If religions, in general, reflect the cultures where they began,

[MineralMan]

then the dominant religion of the United States and much of the Western World appears to have outlived that connection. It's the religion of a late bronze age/early iron age Mediterranean civilization, and reflects the knowledge and social standards of that culture. Very little of that civilization survives today.

We no longer are in that stage of cultural development. That creates considerable conflict, I think. Explanations of things that were valid during even the early iron age no longer make sense. We've learned a great deal in the ensuing two millennia.

Perhaps that's a source of the cognitive conflict we observe.

[trotsky]

1. There are endless moral questions we have today that were unimaginable to people 2000 years ago.

Trying to twist and contort and imagine what was contained in the works they wrote back then are definitive guides to issues today will drive one crazy. Thus, people like Roy Moore.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes, indeed there are.

Attempting to conform the scriptures of that age to the realities of this age appears to be a losing battle. They simple are not compatible, I think. and Roy Moore is an excellent example of what can happen.

For me, it appears to require some serious warping of reality to even think seriously about the explanations from the Bible of almost everything. The stuff about interpersonal relations is still fairly valid, if it actually were to be followed, but the rest simply falls apart in light of current knowledge.

[guillaumeb]

3. Your premise is fatally flawed.

It reflects your own personal feelings, and as such, it has validity for you.

Religion reflects a search for meaning, and a means of connection and socialization. What began 300,000 years ago is still valid today because the essential question and the essential purpose has relevance and will always be relevant.

I understand intellectually this need to imagine a future world where logic rules and religion is extinct, but it is a fantasy.

[trotsky]

4. Why must you make false claims about what others have said?

No where in his post did MineralMan make any comment about this "future world" that you describe. He made no claims about religion going extinct.

Why do you persist in these falsehoods? Why can't you discuss things honestly? Why do you insult others like this?

[guillaumeb]

7. Do you truly not understand that I was referring to the future?

If you do not, I was referring to that future where some feel that religion, and the impulse to religion, will magically fade away as logic rules.

[trotsky]

10. Weak, weak excuse for your insulting behavior.

If you were a decent person, you would apologize to MineralMan for making false claims about what he said, and stop this reframing bullshit.

[guillaumeb]

16. Thank you for once again demonstrating how you love to frame.

And ignore what is actually said so you can argue on your preferred ground.

[trotsky]

17. I truly believe you are not really this hateful, deep down.

I hope Christmas brings you a chance to reflect, and become a better person.

[guillaumeb]

19. More framing.

Points for consistency.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

5. .....

[trotsky]

11. BWAH HA HA HA HA

[MineralMan]

6. Guy: I said nothing about "a future world."

I wrote about conflict, but made no predictions.

Are you sure you read just my words, or did you insert some of your own in between them?

Please try to be responsive to what I actually write, rather than what you suppose I'm thinking? What I'm thinking is expressed in what I write.

[guillaumeb]

8. You did not use those words, that is true. However.....

You did write:

If religions, in general, reflect the cultures where they began,
then the dominant religion of the United States and much of the Western World appears to have outlived that connection. It's the religion of a late bronze age/early iron age Mediterranean civilization, and reflects the knowledge and social standards of that culture. Very little of that civilization survives today.



We no longer are in that stage of cultural development. That creates considerable conflict, I think. Explanations of things that were valid during even the early iron age no longer make sense. We've learned a great deal in the ensuing two millennia.

Perhaps that's a source of the cognitive conflict we observe.

As the bold portions clearly illustrate, your post contrasts the primitive past with the supposedly more logical present. So it is relevant to assume that you see this development leading somewhere. Thus my comments.

And we all actually interpret and make connections every time we hear or read something. I am quite certain that you do much the same.

[MineralMan]

9. I have no problem with saying exactly what I mean in words.

You seem to consistently add to people's words here, using whatever logic you have available to you to extend their meaning in some way. Please don't do that with my posts. My post said only that the times today are not the times when that religion developed and that that causes cognitive conflicts with the religious beliefs.

Clearly, it is obvious that millions still follow the religion, so it doesn't appear to be in danger of going away, so your inference that I meant that in my post is ridiculous. I said, and meant, that there is cognitive conflict, due to the scriptural material being written at least 2000 years ago, during the iron age.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that you know what I mean as a subtext. In this particular post, there is no subtext whatsoever. I raised a point for discussion. You are discussing something that was not written in my post, and you got your supposition wrong. Please try confining your commentary to what is actually said and you will not make such mistakes in the future.

[trotsky]

12. Guillaumeb has more than proven he will argue with what he WANTS people to have said,

rather than what they actually said. It's dishonest, disrespectful, and detrimental to discussion. Fortunately virtually everyone in the Religion forum is fully aware of his tactics, and deals with him accordingly.

[MineralMan]

13. And I will continue to request that he not do that with my posts.

It takes very little effort, so there's no reason not to.

[guillaumeb]

14. More irony from one who illustrates what he claims to oppose.

An interesting, if inadvertent, bit of self-revelation on your part.

[trotsky]

15. I am done with your hate.

It goes against the season of the solstice.

Merry Christmas, guillaumeb. I hope you find joy.

[guillaumeb]

18. No hate, simply a recognition. eom