>religious threads on /his/ will never have good, objective

cry harder faggot

File: Søren_Kierkegaard.jpg (52KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 850x400px

>>1758302
>objective discussion about religion
xD

Are you being retarded on purpose? Can you actually take a second and tell me what you mean by that? Maybe the discussion on /his/ is of such a low level because of people such as yourself?

>>1758375
Literally what the fuck is wrong about objectivity discussing religion.
Maybe you take more from it than I mean by it. Just that any discussion about the origins of Yahweh as a deity in Caananite religions will never take off because someone will start screaming about that being impossible because their holy book says so.

File: succturk.jpg (33KB, 443x380px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 443x380px

>christian threads on /his/ will never have good, objective discussion because of all the shilling for/shitting on currently practiced denominations
fix'd

>>1758387
>Literally what the fuck is wrong about objectivity discussing religion.
I told you to tell me what is actually meant by this. There is no such thing as an 'objective discussion' about something which has been up for interpretation since for literally ever?

Again, how the fuck are you meant to have an objective discussion about something which is so highly subjective everyone has their own idea about it? And get mad when people express their own ideas and not sheeping around an accepted 'objective' idea?

What you want is possible in Islam, where there is an objective canon, to more of an extent than the other abrahamic religions.

"religion" is such a god dam broad term I won't start on it.

>origins of Yahweh as a deity in Caananite religions
Is a question worthy of posing, but again, as you said, there can be no fucking objective discussion about something which is so highly subjective.

Think about the words you are using and the ideas you are trying to form.

Religion is closely tied to both personal and ethnic identity. It is highly political in nature and tied to many red button issues. The subject matter of religion is in large part nebulous and subjective. Faith is the highest passion of which human beings are capable. You aren't getting an objective discussion on this topic here of all places, and I doubt anywhere, especially since your own preconceptions and biases determine your definition of what is and is not "objective."

>>1758375
>>1758399

Religious studies is an actual academic field. Discussing religion doesn't always have to be about theology, or who's right. Religion is a part of culture with a history, and it's entirely possible to discuss religion in that context.

>>1758387
And the Meshe Stele agrees.

>>1758410
> Faith is the highest passion of which human beings are capable.
Nah, other things like patriotism, love or just drugs can hold as much if not even more power. Claiming faith exclusivity here is a clear overstatement.

File: ''the'' bible.jpg (1MB, 1868x2260px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1868x2260px

>>1758416
>Religious studies is an actual academic field
Fair, but religious studies is why this exists. And is why the field is so highly subjective.

For your consideration - I know religion is capable of having objective discussion. But the religions you want to have these discussions about have been colluded to the point where they are shells of their former selves.

>>1758410
Faith, Hope and Love

Faith goes away when you can see the object of your faith; Hope goes away when you receive what was promised; Love endures, and is the greatest of these.

>>1758428
lol that's a hot opinion you have there, kiddo

religious ecstasy > fucking while candy flipping on the 4th of July

>>1758450
>religious studies is why this exists.

No, that exists because of arguments about theology. Are you sure you know what religious studies actually is as a field? It's basically describing the cultural elements and history of religions without arguing over what's right or "true' on a philosophical level. There's some amount of subjectivity, like any humanities, but it's as objective as history is (in fact, history is a big part of the field). It's entirely possible to talk about some elements of religion objectively. That's why religious studies is a different field than theology.

>>1758469
"no".

Okay, I am done with you, I tried.

>>1758454
I didn't mean faith in strictly defined theological terms, but as a shorthand for the religious experience in general, which encompasses all that. Agape is indeed the highest passion.

>>1758472
It's not my fault you don't what religious studies is or does as a field.

>>1758457
> religious ecstasy
Still outdone by truly good drugs

>>1758483
No.

>>1758485
Google what "candy flipping" is

t. experienced former drug user

File: 1465761293127.png (405KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 480x360px

>>1758302

The problem with religion is that it uses circular logic to prove its true.

>"My religion is true."
>"OK. Prove it."
>"Muh holy book is evidence."
>"Ok. Prove that your holy book is true."
>*quotes holy book*

So let's put it this way, if holy books proves your religion to be true, then shouldn't Islam be the one true religion? I mean it self claims it was direct from god, not to be translated, and never to be changed.

Unlike the Bible which was put together by a council of men that were supposedly guided by the spirit on orders from the Roman Emperor. Translated into god knows how many languages with different language meanings.

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not murder.

Which is it?

>>1758457
> religious ecstasy
Is this Christian version of being euphoric?

>>1758508
> Which is it?
Islam and Catholicism literally have the same god.

>>1758497
tripstacy > "candy flipping"

What the fuck is with you Americans and your shit slang. Holy cow.

>>1758416
This.

>>1758457
>complains about hot opinions
>posts hot opinions

I'd be willing to bet if ranked based on the amount of specific neurotransmitters present, there are several drugs that can outrank any religious experience in sheer intensity. This is ignoring the fact that even a religious experience can be made stronger with certain drugs (LSD actually has a well deserved reputation for causing lasting psychological change and/or damage).

>>1758514

Not exactly. Catholics believe Jesus is the son of god. Also god and not god at the same time.

Muslims. Not so much.

>>1758508
In real life the conversation goes like this:
>"I believe that my religion is true."
>"OK. Prove it."
>"A proven religion wouldn't be a religion. Faith doesn't require proof. When faith acquires proof, it ceases to be faith, as it becomes knowledge. I don't have proof. I do have evidence, though. Muh holy book is evidence."
>"Ok. Prove that your holy book is true."
>"Like I said, I can't prove my religion to you, and muh holy book can only be taken as evidence toward my religion being true, not proof that it is true, and if you don't give my religion the benefit of the doubt, you'll just reject muh holy book as evidence because it recounts supernatural events which you deny a priori."
>*quotes The God Delusion*

>>1758534
You're just heaping speculation on speculation. Unless you've had a religious experience, you have no basis of comparison.

>>1758579
The phenomenon discussed in this thread is
>I have reason to believe that Yahweh, the Abrahamic God may have it's origins in El, as a monotheistic splinter group from the Caananite Pantheon
>Deus vult/Allah akbar, repent sinner for your lies
Partisanship prevents people from secularly studying religious history

>>1758399
There is tangible things like archeological and linguistic reconstruction to document the history of a religion versus the given history in a holy book

One may not be completely clear to us yet, but is objective. The other is easily self-serving.

>>1758596
Sorry. Didn't mean for this post to sound so accusatory.

I'll concede that faith certainly isn't the highest* passion that some people will or even can experience. Some people are physically incapable of experiencing certain mental/emotional states, including any form of passion in the case of certain forms of psychopaths.

*Note that I'm not using "highest" in just the sense of "most intense," although that is implied, but also in the sense of "noblest," etc, although like anything, the better it is, the worse it is when it goes bad.

>>1758596
Why do you assume that I haven't?

>>1758648
Well, even at that, you don't have much place complaining about opinion when what you tout is just opinion.

No topic on /his/ gets "good, objective discussion."

File: image.jpg (292KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 640x1136px

Here, objective history debunks all proddies

File: image.jpg (297KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 640x1136px

>>1758717
Isn't it funny how Protshits deny the very thing this board is meant for

File: image.jpg (293KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 640x1136px

>>1758719
How can proddies even dare post here?

>>1758665
Because we wouldn't be having this conversation if you had.

>>1758669
A carefully considered opinion informed by various firsthand experiences as well as general observations of longterm historical trends, but yes, an opinion. Don't take the "hot opinion" comment too seriously. It's a meme.

File: image.jpg (304KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 640x1136px

>>1758722
Proddies should be banned from this Board

They deny history

>>1758722
>Because we wouldn't be having this conversation if you had.

That's a rather flippant statement. I have experienced many things, and while a religious experience was indeed intense, it was by no means the most intense thing I've ever experienced (ego death takes that cake).

File: image.jpg (194KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 640x1136px

>>1758768
Sorry but PROTNIGGERISM is false

>>1758390

>Turk

Out.

File: balkan pol kul.jpg (137KB, 800x820px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x820px

>>1758775

Psalms 133:1Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!

>>1758634
Yes but to imply that things like archaeology or linguistics can (((objectively prove))) things about God is naive at best and disingenuous at worst. To use your YHWH = Canaanite storm deity example, yes there are depictions of a deity that is labeled as YHWH but it does not follow that this the same deity discussed in the Bible. The Israelites were constantly wandering away from God to worship idols and these depictions of "YHWH" could just as easily be explained as the work of some apostate or outsider attempting to imitate the Hebrew God. But perhaps you'll counter by saying that these depictions predate the Hebrew bible. Again, that is true but it does not (((prove))) anything because the archaeological record is so incomplete. Perhaps there were writings that are now lost complaining about the fact that some renegades were perverting YHWH worship by making depictions of him. We just don't know.

>>1758888
*tips fedora

File: sikhism.png (127KB, 2000x2367px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 2000x2367px

>>1758302
Don't mind me, just the most based religion on earth passin on through.

>>1758302
>God DAMN you people
You shouldn't say the lords name in vain.

>>1758947
This is a good discussion.