Nick the Nevermet Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I'll start at the end and work to the beginning "...The problem is with people, interpreting it in ways that reinforce patriarchy, class, and everything else without even realizing they're doing it (I'm being charitable)...." who cares if they 'realize' it or not? It's wrong, is it not? Please tell me why it should be defended. Kath That was my point: whether they are intentionally manipulating the Bible, or they are blind, people justify all sorts of horrible things, using the Bible. This should be criticized and never defended. Then why are you in favor in keeping it, warts and all? It's not a matter of sanitizing texts. It's a matter of getting rid of them because they cause more harm than good. What depth do they have when they cause harm? What depth does the bible have which cannot be found in other texts which don't at the same time induce violence and condemnation? Please tell me just what the bible has going for it that can't be found in other texts which don't include those things? "Getting rid of the parts that do harm" is precisely the definition of sanitizing the text, Kath. No text is idiot proof. No text, religious or otherwise, has the ability to demand a singular good reading from all readers. Attempting to remove all potentially harmful passages will end up failing at the stated goal, devolving the book into useless platitudes, or both. ...Or put another way, were you in favor of removing the N-word from Tom Sawyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Kath Do you base your progressive Christianity on the bible, Joseph? Is this your forum? Did you start it? Because if that's what this forum is about, I'm going to have to pass and find another. I feel your anger, Kath. I think you missed this part. Things could not be any different than they are at this moment, The only thing we have control over is the next moment. But Joseph has no need or intention of defending the Bible. And, I think, he is pretty much non-attached to owning or controlling anything except civil discourse. Take Care Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Ah Joseph, while I appreciate your stand, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. You have drunk the coolaide and I understand your steadfast protection of the bible because you are coming from that prospective. The bible may be just what it is, but what is is, is not a book we should be basing everything in life on, as people do. Again: No one here has claimed that. I think people here are quite willing to agree: Great evil has been done using Christianity and the Bible Fixed interpretations of the Bible have been used to support hierarchy in society the popularity of a given religion cannot be separated from power relations. There may be noble people striving for truth, but there is always power and domination (humanity does that). The main point of contention seems to be whether or not the Bible in its current form is necessarily a force of evil, purely and automatically. You appear to believe it is, I do not (though it's easily used for that). Also, I apologize, but I need to say this: the koolaide comment was below the belt and not appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 It probably does not matter but research shows that Churches (and the Bible) do not create prejudice but that people who are prejudiced attend church. The most prejudiced attend once or twice per month. It isn't the gun, it's the hand on the gun. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prej.htm Take Care Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 It probably does not matter but research shows that Churches (and the Bible) do not create prejudice but that people who are prejudiced attend church. The most prejudiced attend once or twice per month. It isn't the gun, it's the hand on the gun. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prej.htm Take Care Dutch That site is a gift that keeps giving. I need to remember to check it more. Thanks, Dutch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 As tempting as this is (and it really is tempting), I can't get behind it. I'm generally not in favor of sanitizing texts, as in my experience they lose depth in the process, but people can always (mis-)interpret a text in ways that will create headaches. I'd rather keep the Bible, warts and all. The problem is with people, interpreting it in ways that reinforce patriarchy, class, and everything else without even realizing they're doing it (I'm being charitable). Nick, The idea that eliminating or sanitizing the Bible would make people behave nicely just does not stand up to the evidence. First, there are many Bible-believing Christians who are decent, caring people. Secondly, there are numerous examples of awful behavior by non-Christians. Therefore the Bible is not the distinguishing difference. If there were some correlation, the claim might be valid, but there is no correlation. To claim that the Bible causes attitudes of patriarchy, class, etc., one must explain why these also occur in non-Christian societies. What is the cause there? Could that be the same factor that causes it in our society? George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Ah Joseph, while I appreciate your stand, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. You have drunk the coolaide and I understand your steadfast protection of the bible because you are coming from that prospective. The bible may be just what it is, but what is is, is not a book we should be basing everything in life on, as people do. "...It is popular because there are so many people who are at that stage of evolution of consciousness where it provides that which they need and are drawn to...." No, it's popular because it has been pushed on people for so many years. If it provides some of which they are drawn to, I consider it a false siren which can suck a person in to believe that condemnation and ostracization is also the will of God. It is popular because of it's proliferation, and partial substantive phrases of goodness and value for lack of any other book to put by the bedside and attend a gathering of other hopeful individuals seeking for the path to God. That wasn't by accident. "... Things could not be any different than they are at this moment, thus the Bible exists...." You can't be serious. Are you saying that the bible has not been influential on history? Are you saying that people haven't been tortured, murdered, ostracized and suicidal because of the influence of biblical teachings? Cancer exists also, but that doesn't make it okay. If you think that if the bible was erased from the face of the earth, another would replace it, I respectfully have to say that it would be impossible. Do you base your progressive Christianity on the bible, Joseph? Is this your forum? Did you start it? Because if that's what this forum is about, I'm going to have to pass and find another. Kath Obviously i have struck a chord in you. I apologize for any provocation on my part. It is my perception that you have misunderstood my post. I am okay with any disagreement you have with my personal view. I certainly am not defending the Bible with my view. I am not attached to any book. The Bible can stay or leave and i will not be moved. Perhaps you have read too much into my words? If they cause you trouble of any sort will you please discard them and allow them to pass so we can remain close friends? My words are often easily misunderstood and i lack many of the skills that a better education may have provided. As far as your last questions..... As i have said in previous posts, i found an approach to God through the reported teachings of Jesus but my progressive Christianity (if you desire to use that label for me) is based on experience and my fitting into the 8 points of TCPC. No, this is not MY forum. No, i did not start it. I agreed to take it over and act as Administrator after it was being eliminated by TCPC in favor of a facebook network because of the enormous amount of complaints it was receiving and lack of sufficient moderation. The head organization can be found here. The management team including advisors can be found here. While as administrator and one of the moderators of the forum, i have some level of authority that has been assigned me over members when i insert (as moderator or admin) after my name, when i speak in posts signed with my name only, i speak only for myself as an equal with all others on this forum. This forum is NOT about me. Love in Christ, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kath Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 Thanks to all of you for your responsive input. I think my stand on the bible just alienates me to thoughts of it's value, I'm sorry. When I think of (I repeat ad nauseum) how many people over the centuries who have been tortured, murdered, ostracized, etc. because of this collection of literature, I become incensed that it exists at all. It matters not to me that it has historical merit nor a few sections worthy of spiritual guidance and support because that can be found in many other historical works of literature. I guess my strength in opinion on this is not shared by many on this forum. (I apologize if "drunk the coolaide" was below the belt. I didn't mean it in the harshest manner of interpretation, but what matters is how it was perceived). Nick, you asked if I think the N word should have been removed from Tom Sawyer. I have mixed feelings about that, but I don't think that book can be placed in the same category as the bible in the influence it has had upon generations of people. We can't take every single book that's been written and change the words so they don't offend people. That would be an exercise in futility. But you have a good point which supports the assertion that some people come to church and bring their mindset with them. GlintofPewter, you said, "The only thing we have control over is the next moment." in explanation of Joseph's "Things could not be any different than they are at this moment". Joseph's point, as I see it, is that we can't change what is, so it's a waste of time being upset by it? I respectfully disagree to a point. Yes, I agree that my anger at the negative impact of the bible will not change a thing, but if enough people agree with me and communicate this perspective, I'm a believer that you never know what power can produce change. I'm really only expressing my views on this and I know of many people who agree with me. (aside from this forum ). And last and foremost, Dear Joseph, I really appreciate your response to my post and yes, I certainly hope we remain good friends. I'll try to not be as "expressive" in future posts. Your, "just my opinion" should have stopped my mind in it's tracks. I do understand that the bible isn't going anywhere fast but into more copies into more sets of hands, but I also know that many people have turned from religion because of the reasons I gave and the secular population has grown as well. One more important point: while it's true that people bring their prejudices and mind-set into a church and will take from the bible accordingly, I believe that without negative food for fodder from those parts of the bible, those people might be inspired to change their world views from hostility to love. You just never know. I've seen people converted because of Christ's messages, and become kinder, gentler people, and I've also seen some of them become very confused when they hear the fire and brimstone, and not wanting to reject ANY of the bible which has so inspired them, also adopt the prejudices and fear-mongering. People learn what they live. As George Bernard Shaw wrote: "Some look at things that are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?" - I'm a dreamer. Oh, well Again, thanks for your response, my friend. Kath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Obviously i have struck a chord in you. I apologize for any provocation on my part. It is my perception that you have misunderstood my post. I am okay with any disagreement you have with my personal view. I certainly am not defending the Bible with my view. I am not attached to any book. The Bible can stay or leave and i will not be moved. Perhaps you have read too much into my words? If they cause you trouble of any sort will you please discard them and allow them to pass so we can remain close friends? My words are often easily misunderstood and i lack many of the skills that a better education may have provided. As far as your last questions..... As i have said in previous posts, i found an approach to God through the reported teachings of Jesus but my progressive Christianity (if you desire to use that label for me) is based on experience and my fitting into the 8 points of TCPC. No, this is not MY forum. No, i did not start it. I agreed to take it over and act as Administrator after it was being eliminated by TCPC in favor of a facebook network because of the enormous amount of complaints it was receiving and lack of sufficient moderation. The head organization can be found here. The management team including advisors can be found here. While as administrator and one of the moderators of the forum, i have some level of authority that has been assigned me over members when i insert (as moderator or admin) after my name, when i speak in posts signed with my name only, i speak only for myself as an equal with all others on this forum. This forum is NOT about me. Love in Christ, Joseph Joseph, I think you do an excellent even handed job of moderating. It's nice to take part in TCPC because it is moderated so well. Thank you Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 ...Or put another way, were you in favor of removing the N-word from Tom Sawyer? I am guessing you saw the segment on Sixty Minutes last night on this very question. Someone has published a sanitized version with '######' replaced by 'slave' (I think). Interestingly, it was also deleted where I used it in this post (see #######) As the professor of literature who was interviewed said, it is not the same book. The shock value of the word adds to the power of the word. IMO, to paper over this sad period of our history (of which remnants remain today), is inappropriate. On the other hand, the meaning has changed since the book was written. When this was written, it was routine everyday language by many Southern whites (perhaps Northern as well). It was disparaging and dehumanizing then, but I think it has taken on even more power today. I don't think in the late 19th century, people felt that euphemisms like "N-word" were necessary. In any event, I personally oppose sanitizing literature, religious or otherwise. Readers should be aware that words like this were part of the everyday lexicon of numbers of people. (Also, I can see not allowing it here when used in a derogatory manner, but not in discussion among intelligent adults. But, I am guessing the censorship software is not sophisticated enough to make the distinction.) George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Joseph, I think you do an excellent even handed job of moderating. It's nice to take part in TCPC because it is moderated so well. Thank you Harry Thanks Harry for the kind words . GEORGE, yes it is the Software. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 As tempting as this is (and it really is tempting), I can't get behind it. I'm generally not in favor of sanitizing texts, as in my experience they lose depth in the process, but people can always (mis-)interpret a text in ways that will create headaches. I'd rather keep the Bible, warts and all. I am not in favor of sanitizing texts either, but the way I see it, the Bible already IS a sanitized Frankenstein of a book compiled and edited to create (particularly in the case of the so-called New Testament) a patriarchal, homophobic and myopic religion based on a concept of G-d that if fully realized would result in the most oppressive, tyrannical theocracy the world has ever seen. There have been attempts to realize this "dream," thankfully ending with the advent of the Renaissance. The problem is with people, interpreting it in ways that reinforce patriarchy, class, and everything else without even realizing they're doing it (I'm being charitable). But, correctly interpreting it will reinforce patriarchy, class and everything else. I can't explain the redemptive parts of the Bible, but those parts are so few and far between as to be not much more than a footnote to the overall theme of patriarchal triumphalism. Perhaps there was a glimmering moment; a ray of hope of one calling in the wilderness for the salvation of the human spirit based on love, acceptance and forgiveness. But, the shrillness and oppressive heavy hand of the rest of the story have since drowned out that message. NORM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 To claim that the Bible causes attitudes of patriarchy, class, etc., one must explain why these also occur in non-Christian societies. What is the cause there? Could that be the same factor that causes it in our society? George Betcha dollars to donuts some sort of religion was involved! NORM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Regarding sanitization of the Bible, I read years ago an observation about how the authors/editors of the Pentateuch did not sanitize their stories. They left in the warts of the many of the main characters: Jacobs bad parenting, Noah's insobriety, Solomon's mistresses, David's infidelity and murder of an inconvenient husband, etc. The author of Chronicles, on the other hand, air brushed out many of these warts. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Betcha dollars to donuts some sort of religion was involved! NORM I hope you are not suggesting that religion is the only motivation of bad behavior. Are you suggesting that human impulses like greed, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. are exclusively the product of religion? I don't think so. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I like the continuing revelation focus of the UCC slogan God is still speaking . . John Shelby Spong seems to express a similar view in conversation with Michael Dowd Throughout history, we've had constantly to rethink the Christian symbols in terms of the new worldview Today, again, we're trying to think about how we can make sense of the symbols of our religious heritage in a world that is radically different from the world we inherited as Christian people walking through history. ... I think the real lack is that we don’t teach the Bible. ... Controversy is at least a life sign. Somebody cares when you have controversy in the congregation. Particularly if it's controversy about what constitutes being human. Are gay and lesbian people human? Are people of color human? Are women human? Those are battles worthy of fighting. I want to make sure that in my life, I take the weapon which is the Bible—strangely enough the weapon that has been used to denigrate the humanity of people of color and the humanity of women, the humanity of gay and lesbian people—I want to transform that weapon into a book of life and not of death. And of course the Bible is not the only source of atrocities. From The Belief Instinct by Jesse Bering Bering quotes Richard Dawkins writing about the unspeakable treatment of Alan Turing [German enigma code breaker] who was found guilty of sodomy. Dawkins concludes the paragraph: "Once again, the unmistakable trademark of the faith-based moralizer is to care passionately about what other people do (or even think) in private." Bering counters "...the truth is that the 1950's psychiatric community, wholly independent of religious sentiments, regarded homosexuality as a medical disorder mandating curative treatment. So although Dawkins is right to condemn the unspeakable sentence of Turing at the hands of the British elite, it is in fact scientists (conducting flawed science, but science nonetheless) who were more to blame for this man's demise than that era's "faith-based moralizers." dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I hope you are not suggesting that religion is the only motivation of bad behavior. Are you suggesting that human impulses like greed, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. are exclusively the product of religion? I don't think so. George I would never posit religion as a cause, but, rather; it provides justification for one's greed, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc... Let's say you are living in this nice, tight-knit society and you and your pals rule the roost. You've got the babes, the coolest digs and unlimited access to food and water. Along comes some new stud who is more handsome than you, a better hunter and the women are interested. Let's say he is blond while you all are dark haired. "Verily, verily I say unto you: Those with flaxen hair are unfit to enter the Kingdom of Righteousness. Let him forever be damned." Thus it is written; thus it shall be. Now, of course, the above example is overly simplistic, and I'm not suggesting ALL religious writing and movements are based on self-interest, but, given some of the content found in religious writing, one wonders. See, I don't believe the religious writing precedes bad behavior - it follows and enhances. The very nature of religion, in many cases, is to provide a source of power for the "priestly class." There are many fascinating studies on how this worked itself out in primitive societies. The evolution of human religion is a growing field in anthropological studies. I think that greed, racism, murder, etc. come naturally to humans. I don't believe it is the result of an "original sin" or part of some divine plan. I think it's just part of our evolutionary past. A past, hopefully, we can overcome as we build a more just society. In many ways, religious superstition and piety hold us back from further evolution. And, I believe that in many cases, we are inclined to cling to the past. Evolving is hard, because each new step places us further outside the safety of the cave. NORM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I would never posit religion as a cause, but, rather; it provides justification for one's greed, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. [. . .] I think that greed, racism, murder, etc. come naturally to humans. I don't believe it is the result of an "original sin" or part of some divine plan. I think it's just part of our evolutionary past. A past, hopefully, we can overcome as we build a more just society. In many ways, religious superstition and piety hold us back from further evolution. And, I believe that in many cases, we are inclined to cling to the past. Evolving is hard, because each new step places us further outside the safety of the cave. NORM Ahh. We are on the same page. I agree completely. Clinging to the past (the definition of conservatism) with respect to social justice is something we should work hard to overcome. For some members of society, it is too late. But, there is hope with the young people. They are much more open minded and willing to learn and change. And, we are making progress. We elected an African-American president a couple of years ago. We revoked 'don't ask don't tell' a few months ago. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kath Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 I would never posit religion as a cause, but, rather; it provides justification for one's greed, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc... Loved your creative post, dude This response isn't directed at you, per se, but just to express my thoughts. If I might interject, IMO if it provides justification, it provides cause. I thought we were talking about the bible, specifically, but I might be mistaken. I don't think RELIGION is a cause. I think the BIBLE not only justifies this behaviour and mindset, it CAUSES it because it is a book people learn from and believe is the word of God. If what is written in the bible condemns homosexuality, for instance, the people who read it will believe that, given it is the word of God, homosexuality must be wrong! Yes, greed, racism, murder, etc. are natural in humans. Rather, they are natural in animals. We're supposed to be more evolved than other animals and I don't know if the other animals have a God they believe in, but we're the ones who are supposed to be able to think things through and be more influenced by logic than animalism. Logic might not be the best word, but you get my drift, I hope. I don't feel like thinking to hard tonight (sinus infection and all ). What chance do we have to evolve if one of the primary and foremost tools of religious Christian education keeps us in the "stone" age (and I mean that literally, as in "stone them")? Okay, well, I have to go blow my nose now. Kath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kath Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 It probably does not matter but research shows that Churches (and the Bible) do not create prejudice but that people who are prejudiced attend church. The most prejudiced attend once or twice per month. It isn't the gun, it's the hand on the gun. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prej.htm Take Care Dutch Dear Dutch, No offense, but "research shows" insinuates conclusive research, and not studies in one report from Canada. From that report: Studies of prejudice during the 1940's: The first studies of prejudice among church members were rather simplistic. The researchers divided the test subjects into two groups: those who were church members and those who were not. 1,2 The results of each study consistently showed that church "members were more prejudiced than nonmembers. The interpretation that easily came to mind was that the church produces prejudice." 3 Subsequent studies showed that this was a naive conclusion. Their data was correct: on average, church goers are more bigoted than non-church goers. However, they were asking the wrong question, and so obscured valuable information. So, just what was the wrong question they were asking? (buzzer sound) NEXT! Studies of prejudice dur ing the 1950's: Researchers examined the level of prejudice as a function of the test subject's degree of commitment to their faith. They measured the subjects' involvement with, and loyalty to, their faith by inquiring how often that the individual went to church 4,5,6 They found that: People who never attended church exhibited a low level of prejudice. The most highly prejudiced individuals were those who went to church once or twice a month. Those who went to church 11 or more times a month were the least prejudiced of all. Results from a typical study were: 6 Church attendance 0 1 2 3 4 5-7 8-10 >11/mo Prejudice score 14.7 25.0 26.0 23.8 22.0 19.9 16.3 11.7 These three studies showed that churches did not create prejudice in people. If they did, then one would expect that level of prejudice would continue to grow indefinitely as church attendance increased. The significant decrease in prejudice among highly committed church members indicates that some other factor or factors are at work. OMG! WHO WERE THESE "RESEARCHERS" IN THE '50'S? THEY'RE PROBABLY DEAD NOW, BUT I'D LOVE TO SEE THOSE 'RESEARCH' REPORTS. Sorry, Dutch~ I'm gonna need to see more than those 'stastics'. Kath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kath Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 It probably does not matter but research shows that Churches (and the Bible) do not create prejudice but that people who are prejudiced attend church. The most prejudiced attend once or twice per month. It isn't the gun, it's the hand on the gun. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prej.htm Take Care Dutch Dutch, I do like THIS '60's "research", however. Did you see this one? Studies of prejudice during the 1960's: One of the main researchers, G.W. Allport, developed the concept of intrinsic and extrinsic religion: Intrinsic religious belief: views God as loving, supportive, forgiving. views each person as unique and special. inclusive in vision; views all people as their neighbors views death positively looks upon religion as a search for truth numerically small exhibit low levels of prejudice. Extrinsic religious belief: views God as stern, vindictive and punitive. views people in terms of social categories: sex, age, status. exclusionist in vision; views their in-group as their neighbors views death negatively looks upon religion for its utilitarian value, as a means to other ends. "make up the bulk of churchgoers" "manifest high levels of bigotry." 3 Researchers found that most parishioners exhibited an extrinsic religious belief system, and that these principles led to a high level of prejudice and bigotry. Various investigators such as Strommen, Tisdale Vanecko, Gorsuch and Aleshire "also noted more prejudiced people among fundamentalists," compared to other Evangelicals, and followers of mainline and liberal denominations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I don't know about any studies but it does seem pretty clear to me from self examination that prejudice feeds the egoic state. It also seems to me to be contagious. Therefore, any system of teaching or training including certain religious training that focuses on separation, us and them, saved and lost, believers and unbelievers, etc serves to feed such egoic states that we identify as prejudice and intolerance. I would be in agreement with kath in principle that many fundamental teachings breed or magnify prejudice in people. While it is also obvious to me that certain people have more of a propensity for prejudice from birth traced to genetic or other possible reasons, that doesn't to me alter a conclusion that prejudice can be learned and taught quite easily as history seems to testify. Just my 2 cents for consideration, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 If I might interject, IMO if it provides justification, it provides cause. I thought we were talking about the bible, specifically, but I might be mistaken. I don't think RELIGION is a cause. I think the BIBLE not only justifies this behaviour and mindset, it CAUSES it because it is a book people learn from and believe is the word of God. If what is written in the bible condemns homosexuality, for instance, the people who read it will believe that, given it is the word of God, homosexuality must be wrong! Kath, I see your point. This is the perfidious nature of a Holy Book. Once it is accepted as Divine, it becomes the CAUSE. But someone has to write the thing first. Consider the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith didn't have nefarious designs to create his own religion. He thought he was writing the next best seller. The publisher in Canada who rejected his novel is quite possibly the real author of the Mormon faith with all of it's wackiness. It was never intended to become a religion. It was intended to be a good read while you're on the crapper. Imagine. You are the local guru in your church or synagogue and everyone wants your advice. So, you write a bunch of private letters - stuff you only intend to be read by the receivers - you know; the usual ######. You die. A couple hundred years later, some religious types discover your letters and decide to publish them as a book of religious doctrine. Now, your stupid letters practically DEFINE the revised religion. Hey, it could happen! Yes, greed, racism, murder, etc. are natural in humans. Rather, they are natural in animals. We're supposed to be more evolved than other animals and I don't know if the other animals have a God they believe in, but we're the ones who are supposed to be able to think things through and be more influenced by logic than animalism. Logic might not be the best word, but you get my drift, I hope. I don't feel like thinking to hard tonight (sinus infection and all ). What chance do we have to evolve if one of the primary and foremost tools of religious Christian education keeps us in the "stone" age (and I mean that literally, as in "stone them")? I agree with you 100 percent. Anything that is an impediment to our evolution is the enemy of civilization. The chimps await our outcome... NORM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 This is the perfidious nature of a Holy Book. Once it is accepted as Divine, it becomes the CAUSE. But someone has to write the thing first. NORM Darn it Norm, I thought we were in agreement. If it is correct that once a holy book is accepted, it becomes a cause (of bad behavior), please explain the many decent, caring Christians who accept the Bible. How could this explain Mother Teresa? The explanation that explains the evidence (good and bad Christians, good and bad non-Christians) is that we bring our worldview and prejudices to the holy book and find what resonates with and justifies our attitudes. I don't think if we removed the Bible from the world, the world would, as a result, become an ideal place with everyone loving and caring for everyone else. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 OMG! WHO WERE THESE "RESEARCHERS" IN THE '50'S? THEY'RE PROBABLY DEAD NOW, BUT I'D LOVE TO SEE THOSE 'RESEARCH' REPORTS. I have a feeling that we would accept research that agrees with our position. My position is that how the Bible is used depends on the views that have risen to the top in any one era. The studies done in the 50's and 60's will have different results than any done to day. The fact I favor is that the more often one participates in church the less prejudiced one is. Those attend More than 11x are less prejudiced than those that do not attend churches While we are quick to focus on pro-slavery churches, but liberal churches (particularly women) were leading the anti-slavery movement. Even though the conservatives "won" the scopes trial they were politically less active than the "Social Gospel" mainline churches who ruled the political arena. The influence of the mainline churches probably peaked with anti-abortion ruling of the supreme court (I can't remember the name of the decision) and the civil rights movement. The conservatives were sparked into political action by that decision and they have gradually gained ascendency. Neither the conservative and liberal churches are monolithic; to paint them so seems to be a dualist, either/or error. As a group they have maintained theologies that stress social justice concerns together with personal salvation and evangelism.[4] They have been credited with leading the fight for social causes such as racial justice and civil rights, equality for women, rights for the disabled and other key issues. Many of the issues that such groups have advocated for have been embraced by American law and society, but at the same time mainline denominations have been somewhat marginalized.[5] In addition, mainline churches and laity founded most of the leading educational institutes in the US.[6] - Wiki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.