• Showroom7561
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, it actually makes no sense that a relgion can simultaneously believe that the earth is 6000 years old AND that it’s billions of years old based on how they interpret canon.

    I was raised Catholic, and still can’t believe the absolute absurdity that grownups are telling themselves with absolute convict that they know the true word of the lord. It’s as sad as it is hilarious.

    it’s why there’s so many different sects and factions

    No, the OP explains that, and it’s because these religions are all bullshit and based on bullshit. Of the hundreds of Christian denominations, which is right? One of them? All of them? Some of them? None of them?

    If there is disagreement about things that should be crystal clear, who’s right? And who gives them the authority to “be right”? To them, only god knows the Truth, so any reinterpretation would be false by default.

    • fisk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it actually makes no sense that a relgion can simultaneously believe that the earth is 6000 years old AND that it’s billions of years old based on how they interpret canon.

      Again, to you. That makes sense to the people who do believe that. It’s just simply that you have - literally - different ways of making sense.

      The OP on this thread only says “That’s a 100% true observations. Most religions can’t even agree with themselves.” and I’m (being a giant pain in the ass and) responding specifically to your emphasis that it is this disagreement that invalidates religious thought. I still hold that there’s no issue with disagreement within or among religious groups, in terms of the validity of their worldviews.

      Religions have come up with ways of determining who is “right” under various conditions of dispute, just as science and other fields (like law), have. I am by no means a Catholic scholar, but I am very much under the impression that the religious texts Christianity are based on require translation efforts, and that those translation efforts can lose meaning in translation, not just between languages but between historical contexts - like many other historical texts. As such, they require study and interpretation - something that even those most fervent and uneducated of followers seem to understand.

      • ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What evidence is there for the fundamental assertion within Christianity that the Christian god exists in the first place? What room is there for questioning that assertion? And don’t give me that “intelligent design” bullshit either. That argument has been debunked a thousand times already. ~Strawberry

        • fisk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          What evidence is there for the fundamental assertion within Christianity that the Christian god exists in the first place?

          None, as far as I’m aware! I’m not defending the religion.

          What room is there for questioning that assertion?

          In some factions, plenty. In others, not so much. I’ve met plenty of Christian folks that don’t believe in intelligent design, and it’s not like they’re immediately ejected from the church - and this appears to even be true among Catholic leadership. It’s a controversy.

          And don’t give me that “intelligent design” bullshit

          I think you have the wrong idea about me, which is understandable, given how annoying I’m being.

          • ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fair enough.

            None, as far as I’m aware! I’m not defending the religion.

            I think that’s the main problem people are pointing to. Not 100% sure though. ~Strawberry

            • fisk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah I legitimately understand - I’m being critical of the arguments for science here, and normally the only people who do that are not arguing in good faith.