discussion and examination of the rational foundations of religion.

[Mike12]

Discussing and examining the rational foundations of Religion. One can see that the early word of mouth or assorted testimonials were very moving for people. The book of "Acts" is the book of the actual work of spreading a Formed Religion to other Nations, peoples, and races besides the Chosen People. In 300 AD the Byzantines put together for the first time what we know as the Books of a standard Bible most used today. Many commonalities between the Hellenist religion of Europe and the religion of Christ can be seen. The Greek god of the underworld hades is defeated and the souls of the dead are released to heaven. The Trinity and Chalcedonian Creed controversies, they reflect how Hercules was made regularly with a woman as a half god from Zeus, while the Divine and Human nature of Christ is inseparable yet unconfused. They met in the ancient town of Nicaea and wrote the Nicene Creed. Nicene Christianity is the name of Christian governance from 300 ad to 800 ad for nearly all Christians. At this time, the Pentarchy associated and tied the Bishop of Rome to the Bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Constantine was Roman Emperor when the Roman Empire was split at that time into Western Roman Empire that fell quickly and an Eastern Roman Empire. Constantine is seen as a Greek or Illyrian. 

Later, Islam removed the power of Bishops from Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. In a paper entitled "Better the Ottoman's Turban than the Pope's Tiara", it is obvious that the Byzantine attempted many times to reconcile and be very similar to the Bishop of Rome, but even with full attempts, there were many invasions by Catholic forces during the Crusades, and today there is a Latin Pentarchy established after the "Latin Empire". That is the name of the Venetians that sacked Constantinople and the Byzantines and placed instead a "Latin Empire". The "Latin Empire" allowed the Pope to claim he also was the "Pentarchy" and there was a Catholic office of the Bishop of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria by 1100 ad. 

The Renaissance was a time when the Muslim attacks of the Byzantines and their capture of Constantinople caused Greek scholars to flee. Renaissance also means Rebirth, a focus on Greek and Roman days. The Greek Scholars spread throughout Europe. The Reformation of John Calvin noted the unity of the Church during Nicene Christianity and that no good Pope had existed after 300 ad. Rather than the Protestant Reformation forming superior groups splintering even further, most know this isn't the case whatsoever. Calvinism is tied squarely to Reformed Church and Presbyterian Churches. Presbyterians never used the word Presbyterian to describe themselves. As is often the case, academics assigned "Byzantine" for Eastern Romans where they would call themselves the true "Romans". The Bishop's War makes a distinct tradition of disunity due to the control of Bishops that is notable within the Reformed Church. 

The Great Awakenings occurred with Revivalism causing a wide range of other very disjointed and splintering groups in America. A President of the United States Dwight Eisenhower remarked how Presbyterianism should be run in the United States making a confusing situation of our "familiar" lines about Religion in America, when a President has successfully led us religiously about a particular Religious moral topic in America. 

That is a rational discussion and examination of the foundation of the religion PCUSA, which I'd accept comment here for this closed topic which are both fully non-soap box rational discussions of the foundation of religion and Thanks! 

 

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

This is not a discussion or even an invitation to discussion. It is a long rambling post with seemingly little purpose than to connect mysticism, a dash of history to... the US? It is like six degrees of Kevin Bacon with an Adderall overdose. Kindly explain what you try to discuss here. Ideally using a much shorter post for starters.

 

 

[Area54]

@Mike12 By "the rational foundations of religion" do you mean the process by which a spiritual concept and its associated memes adapted and evolved in a secular context? If so, why did you not say so? If not, what did you mean by it?

[Mike12]

I'm sure there are many symbols a 7th grader is unfamiliar with on other parts of the forum. They're mainly symbols of communication between experts is how those mathematical or chemical symbols develop between experts. I'm sure they're not all thrown out of here for the 7th grader's level of comprehension and comfort. 4 billion people on this planet are under the umbrella of Religion as rational people. Religion sociologically is not so public, opinionated, and polled as to be a ballot box. You can examine and be versed in religion. Most people see those facts. Some disagreements are currently separating the Catholic and Orthodox, Reformed branches of Nicene Christianity which is 1.5 billion people. 1.1 billion people follow Islam.

@Area54 I can't clearly tell how you were defining that exactly. The rational foundations of religion are constants, provable, and within the world we live, and mostly, can be visited. 

I'm proud of my examination and development of the foundations of Christianity in the post. You can hold it up as History and not need another. It develops the question if the USA were not "persecutorial" even of its ancestors, what may be allowed to be in existence. Do you realize that a President forming your religions without a debate on this internet anywhere I've ever discovered is a Civil Religion only? Its an arm of your Government is the form of PCUSA. 

By the way, "Seekers" of religion probably make up 1% of any of them. What if the Massachussetts State Song was everywhere and My Country Tis of Thee? That's how most countries and places are run. OR what about the Alabama State flag is verifiably a Cross and verifiably Southern Presbyterianism that ended in 1984? Am I unaccountable in Government? I am a State University student unchurched accountable to the Government in my reactions in Presbyterianism to the State. Its as if Religion is in multiple ethnic locations and span many peoples,  a novel concept that is antithetical to the Belhar Confession.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Mike12 said:

@Area54 I can't clearly tell how you were defining that exactly.

That was my complaint to you. I suppose turnabout is fair play.

 

1 hour ago, Mike12 said:

I'm proud of my examination and development of the foundations of Christianity in the post.

Good for you. The pride might be better justified if your audience agree with you. Thus far, I'm not sure that has been achieved. It was an interesting take on the history of Chrisitianity, but contained nothing discernible, to me, concerning the "rational foundations of religion". I suggest you need to change the title, or the content of your post if you wish them to match.

 

1 hour ago, Mike12 said:

It develops the question if the USA were not "persecutorial" even of its ancestors, what may be allowed to be in existence.

This doesn't parse. Do you want to try again?

 

1 hour ago, Mike12 said:

Do you realize that a President forming your religions without a debate on this internet anywhere I've ever discovered is a Civil Religion only? Its an arm of your Government is the form of PCUSA.

That's two more sentences that don't parse. (If you are, as you say you are, a university student you ought to be doing a better job of writing grammatically. )Even if the sentences did parse, I suspect they would make little sense, for I think you are using words with definitions of your own.

Also note that many members here are not Americans. So your state flag references need a little more background.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Area54
Pluralise penultimate paragraph

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Good for you. The pride might be better justified if your audience agree with you. Thus far, I'm not sure that has been achieved. It was an interesting take on the history of Chrisitianity, but contained nothing discernible, to me, concerning the "rational foundations of religion".

Doesn't the constitution, constitute a religion?

All praise the gun...

46 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Doesn't the constitution, constitute a religion?

All praise the gun...

In a few hundred year's, that will be really funny...

[John Cuthber]

17 hours ago, Mike12 said:

Discussing and examining the rational foundations of Religion.

Let me know if you find any "rational foundations of Religion".

[Charles 3781]

28 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Let me know if you find any "rational foundations of Religion".

Don't you think that that Religion does have a rational foundation?  Which is this - it's an attempt to explain why things happen.

Why things don't just happen at random.  Why, for example, the Moon doesn't just exhibit itself in the sky, in a random unpredictable way.  But follows definite rules, which involve a 27 day cycle between the first appearance of a slender crescent "New Moon".  Then its gradual "waxing", through the phases of "Half Moon" to a "Full Moon".  Then the "waning" phases of "Full" to "Half", and fading crescent.

These nightly exhibitions of regular phase-behaviour, must induce a sense of "rationality" in the Universe, don't you think?  Which is what Religion attempts to do  - to provide a reasonable explanation for why some things happen.

[noquacks]

3 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

 

These nightly exhibitions of regular phase-behaviour, must induce a sense of "rationality" in the Universe, don't you think?  Which is what Religion attempts to do  - to provide a reasonable explanation for why some things happen.

I agree, except that it was considered reasonable based on what man knew about biology, earth science, astronomy and chemistry 3000 years ago. It is not considered reasonable today. 

[Charles 3781]

11 minutes ago, noquacks said:

I agree, except that it was considered reasonable based on what man knew about biology, earth science, astronomy and chemistry 3000 years ago. It is not considered reasonable today. 

Yes, but it was a decent first start.  For that, surely it deserves some respect.  I mean, you have to start from somewhere. Religion was a first attempt to organise our way of thinking about the Universe.  Later, we got into Science, which is much better and far more productive.  But the earlier religious ideas should not be despised, or so it seems to me.

[noquacks]

1 hour ago, Charles 3781 said:

Yes, but it was a decent first start.  For that, surely it deserves some respect.  I mean, you have to start from somewhere. Religion was a first attempt to organise our way of thinking about the Universe.  Later, we got into Science, which is much better and far more productive.  But the earlier religious ideas should not be despised, or so it seems to me.

In a way, yes, respect, in context of course. I should think there is a better word for it, perhaps acknowledged, maybe not so much "respect". The problem with the Bible is that too many people still believe much of its content literally. It is full of falsehoods. Therefore, it has no credibility. That doesnt mean we shouldn't understand why it was written  that way, but respect maybe is too strong a choice of a word. Of course, Charles, as you mentioned, since it was the 1st attempt, one should expect that. 

And the main problem today with the Bible is that is seems to have a privileged status, that it is to be questioned. Its only practical use today really is as a required study for English majors/English Literature. It is truly a treasure for that purpose, but little else. 

[Mike12]

7 hours ago, Area54 said:

That was my complaint to you. I suppose turnabout is fair play.

 

Good for you. The pride might be better justified if your audience agree with you. Thus far, I'm not sure that has been achieved. It was an interesting take on the history of Chrisitianity, but contained nothing discernible, to me, concerning the "rational foundations of religion". I suggest you need to change the title, or the content of your post if you wish them to match.

 

This doesn't parse. Do you want to try again?

 

That's two more sentences that don't parse. (If you are, as you say you are, a university student you ought to be doing a better job of writing grammatically. )Even if the sentences did parse, I suspect they would make little sense, for I think you are using words with definitions of your own.

Also note that many members here are not Americans. So your state flag references need a little more background.

This is a thorough atheist job going on. Its about a flat earth, sky god, magic, nonadaptive, no observations today. What if its about the only cultures on earth that developed the unnatural institution of lifelong marriage, burial at death, something you get along with and you're short on time of questioning it? Welcome to the Parish. Anyway... About this post... You know , Dimreepr is incredibly apt about Constitution religion. 

I'd be happy for foreigners, I mean, the few international and reasonable voices to hear from. Maybe everybody here has a different definition on the "rational foundations of religion". Organization! International people should receive Less background. There's the complicated nationalist republics under the tricolor and the Christian collective countries in Europe.

 

 

[Area54]

6 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

This is a thorough atheist job going on.

What is a thorough atheist job going on? Your argument in the OP? My response? The response of other members? The behaviour of society at large? If you were aiming for obscure you hit the target dead centre.

8 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

Its about a flat earth, sky god, magic, nonadaptive, no observations today.

What on Earth (or in heaven!) is that supposed to mean? What is about a flat Earth, etc. Once again you have offered up an ungrammatical sentence that ofuscates your meaning. (And I'm not talking about the missing apostrophe on "Its". That's a common typo that introduces no ambiguity.)

11 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

What if its about the only cultures on earth that developed the unnatural institution of lifelong marriage, burial at death, something you get along with and you're short on time of questioning it?

Many cultures on Earth developed the institution of lifeling marriage, a natural outgrowth of our evolutionary trajectory that required extended ages for childrearing. Burial at death was practised in the palaeolithic, so you are out of whack there too.

Then an again we have your incoherent " you're short on time of questioning it?" which likely means something important to you. It just wasn't important enough for you to take care in converting your thought to writing.

The more I dwell on your post you sound like a manic woo artist. I hope I am mistaken, for I suspect there may be somthing of interest and even value buried in your rambling. Unfortunately it is deeply buried and unless you can bring it to the surface it will shortly be dead.

[Mike12]

@Area54 is going totally insane and projecting psychologically all his problems on another. I just statistically checked that 50% of new marriages end after these pre-arranged Muslim marriages prove not to be suitable matches. There is a built in 50% Muslim divorce rate at less than a year. There's three kinds of marriages and many types of divorce. You can read that Officially at every law office that Islam is practiced in any language throughout the world. Hindus are similar, or Buddhism, or Confucianism... You are here to Not Respect or Notice the Christian values from the 7 virtues and 7 sins in common through all this Nicene Christianity of lifelong marriage imposed from the high power of God through the priesthood pronounced in to you at ceremony, so God has brought together, let no man separate, till death do us part, by the word of Jesus Christ, God. That every divorcee is burning in hell is a short skip and step indeed. 

Atheism has its dogma, its repetitions, its talking points to converts, well and if they Became Officially a Religion they'd be less powerful in the institutions, organization, or anything.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Mike12

[Area54]

23 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

@Area54 is going totally insane and projecting psychologically all his problems on another. I just statistically checked that 50% of new marriages end after these pre-arranged Muslim marriages prove not to be suitable matches. There is a built in 50% Muslim divorce rate at less than a year. There's three kinds of marriages and many types of divorce. You can read that Officially at every law office that Islam is practiced in any language throughout the world. Hindus are similar, or Buddhism, or Confucianism... You are here to Not Respect or Notice the Christian values from the 7 virtues and 7 sins in common through all this Nicene Christianity of lifelong marriage imposed from the high power of God through the priesthood pronounced in to you at ceremony, so God has brought together, let no man separate, till death do us part, by the word of Jesus Christ, God. That every divorcee is burning in hell is a short skip and step indeed. 

Atheism has its dogma, its repetitions, its talking points to converts, well and if they Became Officially a Religion they'd be less powerful in the institutions, organization, or anything.

Manic woo, strong in this one is, young padawan.

[iNow]

Could be a broken bot 

[Mike12]

17 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Manic woo, strong in this one is, young padawan.

I looked that up just to dislike and disprove your false diagnosis. Do you believe all Religion to be a mood altering issue? What is your background anyway? Would it be people who would have agreed with "I Vow to Thee, My Country" at 8 years old? Medieval Total War 1 and 99% Christianity provinces need to be 100%? We definitely know the wrong people today. We had the right people and we have the wrong people today in literature.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

I looked that up just to dislike and disprove your false diagnosis. Do you believe all Religion to be a mood altering issue? What is your background anyway? Would it be people who would have agreed with "I Vow to Thee, My Country" at 8 years old? Medieval Total War 1 and 99% Christianity provinces need to be 100%? We definitely know the wrong people today. We had the right people and we have the wrong people today in literature.

What in God's name are you prattling on about?

[pzkpfw]

So many words, so little meaning.

[moth]

due to several months of insomnia, I saw this the other night. Seems to fit right in here.

 

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’

 

source:

[Area54]

38 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

I looked that up just to dislike and disprove your false diagnosis.

Interesting. You felt an urge to dislike my post, but you could not do so until you had understood it. That shows promise. However, you haven't disproved my diagnosis. By the way if you disproved a false diagnosis you would, logically, be proving the diagnosis. No?

40 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

Do you believe all Religion to be a mood altering issue?

I think religiion can alter the mood of its adherents (and probably, at times, its observers and opponents), but that is not its primary function.

42 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

What is your background anyway?

What is yours? I am an elderly, well educated, financially comfortable, white male with delusions of adequacy.

44 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

Would it be people who would have agreed with "I Vow to Thee, My Country" at 8 years old?

No. It most definitely would not be such a group of people. You seem to have an expectation that everyone who questions you has the characteristic views of a sub-set of American citizens. Such narrow mindedness on your part is limiting your ability to understand any social, cultural or religious phenomenon.

47 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

Christianity provinces need to be 100%? We definitely know the wrong people today. We had the right people and we have the wrong people today in literature.

That way lies disaster and the realisation of Margaret Atwood's fiction. I begin to suspect you are a wrong person to know.

[Mike12]

Everyone literally jumped on a thread to know an author of it as lacking? You could follow along with any google 'timelapse map' of Christianity and think a lot of deep thoughts from my overview on the Mormons, nontrinitarians, adult baptists, don't forget those coptics in egypt.

[zapatos]

15 minutes ago, Mike12 said:

Everyone literally jumped on a thread...

Which caused me to fall and skin my knee...

As I hope you are beginning to see, people on this site value clear communications.

[studiot]

8 hours ago, moth said:

due to several months of insomnia, I saw this the other night. Seems to fit right in here.

 

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’

 

source:

 

Thank you so much. +1

For a long time I have been trying to remember which character said that   -  I thought it was the walrus.

Edited October 21, 2020 by studiot

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Don't you think that that Religion does have a rational foundation? 

I think it does.

17 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Which is this - it's an attempt to explain why things happen.

It's not that though.