The Religious Theories Thread

[*Sigh*]

Hey everyone, I was just sitting here, just minding my own business, when BAM! Hit me hard from the back! Schoom! Fire was everywhere! Foom! Foom![/scmoyoho reference] when I got this IDE/Theory in my head, and I figured I would posit it here to see what you guys think, but also to provide any of you a thread where you can post your own theories on your religion of choice.

Mine, of course, is about Christianity, more specifically the very beginnings of the Bible. MORE specifically sin, because one thing that I find a lot of "debatey" people asking is whether or not sin is supposed to be a supernatural trait or a physical one.

But what if it's both?

What if, way back when God was first making humans, he found that he could make an... on/off switch for sin (and the obvious associate, death) in our DNA, and the catalyst for turning that switch was in the fruit that he told Adam and Eve not to eat?
That way, not only is sin an inheritable trait (because it's in our DNA, with the switch "on") but also a supernatural one because the only cure for it is divine intervention (or not having imperfect parents like Jesus) since even scientists that have been studying our genes for a few decades only know a small portion of what it all does.

Now keep in mind that this thread is not for open debates on what religion is right or wrong, it is only for IDE/theories about them that would more than likely get you an odd look from your local religious instructor. Atheists are fine, as long as you're not douchebags about it.

[Triangle Man]

There is a good chance this thread will be locked before the end of the first page. As long as the discussion remains civil, however, we may be able to keep that from happening.

Or it might happen anyways.

In terms of the cliff-notes version of my spiritual thoughts, my mind basically wants to drive me towards 'atheist' but my heart wants to hold on to 'Deism', if that makes sense at all. This view is mostly informed by personal issues with mortality coupled with a strong desire to apply 'rational thought' to the issue and the conclusions I come to when I do make that application. It is also likely the option that works the best for me at this juncture.

However, I will say that if God does exist, then He has a pretty warped imagination/sense of humour. How else would you explain the universe as it is? /rhetoricalquesiton

[wrinklefudger]

While I am a devout atheist, I have a religious theory that could integrate evolution into any abrahamic religion with only minor reinterpretation of the biblical canon.

God, being all knowing and all powerful, would likely employ the most efficient method in his creation of anything that is highly complex. Even with infinite wisdom and power, it is wiser and more efficient to create a self-sustaining system than to make each move by hand. Therefore, god would likely automate the creation of life by allowing it to adapt to environmental factors, which would cause it to reach a state of high complexity and efficiency, while still only employing enough effort to create a few uni-cellular organisms. If the 7 days of creation were interpreted as 7 stages, rather than literal days, the time constraints would mitigated.

[kholhaus]

I'm hybridized Agnostic/Atheist.

Yet, this thread intrigues me.

Your theory is very, VERY interesting, although I'm sure some folk would hate to have the ancient ways analyzed. Ah, but such is matters like these.

I present my own theory;

I've noticed a very strange relation between religions on the early Eastern and Western continents.

Western religions like those of aboriginals and natives were very spirit based, animal based. Eastern Religions like Catholicism and Judaism and Islam.
Now, I'm not to say that these religions are the same, but they are similar. This is less a theory and more a presentation of a thought;
This page has a chart of similarities and differences of religion. http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/c...ristianity.htm

Now, I've read a much better chart somewhere else which had a quite more religious faiths tacked onto a chart, but this is the one I can remember. (and google easily)

However if you look at Western Continental religions or Far East religions, such as Mayan and Native Aboriginal, or Hinduism/Buddhism, they had vastly different structures to the Eastern faiths, although they were not too dissimilar from the other religions that were in close proximity to them.

I have a feeling that religion is built from religion, and its structure incorporates other religions as a sort of template. Since early Eastern continental man had no access to Western Continents, they were not affected by each other, nor even knew that such religions could exist.

I love religion, it's so interesting. I love the spirituality behind it as well. It takes a lot of strength to believe in something with pure faith.

I'm sure this is obvious to many other people, but I never read anything about it and came to my own conclusion. It's fun to think about these kinds of things.

[*Sigh*]

However, I will say that if God does exist, then He has a pretty warped imagination/sense of humour. How else would you explain the universe as it is? /rhetoricalquesiton

Going along these lines, I have another theory that states that when God was making Earth and its species he was basically "playtesting" life, kind of like SporeX9,000.

I mean really, if you had all the power in the world, wouldn't you screw around and see what you could make, and how big you could make the creatures before getting to anything that actually had intelligence?

[Descriptor]

While I am a devout atheist, I have a religious theory that could integrate evolution into any abrahamic religion with only minor reinterpretation of the biblical canon.

God, being all knowing and all powerful, would likely employ the most efficient method in his creation of anything that is highly complex. Even with infinite wisdom and power, it is wiser and more efficient to create a self-sustaining system than to make each move by hand. Therefore, god would likely automate the creation of life by allowing it to adapt to environmental factors, which would cause it to reach a state of high complexity and efficiency, while still only employing enough effort to create a few uni-cellular organisms. If the 7 days of creation were interpreted as 7 stages, rather than literal days, the time constraints would mitigated.

On the last bit there, some Christian religions (such as Catholicism, my religion) like to read the book of Genesis in an allegorical context, as opposed to literal.
This makes a lot of sense in many regards.
For one, it is generally accepted amoung religious scholars that Genesis was written primarily by Moses in the desert, interpreted from visions. As such, the content of such visions might be reasonably skewed by perception. In this regard, reading Genesis, you can kinda see a lot of the descriptions of events in the Creation story as oddly similar to modern accepted scientific theory. For instance, let's start at the top. First there was nothing, then there was light, and it was good. This can reasonably be seen as a very simple description of the Big Bang, as perhaps might be described by someone thousands of years ago. Furthermore, much of the order of events pertains well to what is generally considered chronological fact today. It's always interesting to note that man was created at the very end, rather than towards the beginning, as a lot of other creation stories tend towards. While understandably this can be a bit of a long shot, it's still a fun way of looking at things, allowing for science and religion to not necessarily be mortal enemies for once. But that's just how I've come to terms with my faith vs. my love of science, so it's obviously up to the person.

[DizzzyZebra]

Hope it doesn't get locked too soon. This sort of thing actually really interests me.
Unfortunately I have nothing to contribute.

[Axillary]

What if, way back when God was first making humans, he found that he could make an... on/off switch for sin (and the obvious associate, death) in our DNA, and the catalyst for turning that switch was in the fruit that he told Adam and Eve not to eat?
That way, not only is sin an inheritable trait (because it's in our DNA, with the switch "on") but also a supernatural one because the only cure for it is divine intervention (or not having imperfect parents like Jesus) since even scientists that have been studying our genes for a few decades only know a small portion of what it all does.

No matter the details, why leave the tree there in the first place to tempt innocent people who don't even know what death is?

Other animals besides humans have DNA (all of them, in fact). Do sea cucumbers know and commit sin, then?

I can't wait to see the news story announcing that Brigham Young University has isolated the Sin Gene and that all humans will be genetically sinless test tube babies from then on. That would be a rad sci-fi movie. Or at least an entertaining one.

Atheists are fine, as long as you're not douchebags about it.

No one likes to discuss religion as much as atheists, man.

I'll be surprised if this thread is still open by the time I finish typing this post.

[Descriptor]

No matter the details, why leave the tree there in the first place to tempt innocent people who don't even know what death is?

Other animals besides humans have DNA (all of them, in fact). Do sea cucumbers know and commit sin, then?

I can't wait to see the news story announcing that Brigham Young University has isolated the Sin Gene and that all humans will be genetically sinless test tube babies from then on. That would be a rad sci-fi movie. Or at least an entertaining one.



No one likes to discuss religion as much as atheists, man.

I'll be surprised if this thread is still open by the time I finish typing this post.

The tree is an allegory for free will. It represents how humans have the choice to commit sin or not. That's what's important here, the choice, not the action, as it is implied that by committing that choice, you are openly rebelling against God. Animals, on the other hand, are not sentient in the same way humans are, really, so there is no real choice present there.
Well, there is, but it's not really a choice as we as humans see it.

So this ultimately boils down to, why give humans free choice if it means they will likely just commit sin?
Well, uhhh.... shenanigans?
(This is one of those really interesting points of debate, that would pretty much be right up there in the meaning of life strata of questions, so it's not easily answerable.)

[*Sigh*]

Basically what Descriptor said. The animals were still capable of death back then, so to say that Adam and Ever didn't know what it was would be naive.

What made it such a heavy sin was the fact that they had a purpose (fill the earth with kids and live a relatively carefree life) and instead willfully disobeyed God, akin to telling a child that he should not eat a cookie, and then that child walks up to the cookie, eats it, and then reaches for another all while looking you in the face.

Also it says right there in Genesis that Eve didn't really think of the Tree as "good for food" until AFTER she had that little chat with the devil/snake.

[Axillary]

The tree is an allegory for free will. It represents how humans have the choice to commit sin or not. That's what's important here, the choice, not the action, as it is implied that by committing that choice, you are openly rebelling against God. Animals, on the other hand, are not sentient in the same way humans are, really, so there is no real choice present there.
Well, there is, but it's not really a choice as we as humans see it.

So this ultimately boils down to, why give humans free choice if it means they will likely just commit sin?
Well, uhhh.... shenanigans?
(This is one of those really interesting points of debate, that would pretty much be right up there in the meaning of life strata of questions, so it's not easily answerable.)

Haha shenanigans. That's probably the most honest answer I've ever heard.

I don't think the tree as an allegory changes anything, considering the outcome. The consequences of applegate were awfully extreme.

Now I don't want to put you on the spot, but if this story, or portions of it, is an allegory, then how much of the Bible is literal and how much is fables? This seems to be a matter of extreme contention among Christians so I'm curious about your opinion.

What made it such a heavy sin was the fact that they had a purpose (fill the earth with kids and live a relatively carefree life) and instead willfully disobeyed God, akin to telling a child that he should not eat a cookie, and then that child walks up to the cookie, eats it, and then reaches for another all while looking you in the face.

Also it says right there in Genesis that Eve didn't really think of the Tree as "good for food" until AFTER she had that little chat with the devil/snake.

Actually, they ran and hid afterwards. They had no idea what to do. How could they? They were innocent and didn't know sin and death before then. How could someone like that effectively resist temptation from someone cunning who knew better? If you don't know what a lie is, can you recognize one? If you don't know what sin is, can you understand temptation? Could they have been tempted with the fruit if the fruit was not accessible to them in the first place? It seems to me more akin to teasing a baby with something pretty and giving them up for adoption when they take it. Or leaving your gun safe open during your five year old's birthday party, and then going out for the afternoon. If a child ate your cookies in direct defiance of your command, would you sentence him and all of his descendents to a hard labor camp? Gosh, the heavy sin of cookie eating.

I think the death thing is open to debate, but I suppose it all is anyway.


What do you guys suppose the first religion was like?

[Descriptor]

Haha shenanigans. That's probably the most honest answer I've ever heard.

I don't think the tree as an allegory changes anything, considering the outcome. The consequences of applegate were awfully extreme.

Now I don't want to put you on the spot, but if this story, or portions of it, is an allegory, then how much of the Bible is literal and how much is fables? This seems to be a matter of extreme contention among Christians so I'm curious about your opinion.

Well, generally, pretty much just the beginning of Genesis.
It's generally agreed upon that the first books of the Bible were written by Moses, so everything but Genesis was more of a first hand account as opposed to being based on visions or third hand accounts.
For instance, things like the Great Flood could have indeed happened (just at a much smaller scale), and there really no reason to refute, say, the story of Abraham and the like because it's all fairly straightforward.

This is especially one of those points that I tend to get really bugged by, when people say the Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales.
Most of it serves largely as an historical account of the creation of Judaism, so even if you don't believe in the spiritual aspects of it, most of it is based on pretty straightforward first hand accounts. Might there be some discrepancies? Sure, but that's true of virtually any piece of historical information. Even amoung all the many translations and interpretations, though, the general messages still remain fairly clear, of the cause and effect of events.

[DizzzyZebra]

Are yes, I heard 'fairy tales' describe the Bible just the other day. It just immediately served to show me they had never read it outside of the watered down tales told at primary school.

It gives a interesting insight into history, I think. It also really interests me that people took such trouble to really write down morals. I don't know if morals, good or evil were even a concept before religion. As a child I always thought it was an inbuilt sense of what was wrong and what was right, but now I can't tell if it is just cultural influence and what pisses me off. The same with 'fairness'. Where did that come from?

[*Sigh*]

Actually, they ran and hid afterwards. They had no idea what to do. How could they? They were innocent and didn't know sin and death before then. How could someone like that effectively resist temptation from someone cunning who knew better? If you don't know what a lie is, can you recognize one? If you don't know what sin is, can you understand temptation?[/I]

I'm just gonna zoom in on this here so I don't make a huge multi-quote post.
1st: They hid because after they lost their perfection they realized they were naked and grew ashamed of that fact.
2nd: It says right there in Genesis that before Eve was made Adam had the job of naming all of the animals. Assuming this is true and not just allegory for why animals have names, this would have taken quite a long time, certainly enough time to see animals die. To say they didn't know what it was is naive.
3rd: Regardless of whether or not they knew what a lie was, they knew what the truth was, and what the penalty was for breaking that ONE rule laid out for them. That's what perfection means: Not that you're wide eyed and innocent like a 5-year old, but that you are fully aware of what is right and what is wrong in a given situation. This is why the sin made by Adam and Eve was so heavy, because they knew full well what they were doing but they selfishly "wanted to be like God."

[Triangle Man]

Are yes, I heard 'fairy tales' describe the Bible just the other day. It just immediately served to show me they had never read it outside of the watered down tales told at primary school.

It gives a interesting insight into history, I think. It also really interests me that people took such trouble to really write down morals. I don't know if morals, good or evil were even a concept before religion. As a child I always thought it was an inbuilt sense of what was wrong and what was right, but now I can't tell if it is just cultural influence and what pisses me off. The same with 'fairness'. Where did that come from?

1) I suspect that religion did help to create a sense of morality within society, even the very early ones. General societal norms or early legal systems would've also helped in this pursuit, however.

2) I sort of agree with your sentiments about the Bible. I know that some Atheists refer to religion and religious thought as 'superstition' or 'magical thinking', and depending on the ultimate nature of reality this could easily be true. The thing is that it's also kind of insulting to write off the Bible or any other Holy Book as, well, a 'fairy tale'. As you said, it makes a great historical tool and can give us a sense of what people valued during it's writing. As well, my understanding of the Bible (from my History course) leads to a couple of interesting conclusions...

a) The Old Testament may have been/was likely a compilation of oral stories and tales from around the...I think the area where Israel is and where the Hebrew Lands used to exist (I will need to check on this later), so it's fascinating in that regard. During that period of history, people's understanding of the Nature of God was changing and it resulted in new ideas as to what a Holy life was or something like that (it mostly involved the idea that people had a contract with God to worship Him and believe in Him in exchange for being a 'chosen people'. One of my textbooks gives a brief run-down on it, and it would make for a fascinating area of study).

b) And of course the New Testament is the major source for information on the life of Jesus Christ, and by reading it you can gain insight into what he was preaching, what he believed in, what sort of values he held, how he defined Christianity and understood Man's relationship with God, etc. I've heard that the Sermon on the Mount gives excellent insight into his teachings, and there is even one passage where, if you apply an understanding of the conditions of the time to it, may explain why the Roman authorities ultimately crucified him.

I must say that I am referring to the Bible as a historical text in this case, but the main point is this; you really can't just dismiss it offhand.

...Which is the same point that Descriptor made, but with less words. Damn.

Also, if you're looking for stuff on what the first religions are like, take a look at the Egyptian religious system. Hell, you can go further back than that and examine the beliefs of the Babylonians and the other really, really early civilizations. Any of those can give you a clue as to what Religion was like at the time, and as mentioned earlier (I think) you can take a look at how Judaism completely redefined Religion from these early forms.

It's all so interesting, I think.

[P_equals_NP]

I treat my turning religious theories and relating them to science like I treat a lot of things

"Shenanigans"

[unbridledExüberance]

I have a theory about how the soul works:

The human brain is probably capable of functioning normally without a soul. That is, if you consider two 'people': one has a soul, the other does not (but is physically completely and totally human), you would not be able to determine with probability significantly greater than 50% which person is conscious and which person is esessitally a biological machine.

Now, we know that the universe contains randomness where a random event is defined as, given the state of a system (and any previous states of you choosing), it is impossible, with probability strictly greater than that of a random guess, to predict the next event.

Now consider all of the random events that occur within the (human) brain. Now instead of considering these random events as completely uninfluenced by anything, consider the possibility that this randomness instead comes from an undetectable source: one that lies outside of the observable universe.

So here's my theory:
Consider the concept of a Soul-To-Brain device (I'll refer to it as SB from here on). Think of the SB as a computer program. The SB takes infromation from the user (the soul), and outputs a stream of "random" information to the brain. The SB has complete knowledge as to exactly how any given output will effect the brain, but this information is hidden from the user (the soul). So, given a situtation, the brain will react to it. Part of this reaction is "random" information from the soul. So how a person will react to a situation is a function of both the state of the physical brain AND the person's soul.

That's my theory, anyways.


================================================== ============

And now, for a theory more related to the current topic of sin:

We have been told that God created man in His own image. Now God doesn't have one physical image because, well, He created physics and the universe and lies outside of it. He appears however he wants to. Human, glowly human, dove, fire, disembodied voice, whatever. What I take this to mean is that he gave man a soul, so we would be more than just automatons. That's the part of us that was created in His image. The body is just a thing that we attach our souls to so we can experience this universe that He made for us.

But why make us in His image instead of just biological robots that serve Him and do good? Why let man sin? Because He gave us a choice: serve Him or do not. He wants us to serve Him, but he did not force us to. We can choose to follow Him, then, eventually, when we have proven our dedication and spent our time on earth, we are reborn into bodies that cannot sin. We still have free will, sure, but all those choices that were sinfull will no longer occur to us (or are just not even worth considering). Alternatively, we can choose to be all "yo, thanks for making me but I'm gonna go do my own thing kthxbaie". Then when our time's up, we get exactely what we wanted: another life separated from God where He no longer tries to call us back to Him and just says "FINE. Be that way. I won't force you to serve Me."

Pretty good deal if you ask me.

[Wiwaxia]

I've always liked the interpretation where the Fruit is more of a Prometheus moment - by eating the fruit Adam and Eve became more than ignorant animals. Becoming human came at the cost of paradise, but it made life more valuable.

/heresy

e. Also, a nice little deist-ish song.

[*Sigh*]

And now, for a theory more related to the current topic of sin:

We have been told that God created man in His own image. Now God doesn't have one physical image because, well, He created physics and the universe and lies outside of it. He appears however he wants to. Human, glowly human, dove, fire, disembodied voice, whatever. What I take this to mean is that he gave man a soul, so we would be more than just automatons. That's the part of us that was created in His image. The body is just a thing that we attach our souls to so we can experience this universe that He made for us.

But why make us in His image instead of just biological robots that serve Him and do good? Why let man sin? Because He gave us a choice: serve Him or do not. He wants us to serve Him, but he did not force us to. We can choose to follow Him, then, eventually, when we have proven our dedication and spent our time on earth, we are reborn into bodies that cannot sin. We still have free will, sure, but all those choices that were sinfull will no longer occur to us (or are just not even worth considering). Alternatively, we can choose to be all "yo, thanks for making me but I'm gonna go do my own thing kthxbaie". Then when our time's up, we get exactely what we wanted: another life separated from God where He no longer tries to call us back to Him and just says "FINE. Be that way. I won't force you to serve Me."

Pretty good deal if you ask me.

Dude, this is like, 90% exactly what's actually in the Bible. Good show!

[IDSeeker]

I'm apatheist: I don't care.

[Dmatix]

I'm Jewish, though not really a practicing one. Nor am I sure God exists (I guess you could call me Agnostic on that respect). Even though I believe in science and evolution first and foremost, my Jewish identity is extremely important to me. I know I am one of relatively very few, a member of a group that kept its unique identity for thousands of years. I am a Jew in honor of my ancestors who suffered for me to have the right to be one, and I am proud to be one. For them, not for some divinity.

[_Quietus_]

Pastafaria


Although in my heart, I frankly can't decide between what is fact and what is fiction.
I have seen things that both confirm and deny the existence of the metaphysical
So... I'm personally kinda confused.

[*Sigh*]

Guys, this isn't the thread for introductions/announcing what you are.

It's for religious-themed theories and stuff, like what would have happened if X was different and stuff like that.

[Jolts]

In terms of the cliff-notes version of my spiritual thoughts, my mind basically wants to drive me towards 'atheist' but my heart wants to hold on to 'Deism', if that makes sense at all. This view is mostly informed by personal issues with mortality coupled with a strong desire to apply 'rational thought' to the issue and the conclusions I come to when I do make that application. It is also likely the option that works the best for me at this juncture.

I know what you mean, and I feel the exact same way about god. My family is jewish and I do definitely think of myself as being jewish, but because of both things happening in the world now and things historically I've never really been sure about the existence of god. I know a lot of people are jewish and either don't believe in god or believe that god is dead (believe me, those things aren't completely irreconcilable) but I'm really not sure. I'm the exact same way as you, my mind says that there is no god, but I really do just want to believe that god existed at one point. So yeah, I guess I'm Deist.

[IDSeeker]

Guys, this isn't the thread for introductions/announcing what you are.

It's for religious-themed theories and stuff, like what would have happened if X was different and stuff like that.

Mine was a statement that I don't have any theory because I don't really care; I don't know why the others announced their beliefs.