Faith and knowledge are incompatible. Mutually exclusive. That is why it is useless to explain anything to a believing cattle. The animal will never accept that faith is a herd instinct. Where one sheep goes, the other sheep goes without thinking.
Well, that isn’t exactly the problem but point taken.
Remember, though, you have and exercise faith all the time. That the car will be in the driveway, that the forecast is accurate, that the doctor’s prognosis is correct, faith that Ecmandu hasn’t offed himself yet, etc., so it’s not just that faith is bad… but a special kind of faith, the religious kind, that’s bad.
Not at all. You were arguing that religion should be dropped because of the diversity of belief. There are diverse beliefs among philosophers throughout recorded history. Solely on that basis, If religion should be dropped on, then Philosophy should too.
Now you’ve qualified your argument with others.
If that were true, philosophy would be a meaningless activity.
There are factual disagreements in natural science. Scientist can interpret the same data differently leading to varying conclusions. Different research methods can yield different results even when studying the same phenomenon. Scientist made her different theoretical framework influencing how they interpret the evidence. The natural world is complex and multifaceted making it challenging to reach definitive conclusions. It is constantly evolving a new evidence can challenge existing theories.
False claims are reasons to critically evaluate religion not to abandon it.
Religions have done that but again that’s a reason for rational criticism not necessarily abandonment of religion as a whole.
True.
There’s a lot of truth to that. But from my point of view, there’s more to the story.
As we have seen, I believe the title of this topic emphasises a point that is invalid in many ways. The ‘Abrahamism’ they mean, which includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is still as exclusive as it always was when it had power.
I may be overemphasising this, but I have a strong feeling that the church as we know it would not exist had it not been for Paul. I find it hard to follow someone like Tom Holland, who sees Christianity as the driving force behind what he deems to be good and tends to gloss over the negative aspects. I believe that human beings are inherently capable of learning from any literary source or verbal narrative, as people did with the Bible. Although their religious practices were less focused on moral instruction than Christianity, Greek and Roman philosophical and literary traditions provided rich sources for ethical reflection and personal development.
Critics of Holland, such as Richard Carrier, argue that he confuses Christianity as a conduit for certain values with it being the origin of those values. They also point out that many values attributed to Christianity existed in various forms before its dominance or arose independently in other cultures. Carrier and others also point out that, like any tradition, Christianity has both positive and negative legacies and that its moral teachings have often been selectively interpreted or adapted over time.
Greek and Roman ethics, for example, placed a strong emphasis on virtue, moderation and justice. The Greeks viewed hubris (excessive pride or self-confidence) as a serious moral failing, for example, and their philosophy stressed the importance of moderation in all things. Philosophers such as Aristotle developed detailed systems of virtue ethics, focusing on cultivating character and pursuing human flourishing (eudaimonia).
The Stoics, a major school of thought in both Greece and Rome, were among the first to articulate the idea of the equal moral status of all humans, basing this on the shared capacity for reason rather than religious doctrine. Stoic ethics also promoted cosmopolitanism, self-control, and the brotherhood of mankind.
The ‘Jesus movement’ may have disappeared amid the upheaval of Roman oppression following the uprisings, but I don’t think it did. It was simply very diverse, and when the authoritative Church had the backing of Caesar, it either streamlined those traditions with its dogma or declared them heretical. The mystical traditions survived underground, and throughout history, they had to do the same unless they had some official backing. The practical similarities between mystical traditions across cultures encourage this idea.
To me, this is evidence that Christianity was a literary idea that spread. Whereas the Jewish tradition has the Mishna, such criticism was not permitted in the Christian church. There was a strong emphasis on texts, dissemination and universal reach, which is well supported by historical evidence. Early Christians prioritised the production, preservation and distribution of books, particularly in codex form, as this facilitated reference and comparative study. This distinguished their literary culture from that of surrounding pagan societies. This drive for textual transmission was rooted in Christianity’s origins within Judaism, a tradition that was also deeply invested in sacred writings.
Judaism developed the Mishna and later the Talmud, which institutionalised debate, commentary and critical engagement with sacred texts as a core part of religious life. In contrast, although early Christianity did engage in comparative studies of sources and produced a wide range of commentaries and polemical tracts, the Christian church pressed towards establishing orthodoxy. This process involved defining canonical texts and often suppressing dissenting views or alternative interpretations, particularly as the Church gained institutional power. The preservation and transmission of texts became strictly controlled, with anti-heretical literature and orthodox commentaries being prioritised while heterodox or critical writings were often marginalised or lost.
It is telling that, in my Bible reading group, I was dissuaded from studying the Book of James. This only served to fuel my rebellious spirit, and I set out to explore its teachings. Many scholars argue that James’ teachings are closer to those of the original Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem — the circle that included Jesus’ family and earliest disciples. Traditionally identified as Jesus’ brother and a leader of the Jerusalem church, James represents a strand of Christianity that remained deeply rooted in Jewish tradition and ethical practice.
James insists that faith must be lived out in daily conduct. He calls on believers to be ‘doers of the word and not merely hearers’ (James 1:22), warning that listening to teachings without acting on them is self-deceptive. This echoes Jesus’ parable of the wise and foolish builders (Matthew 7:24–27), in which only those who hear and act on his words are likened to a house built on rock. James’s call for a faith that transforms behaviour is rooted in the same ethic of integrity and consistency found in Jesus’s teachings.
He is explicit in his condemnation of favouritism towards the wealthy and neglect of the poor, stating that ‘pure and undefiled religion before God… is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world’ (James 1:27). He criticises assemblies that honour wealthy visitors while shaming the poor, insisting that God has ‘chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith’ (James 2:5). This aligns with Jesus’s beatitudes (‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God’—Luke 6:20) and his repeated concern for the marginalised.
James’s assertion that “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (James 2:17) highlights his belief that genuine faith naturally leads to acts of mercy and justice. He draws on examples from the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Abraham and Rahab, to demonstrate that trust in God is inseparable from obedient action. This is consistent with Jesus’s repeated calls for active compassion, as illustrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), in which neighbourly love is demonstrated through concrete actions rather than mere belief or intention.
I agree with you that Revelation preserves a strand of early Christianity more aligned with Torah Judaism, and in tension with Paul’s teachings. The book’s apocalyptic, law-oriented, and exclusivist tone stands in marked contrast to Paul’s teaching and his doctrine of justification by faith alone.
My problem is that calling Paul’s teaching ‘universalism’ as some do is misguided, considering the universalism of other traditions. It is quite different from the universalism of, for example, certain strands of Hinduism, Buddhism, or philosophical traditions that retain the potential that all beings ultimately reach enlightenment or union with the divine, regardless of belief or moral state. Paul’s vision is “universal” in its invitation and accessibility, but still conditional: salvation, for Paul, depends on faith and participation in Christ, not on the mere fact of being human.
Some interpretations, especially in Advaita Vedanta and modern universalist currents, suggest that all souls are destined for eventual liberation, but traditional views often hold that some may wander in samsara indefinitely if they choose to not pursue the spiritual path and not learn the lessons that life gives us to bring us into the cosmic unity. I see this more in line with Matth. 25, where those accepted ask when they did the commendable things. Spontaneous compassion is, for me, the lesson to be learnt above all else.
I simply view exclusivism as a mistake.
That’s likely true. Paul is significant because he came to believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus brought salvation that was not tied to explicit Jewish identity, but was efficacious for gentiles as well as Jews. Pagans who came to believe in Christ did not first have to convert to Judaism and begin to follow the prescription of the Jewish law and custom. Salvation came from the Jews, but it was for everybody, and God was in the process of saving the entire world.
As it turned out most Jews didn’t believe it, but the pagans proved more receptive to the message. He believed his mission was to go to the ends of the Earth (after Rome, he planned to go to Spain) and preach the Good news and that when everyone had heard the message, Jesus would return from heaven the forces of evil would be destroyed in God‘s utopian kingdom would arrive on earth. He didn’t make it, but the Christian message continued to be preached and thrive. So yeah Paul was a pivotal figure in the spread of Christianity and the content of its message.
That isn’t quite the way I read what Holland is saying. Holland proposes that Christianity represented a fundamental shift from classical pagan values, which often emphasized strength, honor, and social status. He argues that Christian ideas, like the concept of universal human dignity, the sanctity of individual life, compassion for the weak and vulnerable, and the notion that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering, were radical and transformative for the Greco-Roman world and laid the foundation for many modern Western moral precepts.
However, Holland recognizes that Christians, both historically and in the present day, have not always lived up to these ideals. For example, he acknowledges that condemning historical instances of Christian involvement in things like slavery, colonialism, or patriarchy implicitly draws upon the very Christian-influenced moral framework that values equality and the dignity of all individuals.
I don’t think Holland was saying that Christianity originated those values , rather that it catalyzed them. The church saw the value of self sacrificial love incarnated in a single person. Even when most Christians fell short of their ideal, and the organizational hierarchy became drunk with worldly power and decadence, their saints were those who imitated the Christ archetype, showing that the value wasn’t totally forgotten.
Jesus’ ethics, as presented in the Gospels, are deeply rooted in the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures (also known as the Law of Moses). He emphasized and expanded on its principles, focusing on internal attitudes and motives as much as outward actions.
When asked about the most important commandment in the Law, Jesus cited two verses from the Torah:
- Deuteronomy 6:5: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”
- Leviticus 19:18: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
He declared that on these two commandments “hang all the Law and the Prophets,” indicating their foundational importance for understanding God’s will and for righteous living.
Greco-Roman cultures highly valued duty (Romanitas) and civic virtue, emphasizing the importance of sacrificing personal interests for the good of the state or community. And, as you suggested, Stoic philosophy, particularly influential in Roman society, advocated for self-control, virtue, and living in accordance with reason, which sometimes involved putting the collective good above individual desires.Greco-Roman mythology contained stories of heroes performing acts of sacrifice.
For example,Asclepius was a pivotal figure in ancient Greek mythology and religion, revered as the god of medicine, healing, and physicians. His story, which precedes the the life of Jesus unfolds as a journey from a mortal hero to a deified being, fundamentally shaping the understanding of health and illness in the ancient Greek world. Asclepius embodies the spiritual and humanistic aspects of medicine, representing the desire and ability to alleviate suffering and promote well-being. The healing-empowered, serpent-entwined staff of Asclepius is symbolically parallel to the episode where Moses heals with a serpent on a staff is found in the Book of Numbers, specifically chapter 21.God sends fiery serpents to bite the Israelites as punishment for their complaining. To heal those bitten, God instructs Moses to make a bronze serpent and mount it on a pole. When anyone bitten looked at the bronze serpent, they were healed.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus directly compares his future crucifixion to the bronze serpent lifted up by Moses in the wilderness. This comparison is found in John 3:14-15. Jesus explains that just as Moses raised the bronze serpent so that those bitten by snakes could look at it and live, he, the Son of Man, must be lifted up on the cross so that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. Whatever the historical genesis of this symbolism, it points to the relationship between Asclepius, Moses and Jesus as representations of the archetype of divinely empowered healer.
Following the Bar Kokhba revolt and the subsequent banishment of Jews from Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Church, composed largely of Jewish Christians, also left the city. An oracle, reportedly revealed to them before the revolt, instructed them to relocate to Pella, a city in Perea. While some Jewish Christians remained in Judea, the majority followed the oracle’s guidance and relocated, marking a significant shift in the early Christian community.
Eventually, that was true, but it took over 350 years from the death of Jesus before the dominant church agreed concerning which books should comprise their sacred scriptures. In part, this is because other books were available also written by Christians, including many, whose authors claim to be the original apostles of Jesus yet advocating point of view quite different from those later embodied in the canon. Some of those issues had already been decided at the council of Nicea. Before that many basic issues were contested, including whether or not God had created the world whether was Jesus was divine or not, whether his crucifixion was relevant to salvation or not, and what the relationship of Christianity to Judaism was.
As Bart Ehrman points out in his book, Lost Scriptures: Books that did not make it into the New Testament, “… the victors in the struggles to establish Christian orthodoxy not only won their theological battles, they also rewrote the history of the conflict; later readers, then, naturally assumed that the victorious views had been embraced by the vast majority of Christians from the very beginning, all the way back to Jesus and his closest followers, the apostles.”
The discovery and systematic study of lost ancient scriptures has significantly reshaped scholarly understanding of early Christianity, revealing a more diverse and complex picture than previously thought. These texts, often excluded from the traditional biblical canon, showcase a variety of early Christian beliefs and practices, challenging the notion of a single, unified early church. Scholars have begun to assert that the groups who claimed to follow Jesus after his death as more aptly described as Christianities(plural) than Christianity (singular).
I’m guilty of that myself. I recognize that his teachings are problematic in many areas and that my interpretation is unorthodox to say the least. But, there are certain “mahavakyas” or high peak sayings of his at least which to me, point to a nondual vision of ultimate reality. He may or may not have been clear about this himself.
Jesus taught “Take heed that ye do not ,your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.”
That is essentially karma yoga, i.e., “the path of selfless work, wherein every action is offered to God as a sacrament. By dedicating the fruits of one’s work to God, the spiritual aspirant eventually achieves purity of heart and attains union with God. Through the practice of non-attachment and selfless service the devotee frees himself from the wheel of cause and effect, deed and reward, and obtains the Infinite.“
(The Sermon of the Mount according to Vedanta by Swami Prabhavananda)
The AI already mentioned organ liver. Perhaps you missed it. Perhaps there are not enough antioxidants in a meat-only diet.
From speaking to the AI, I gathered that:
- Carbs interfere with VitC absorption, but it does not prove that low Vit C from meat-only is safe.
- Plants provide micronutrients that meat-only does not provide, such as anti-oxidants.
- Red-meats cause kidney problems, kidney stress and kidney disease.
- Protein is a poison.
- No plants means no fiber, no fiber is bad for gut health.
(The AI also claims that red meats increase cancer risk, but I’m not sure about that, it could just be from burnt meats, so I’m not listing it officially.)
(The AI says meat-only has too much saturated fats and cholesterol, which raises LDL, but I’m not sure about if eating cholesterol raises LDL, so I’m not listing it officially.)
Direct quote from AI:
-
However, the carnivore diet as a whole may still fall short on certain nutrients, even with liver, such as:
-
Vitamin C: Meat contains minimal vitamin C, and while liver has some, cooking* reduces vitamin C content. This deficiency can increase risks of scurvy if intake is too low.
-
Thiamin (Vitamin B1): Often insufficient in carnivore diets, unless consuming pork or other thiamin-rich meats.
-
Magnesium, potassium, and calcium: These minerals may be deficient due to lack of plant sources and dairy.
-
Fiber: Completely absent, which affects gut health and digestion.
-
*Uncooked liver is more dangerous with lots of bacteria compared to cooked liver though
I also wonder if eating liver is even safe at all, since the liver is the detox organ which nullifies toxins. But what if it only detoxed 99% of the toxins, then you are eating toxins…
The vast majority of hunter-gatherers did not evolve as carnivores, but as omnivores. The carnivore diet is largely experimental and untested. You are doing this diet at your own risk. What’s more its also unsustainable for the planet. Animal meat creates much more pollution and methane emissions. Its energy intensive. You also stated you refuse to consume hypothetical lab grown meats, which would be more ethical and less energy intensive. If more humans become carnivores then climate change gets worse.
Islamic paradise appears to lean toward what l would call “hot” vegetarianism, that is: fruit. Fruit aren’t veg but that is semantics. In Islam, martyrs are transformed into green birds which dwell in chandeliers near God’s throne, eating fruit from their travels:
We asked 'Abdullah about the Qur’anic verse:" Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they are alive, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.." (iii. 169). He said: We asked the meaning of the verse (from the Holy Prophet) who said: The souls, of the martyrs live in the bodies of green birds who have their nests in chandeliers hung from the throne of the Almighty. They eat the fruits of Paradise from wherever they like and then nestle in these chandeliers. Once their Lord cast a glance at them and said: Do ye want anything? They said: What more shall we desire? We eat the fruit of Paradise from wherever we like. Their Lord asked them the same question thrice. When they saw that they will continue to be asked and not left (without answering the question). they said: O Lord, we wish that Thou mayest return our souls to our bodies so that we may be slain in Thy way once again. When He (Allah) saw that they had no need, they were left (to their joy in heaven).
|Reference|: Sahih Muslim 1887|
|In-book reference|: Book 33, Hadith 181|
|USC-MSA web (English) reference|: Book 20, Hadith 4651|
|(deprecated numbering scheme)|
Sigh. My red marker’s going to run out and it’ll be your fault. I don’t hate Christians. I just think, they don’t know Islam and don’t need to know Islam because we don’t have enough money, simple as that. One day we will be rich and then Christians will fact-check sources or go for primary texts until then though they just get their Islam info from Dershowitz Oh-So-Genuinely-Christian Hard-Heart Ministries (accepts all known credit cards, except American Express).
OK, corrections:
Muslims dont’ call it Abrahamic tradition, we call it all “Muslim”. Just as “Hippies” or “Mods” could mean different things across the past 70 years since D-Day. E.g Beat Generation, Techno Hippies. Vespa / scooter riding Mods, vs. the Britpop mods of the 90s. Like that.
Islam made the Abrahamic tradition universal, as the completion of the seedling (older prophets of the world, not just Palestine, but over 100,000 others from all ancient nations) into its groundbreaking sapling stage and onto fruition.
I know that was tongue in cheek but just to be sure: Christians and Muslims are not criminal organisations. Also, Muslims accept Christ’s (peace be upon him) virgin birth, Messiah-ship, miracles, and Ascension. And Second Coming. And then his rulership of the Earth until his natural death. You may note too that Christ said “parakleitos” will come after him, which translates as “Comforter”. The Qur’an states that Muhammad (“MHMD”. peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was the “Ahmad” (AHMD) promised by Christ in Qur’an 61:6.
Ahmad in Koine Greek is Periklytos.
The two religions endorsed each other. Qur’an 5:82: “You will surely find the most bitter towards the believers to be the Jews and polytheists and the most gracious to be those who call themselves Christian. That is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not arrogant.”
That’s not saying much, it’s like saying Dave isn’t Steve.
Muslims are not a race. This is really basic stuff you’re tripping on.
In fact the Qur’an and Sunnah demolish racism (at least, we keep it to ourselves, unspoken, private, mere personal preferences, rather than build a racial cult - our present forms are nothing compared to the perfected archetypal forms we fulfil in paradise):
Qur;an 49:13: “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.”
Qur’am 4:1: “O humanity! Be mindful of your Lord Who created you from a single soul …”
ALSO: In his Farewell Sermon, the Prophet Muhammad explicitly stated that no race or ethnicity holds superiority over another, except through piety: “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a White has no superiority over a Black nor a Black has any superiority over a White except by piety and good action.”
Apart from Muslims accepting Christ’s virgin birth, miracles, Messiah-ship, Ascension and Second Coming. But yeah …
Facepalm.
For one thing (l hope l’m not feeding this part of your debate by pointing this out) Muslim-majority nations aren’t Islamic States in the traditional sense, and also they aren’t allowed to act together for Islamic causes, as per U.N. rules. Then also the thing about someone dying for your sins, yet sin still exists and do you really feel safe around someone whose driving test was sat by one free of faults? How does that work?
Believe me when l say this: I’m glad Christians exist. Not the East European blood-and-soil zombies, they are lower than apes and commit appalling atrocities 100% of the time they fight making false claims about avenging fake genocides (e.g. the so called Armenian and Assyrian genoicides, google “A Tall Armenian Tale” and learn about the 7 mllion Turks and Slavic Muslims massacred at the same time in the most gruesome ways, Bulgaria used to be overwhelmingly Muslim now it’s barely 10% due to the horrors of these Christian jihadist ragamuffins - all funnelling toward creating Israel on former Ottoman territory). I mean the true spiritual heirs of Christendom, Western Christians - including, by the way, Roman Catholics. I’m glad they exist, including people like yourself. As the world slides into insanity it’s good to know there are communities here and there that will deny evil and stand up for God.
By the way, the whole thing about Elohim. That’s just a plural of respect, l thought that would be obvious. Even in the Qur’an, Allah often calls himself “We”. That’s because he is all that exists, he is majestic. He is not a mere individual like others. Monarchs did the same, e.g. Queen Victoria’s supposed saying: “We are not amused”
My question is, does Evolution exist or not exist?
If evolution does not exist, and if humans are happier as birds, why did God create humans? He should have just created birds. 
He could have created nothing. I don’t understand the mind of God but l know l can have my own thoughts and love God and speak about him and think about him i.e. understand him, through positive reinforcement and seeing the negative things put forward against him (evolution, slanders against God and his prophets in the Bible). All of my free will, so it is just as well he created me this way, in this form 
God didn’t create you. Even if the world is only 6000 years old and evolution is fake.
You would still be of a long line of descendants and ancestors.
It would be like an humanoid-android from the year 8000 saying that human engineers made them, as an individual, specifically.
Humanoid-android in the year 8000: “All of my free will, so it is just as well the Dr. created me this way, in this form”
No, you were created by your android parents. At most, the Dr. created your android ancestors of ancestors, 6000 years ago.
And who made my timeless soul? Timeless means independent of any series that you cite,e.g. ancestors. It’s not part of the time axis.
We were not talking about souls though. We were talking about why God would choose to put souls in human bodies instead of bird bodies.
In that case you are talking about archetypes. These would thus be more or less transcendant above the time scale.
For example, me, parents, grandparents etc. = all of the same form: human. The archetype is human throughout, and you are discussing the archetype.
That therefore transcends the time axis on the given scale. Much like the soul.
“the negative things put forward against him (evolution, slanders against God)…”
But zeess god cares ohnzy about zimzelf and does not conceyrn me.
How about both?