to be saved by Jesus.

Just look at this forum, for example. There are, for example, some prominent posters here who are vocal proponents of charity, humanism, and liberalism. And yet from the way they treat other posters here it's clear that they themselves don't practice what they preach. — baker

But even in instances of the most belligerent replies here, we can really make no substantive claims about people’s real world commitments to ideals. How do we know if people are liberal or charitable in real life? I think it’s far from clear what people practice and from their words alone we have to be wary of interpretations. Do you hold a view that if someone appears irritable and intermittently vicious on a chat forum they must be nasty and hypocritical in life? Or are you just referring to what might appear to be more localised, on line hypocritical behaviours?

Or when the Holy Inquisition condemned people to be burned at the stake: surely the inquisitors considered this an act of "love", no?

One thing I've learned (and the hard way, at that) is that religious/spiritual people tend to have vastly different ideas than I about what constitutes "good" and "bad", "love" and "hate", and so on. To the point like we're from different universes, hence my question to you earlier. — baker

I don't have any questions for God about good or evil. Therefore, I have no answer for you. Love is not good. Love is grace. The Christian's task, in my view, is deification, transformation through connection to divine grace.