Message from @Rob Travis (Mason)
Discord ID: 456293248554762241
wanna discuss?
Im not really into theology. Some other guys here are.
@Rob Travis (Mason) you were created 5 days ago making all claims wothless change my mind.
@Rob Travis (Mason) You talking about the allegories in religion and how seeing them as literal things is bad?
@CasualDevil i was thinking of more along the lines of the notion of free will and creation
>implying the literal interpretation is bad
nah man, the literal and metaphorical interpretations together at the same time is 💯
^
depends on the context tho
>implying the initial context of the story isn't the only one that should ever be considered
@Lotus Calme Perhaps when it is both since they convey the reality of sacrifice, but as you see in many religions of the past with indoctrination systems, people do bad things from the literal context
"bad things"
hey my god is the truth from my holy text, your god is bad and must be killed off
I agree, My God is Truth
and your god is a demon
you must turn from your ways or be subjugated
the way we can determine on what holy script is right is by three factors
is it the old testament?
is it the new testament?
is it Christ-centered?
😉
im getting to that
@Lotus Calme
See the issue from that thinking is it stems from a church system much like your opponent
lemme finish
the three factors have to do with the four questions in a theological setting
What are the three ideas lol?
Hang on computer crashed, now on my phone
kkk
The three ideas are correspondence, coherence, and provable falsifiability
And each of those are tests to the theology of a religion
And a religion’s ideology is based on four questions mankind asks itself
Morals
Destiny
Meaning
And origin
Each answer to the four fundamental questions must be coherent, must corespond with reality, and must be provably true
okay, that falsifiability was throwing me off there
Ye
To give an example, if Christ said he’d return as a spirit rather than a body he wouldn’t be provably falsifiable, because you have no we to prove or disprove a spirit
That’s what I mean by provably falsifiable
If it is wrong, then one can prove it
It seems like a pretty solid definition of what makes a religion, as the attempt of it is to try to comprehend truth. But there also exist paradoxes too from our lack of understanding
So it's ideology is narrow minded despite it's efforts of trying to make sense of the order of nature
Yeah, the fix to most parodoxes in this case though would be to study further and absorb more information