Kellerman

And you have specific knowledge of how the Bible was compiled. What the politics were of the era, what was included, excluded, altered before the very human, very political organization approved and produced the form that we know?? The Quran is also very old. Not as old, but that's only because Islam is more recent. The history of how it was put together is far more documented though, so that's why I say it's an excellent view into how a book like that gets produced. I don't know if you've ever tried to coordinate a large group of people to produce an important consensus document. But it's like herding cats.

And the religious organizations who murdered indigenous children has nothing to do with faith either. Just because something is religious doesn't mean it's holy. ETA: there's a HUGE difference between being inspired by the words of Jesus and how that has been wielded by HUMANS throughout history to exert control and power over others. The same with Islam. The histories of the two religions are very interesting in terms of comparing and contrasting. If you want to speak of your personal perspective, faith, inspiration, etc, by all means. That's personal, and you are the foremost expert on that. But if you want to speak to *human history*, which is what religion is, then it's best to be extremely well informed if you want to try and educate others.

Also, why would someone reduce physics to being just knowable science? There's so much that's astounding when it comes to what we know about physics, and what we know is already mind blowing. To reduce that seems disingenuous. One person can stand in as much awe and philosophical stupor of physics as someone else does of God or whatever. Dan's take on physics seems reductive.

I've "looked it up". I've studied Islam and Christianity in detail for decades. I firmly disagree with this.

That's not at all what scientists mean when they posit a lack of free will. And Romansh is entirely correct that sentience has nothing to do with free will. Theoretically, the concept goes that all thoughts that you have are reactions. All reactions have a basis, therefore if all factors influencing the reaction were knowable, then all reactions, and therefore all thoughts would be just a knowable product of the influencing factors. Basically *something* makes you think whatever it is that you think. I won't get further into it because I genuinely don't care, but I studied the brain and cognition specifically. I'm not at all arguing one way or another, because again, I so don't care, but your argument that sentience has anything to do with free will doesn't really hold up. I get why you're saying it, but it's really not what people are talking about when they argue this concept scientifically. Note, I am *not* saying anyone is correct, I couldn't care less about free will, just that the foundational assumptions you seem to be making about cognition aren't.

For me, I personally learned A LOT from studying the history and development of Islam as a religion. There is so much more documentation of how religious texts came about at that time, so it gives a remarkable insight into what the compilation of the Bible could have been like. I try to never forget that the Bible is a human document.

Start your own informal spiritual meet up group? I met an Anglican minister from the Ottawa area who holds weekly pub nights, I think she calls it Suds and Scripture or something like that.

Yeah, our Prime Minister was raised Catholic and his father, a previous Prime Minister was known as a "Catholic Intellectual", yet his father is famous for saying that the government should stay out of the bedrooms of the people, and his son just very publicly blasted the Catholic Church and the Pope in particular. We have a significant historical Christian divide between French and English Canada with French Catholicism prevailing in one group and Anglican/United/etc sects prevailing in the other, so any politician promoting their particular religious affiliation would have been politically alienating to one side or the other. I suspect that's why religion has been so downplayed historically in Canadian politics. As such, we don't really have a big religious lobby in politics, and the churches generally just don't have a lot of power here. Which makes faith a really personal matter for people here, not so much a sociopolitical identity, and definitely not nearly as much of a loaded topic. I think that's quite common in developed countries though, to me the manifestation of Christianity in the US seems kind of unique and strange and more similar to the religious regimes in the middle East.

We have plenty of hate and racism here, we just have a different culture. We don't have the free speech absolutism that the US does and we don't have strong evangelical Christian presence, especially not in politics. So Christianity occupies a very different role in our culture.

Canada.

Also, just FTR, I never specified the gender of my spouse.

I'm currently actively seeking out other spiritual people because almost everyone in my life is atheist. I have no preference for religious/spiritual people. If you want to call me an atheist, go ahead. I really don't mind. I consider myself as open to everything, but believing in not much specifically. I'm just not buying that any human can tell me what God is. Is the feeling of the divine an illusion? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not overly concerned about it. You don't seem to feel it, which is fine. But you seem to be looking for anyone who does feel it to justify it to you in a way that you are willing to accept. I can't do that, and I don't care to. I don't need you to understand my spirituality, nor is there any need for you to. I can't relate to what parents talk about when they talk about their love for their children being different from anything they've ever felt before, and that nothing anyone explained to them ever prepared them for it. I don't get it, and if no one could prepare them for it, then I don't assume that anyone could explain to me in a way that I can empathize with, but I get that they experience it. The difference is that being a former neuroscientist who has given lectures on the hormonal and neurological changes or parenting, I can see a rational, objective explanation, but that may or may not be the extent of the explanation, that may just be what I'm able to perceive. I see spirituality the same way. Perhaps it's just bundles of hormonal and neurological responses that humans evolved to have over time because "faith", whatever it is, is evolutionarily advantageous. Maybe it isn't. I have my profound spiritual experience that gives me faith in a divinity and interconnectedness that I can see expressed in multiple world religions. You don't. I can never explain it to you if you don't feel it, but I can easily explain it to others who experience what appears to be the same thing. Perhaps my experience is nothing more than vestigial neurological nonsense, perhaps it's more. I really don't worry about that part too much, because I don't think it matters, and I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know some truth that others should be persuaded to agree with.

Yeah, I see no need to participate in a church unless what you are specifically looking for is a church community. I don't necessarily find community churches to be the best source of high-level spiritual discourse. I have a group of ministers/retired ministers that I've started talking to regularly though. Half of them are also retired scientists, engineers, etc, like myself. So that's been really gratifying, to explore concepts of spirituality with people who like to be *very* educated about the things they discuss. My whole point is that you don't need Christianity, but you also don't need to fully reject it or religion as a whole if you don't want to. There's a whole world between the crappy Christianity that turned you off versus rejecting all manifestations of religion in the world. The world is just too bid, filled with too many ideas for people who've rejected much of organized religion to not be able to find a space for themselves within it. That's not to say I have any issue with atheism. I totally support anyone who feels no presence of the divine and has no interest in it. But what I do find sad are all of the people who obviously want to connect on that front and feel that they can't because they feel there is no place for them. That simply isn't true. I will repeat though, I see no need for anyone to have to be part of any church or any organized religion. It's not even remotely necessary, even for those who are very spiritual.

The Christian denomination I'm part of is super chill with pretty much any beliefs, even atheism. The basis of their philosophy is that God is an unknowable mystery, and what really matters is love and compassion. Christianity isn't a monolith, so just because you haven't found a version of it that fits you doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that some other exploration of spirituality wouldn't work for you. What really opened my eyes was studying Islam and seeing how vastly broad the interpretations of it could be. Two groups can look at the exact same writings and history and draw wildly different conclusions depending on how they choose to analyze the context. Once I was able to see Islam through a lense that diametrically opposed positions can be drawn from the same content, it really opened me up to the possibility of a version of Christianity that might actually work for me. My Church has indigenous literature study groups, they share space with a progressive Islamic group, they have a rainbow flag out front and March in the gay pride parade, and they have an openly atheist minister in one of the other congregations. They're not in the business of telling anyone what to believe.

The wonders of the universe basically are my "God". I have no concept of a discrete being, only a vague sense of the energy and interconnectedness of all things. Perhaps nonsense, perhaps not. I don't claim to know anything or have any capacity to define "God", nor do I think any religion has that power either. I find commonalities among most religions in the world, a consistent concept below the surface nonsense that I relate to. I can reject the details of any particular religion while still finding a basis of spirituality within them. I couldn't before, but I can now. I identify with Christianity not because I hold the religion in particularly high regard, but because regionally where I am, the group of people who most share my values and philosophical perspectives are Christians, but that's just a demographic thing. I'm technically Jewish, but not a fan of rules. I deeply connect with a lot of the teachings of Mohammed, but there just aren't Muslim groups in my area that fit with my personal perspectives. Buddhism is great, but it's more a way of feeling connected to the world. So it was a great gateway into spirituality. I am deeply and profoundly moved by much of the Indigenous spirituality, especially in how it reveres nature as equal to humans. I would say I came back to spirituality through years of trying to understand Indigenous Canadian culture. However, being a white settler, there's no way I can claim that spirituality as my own, I can be affected by it, but it's not my culture. However, I bring a lot of that Indigenous way of knowing to my practice of Christianity, which works really well since my particular denomination is heavily involved with and influenced by the Indigenous. I've also found spiritual inspiration in countless pagan traditions, and Hinduism, although I don't have nearly the level of education about it that I do about other religions and cultures. The official stance of my church is that God is unknowable. The conclusion a lot of people make is to then say that logically then there's no point in believing. I don't disagree, I don't believe in anything when it comes to God. Nor do I think any form of faith is rational. What I've discovered, for myself, is a sense of connectedness in the world, and a compassion and love for all living things that is constantly challenged. I was a staunch atheist and never wanted any part of this "faith" BS, and fought it pretty hard, but here I am. I don't need anyone to agree with me. I don't need to convince anyone of my version of divinity. I just enjoy talking to others who also feel it. Perhaps we're all just experiencing a collective illusion/delusion, but regardless, I'm not overly concerned. ETA: I should explain that I found "God" or "faith" or whatever, through pain. Severe, unrelenting, life ruining, incomprehensible, unmanageable pain. It's ironic that suffering makes most people question their form of God, mine made me find it.

This was my exact same experience. I had a horrible experience with exposure to an evangelical church as a kid. I'm in Canada, so it was very different from the US in terms of the specific values they were promoting. Still, they were quite dogmatic, and I didn't like the concepts of God that they were teaching. I constantly felt church members were being told how to think as opposed to being encouraged to think for themselves. It took me decades to not cringe at the word "Jesus" after that.

Welcome. There's no need to equate Christianity with conservative evangelical values. That's just one group with one set of opinions and political beliefs. As much as they want to, they don't get to dictate what Christianity is, not for me and not for you if you don't want them to. Don't let them define it for you if you don't want them to. There are many, many forms of Christianity around the world, if you *want* to keep your faith, you can absolutely do so in line with your values if that's what you want to do. I was a staunch atheist for years. When I started finding faith last year, it took me a long time to find a church that was compatible with my values, which are pretty much in direct opposition to the values of the American evangelical churches.

Exactly. That's sort of my point. You *can't* really read the Bible literally. The people who claim to do so are actually being taught an interpretation of the Bible and then being sold on the concept of that interpretation being literal. If I took a person who had no exposure to Christianity, gave them a Bible, and asked them to interpret it, there's no way they would come up with the same "literal" interpretations as most of the churches that claim literalism. It's ideology, plain and simple.

Funny, I was just mentioning this in another thread, but I find this type of Bible worship to be a pretty blatant form of idolatry. It's a book, written, edited, and translated along the way by humans. That would require the belief that God directly wrote through the hands of every writer, editor, and translator of the Bible. Also, how does it account for the multiple different versions? Changing words does change meanings, also the meanings of words changes over time. So even if it does stay perfectly the same, then those words read 100 years ago can literally mean something different today. They tied to solve that problem with Qur'an, which cannot be translated and still be considered scripture. But that means every year that passes makes the content harder and harder to understand, and easier to misinterpret because the meaning of language changes over time. In my other response I mentioned David and Goliath. What is a slingshot? These days it's a y-shaped weapon with a stretchy part, and maybe an arm rest. You could kill a squirrel with one. Back in the day though it was a devastating weapon that was swung above the head and as powerful as a hand gun. Change the meaning of a word and you change the story. So okay, the language of the Bible maybe has to change over time for new generations to be able to understand its meaning. But then God needs to step in and control the hands that make those updates too. Okay, so people are believing that no matter who does it, whenever the Bible needs translating or updating of its language, that God always makes sure it's done the way God wants. God is an attentive micro-manager on the book publishing front. But that also means that whatever version of the Bible you read, that's the version God wanted you to read??? So, like, God puts the best Bible for you to interpret in your path??? Or is it that no matter what Bible you read, God will magically imbue you with the capacity to interpret it the way you should...? Well, obviously that can't be true since so many people read the same book and interpret it differently, even people trying to "take it literally" have different interpretations depending on their culture. Also, why can't Paul be mentally ill? Can you not take the Bible literally if one of the HUMANS within it was mentally ill? Meaning, just because the writing of a person is included in the Bible, does that automatically mean that God wants us to unquestioningly have faith in that person as themselves infallible? Again, that sounds a lot like idolatry. If someone literally tells me they spoke to God, I can choose to believe them and take their word that what they've repeated is from God, but that doesn't mean I need to worship that person. That person is still a fallible human being. Like, cool that he got to be God's messenger, but he could be a total jerk for all I know. Paul might have kicked puppies on his travels, we don't know. Being in the Bible doesn't mean he wasn't a deeply flawed person just like every other human who has ever existed...or are these Bible literalists forgetting that whole things about EVERYONE being sinful? So everyone who has ever written a single word of the Bible has been a sinful, flawed person, but the books they produce are magically not ever affected at all by that sin??? Yeah...okay. My take is that the Bible is an incredibly special book that has persisted in relatively consistent form for a very, very long time, and never fails to inspire huge swaths of people around the world across space and time. To me, there's something in there. It's a view of the divine, but seen through a very human lense, as that's the only way we can try to understand what little of divinity that we can try and grasp.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but based on what you quoted, yes, all religious interpretation is human, made up by people, and deeply affected by context. Truth is never permanent. You need both facts and context to ascertain any degree of truth, and understanding of both tend to erode over time. Is the story of David and Goliath about a small man standing up to a giant, or is it about an expert marksman basically bringing a gun to a knife fight? Depends on the facts and the context. The story is just a short, and there's rarely one reasonable interpretation of any story. Information is never complete and context is never fully known, so all interpretations of all information are limited, and flawed. That's why I don't get what your point is. Are you suggesting that there's a problem with making up interpretations as we go along? That's literally what we do with absolutely everything in the world. We interpret as best we can, and when things change, we change the interpretation, or the interpretation is changed for us by context. Like if I hold 'progressive' political views now and refuse to change them with changing times, they will become staunchly 'conservative' values as the world changes around me. So am I politically consistent or am I becoming more conservative as I age? Also, on the broader scale of what we call "factual knowledge", just because an interpretation is co-signed by a major institution or community doesn't mean it's not essentially collectively "made up". All interpretations are to a degree. I have a world history book on my shelf written in the 1800s. It's amazing to read about history from a pre-world war perspective. It's the same ancient history as in text books written today, but it's a very different interpretation. I highly recommend reading very old history books. It's enlightening. So yes, I firmly believe in seeing all human sources of interpretation of religion as highly fallible and not able to represent themselves as authorities on my spirituality or anyone else's. Humans can't define spirituality for other humans. I know the Catholics wouldn't agree, but that's my position on it. This is actually built into Judaism and Islam; rabbis and imams are religious scholars, not human conduits to God. They aren't in a position of authority over your relationship with God, that's between you and God. They can just provide expertise of a scholar, help interpret scripture, but not interpret for you what your truth should be. At least, that's how they're supposed to function. It's obviously not the case in practicality, because most people have a hard time not looking to other powerful humans in positions of authority as the "source of truth." Humans generally *want* to partially worship other humans and have faith in their very human interpretations. Humans like partially worshipping other humans in power and internalizing their interpretations as fact. One of the hardest things in the world is being comfortable with no one having a damn clue what's actually going on. It's terrifying. Truth-tellers are very comforting. A lot of Christianity maintained this concept of ministers as spiritual leaders, not just religious scholars. It comes from Catholicism, which leaned into that HARD. Its classic idolatry, in my opinion, and the irony is very rich.

Lol, even people who claim to "take the Bible literally" only pick and choose what to take literally and how to interpret it "literally". I written text had one way to be interpreted, as wouldn't have lawyers. So even things that are meant to be taken literally are up for interpretation, and debated at the highest levels of subject matter experts, and even then, they often disagree. AND, their meanings change over time. So anyone who thinks that the Bible is "facts" and that that entitles them to be the arbiters of truth as to how other people should behave, well, they're just either disingenuous or an idiot who fell for that BS from a disingenuous person. Somewhere up the chain of BS, someone is disingenuous and knows that that what they're saying is total crap designed to try and control people through collective shaming. These "literalists" didn't read the Bible and come up with these interpretations themselves. They were TOLD how to interpret the Bible by OTHER PEOPLE.

Well, for one, I don't give much thought to an after-life, because linear time is a human perceptual experience. I also don't think that human consciousness can necessarily grasp all that much, so I just accept what I cannot understand, including meaning. What I can grasp though is that very happy people don't tend to worry too much about the meaning of their lives. So I focus more on being a happy, thriving person than fussing too much about what I'm "supposed" to do. I feel happier and more comfortable with my own existence the more I feel compassionate for all people. The message of loving everyone, even those who hurt us is what resonates most with me. I spent years understanding the psychological and neurological basis of behaviour. Understanding is the basis of compassion, and compassion is the basis for dignity and respect, which are the basis for love. So that's my purpose, to try and understand, feel compassion for, and respect all people. Does any of it matter to anyone beyond me and the people I interact with? Who knows! Who cares??

I don't understand the purpose of this? There are a lot of Christians on this site who find a lot of value in the Bible. I have huge issues with how many Christians use the Bible as a justification for abusing others. I despise the oppression that has happened in the name of the church. That doesn't mean I hate the Bible.

What do I believe in? I believe that every single human being deserves love and compassion from every other human being. I believe that that's the main message from Jesus. The more connected each of us feels to all others, the more we can tap in to the compassion that allows us to love even those who hurt us. That's why I don't pray to God as a discrete, superior being. That's not how I conceptualize the divine, which is why I don't talk in my prayers. My concept of God or divinity is aligned with parts of many different religions and forms of spirituality. I identify with Christianity because of Christ, because the general message from Jesus resonates with me. That's probably just because that's what I was raised with. Had I grown up in Afghanistan, it would probably be Islam that I most identify with. I don't really subscribe to any version of faith that any human or human organization dictates to me. I don't believe that one particular religious group has it right and all the others have it wrong. I believe that the religions of the world, at their inception tapped into the realm of the divine and did their awkward, human best to interpret it. And then societies did what they do best: perverted those messages into tools of power. Religious organizations are very, very human, so I interpret most of it as a lense through which to view the world, not sources of authority or absolute truth.