• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Theological Mature Discussion anyone?

RedSavage

Rattlesnake Flavored
When I think of gods and beings of old I think of Lovecraft. I think of Cthulhu. Because in all reality, if we are to believe that an inter-dimensional being capable of creating the universe and life as we know it, we can't dismiss the possibility that said being exists in a form and state of thought nigh unrecognizable to us as mere human beings. There's an inherent arrogance, I think, in the idea of "God made up in his image".


Much less be able to write down his/her/its desires in words that are comprehensible.

I've always been partial to the physical forms of madness, texts of madness, where in rare cases where gods have revealed themselves or imparted some kind of wisdom through ink, the mere sight and attempt of comprehension of it is enough to bend the mind of any normal sane living being into a gibbering mess.

Of course I've always had a flair for the dramatic so I know this is probably all in my head canon.

Slightly relevant: http://i.imgur.com/H0peWji.gifv
 
Last edited:

Filter

ɹǝʇlᴉℲ
I think God can "speak" to people through different religions, through nature, through circumstances etc. Even through a lack of religion if lack of religion helps them be a better person. Life can only be lived subjectively, and I would be surprised if God doesn't take this into account. I don't believe in a God devised by committees, holy books, or focus groups. In fact, I think when we try to attribute specific traits to God we tend to lose sight of God. Even the word "God" is insufficient and often misunderstood. My views aren't consistent with any religion known to me, but I do think there's a degree of truth to one's religion when it brings things like hope, joy, patience, nonviolence etc. Although I'm not sure if there's an afterlife, I wouldn't be surprised if it involves living this one over and over again all the while making slightly different decisions and being subjected to slightly different circumstances.

Although I agree with scientific findings and results obtained through the scientific method, I don't find science to be incompatible with God. Incompatible with specific texts and interpretations that I don't necessarily agree with anyway? Sure, but there's more to it that. Understanding the dynamics and mechanics of how a system works and evolves doesn't negate its creation.
 

-Sliqq-

Silo
Something interesting for you to look up:

The Hebrew meanings of the names Adam and Eve. It makes more sense when you look with that context in mind.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I think God can "speak" to people through different religions, through nature, through circumstances etc. Even through a lack of religion if lack of religion helps them be a better person. Life can only be lived subjectively, and I would be surprised if God doesn't take this into account. I don't believe in a God devised by committees, holy books, or focus groups. In fact, I think when we try to attribute specific traits to God we tend to lose sight of God. Even the word "God" is insufficient and often misunderstood. My views aren't consistent with any religion known to me, but I do think there's a degree of truth to one's religion when it brings things like hope, joy, patience, nonviolence etc. Although I'm not sure if there's an afterlife, I wouldn't be surprised if it involves living this one over and over again all the while making slightly different decisions and being subjected to slightly different circumstances.

Although I agree with scientific findings and results obtained through the scientific method, I don't find science to be incompatible with God. Incompatible with specific texts and interpretations that I don't necessarily agree with anyway? Sure, but there's more to it that. Understanding the dynamics and mechanics of how a system works and evolves doesn't negate its creation.

Evidence based philosophies change their views based on what's observed, faith based philosophies deny evidence such that belief can be preserved.
 

Filter

ɹǝʇlᴉℲ
Evidence based philosophies change their views based on what's observed, faith based philosophies deny evidence such that belief can be preserved.

Agreed, but components of a system don't contradict their cause. Evidence simply provides further information about the system. If a God concept is inconsistent with the evidence, then I wouldn't be inclined to agree with that God concept.
 
Last edited:

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Agreed, but components of a system don't actually contradict their cause. Evidence simply provides further information about the system. If a God concept is inconsistent with the evidence, then I wouldn't be inclined to call it God.

Consider claims which are deliberately structured such that they are intangible, and cannot be interrogated with evidence.

If these ideas propose no means by which they can be falsified, then however much evidence is gathered to provide 'further support' the idea could still be completely wrong.

It is a form of confirmation bias.
 

Filter

ɹǝʇlᴉℲ
Consider claims which are deliberately structured such that they are intangible, and cannot be interrogated with evidence.

If these ideas propose no means by which they can be falsified, then however much evidence is gathered to provide 'further support' the idea could still be completely wrong.

It is a form of confirmation bias.

We all exhibit a degree of confirmation bias, and our perspective is inherently subjective. I find it fascinating that some individuals consider everything to be evidence of a creator (even the existence of matter might be considered evidence for instance), whereas others consider nothing to be evidence, while the rest might consider only certain favorite things to be evidence or lack thereof. Does one try to see the forest, focus on the trees, or think about a bird in a particular tree? People can agree on the same evidence yet draw different conclusions. One's eye will be drawn to certain parts of the body of evidence over other parts, and it then passes through the filter of our own experience. If those differences prevent us from acquiring new information or result in violence I'd say that's a problem. We should be wary of those who demand that we share their their own opinions, or at least take take their views with a grain of salt. Especially if it impedes our progress as individuals or as a species. Whether religious or irreligious, I greatly value the freedom to draw one's own conclusions. Although I should add that the extent to which we actually form our own conclusions is debatable in and of itself.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
We all exhibit a degree of confirmation bias, and our perspective is inherently subjective. I find it fascinating that some individuals consider everything to be evidence of a creator (even the existence of matter might be considered evidence for instance), whereas others consider nothing to be evidence, while the rest might consider only certain favorite things to be evidence or lack thereof. Does one try to see the forest, focus on the trees, or think about a bird in a particular tree? People can agree on the same evidence yet draw different conclusions. One's eye will be drawn to certain parts of the body of evidence over other parts, and it then passes through the filter of our own experience. If those differences prevent us from acquiring new information or result in violence I'd say that's a problem. We should be wary of those who demand that we share their their own opinions, or at least take take their views with a grain of salt. Especially if it impedes our progress as individuals or as a species. Whether religious or irreligious, I greatly value the freedom to draw one's own conclusions. Although I should add that the extent to which we actually form our own conclusions is debatable in and of itself.

No, it's not quite as simple as 'everyone is biased and all claims are subjective.'

Someone who believes that the existence of mass proves that there is a higher power is, quite simply, wrong.

Whereas someone who believes that the phases of Venus show that it orbits the sun, rather than Earth, is unavoidably correct, whatever one's personal biases are.
 
A

Amiir

Guest
I also think that something magnificent, something very powerful kickstarted the whole process. Maybe not God in a traditional sense but a god-like entity, a powerful force, something beyond understanding.

That is truly fascinating isn't it? I think about that from time to time. I admit I wish there were an afterlife but that it all seems too good to be true. It's just wishful thinking to me. Other times I think of religion as a way to try and convince oneself that life doesn't just end: humans want to be immortal and for that they built the concept of afterlife. Humans are unwilling to face the fact that there's most likely not going to be anything beyond death. They can't stand it. I know I can't but I don't try to convince myself of non existent things. Things I personally believe to be non existent, let me stress this out.

@RedSavage: Jesus Christ, kill that thing with fire
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Filter

ɹǝʇlᴉℲ
No, it's not quite as simple as 'everyone is biased and all claims are subjective.'

Of course not. The fact that each of us relates to life subjectively doesn't mean all claims are equally true.

Someone who believes that the existence of mass proves that there is a higher power is, quite simply, wrong.

Your opinion is at odds with their opinion, but it's still an opinion. Philosophical claims are debatable.

Whereas someone who believes that the phases of Venus show that it orbits the sun, rather than Earth, is unavoidably correct, whatever one's personal biases are.

The way the universe functions isn't a matter of opinion. Let's not compare apples to oranges.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Of course not. The fact that each of us relates to life subjectively doesn't mean all claims are equally true.



Your opinion is at odds with their opinion, but it's still an opinion. Philosophical claims are debatable.



The way the universe functions isn't a matter of opinion. Let's not compare apples to oranges.

I think the claim 'the existence of mass proves that god exists' is wrong because it is a non-sequitur. We aren't offered any reason to believe that matter is connected to magical creatures in any way, so why should the existence of one necessitate the other?

The claims 'Honey proves that gnomes exist', 'The sky is blue because the queen of England is a robot' and 'Mass proves that god doesn't exist' all make just as much sense.

This is why all those claims are bullshit. It's not subjective, the claims genuinely are just wrong. The queen of england could be a robot, but even if she were, that would still have nothing to do with the sky's colour. Gnomes could exist, but even if they did, there's no reason to believe that honey is the instrumental bit of proof which shows that they exist.


By comparison 'the phases of venus show that venus orbits the sun' is a coherent claim which is unavoidably true, because we know that phases result from the position of the viewer relative to a line between the planet and the light source/sun. This means that the pattern of observed phases can show how these 3 objects, observer [earth], venus and sun move relative to each other. They show that Venus circles sun, rather than Earth.

This is the kind of proof that would be necessary to show that magical creatures like gnomes or gods exist, or that the queen is a robot.
 

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
'support beam'

*snort* :D

Personally I think the story of Adam and Eve says a lot about god's character. It doesn't want them to eat the fuits of the tree of knowledge, but instead of putting it somewhere safe (or not creating it in the first place...) it puts it right into the garden of Eden.
Also, being omnipotent and omniscient, it knew that they would eat the fruit before it even created them. So the whole thing was an act of futility. Not to mention that god punished them for it even though it knew they would do it and even though it didn't do anything to stop them from doing it.
God should also have known about the snake, but it didn't do anything about that either.
My conclusion is that in this story god actually wanted that to happen. It was its intention from the very beginning. God even commanded them to be "fruitful".

But hey, in my opinion these are still all just stories. Nothing more, nothing less. Stories written in ancient times by people who didn't know any better. It's interesting for sure, but it shouldn't have any sort of impact on us in the 21st century.
 

Astrium

King of the Noodles
I like to wonder if the Bible was just the ancient world's A Song of Ice and Fire ​and then somebody just took it way too far.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
*snort* :D

Personally I think the story of Adam and Eve says a lot about god's character. It doesn't want them to eat the fuits of the tree of knowledge, but instead of putting it somewhere safe (or not creating it in the first place...) it puts it right into the garden of Eden.
Also, being omnipotent and omniscient, it knew that they would eat the fruit before it even created them. So the whole thing was an act of futility. Not to mention that god punished them for it even though it knew they would do it and even though it didn't do anything to stop them from doing it.
God should also have known about the snake, but it didn't do anything about that either.
My conclusion is that in this story god actually wanted that to happen. It was its intention from the very beginning. God even commanded them to be "fruitful".

But hey, in my opinion these are still all just stories. Nothing more, nothing less. Stories written in ancient times by people who didn't know any better. It's interesting for sure, but it shouldn't have any sort of impact on us in the 21st century.

I'd say it was an act of...fruitility.

Some more problems with the genesis story were pointed out to me recently:
-Adam and Eve hear God's footsteps as he walks through the garden, even though God is omnipresent, and therefore doesn't need to walk through the garden; he's already everywhere.
-Adam and Eve are expected to know that eating from the tree of knowledge is evil, but they aren't imbued with the knowledge of what good and evil are until after they've eaten.
-God punishes all of their descendents, even though later in the Bible punishing sons for their fathers' sins is discouraged as evil.

Contradictions all over the place.
 

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
I'd say it was an act of...fruitility.

Some more problems with the genesis story were pointed out to me recently:
-Adam and Eve hear God's footsteps as he walks through the garden, even though God is omnipresent, and therefore doesn't need to walk through the garden; he's already everywhere.
-Adam and Eve are expected to know that eating from the tree of knowledge is evil, but they aren't imbued with the knowledge of what good and evil are until after they've eaten.
-God punishes all of their descendents, even though later in the Bible punishing sons for their fathers' sins is discouraged as evil.

Contradictions all over the place.

Of course it's full of contradictions and mistakes. That is what happens when multiple authors add new parts to the same book over hundreds of years.
 
But hey, in my opinion these are still all just stories. Nothing more, nothing less. Stories written in ancient times by people who didn't know any better. It's interesting for sure, but it shouldn't have any sort of impact on us in the 21st century.

I don't feel dismissing the Bible simply because it is a story is an appropriate response. People can be profoundly affected by the media that they consume and the lessons it tries to impart. The real problem in this case is when people start to assume that this story is in any way a factual account of reality. For example Jurassic Park is a fascinating story that covers such themes as the hubris of man attempting to control nature and much can be gained from discussing and analyzing these themes. However if some one attempted to say that Jurassic Park was a real thing that happened on a private island we would appropriately deem them ignorant because such a thing is not physically possible.

Also one could criticize the Bible for the lessons it tries to teach and boy howdy is there a lot to criticize there. The Old Testament is giant pile of trash and even large portions of the New Testament are highly questionable. However to say we should ignore it just because its a story is no better then being dismissive of any other form of artwork.
 

WolfNightV4X1

King of Kawaii; That Token Femboy
Does nobody want to speak of the concept of reincarnation? I do fancy that I may have been a wolf in a past life. The idea that we all cycle through rebirth feels like it goes well with the pattern of the world.

That...or the native Americans had an interesting belief system that everything in the world has a spirit and a soul, and even though they did hunt and kill many of the animals that they believed possessed souls and spirit as they did they respected their death and used every part of the animal.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Does nobody want to speak of the concept of reincarnation? I do fancy that I may have been a wolf in a past life. The idea that we all cycle through rebirth feels like it goes well with the pattern of the world.

That...or the native Americans had an interesting belief system that everything in the world has a spirit and a soul, and even though they did hunt and kill many of the animals that they believed possessed souls and spirit as they did they respected their death and used every part of the animal.

Reincarnation is wishful thinking based on a misunderstanding of cyclic patterns in nature. :\

I've always wondered how people who believe in Reincarnation can honestly think all sentience is discreetly recycled when the number of sentient creatures alive isn't constant.
Where do the 'new' souls come from? Where do old ones go if there are less creatures alive in the next generation? Some celestial holding pen?
 

Nikolinni

Niko Linni
Reincarnation is wishful thinking based on a misunderstanding of cyclic patterns in nature. :\

I've always wondered how people who believe in Reincarnation can honestly think all sentience is discreetly recycled when the number of sentient creatures alive isn't constant.
Where do the 'new' souls come from? Where do old ones go if there are less creatures alive in the next generation? Some celestial holding pen?

I think it depends on the "System" so to speak. In the original teachings of Buddhism, one was only reincarnated if they hadn't ridded themselves of their negative karma. This bad karma kept one trapped in the never ending cycle of death and rebirth, the wheel of life. So no kids, in Buddhism reincarnation isn't something you want. If you reach your last life where you have gotten rid of all your karma, then when you die you ascend into Nirvana, and no more rebirth for you; this was the case for Buddha and his life. Though I don't remember how past lives worked, like if someone could remember things, or contact their past lives...

There are other teachings that came after that added things like different possible places one could go after death, which yes included the textbook place of punishment.

Speaking of a celestial holding pen, Spectral Shadows uses reincarnation, and there actually is a place (appropriately titled "The Realm of Fantasy") where souls go after they die, and they kinda just...I guess live there until it's time for them to be "recycled". I'd have to ask to get more details from Perri as there hasn't been too much on how the RoF works. Though in the story characters can be reincarnated all across the galaxy, so you end up having characters who are reincarnations of earlier characters IE a pony we see in Serial 2 is later seen in a future life as a blue vixen in Serial 11. It's also apparently possible to be resurrected rather than reincarnated, though the only character to pull this off that we know of is Jon, who was originally going to be the semi-protagonist of the story...then it went all Ensemble Cast.

Though that new soul question, that's a good one. May'aps I'll tackle it in my own story.

I don't feel dismissing the Bible simply because it is a story is an appropriate response. People can be profoundly affected by the media that they consume and the lessons it tries to impart. The real problem in this case is when people start to assume that this story is in any way a factual account of reality. For example Jurassic Park is a fascinating story that covers such themes as the hubris of man attempting to control nature and much can be gained from discussing and analyzing these themes. However if some one attempted to say that Jurassic Park was a real thing that happened on a private island we would appropriately deem them ignorant because such a thing is not physically possible.


Also one could criticize the Bible for the lessons it tries to teach and boy howdy is there a lot to criticize there. The Old Testament is giant pile of trash and even large portions of the New Testament are highly questionable. However to say we should ignore it just because its a story is no better then being dismissive of any other form of artwork.

I agree here. Saying "It's just a story" shouldn't be a reason to put it aside and never read it. There's some good stuff in there that one can get good morals from...and if you think I mean the "Don't be an arse" stuff no, I mean stuff besides that. Though I'm willing to bet CC didn't mean "Don't ever read it and let any of the good stuff influence you" so much as "It shouldn't be impacting the world to the degree that it is now". Because if we are going to handwave anything as "It's just a story", then should we never get inspired or influenced by ANY story we see, hear, or write? Such a thing would be impossible, me thinks. We're all influenced by those kinds of things to some degree or another.
 
Last edited:
Top