Ask your difficult questions about religion here

Cultural evolution is certainly an interesting theory. (i.e. the social groups with good religious traits had advantage that others did not, and so passed down their genes or religion, while the less successful religions did not)

Yes, I do think that happened (to some extent).
But just because there is an ostensible physical cause for something does not necessarily mean there is not also a deeper spiritual cause. Religion may have been physically caused by evolution, yet it may have all been set in motion and coordinated by spiritual forces. In other words, the two different causes are not incompatible.

 

How can God be loving if he does not give just punishment to those who have wronged those he loves?

 

That's kind of a semantic question, it depends how you define 'mass'.

Christians usually celebrate Christmas (Christ-mass).

 

In general, religion (usually) cannot be scientifically proved. That does not mean there are not reasons to believe in it.

There are many things in your life that you believe taken as a matter of faith.
You have not examined or conducted a scientific study on everything you believe to be true.

Despite common misconception, scientific proof is not simply synonymous with logical. For scientific proof, there has to be a phenomena which obeys causes immediately and all the time, in a simple enough manner for you to be able to understand it, and predictably.
That's not necessarily how the actions of God would work.

 

It's interesting and informative that you immediately tried to justify religion despite agreeing that there may well be a biological imperative producing it. It's clear that your conclusion may well be incorrect; that the two different causes are indeed incompatible.

 

You have only to read some of the stories in the OT to answer that question.

 

Oh...I don't know...maybe being nice would help or even turning the other cheek? It would also be helpful if those he loved were not so easily "Wronged". Hell he probably needs to punish me for posting this.

 

No there isn’t. Making them different is special pleading

 

There are always potential alternate explanations, to nearly everything.

 

Do you find that the ritual cannabalism exhibited by the RCC - eating the body and drinking the blood of someone - is repulsive?

 

I have read it, multiple times as required and still request an answer from you....the prophet in question.

 

There's a difference between if you arrest someone versus a law enforcement officer with authority from a court doing it.

 

You shouldn't partially quote someone, it can change the emphasis.
That's not true; some things have a single explanation. You don't need me to give you examples.

 

The role of a prophet, conventionally, was mainly making a moral argument. They would also say what was going to happen, and the people could get a good idea if that was a real prophet by what ended up happening.
But the question of whether that prophet was sending a message directly from God was not imperative to them listening to the moral argument.

Conventionally, most of the prophets got ignored. Even though they were later recognized as prophets.

The people were not expected to listen to the moral argument of the prophet based on whether a miracle occurred.

 

No there isn’t.

 

Maybe you'd like to set up a society where that difference doesn't exist.

 

We live in one.

Your position is special pleading.

 

In some ways, I can see how people might see it that way, but the Savior is also a spiritual being, so much of that is metaphor.

During the Last Supper, the Apostles did not actually drink real human blood or real human flesh.

"The body of Christ" and "the blood of Christ" has alternate meanings in Christianity.

 

So how much more of it is metaphor, as opposed to reality?

 

Christians believe it is reality, in so far as the spiritual sense.

 

Why do you get punished if you arrest someone for many types of crimes, whereas law enforcement officers do not?

So that's why you are wrong.

 

You just said that much of it is metaphor, not reality, so you're not actually a christian?

 

If I can rephrase and bring your question back to its original source, the question is whether there might be some divine inspiration behind religion even though a plausible social theory exists that could explain how and why that religion grew.

Is that correct?

And whether both that social theory and the divine explanation could both be true at the same time.

Perhaps, I will point out, that social theory might only be partially true, in that it only explains part of the reason for the growth of that religion.
So "being true" might still not offer a full explanation for what it claims to explain.

 

I don’t. I can make a citizens arrest.

Since I can make an arrest, without being law enforcement, I am not wrong.

There is absolutely no difference if your god kills an innocent person, or if a human does. If you insist there is, you are guilty of special pleading.

 

You can't legally make a citizens arrest for many types of crimes.
It's not worth explaining to you further.