|
29526. wabbit - 6/25/2009 11:53:48 PM I've always been in favor of comprehensive religious education in the public schools. I think it is fundamental to understanding that any one religion does not exist in a vacuum. I was fortunate enough to get a smattering of religious learning mixed in with history when I was in Junior High (public school, go figure). I'd like to see children learn not only about the religious practices of the ancients (Egypt, Greece, Rome), but also how and why more modern religions developed and spread.
I agree with Ms. No in that I doubt the ACLU would be involved unless it were one particular religion being proselytized rather than taught objectively.
And Pelty, what a treat it is to have you here again. Thank you. 29527. anomie - 6/26/2009 12:46:19 AM Such an education might counterbalance some of the indoctrination and mental abuse kids get from parents and Sunday school teachers. Kids who are taught at an early age about Satan, and that they are worthy of hell and damnation (just for being born!) unless they sell their souls to God or Christ, or Joseph Smith, or whomever, don't have much of a chance unless they find some other role models or examples. 29528. pelty - 6/26/2009 3:39:44 PM Ms No,
"I blame the tendency for lack of scholarship on the tent-revival movements in the early part of the 20th century. I think the idea that any man can commune directly with God is one of the best things that came out of the Protestant break from the Catholics, but it did lead in a roundabout way to anyone being able to jump up, say he's moved by the spirit and begin preaching to others.
This means you get a lot of people who simply haven't bothered to become Biblically or historically educated and then they go and spread their lack of education to their congregants."
An interesting theory, though I would bet that biblical illiteracy cannot be traced to any one phenomenon. Still, your theory may well be a component of it. I have definitely been to some churches where the pastor seems less than adequately trained in biblical exegesis, but I never returned to them! 29529. judithathome - 6/26/2009 3:45:34 PM the pastor seems less than adequately trained in biblical exegesis
I'd be willing to bet that 9/10s of the congregations in churches across the land would not know what that term means, anyhow. ;-)
Dick Cavett once made a great pun using "exegesis" and referring to lapsed Christians...I wish I could remember it! 29530. pelty - 6/26/2009 4:05:29 PM "It is I...JaH...responding. ;-)
Since that is all I'm interested in...the here and now...that is not only fine but more than enough for me."
Of course, referring back to the earlier posting, the definition of "happiness" for a person or group is one of those thorny questions that can lead to a distinct lack of "happiness" for another individual or group. 29531. pelty - 6/26/2009 4:47:55 PM "Now, as for "faith". What say you about doubt and faith? Is faith a stance held in spite of doubt? Is it certainty without evidence? What exactly do YOU mean by faith? Ha!"
A great set of questions, anomie, and you are right to press me for definitions. As I am sure you know, the biblical definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1 is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." By this standard, my faith is imperfect. Unfortunately, I have more in common with Thomas than Peter. I suspect that you and I are alike in that we both like to know the ins-and-outs of things about which we are passionate, its mechanics, and so forth (unfortunately, I am not passionate about something handy like cars or home improvement!). It is the nature of metaphysics that we can not know everything we would wish. For me (and I cannot stress those two words enough), though, there is enough evidence to make a decision not to make that final leap of faith more irrational than to make the leap. I think my lack of faith is frequently more entangled with issues endemic to evangelicalism with which, while I would not say that I definitively "disagree" with them, I have, shall we say, reservations about them. The primary one that comes to mind is biblical inerrancy, a construct that, someday, I would like to research a bit more. Certainly in antiquity, this concept is one that would not have been recognized as it is in its current state. The authority of the texts was a given, I think it is fair to say, but there was also a fair number of interpretive moves, allegorization being the primary one (more with the Jewish scriptures [a process already begun most prominently by the Jewish Philo of Alexandria, but taken up by Christian interpreters as well] than the NT in the first couple centuries) that would surely be frowned upon by modern exegetes (cont.)... 29532. pelty - 6/26/2009 4:48:05 PM For me, the slavish adherence to biblical inerrancy borders on bibliolatry. (***Lingo alert***) My hope for salvation lies not in the book but in the person of Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection, not in the Bible being correct in every detail. Now, I do think it is correct on the basics and many of the details, but if Luke got his facts wrong on Quirinius (and this is a debated point; I have seen solid arguments in both directions), does it mean that he must therefore be wrong on every detail? From my perspective, not necessarily. I can be right about the big picture of a thing (e.g. my wife is going to take an airplane to the BVI on Sunday) and slip up on minor details (I thought her plane was going to leave at 6:30 a.m, but it is 7:30). Thus, I lean towards lending to the Bible authority, but am reserving my opinion a bit on inerrancy. This leaves me open to certain attacks, though this may be too harsh a term, from both Christians and non-Christians, but it is where I feel most intellectually honest at the moment... but please don't poke holes, I am not sure my faith could take it!! Ha! ;-)
Did I answer your questions, anomie, or did I just leave them behind in the dust as I went off on a new topic? If it is the latter, make me re-phrase and/or get on task!
BTW, the part about my wife going to the BVI is true which means I have Daddy duty for the next ten days or so and I would expect my participation here to be limited at best. If you say/ask something and I do not respond, it is not because I am ignoring you. I will try to get back to you as time allows. 29533. judithathome - 6/26/2009 4:48:39 PM That's why my definition of "happiness" is informed by "so long as it doesn't hurt others." A hard row to hoe, no doubt, and if carried to an extreme, we could do nothing in this life...can't eat meat, it harms the animals; can't make money at the expense of others; can't own more than anyone else; can't go to war, it harms others....we'd all be totally stalled when it came to living.
...can't breathe...it depletes oxygen for others...ha! 29534. anomie - 6/26/2009 4:59:13 PM Pelty, you answered the question about faith very well, afaic. I am skeptical of religious people who won't admit to doubt. I think the lack or absence of doubt actually dilutes an claim to having "faith". I mean, what's the use of faith if we have certainty.
Interesting, your comments about innerrancy. But I think you contradict yourself by making a distinct as to whether the whole Bible is perfect or merely some of it, or some of it's teachings. You may narrow it down, but you are still clinging to a concept of innerancy in a text - something external to a living God - which would put you right back in with the idolators.
And then there's still the problem of whether a particular interpretation is perfect, and I've yet to see any Christian claim perfection within himself. 29535. pelty - 6/26/2009 5:51:36 PM "That's why my definition of "happiness" is informed by "so long as it doesn't hurt others." A hard row to hoe, no doubt, and if carried to an extreme, we could do nothing in this life...can't eat meat, it harms the animals; can't make money at the expense of others; can't own more than anyone else; can't go to war, it harms others....we'd all be totally stalled when it came to living.
...can't breathe...it depletes oxygen for others...ha!"
:-) So is your philosophy ultimately a practical one, do you think? I am not sure that we have to go too far towards an extreme to start encountering a problem with the impingement on a person's happiness. Is there a better, more definable, word we should use in place of "happiness"? I am struggling to come up with one, at the moment. When we speak of harm, do we mean *any* kind of harm? Emotional, physical, mental? I may be more cynical than you, but I just do not see how we can go through life where all of us are always happy. Well, I am sure you feel that way, too, so I am trying to wrap my head around where we draw the line between "life's a b&^ch" and "John and Jane are limiting my happiness." I am not trying to be a smart-arse, but it seems as though there is a certain impracticality to your system, though I am sure I am just not understanding it because it is somewhat complex. Have you thought it through in a way that will clarify how your view can actually work in the world in which we currently live? Thanks. 29536. pelty - 6/26/2009 5:56:21 PM anomie,
"Interesting, your comments about innerrancy. But I think you contradict yourself by making a distinct as to whether the whole Bible is perfect or merely some of it, or some of it's teachings. You may narrow it down, but you are still clinging to a concept of innerancy in a text - something external to a living God - which would put you right back in with the idolators."
This is really great. I want to come back to this, but have to get some work done. If, due to Daddy duties, I do not get to this, do not let me forget this. My first blush response will, again, probably not offer you (total) satisfaction, but I have decided not to post it now so that I can consider the question for a little longer. 29537. pelty - 6/26/2009 5:57:51 PM 29535 is meant for J@H. Sorry I did not address you (and if the shortened version of your handle bothers you, I will call you Judith, but those extra three letters are killers). 29538. anomie - 6/26/2009 6:21:28 PM Pelty, good conversation is satisfaction enough for me. Be well and take your time. 29539. judithathome - 6/26/2009 7:24:08 PM I may be more cynical than you, but I just do not see how we can go through life where all of us are always happy. Well, I am sure you feel that way, too, so I am trying to wrap my head around where we draw the line between "life's a b&^ch" and "John and Jane are limiting my happiness." I am not trying to be a smart-arse, but it seems as though there is a certain impracticality to your system, though I am sure I am just not understanding it because it is somewhat complex. Have you thought it through in a way that will clarify how your view can actually work in the world in which we currently live? Thanks.
To begin with, I am certain you are NOT more cynical than I...if so, you wouldn't be a man of faith. ;-)
And this may sound simplistic but really, I don't spend my days thinking if everyone is happy or not. I feel responsible for only my happiness. And the things that make me happy are pretty simple.
Frankly, I don't think I limit anyone else from achieving happiness within themselves. I think the majority of the world is hooked on pessimism and if they are, they can change...they can look on a rainy day as beneficial rather than a pain in the ass for commuting; they can use a heartbreaking situation as an opportunity for growth (though I will admit that is a difficult but not impossible thing to do, going through one right now myself).
In my book (hypothetical) one can drag themselves out of depression or not...one can choose to be tolerent or not, one can decide the glass is half full, not half empty.
And I don't expect OR want everyone to happy all the time...how can happiness be fully appreciated if it is there all the time as a constant? Contrast and change are needed to make happiness count. Otherwise, it's just boring sameness. The fact it's not constant makes it special to me.
29540. judithathome - 6/26/2009 7:24:46 PM And you can call me Judith...or whatever you wish! 29541. alistairConnor - 6/27/2009 1:35:58 AM Pelty :Thus, it would seem, your dogma is "'dogma is anathema to me!'" I am not trying to be cute, by the way.
You're succeeding anyway. This is completely vacuous. If refusing all dogma is itself a dogma, then, by definition, you win the argument. Fine.
(How about this : "Dogma? I can take it or leave it." Is this a dogmatic statement?)
In order to demonstrate your point, you'd have to know more about your world view. I will not be coy about it, and I am pretty confident you'll find nothing that can be meaningfully defined as dogmatic.
I do have a certain number of articles of faith, if you will, which I believe in even though I know them to be objectively false. For example : "People are good, and should be trusted." Such tenets guide me in life, but they are not dogma, because I will not defend them when they turn out to be false, as a dogmatic person must.
Does that help? 29542. pelty - 7/8/2009 10:38:44 PM All,
I have not forgotten about you, but I am in the midst of moving and writing several papers, so it may be longer than I had hoped before I am able to respond. My apologies. 29543. Ms. No - 7/9/2009 1:55:45 AM Good luck with your move --- remember to bend your knees! 29544. pelty - 7/9/2009 4:12:29 AM Ms. No,
Thanks! The moving itself is fine as I will lift nary a finger, but the packing is an entirely different animal. I loathe it. 29545. Ms. No - 7/9/2009 7:47:42 AM The next time I have to move I may subscribe the the "haul it all out in the yard and set fire to it" school of moving. I have so much crap!
|
