This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
More then likely not; no matter what you compare a religion to, you are going to make someone angry in some way.
This is exactly my point. Well said Adamsm. I just add on that there is no need to make comparisons.
You're religion is like X. Not going to help any discussion.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I do have to wonder if literary classics of this day and age would be considered religious scripture if given enough time and attention by people to actually impose it as something divine.
The fact that none of them were written by designated holy men for the express purpose of being used as scripture makes me think no.
There are religions that have started in recent times that do have scriptures or religious texts associated with them, specifically written to be just that. The Church of Scientology definitely does, and I'm pretty sure the Unification Church does as well. Without discussing the religions themselves, I think that's a pretty close model of how a religion starts and spreads. I think that the longer a religion is around, the more validity it gains. Some die out, others spread and get stronger. Even if you're religious, you believe that only your religion is correct, so this would be a good predictive model for all other religions.
I expect that, based on the level of organization and cohesion in the Church of Scientology, it will become more legitimized as time goes on, and the intensity of the religion will lessen as the membership goes up.
Most religions as they are practiced today are more flexible and more forgiving than they were at their inception. Churches that 100 years ago would demand you be excommunicated for a divorce will now not bat an eyelash at it. Religions that used to demand a 10% tithe now have tithing suggestions. Religions that have in the recent past demanded harsh punishment for moral infractions and the second-class treatment of women are now practiced by millions in such a way that those things are no longer a part of the way they live their lives and follow their beliefs.
Not that these modern religions are advocating women having no rights, or anything like that, but their restrictions may seem extreme to someone who is not a member (the church arranging marriages, for example). I think that in time some of those policies will be toned down, and in 200 years the practices of people of those religions won't be too different than the practices of many modern adherents of more traditional faiths.
Post by
Gone
See that alone right there is wrong. The ministry of magic and Sauron were created in works of fiction, fully aknowledged by the authors. So you dont even have the word of mouth of those who created them, that their real. Then take religious texts, which are stated by those who wrote them to be real experiences/visions/etc. Then you also have the words of other people who have claimed to have personally spoken with God, or experienced miracles/out of body experiences.
Now are these plausable as solid proof in a court of law or a scientific debate? No, you can drive a truck through the holes in that. But thats not my point. The point is your literal statement that there is just as much proof of the existance of storys that are 100% fiction, as storys that may or may not be true, is wrong.
And also this takes me right back to what I said earlier, whether you believe its as cerdible or not, I think you can tell (unless you have no self awareness) what is going to offend people by comparison and what will not. Even half of the so called "atheist crowd" agreed that this kind of example shouldnt be used, but still theres one or two people who resist on doing so.
Like I said I feel like when you say something like that your either mentally slow or something. Or you are fully aware what your going to say will offend people, and go ahead and say it anyway.
Post by
Monday
There are religions that have started in recent times that do have scriptures or religious texts associated with them, specifically written to be just that.
I'm well aware of this. However, a large portion of these religions weren't started by books that were made to be entertaining or the like. Scientology is somewhat of an outlier.
Post by
Orranis
Ok. I'm not trying to say you're wrong. I'm not taking personal offense. Again, my only goal is to demonstrate WHY you are encountering the issue you are. I understand perfectly WHY you use the unicorn example. I get it. I'm amazed, though, that you don't understand WHY religious people would take offense to it. Don't explain to me what the unicorn example means. I already get it. No one is somehow confused as to how the unicorn example applies. There is no proof for either God or unicorns. EVERYONE gets that. Stop making that point. Just, attempt, to place yourself in the shoes of the receiving end of the unnecessary example that is being made.
Imagine two people were getting married and you mocked them and said there was no proof of their love, and they might as well believe in unicorns. Yeah, that's a good point. You cannot prove love. But, what I'm trying to explain to you is why offense might be taken. That's the mystery that needs to be cleared up.
Imagine five people were sitting in a room, three at one table (me and a couple) and two at the other, and then the couple sitting next to me pointed at the other couple and said they find it ridiculous to believe they love each other, and then I asked them why it's any more ridiculous than believing that the two in front of me loved each other?
At what point does an example become unnecessary? I understand why people would take offense at it, but not more so than the teachers that are wrong, get called out on, and punish students who correct them. I'm not trying to relate the two, I'm trying to show how I can understand how a statement would be offensive without agreeing it is.
Furthermore, I think you have to understand that we are not forcing anyone to read the discussion. If you feel offended or uncomfortable in a debate thread, the most advisable thing to do would be to leave it. Tons of people on this forum do so.
Ryjacork: The existence of something in a fictional book does not lessen the probability of it existing in the real world. If I wrote a story, having never been to or heard of France, about the Eiffel Tower, and labeled it fiction, the Eiffel Tower would not cease to exist. Regardless of whether or not J.K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter, there is still an equal amount of evidence (I say evidence and not chance, because they both either exist or they don't so there is no real 'chance' involved, but rather our perception of it) that either wizards exist or God exists.
Post by
Patty
See that alone right there is wrong. The ministry of magic and Sauron were created in works of fiction, fully aknowledged by the authors. So you dont even have the word of mouth of those who created them, that their real. Then take religious texts, which are stated by those who wrote them to be real experiences/visions/etc. Then you also have the words of other people who have claimed to have personally spoken with God, or experienced miracles/out of body experiences.
Now are these plausable as solid proof in a court of law or a scientific debate? No, you can drive a truck through the holes in that. But thats not my point. The point is your literal statement that there is just as much proof of the existance of storys that are 100% fiction, as storys that may or may not be true, is wrong.
And also this takes me right back to what I said earlier, whether you believe its as cerdible or not, I think you can tell (unless you have no self awareness) what is going to offend people by comparison and what will not. Even half of the so called "atheist crowd" agreed that this kind of example shouldnt be used, but still theres one or two people who resist on doing so.
Like I said I feel like when you say something like that your either mentally slow or something. Or you are fully aware what your going to say will offend people, and go ahead and say it anyway.
If I write a Fantasy novel and say it's 100% accurate, would that be more compelling for you? I'm talking about objective, tangible evidence. Not "Take my word for it", which is what it is when an author says "what I have written is completely true!".
You presented your argument to me with examples including Harry Potter. I answered the question accordingly. If you would be offended by the answer given using the specific examples you raised, I would suggest that you rephrase the question rather than label my answer "offensive". I also like the double standard of my post being offensive followed by you suggesting I was "mentally slow or something". Very compelling.
Post by
Gone
Regardless of whether or not J.K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter, there is still an equal amount of evidence (I say evidence and not chance, because they both either exist or they don't so there is no real 'chance' involved, but rather our perception of it) that either wizards exist or God exists.
Patty, whome I was responding to, didnt say "Wizards" he said "The Ministry of Magic and Sauron". These are specific examples of characters created in a particular fiction, they have no backing in any previously existing myths or legends, and are regarded 100% even by their own creator as fiction. As aposed to ancient religious texts, which (regardless of how you perceive their credibility now) were written to be taken as non fiction.
Theres a difference, call it slim if you want, but its there.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
There are religions that have started in recent times that do have scriptures or religious texts associated with them, specifically written to be just that.
I'm well aware of this. However, a large portion of these religions weren't started by books that were made to be entertaining or the like. Scientology is somewhat of an outlier.
Oh I agree- I'm not saying there will be a "Guardians of the 50 Shades of Gray" or anything. I was merely stating that there are modern examples of what Patty wanted to see, with a specific person intentionally beginning a religion with a modern book, and so he wouldn't have to go back in time. I was saying that there were examples that fit the mold better.
I don't think many people accidentally start a religion. I could see maybe someone who wrote a philosophical book about how to live your life to be happy, or to make the world a better place, or some kind of self-actualization book might write something that inspires enough people to become a way of life, and eventually a religion. But I don't think any straight fiction pieces would have that happen.
Post by
Gone
I also like the double standard of my post being offensive followed by you suggesting I was "mentally slow or something". Very compelling.
I wasnt calling you mentally slow per say. I was saying that if somebody is told over and over that using some mythical creature and comparing its credibility to their religion is offensive, and they continue to do it, then there are only two explinations, as I see it.
1) Mentally slow: They just dont get that what their doing/saying is offensive, even though theyve been told by several people it is.
2) Or, they know what their going to say will probably offend people, and proceed to do it anyway. Which makes them obnoxious or rude.
I wasnt refering to you, i was refering to people who continue to persist in using these examples, in the same thread where they were already called out on it more than once.
If I write a Fantasy novel and say it's 100% accurate, would that be more compelling for you
It would be more credible than a fantasy novel that you wrote and said was 100% fiction. Im not saying its by a large margin since its only the word of one person, but theres still a difference. And religious scriptures werent fantasy novels anyway, most were written as an account of real experiences the author claimed to have.
And I wanna be very clear here, nobody picks a religion based on the credibility of somebody elses words in a book, that means nothing to them. Nobody whos opinion I would respect at any rate. There are many other things that draw people to a particular faith, and help them find the truth of it in their own heart.
I was just using that to show that yes, religious scripture has more credibility than a ficticious fantasy work, or an example somebody thinks up off the top of their head.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Ryja- as a point of clarification, do you believe that ALL religious texts have more validity than fiction, or just your own?
Post by
Gone
@Ryja- as a point of clarification, do you believe that ALL religious texts have more validity than fiction
I used to. Now that Im a Christian its hard for me to look at things objectivley sometimes, mostly in terms of other beliefs that clash with my own. I dont think that all religions have equal credibility. I dont like speaking in absolutes because those are always hard or impossible to prove.
But yes, looking objectivley I do think that more or less any writing that was created based on an authors supposed actual experience has more credibility than a work that was created as fiction. It might be a small margin, depending on who you ask, but its there. That shouldnt even be debatable.
Post by
MyTie
I understand why people would take offense at it, but not more so than the teachers that are wrong, get called out on, and punish students who correct them. I'm not trying to relate the two, I'm trying to show how I can understand how a statement would be offensive without agreeing it is.My only goal was to help you understand the reasoning behind the distaste.
Furthermore, I think you have to understand that we are not forcing anyone to read the discussion. If you feel offended or uncomfortable in a debate thread, the most advisable thing to do would be to leave it. Tons of people on this forum do so.
I agree. If people don't like the discussion, then they shouldn't be here. However, that is not license to be intentionally offensive with no purpose but to offend.
Post by
Orranis
I agree. If people don't like the discussion, then they shouldn't be here. However, that is not license to be intentionally offensive with no purpose but to offend.
But nobody's doing that. That was my first point.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Ryja - I was just wondering- I think that there are some people who would disagree that other religions have any more credibility than straight fiction.
I'm not even talking about credibility, when I am discussion the comparisons, though- just applicability. It's not a fair comparison to compare something a large number of people believe with something that no one believes and was never intended to be believed, and so instead of making whatever point someone wanted to make, it just becomes a flame war.
To ask someone how they would feel having to adhere to laws about what freedoms they have because the portion of the population who believed in ghosts thought those actions would upset them and there would be a backlash, makes the point that in a reversed situation, they'd feel really put upon to be restricted according to rules that exist to placate entities that they don't believe even exist.
It however does not convey the same kind of condescension as saying "How would you feel if they passed laws make you donate blood once a year so Edward didn't have to worry about himself and the baby," because that comparison is designed to show that you think the person is absurd and delusional, rather than to show the contrast between what you believe, and what you should be allowed to force on others through law. No one rationally believes that modern fiction is real, and so as soon as you make that comparison, your labeling the other person as irrational.
Post by
MyTie
But nobody's doing that. That was my first point.
Regardless of what people are intending on doing, other people here, myself included, perceive otherwise. I think, if you are seriously not intending on offending, then continue reminding everyone of that, and find ways to have a productive conversation on this very interesting topic.
Post by
hatman555
State that "Religious or political threads are only allowed on the Off-Topic forums and will be
heavily moderated
."
Religious and Political threads are heavily moderated, because the emotions and experiences that those two topics are tied to, often lead people to post things in defense of their views. Defending your views, and expressing yourself is great, but it is not allowed when done at the expense of others. Slandering ones views, character, or experiences in order to defend another's is a weak, and low form of debate. These posts will be moderated.
I would also like to add that analogies do not always equal insults. When analogies are used in mature discussion they can provide a great insight into other people's thoughts. An analogy can be used as a means to express one's thoughts on a common ground; AKA in a way the other person might understand. However, if miss used for the purposes listed above, they have no place in this conversation.
Be mature, and let a civil discussion lead to productive thinking.
Cheers,
Hat(##RESPBREAK##)136##DELIM##hatman555##DELIM##
Post by
hatman555
I would also like to add that anyone posting in the thread should have a close eye on their Wowhead email. Many times a moderator will make contact with you through a message or a warning. You can talk to the moderation team any time by emailing
Cheers,
Hat(##RESPBREAK##)136##DELIM##hatman555##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
Funden - The Book of Mormon was transcribed from gold plates by Joseph Smith. This was given to him by divine intervention. If I have that incorrect, about the gold plates, I believe I'm right that divine intervention caused him to get the words for the book in some manner, word for word.
The Book of Mormon that he produced, however, is partially transcribed from the King James version of the Bible. It wasn't done very well, either. When the writers of the King James version had notes they wanted to add to the version, they italicized those words. Those italizations leaked through into his Book of Mormon. That is why I contend that he didn't get it from divine inspiration, through a hat, as he said he did, but copied at least some of it from the King James version of the Bible. Your thoughts on this?
Whenever the King James translators added a clarifying word or phrase to the text, they placed the phrase in italics to distinguish it from the original. Joseph Smith was obviously aware of this fact, and the majority of his changes to the Biblical text occur as modified or dropped King James italicized phrases. However, this process is inconsistently applied in the Book of Mormon text. Often, we find that a King James clarifying phrase has been left intact in the copied text, even though the phrase was never a part of the original Biblical text.
source
Post by
Monday
My response
.
Post by
OverZealous
My response
.
Orson Scott Card is a mormon? Wow, the more you know.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.