Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Well, it took 430 posts, but I suppose in the end the original question " Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God" has finally been answered.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

And this kind of behaviour is why I don't like discussion these things with people anymore.

Same with Jockey's and ScottS's comments. You want to discuss God in a gentlemanly fashion? then leave the sarcastic comments at home. This thread went great for all those pages but just then it went sour.

I'm pulling out.

I fail to see anything that is offensive in any of those posts, especially the sections that you highlighted.

In the end this is the most common argument of the religious, that being feigning be offended and taking their ball home, because they don't want to play. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the devout have no logical arguments left to explain their devotion to a man made religious dogma that requires one to surrender one's freewill, natural inquisitiveness and rational thought or spend an eternity in torture and damnation.

To be fair, the last few posts haven't mentioned God, just the validity of the stories in the bible.

It's one thing to say that you have faith in God, it's entirely different to say that you know that those stories are absolutely factual and accurate.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Well, it took 430 posts, but I suppose in the end the original question " Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God" has finally been answered.

My first interjection into this thread is my answer to the original question. Of course, it is possible to have a discussion on any topic. Of course the nature of the discussion will likely be argumentative unless the participants start from the same point of view. If that is the case, what would be the point? Conversely, if the discussion is between individuals with differing beliefs, an arugument is certain to ensue. However, because the beliefs are all faith based, it is not likely that anyone will change their mind and agree with the other side. Subsequently begging the question, what would be the point? My final answer to the original question is: Yes but I'll abstain because I see no point to such a discussion.

Originally Posted by icedog

However, because the beliefs are all faith based, it is not likely that anyone will change their mind and agree with the other side. Subsequently begging the question, what would be the point?

The point is to have an interesting discussion by sharing ideas with each other. You don't have to have a mindset that if you don't change the other person's mind then there's no point to the conversation. We're a group of members who enjoy each other's company, aren't we? Isn't that why we have a Conversation forum?

It's just a nice place to share ideas. When we keep it nice

Originally Posted by Bruno

Ok let's assume for a moment that JC and Moses existed. I have no specific reason to doubt that.

Moses leads his people away, there has been a drought and the river is partially dry. Dry enough to make it across. Sometime later the pharaoh decides he wants those escapees back, and -having a substantial distance to make up- mounts horses and chariots, and sets off.
Horses and chariots get stuck in the swamp/mud, some people die in the ensuing chaos.
They decide to call it a day and return home, determined to come back when they are better prepared.
Meanwhile, the water is coming back so after 2 weeks, the pharaoh decides to cut his losses.

Have you ever doen the experiment where 10 persons sit in a circle, and the first one whispers something to the second, the second to the third, and by the time the tenth person says out loud what he heard, it has nothing to do with what the first person said?
Do you also know that eye witness reports are the most unreliable in a court case as solid proof?

Now lets inject 50 years of telling the previous story by the campfire before it is written down. It then gets transcribed and translated at least a dozen times before the story finally finds its way to the texts that the OT as we know it was compiled from.

From a rather bland story we end up with magic. The bible (OT and NT) are books, compiled by people with a strong bias, including texts that have been based on decades or centuries of hearsay and several translations and transcriptions. And the texts that didn't meet the bias were discarded and destroyed, further coloring the final story.

So assuming that the bible is a factual description of events is unrealistic, and there is not real reason to believe that the sea parted the exact moment Moses raised his arms, and that the water subsequently rushed back to swallow the pharaoh like that scene in Lord of the Rings where the nazgul are wiped away when Arwen summons the water.

Other evidence to support such conclusions with regards to the passing down of folk tails are commonalities with regards to various religions throughout time, a prime example is the virgin birth, the vast majority of religions contain a virgin birth. The ancients seem to have a real thing for virgin births back in the day, amazingly they don't seem to happen now that we have a scientific understanding of reproduction.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

To be fair, the last few posts haven't mentioned God, just the validity of the stories in the bible.

It's one thing to say that you have faith in God, it's entirely different to say that you know that those stories are absolutely factual and accurate.

That would make one a Deist as opposed to Religious (believing in a Church and the dogma it contains).

If ones chooses to not believe in the stories, then why would one believe in the God those stories are about?

Originally Posted by icedog

My first interjection into this thread is my answer to the original question. Of course, it is possible to have a discussion on any topic. Of course the nature of the discussion will likely be argumentative unless the participants start from the same point of view. If that is the case, what would be the point? Conversely, if the discussion is between individuals with differing beliefs, an arugument is certain to ensue. However, because the beliefs are all faith based, it is not likely that anyone will change their mind and agree with the other side. Subsequently begging the question, what would be the point? My final answer to the original question is: Yes but I'll abstain because I see no point to such a discussion.

That is not totally true, as debating a subject forces one to look at and understand ones own beliefs as well as the the ideas and beliefs from the other position. Many people have turned to faith for their own reasons just as many have turned away by examining their beliefs and finding them not compatible. So no discussion is pointless.

Unfortunately some take offense by the act of even being questioned about their beliefs and the fact that others don't believe them.

Originally Posted by Hutch

The ancients seem to have a real thing for virgin births back in the day, amazingly they don't seem to happen now that we have a scientific understanding of reproduction.

Yeah, something like that would have to be a miracle, wouldn't it?

The point is to try and understand the pov of the other person, and the reasons for it.
I had a good friend (ex colleague in the Netherlands) who is a very devout catholic.
I've discussed religion with him for hours and hours, and he learned my reasons for thinking the way I do, and I learned his.

The fundamental reason why we could reach an understanding is that he -as I- was aware of the factual history of his religion. I.e. we could discuss the changes that were made to christianity over the millenia, the bible, the gospels, catholic doctrine, ... and neither of us had to argue about the facts surrounding those things, because we both knew and accepted them.

The significance of those facts and the motivation behind the changes is where we disagreed, but we could follow each others reasoning.
What also helped was that neither of us was offended bythe other person casting doubt on their beliefs, but rather took it is a challenge to explain.

Reasoned debate is not possible with people who accept their holy writings as pure fact, just because other people have done the same. There are people who even believe genesis is to be taken literally.
There are even christians who make the claim that the King James bible is 100% the 'Word Of God' because the final translation was divinely inspired. So all the millenia of hearsay, translation and transcription errors worked out to be the turth as God intended it to be written down. End of discussion.