Embarrassing questions which cannot be asked

[McBell]

Mestemia,

Wait, maybe I understand what you are saying.... are you saying you don't understand how a religious believer would anticipate the problems of asking these questions, and based on that anticipation purposefully make/enforce rules that say, "You can't ask those questions"?

If so, I agree with you. I think religions (like folk tales and other cultural phenomena) evolve over time. In religions, subtle mechanisms for encouraging/discouraging various behaviors have developed which no one person created. And of course, the believers themselves think the purpose of these mechanisms is "worship", even when the real purpose is to train/delude people into accepting a system of thinking and acting.

That is exactly what i was getting at.

The thing is that many theists, even the ones like me who do understand what you are saying, have other reasons to believe.

I believe in the existence of God.
I do not worship any.
I do not claim to speak for any.
Hell, i do not even have a very good definition of the word "God".

Now I know the first question is, "Why? Why do you believe?"

In all honesty...I am not sure.

Of all the people whom I have talked to, even outside this forum, Storm is the one who seems to best understand where I stand in the 'spiritual' world.
Though, her and I have some differences as well.

 

[Storm]

Aw, I'm flattered. I'm not sure why, but I am.

 

[Luminous]

hmmm... these are some logical and thought provoking questions fit for religion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Seems to me that you are making the same mistake as many theists make.
You are assuming you are preaching to the choir.

I guess I didn't make my intentions clear: in that particular post (#75), I was merely clarifying my argument for roli and others who had some questions. Obviously I agree with you that few people will be persuaded by me simply stating my case without supporting it....but we can't really have a discussion until the case I'm trying to make is clear and understood (if not accepted).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That is exactly what i was getting at.

The thing is that many theists, even the ones like me who do understand what you are saying, have other reasons to believe.

I believe in the existence of God.
I do not worship any.
I do not claim to speak for any.
Hell, i do not even have a very good definition of the word "God".

Now I know the first question is, "Why? Why do you believe?"

In all honesty...I am not sure.

Of all the people whom I have talked to, even outside this forum, Storm is the one who seems to best understand where I stand in the 'spiritual' world.
Though, her and I have some differences as well.

Well Mestemia as I said in post #75, there are unstated caveats and exceptions. I would have thought more philosophical/spiritual theists like you and Storm would agree with the OP.

Let me put it this way: suppose I argued that Texans support a culture and lifestyle that fosters childhood obesity, and that's why children in Texas have the largest obesity rates in the U.S. Does this mean every child in Texas is overweight? Does it mean that there aren't any Texans who would agree with me, and wish Texas had a more health-oriented culture and lifestyle? Of course not. It should go without saying that any broad statements about real-life, complicated things (like "religions" or "Texas culture") can never be 100% true; they can only be mostly true, at best. I acknowledge this. But it's takes a lot of effort to try to go way, way out of my way to distinguish the 0.01% of Christian Unitarians, eclectic theists, reform Jews, etc. whose "religion" is very, very different from mainstream, traditional, practicing Christianity, orthodox Judaism, Islam, etc.

In fact, I would expect that some believers would agree with the OP....but then, by virtue of agreeing with it, they would think that demonstrates the criticism of the OP does not apply to their religion; i.m.o. what it demonstrates is that they agree with the OP in spite of their religion.

 

[McBell]

For example, in Genesis why is Eve created from one of Adam's rib bones? Why not his femur, or toenail?

I do not know.
You will need to ask God.

Or: why was Jesus born of a virgin woman? Why wasn't he born of a virgin man, or materialize out of thin air?

I do not know.
You will need to ask God.

Or: why was the prophet Muhammad sent a winged horse to transport him from Mecca to Jerusalem and back? Why wasn't he sent a piloted helicopter, or a matter-transporter?

I do not know.
You will need to ask Allah.

Or: why is the angel Moroni depicted blowing a trumpet to herald the second coming? Why not a blast from a tuba, or an electric guitar?

I do not know.
You will need to ask the angel Moroni.


Interesting that in answering your "embarrassing" questions, I was not embarrassed one little bit.
Though I do find it comical that you would ask such questions in the first place.

In this thread http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2-pastor-shot-dead-church-others-stabbed.html the guy used a 45 caliber handgun.
Why didn't he use a 22? or a 38?

He then pulled out a knife. why not another gun? or a machete? or a grenade?
​

Can you see what I am getting at?
Your questions are not embarrassing in the least bit.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I do not know.
You will need to ask God.


I do not know.
You will need to ask God.


I do not know.
You will need to ask Allah.


I do not know.
You will need to ask the angel Moroni.

There are other possible answers. They are stories invented by human beings. Like any fictional tale, they don't have to make sense. Or, since they were written by humans, there couldn't be helicopters or electric guitars in the stories, since those human authors didn't know about those things.

 

[rojse]

Well if the "embarrassing questions" cause you think the holy scriptures involve "we" (humans) "choosing" (not recording) objects in a "story" (not account), then you have rejected the claims of the religion. Now that we have rejected the religion and we agree the scriptures are in fact man-made stories, sure, we can talk about what truth there is in them just as we talk about the truth in any fictional, man-made story. My point is that such questions will inevitably cause us to reject most religions; that is why you are not supposed to ask them.

Just because we choose to tell stories with items of more symbolic value, does not make it untrue.

Think of the stories of Robin Hood, for example. The centre of the story might contain a kernel of truth, and an outlaw that donated his gold to the poor might have some basis in real-life, (the lack of certainty regarding this makes the example better than I originally thought) but the story is made more palatable by making it more appealing to cater to a specified audience.

Does this supposed "audience catering" make the story less true? Certainly. But the centre of the story does not change, and it is this part that may or may not be true.

 

[rojse]

Why do so many churches support the military and Republican politics, when Jesus was so clearly a socialist pacifist? :run:

That's worth a separate thread on it's own, Seyorni.

 

[rojse]

The embarrasing question I always had was:

How can Jesus be said to be from the line of David, when that line led to Joseph, and supposedly Joseph had nothing to do with the making of Jesus?

I ask that question quite often, and get a lot of hand-waving.

The best response I got was that Jesus might have been considered to be of this line if he was adopted. Still don't buy this response, but I suppose I need to defer to others on ancient Jewish laws and customs.

A better question than this is to ask about how the lineage of David to Joseph works - the Bible is inconsistent on this regard, and even disagrees on whom Joseph's father is.

 

[rojse]

I think the most embarrassing question I've ever asked ("embarrassing" as in so taboo it makes believers acutely uncomfortable) was "If God 'wrote' the Bible - even if he using men as his quill - why couldn't he also have written the Koran, and the Tao te Ching, and Jonathan Livingston Seagull, and all the books of revelation ever written?"

A properly embarrassing question for a believer is one that has no ready answer apart from 'just because'.

That's another question worth it's own thread. Frubals.

 

[McBell]

There are other possible answers. They are stories invented by human beings. Like any fictional tale, they don't have to make sense. Or, since they were written by humans, there couldn't be helicopters or electric guitars in the stories, since those human authors didn't know about those things.

And you are still missing the point.
Now since I do not believe you to be stupid, I must assume that I am not explaining it very well.

 

[SoyLeche]

God created Eve from Adam's rib instead of some other part of him because of naming and trademark disputes?

From Wiki:

Pretty much

 

[SoyLeche]

Then you agree that, like Firefox, religions are entirely man-made?

No. I do however think that the reasoning behind why a company chooses one name for their product over another (or why anyone chooses to do something one way and not another) is at least somewhat similar to the reasong God uses to decided how to do things.

 

[SoyLeche]

I do not know.
You will need to ask the angel Moroni.

Actually - for that one you'll need to ask whoever it was that designed the "Angel Moroni" statue. Mormonism doesn't actually have any doctrines linking Moroni and a trumpet. It's a purely symbolic statue, probably alluding to Revelation 14:6 (which we do believe was at least partially fulfilled by Moroni's visit), with the trumpet being the traditional way for a herald to get people's attention.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, I don't really agree with the inclusion of abnormal, too broad. How about: not bound by natural law.

But what does that mean? I freely admit that there are things that don't completely obey our understanding of natural law, but that just means we don't fully know (and I'd argue we can't fully know) all of natural law. How is it valid to conclusively say that something is not bound by natural law when we don't even know what natural law is?

Could you give an example, and explain why you don't think we'll figure it out.

Well, the classic example is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. It says that when you measure a particle (and at a fundamental level, all matter is made up of just collections of particles), there is a tradeoff between position and momentum: the more precisely you know the particle's position, the less precisely you can know it's momentum, and if you know either one exactly, you can't know the other at all.

Effectively, it says that there are limits to knowledge, not just because of our current finite human abilities, but because of intrinsic properties of the physical universe. When you get down to a basic enough level, you can't even ask the question "why is this small bit of the universe like this and not like that?" because you have no way of measuring what "this" is.

IOW, I think there's a distinct possibility that nothing in the universe will ever be able to be fully explained by natural laws. If that's so, does that mean that nothing in the universe is fully natural?

I don't think it has to be.

Why not? If it's a form of knowledge, then how would it not be included in "all knowledge"?

I disagree.

It depends on the theology in question, I think.

 

[Storm]

But what does that mean? I freely admit that there are things that don't completely obey our understanding of natural law, but that just means we don't fully know (and I'd argue we can't fully know) all of natural law. How is it valid to conclusively say that something is not bound by natural law when we don't even know what natural law is?

Look, Penguin, I agree with you that there's no such thing as the supernatural. I'm just saying that, nonsensical as it is, it's a given when talking Christian theology. "You have to think outside the box, maaaaaaan...."

Well, the classic example is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. [snip]

IOW, I think there's a distinct possibility that nothing in the universe will ever be able to be fully explained by natural laws. If that's so, does that mean that nothing in the universe is fully natural?

I think it's a mistake to look at current limitations in our understanding and assume they'll be permanent. Call me an optimist.

Why not? If it's a form of knowledge, then how would it not be included in "all knowledge"?

I think - and this is purely subjective - it's a mistake to stretch the trait beyond its original intent. If such a God is in posession of all data, and comprehends it, how is He not "all-knowing?"

It depends on the theology in question, I think.

I've completely forgotten what I disagreed about. It's not in the handy-dandy recent posts at the bottom of the reply page, either. Gimme a minute and I'll backtrack.

EDIT: OK, got it. And it getsus back on topic, too. Cool. I think Spinks' examples failed. They didn't cut to the heart of the theology. Can you think of another example?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look, Penguin, I agree with you that there's no such thing as the supernatural. I'm just saying that, nonsensical as it is, it's a given when talking Christian theology. "You have to think outside the box, maaaaaaan...."

Heh... the thing is, I don't think there's a box at all.

I think it's a mistake to look at current limitations in our understanding and assume they'll be permanent. Call me an optimist.

IOW, you think that Heisenberg was wrong.

I know that scientific inquiry does sometimes open up new types of knowledge that we previously thought were inaccessible, but I've got no particular reason to assume that this will be the case here. History may ultimately prove him right or wrong, but how can you say that it's a certainty that he'll be ultimately proven wrong?

I think - and this is purely subjective - it's a mistake to stretch the trait beyond its original intent. If such a God is in posession of all data, and comprehends it, how is He not "all-knowing?"

I'm not really sure what the original intent was, but I see it like this: "grokking" is a higher level of comprehension. If the entity in question doesn't comprehend everything to its utmost, then this is a deficiency in its omniscience.

I've completely forgotten what I disagreed about. It's not in the handy-dandy recent posts at the bottom of the reply page, either. Gimme a minute and I'll backtrack.

EDIT: OK, got it. And it getsus back on topic, too. Cool. I think Spinks' examples failed. They didn't cut to the heart of the theology. Can you think of another example?

Here's one that I've always wondered about:

- how exactly does passing through a birth canal imbue a baby with Original Sin?

 

[Storm]

IOW, you think that Heisenberg was wrong.

I know that scientific inquiry does sometimes open up new types of knowledge that we previously thought were inaccessible, but I've got no particular reason to assume that this will be the case here. History may ultimately prove him right or wrong, but how can you say that it's a certainty that he'll be ultimately proven wrong?

No, please don't put words in my mouth. The way you explained it, it's dependent on our current technological limitations.

I'm not really sure what the original intent was, but I see it like this: "grokking" is a higher level of comprehension. If the entity in question doesn't comprehend everything to its utmost, then this is a deficiency in its omniscience.

I'd quibble with the hierarchical use of "higher," but I guess it's not important. I would agree that it's a different qulaity of comprehension, the kind that only comes with experience. Calling God's failure to grok what He has not experienced a deficiency in His omniscience strikes me no different from calling failure to create a square circle a deficiency of omnipotence.

Here's one that I've always wondered about:

- how exactly does passing through a birth canal imbue a baby with Original Sin?

It makes a twisted sense if you view women's bodies as evil. Is that doctrine, though? I thought it was more of a fringe thing.

 

[SoyLeche]

No, please don't put words in my mouth. The way you explained it, it's dependent on our current technological limitations.

I'm by no means an expert, but I believe the Uncertainty Principle is something that has been shown mathematically, so it is not a technological issue.

The axioms and such used in the proof may prove to be incomplete though.