Religion Spillover Thread

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by RAM PhD, Jul 28, 2013.

Loading...
  1. RAM PhD

    RAM PhD Member

    While some will look at the chapter and respond like a group of 7th grade boys giggling over the graphic depictions, Ezekiel 23 uses symbolic language to describe the horrible nature of sin and rebellion against God, as well as the subsequent judgment that befalls unrepentant persons/nations.
     
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Or it's porn. Hard to say.
     
  3. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Okay, then how about Song of Songs?
     
  4. RAM PhD

    RAM PhD Member

    A portrayal of a man with his wife depicting the beauty of courtship and the marriage relationship.
     
  5. RAM PhD

    RAM PhD Member

    It will be interpreted by the spiritual condition of the reader, as will all of the Bible. The giddy 7th grader will filter it through the lens of immaturity. The follower of Christ will understand its symbolic intent.
     
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    And those like me that take the Bible literally will form a different conclusion.
     
  7. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    "Take the Bible literally" is a phrase that doesn't make sense. The Bible is a huge book, containing a mixture of prose, narrative, dialogue, lyrics, facts and figures. Hopefully you don't short change yourself as a reader by giving them all the same lens.
     
  8. RichC.

    RichC. Member

    I have a hard time with this part of the statement. Part of my reason is how so many people take the bible for what has been published and fail to acknowledge that large portions of the book was banned by the clergey. About 20 books were not included. The history channel did a documentry on this. I'll stop here.
     
  9. RAM PhD

    RAM PhD Member

    Many conclusions may be formed, but again, the worldview and spiritual condition of the reader become the lens through which these conclusions are formed.
     
  10. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    They also do documentaries on ancient aliens.

    The "lost books" criticism of the Bible is factually and logically incorrect. I can give a comprehensive breakdown of what is wrong with it, but won't do so here because I've ruined this thread enough. I'll simply give you this analogy: If I write a song, today, and credit it to Bob Marley, does MY song belong in a Bob Marley anthology? Did the recrod company remove my song fom a collection it didn't belong to?

    Anyway, by facts and figures, I was speaking of actual mumbers, measurements and geneologies, which obviouspy should be read differently than parables and songs.
     
  11. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    I'm always interested to see if when people go after the Bible or Christianity if they also go as fervently after other religions? (Islam and the Koran specifically).

    I'm not religous but I'll share a funny story about God. My family and I went camping on the Oregon Coast. The tide was in when we got to the beach, but went way out later in the day. As my oldest son Elias (he was 7 at the time) and I were walking out where the water used to be I was explaining why the water went away (the moon's gravitational pull, etc) and he said "The Moon?, I thought it was God?" It was very endearing.
     
  12. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I don't think you should feel singled out. I think it's more that nonbelievers in the West tend to be more familiar with Christianity for family and cultural reasons, in some cases they're specifically reacting to negative memories of having been raised in a Christian environment. Either way, Christianity is a much stronger influence on the West, so you'd reasonably expect it to be a much more frequent topic of conversation (whether being praised or vilified).

    Interestingly, that sounds like the sort of story I'd sooner expect a nonbeliever to tell. It sounds like something one might find in Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World, or something like that.
     
  13. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    I am a non-believer. I don't feel singled out, I just think people only bash one religion (In my opinion) that's all. I have numerous quarrels with religous people, but I understand and respect their faith. Which is a lot more than most will do.
     
  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    That's true. I too am a non-believer, but at the same time I recognize that I simply can't answer big, important questions like, "How can there be existence at all?" or "What is consciousness?" I expect that they're unanswerable scientifically, and while I don't look beyond science for answers on things like this, I find it tough to blame those who do. Besides, some of the most interesting people I know are religious, and they put up with me. :smile:
     
  15. RichC.

    RichC. Member

    People are scared to bash Islam since it will most likely end up in someone blowing up their home, at least this is what my Iraqi friends claim to be true.
     
  16. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Given that Terry Jones is still alive, I'd say those fears are unfounded to the point of being ridiculous.
     
  17. RAM PhD

    RAM PhD Member

    There are those who "go after" religion(s) in general. Over the past few decades, here in the USA at least, it is difficult to not notice that Christianity is the religion of choice to "go after."
     
  18. ebbwvale

    ebbwvale Member

    Christians are an easy target. I cannot recall Christianity, as exercised in the West, recently attacking newspapers over cartoons that lampoon them, declaring war on their critics, or threatening murder of a person who wrote a negative book about them. In some eyes, this makes it a weak religion. If adopting the process of natural selection (survival of the fitness), then Christianity should be headed towards or already be extinct.

    It is not, which means, if the principles of natural selection are correct, it has strength in its meekness or perceived weakness. Does this mean that the meek shall inherit the earth? Turning the other cheek may actually be a good strategic choice? I don't know but I think strength can be defined at one level in the ability to withstand and survive one's enemies. In modernity, seeking to convert your enemies instead of killing them has worked for Christianity.

    Christianity developed universities in the west and educational processes talked about on this board. This, in turn, has created the modern western psyche and state. Interestingly, refugees are only interested in permanent settlement in western states because of the development underpinned by Christianity. Voting with their feet speaks volumes.

    I do not think that the history of Christianity has always borne out these characteristics and that there has been a bloodstained past. The weakness in any religion are the actions of its adherents who often are adhering to a political and/or economic, not a religious doctrine. Religion, in these cases, represents a convenient protective cloak to mask the true nature and intent of the individuals. They present any attack upon them as an attack upon the religion. The wolf hides amongst the sheep.

    Clearly, Christianity's strength is its ability to absorb criticism without revenge. Attacks upon it, in my opinion, result in more converts to it. I do not think that Christians need to fear criticism or prejudice. Its ability to absorb the blows makes it stronger.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2013
  19. RichC.

    RichC. Member

    I think that there has been a misunderstanding, I didn't go after Christianity, just at the statement that there are facts and figures in the Bible. The Bible, Koran, and any other religious work is based on writing that may or may not have even been translated properly. Saying these books have facts and figures in them is like saying the newest issue of Batman has facts and figures in it (it doesn't).

    Let us return to our regularly scheduled programming.

    Still reading A Feast for Crows but finally nearing the end.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2013
  20. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    That's true, Ebbwvale. I think your entire post is a fine piece and you'll get no disagreement from me, though I wish to add one measly point of my own. The first European Universities had the benefit of Greek scholarship preserved in Muslim lands and re-introduced around the time of the Crusades. And yes - Christianity does have a bloodied past - and that reflects on individuals, not the entire faith, as you say.

    From the Wiki on Medieval Universities:

    "The development of the medieval university coincided with the widespread reintroduction of Aristotle from Byzantine and Arab scholars. In fact, the European university put Aristotelian and other natural science texts at the center of its curriculum, with the result that the "medieval university laid far greater emphasis on science than does its modern counterpart and descendent."

    Medieval university - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Just sayin' - so we don't forget. :smile:

    Johann
     

Share This Page