Ignorance of Religion and Vice Versa

[ethics]

Stephen Prothero, in a commentary for the Christian Science Monitor, makes the case that the average American's ignorance about religion (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0120/p09s02-coop.html) is a major threat to our way of life. He paints a grim picture of a nation filled with (http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050119005258&newsLang=en), and governed by (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/national/nationalspecial2/20religion.html), religious zealots who lack even a basic understanding of other religions or their own.



"Since 9/11, President Bush has been telling us that "Islam is a religion of peace," while evangelist Franklin Graham (Billy's son) has insisted otherwise. Who is right? Americans have no way to tell because they know virtually nothing about Islam. Such ignorance imperils our public life, putting citizens in the thrall of talking heads."He goes on to suggest that the answer to the very real problem of religious intolerance, and the escape from the current poisoning of political debate with radical religious views, is to aggressively teach about religion in schools starting at grade-school level. He notes that while Europeans know far more about religion — they are, by-and-large, far less religious than Americans.

How is that?

He makes one mistake here, and that is in the Islam being far more evident part of Europe. US is a mish mash of many different ethnicities, which comprise Christianity (in a major way). Other than that, I didn't see much to dispute and I don't see him offering important solutions to this problem.

Before I hit submit button here are the questions I was left with:

1. How do you teach zealots about OTHER religions?

2. Do you NEED to teach other religions in order to promote tolerance?

[archidante]

Stephen Prothero, in a commentary for the Christian Science Monitor, makes the case that the average American's ignorance about religion (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0120/p09s02-coop.html) is a major threat to our way of life. He paints a grim picture of a nation filled with (http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050119005258&newsLang=en), and governed by (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/national/nationalspecial2/20religion.html), religious zealots who lack even a basic understanding of other religions or their own.


"Since 9/11, President Bush has been telling us that "Islam is a religion of peace," while evangelist Franklin Graham (Billy's son) has insisted otherwise. Who is right? Americans have no way to tell because they know virtually nothing about Islam. Such ignorance imperils our public life, putting citizens in the thrall of talking heads."He goes on to suggest that the answer to the very real problem of religious intolerance, and the escape from the current poisoning of political debate with radical religious views, is to aggressively teach about religion in schools starting at grade-school level. He notes that while Europeans know far more about religion — they are, by-and-large, far less religious than Americans.

How is that?

He makes one mistake here, and that is in the Islam being far more evident part of Europe. US is a mish mash of many different ethnicities, which comprise Christianity (in a major way). Other than that, I didn't see much to dispute and I don't see him offering important solutions to this problem.

Before I hit submit button here are the questions I was left with:

1. How do you teach zealots about OTHER religions?

2. Do you NEED to teach other religions in order to promote tolerance?
I think if most people ever really got past the darling pictures of Jesus (blue eyed, carmel haired, German features) and the second grade morality tales (be kind to your neighbor) and reall y read the Bible they would find...

It begins with a six day creation that flies in the face of all evidence,
has all of humanity condemned to death because a woman eats some fruit, has a God who repeatedly commits genocide because the imperfect beings he created...are imperfect, continually sends prophets whose cryptic and symbolic prophesies can only be understood long after the fact-and then only by theologians who more often than not dissagree-has fractured into dozens upon dozens of religions that seek to kill the adherents of different interpretations, whose ultimate conclusions never seem to be utterly determinable (cause you don't know till you're dead) has heroes like David who send loyal men to their death so he can have intercourse with the man's wife, be forgiven and go to heaven while the Budhist monk who never harmed a cricket is going straight to hell for not "knowing Jesus", and a whole set of other wonderful things....

most of America is religious because they don't really get into it, and the ones that do, and still buy it, are so brainwashed by accepting it's first premises that they've lost the capacity for critical thinking on the subject.

[Stiofán]

Well, that's an enlightened post. Seems it's not only the religious zealots who need to learn a few things about tolerance.

[archidante]

Well, that's an enlightened post. Seems it's not only the religious zealots who need to learn a few things about tolerance.
How can simply quoting the facts about a text be construed as intolerant?

[ethics]

How can simply quoting the facts about a text be construed as intolerant?


Not going to answer for Stiofan but wanted to follow up a question with my own.

Isn't religion a lot more than scriptures?

[archidante]

Not going to answer for Stiofan but wanted to follow up a question with my own.

Isn't religion a lot more than scriptures?
I think there is "religion" as the average person understands it, where a higher being prods our conscience toward more noble behavior, where the higher being judges us fairly, weighing our frailness in consideration, and ultimately those people who led reasonable (however imperfect) lives are given the solace of an afterlife of meaning and joy.

Then there is the religion of the dogmatic revealed scriptures with all the nastiness I illustrated and much, much more (depending on which hateful interpretation you happen to fall for) where most people are "sputum and manure" (to quote one 'saint') full of darkness and evil and doomed to damnation by a vengefull God.

I think therein lies your dichotomy-Most of America belongs to relgion A, not really payinmg much attention to relgion B. But have spent a good part of my childhood tormented by an Evangelical Christian madman Stepfather, religion B is very real, very scary, and very dangerous when it gets a hold of legislatures.

And, no, I'm not very tolderant of it. If I had my druthers I'd walk right up to their pulpits and plant a nice big fist in their loud mouth faces and tell then to STFU. But I'd get in a lot of trouble for that so I just write cxomplaints about them in chat rooms instead.

[ethics]

How do you discern two types of people above?

[Stiofán]

How can simply quoting the facts about a text be construed as intolerant?

You're not simply quoting text, you're taking everything you list out of context. Then you insert this little beaut...

"and the ones that do, and still buy it, are so brainwashed by accepting it's first premises that they've lost the capacity for critical thinking on the subject."

So if they don't accept your version, they are brainwashed. That's pretty intolerant.

Your experience with madman stepfather aside, there's plenty of good in many religions, and religous peoples.

I believe in only one religion, but I'm tolerant of many others - which means I tolerate them existing alongside my own.

[ethics]

I think--and I could be wrong--he elaborates upon his initial response fairly well. I am not IN the religious scene, Steve, so my questions were genuine.

Do you think that Arch's description of the differences in religions was wrong? Can you (both maybe) explain more.

[ravital]

1. How do you teach zealots about OTHER religions?

2. Do you NEED to teach other religions in order to promote tolerance?
1. A zealot - by the modern definition, not the various examples of zealotry found in history - is more often than not someone who's done learning, so there's very little point in attempting to teach him anything; and incidentally, the term is not limited to religion as such (I'm sure you knew that). However, we must be careful in how we identify a zealot. It's not someone who is merely dedicated to one thing or another that we happen to oppose. Very, very few people (overall, globally) can truly be qualified as zealots.

2. The specifics of beliefs and tenets of different religions may be interesting, even fascinating to one person or another, but what needs to be taught is that religion is a highly personal thing. It's a choice, and a highly conscious one, that one can only make after having put in considerable time on this planet, after having gained great knowlege of oneself.

All religions share universal principles, so those would probably be a good place to start.

[Stiofán]

Your initial post was about how to teach tolerance between religions because if we don't our society will be threatened, and then he posts a very intolerate and closed minded diatribe about Christianity. Not everyone has had the same negative experience with this religion. But he paints with a very wide brush. I just found his post ironic, considering the point of your initial post about tolerance.

[MorWired]

I think if most people ever really got past the darling pictures of Jesus (blue eyed, carmel haired, German features) and the second grade morality tales (be kind to your neighbor) and reall y read the Bible they would find...

It begins with a six day creation that flies in the face of all evidence,
has all of humanity condemned to death because a woman eats some fruit, has a God who repeatedly commits genocide because the imperfect beings he created...are imperfect, continually sends prophets whose cryptic and symbolic prophesies can only be understood long after the fact-and then only by theologians who more often than not dissagree-has fractured into dozens upon dozens of religions that seek to kill the adherents of different interpretations, whose ultimate conclusions never seem to be utterly determinable (cause you don't know till you're dead) has heroes like David who send loyal men to their death so he can have intercourse with the man's wife, be forgiven and go to heaven while the Budhist monk who never harmed a cricket is going straight to hell for not "knowing Jesus", and a whole set of other wonderful things....

most of America is religious because they don't really get into it, and the ones that do, and still buy it, are so brainwashed by accepting it's first premises that they've lost the capacity for critical thinking on the subject.Pretty much. I've said before, I spent years as an American Baptist, which for the most part is about as fundie as it gets -- every word in the Bible is the word of god, and whatever it said is what it meant to say. There's no "it was symbolic" to be had.

And so, after years of New Testament Bible studies, I took it upon myself to read the OT -- oh my. Everything is pretty much as you spelled out (except in the ABC mankind was cursed not because of an eaten fruit, but because of being disobedient) and more, including the killing of all wives/concubines, children, relatives, servants, and animals of individuals who displeased god. And, because of the fundamentalist imperative, there was no way to skirt around the implications of it -- the god that I saw described in his very own words was little more than a petulant child (kinda like Trelane in "The Squire of Gothos" on the original Star Trek :)).

As for knowledge of other religions, unfortunately the religions of my experience almost discourage that, unless it's to gain knowledge with which to convert people of other religions -- the more you know the better you can argue and refute whatever they believe, it's a never-ending battle.

If it were possible to do fairly and even-handedly (which, in today's fairly intolerant atmosphere it's probably not), I think a comparative religions course would be very useful and enlightening for kids of varying ages. People are less likely to fear something they are somewhat familiar with -- it's usually the unknown that causes the biggest misunderstandings and the most fear.

[MorWired]

Your initial post was about how to teach tolerance between religions because if we don't our society will be threatened, and then he posts a very intolerate and closed minded diatribe about Christianity. Not everyone has had the same negative experience with this religion. But he paints with a very wide brush. I just found his post ironic, considering the point of your initial post about tolerance.Actually, except for one sentence that post was all about the OT, and, as such, could probably also apply to the Jewish religion.

[archidante]

Your initial post was about how to teach tolerance between religions because if we don't our society will be threatened, and then he posts a very intolerate and closed minded diatribe about Christianity. Not everyone has had the same negative experience with this religion. But he paints with a very wide brush. I just found his post ironic, considering the point of your initial post about tolerance. If you define Christianity as taking the Bible as the literal word of God,
as so many Christians do-from creationism in six days and a six thousand year old Earth to Homosexuals as anethema worthy of destruction to men being "the head" of the wife rather than her life partner and equal, than that's the wide brush I was painting with. If you define it as "Love thy neighbor as thyself, and the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy might" then you're talking apples and pomegranites. If Christ were to walk into some of the Churches I've seen,full of fat and self righteous people, I got I feeling he would spew them out of his mouth. Maybe I'm wrong, and all that dogma is the key to Almighty Gods favor. But I don't think it is. I think it's about respecting the sancity of life-everybodys life, and seeking after God by listening after that still small voice. The Christ I saw in the Bible went out among the poor and the sick, the lonely and the troubled. He didn't pull up to the grandiose post modern gleaming Crystal palace in his Beemer yaking on his cell phone.


But in retrospect, I was kind of harsh. I know many, many Christians who I can hold up as a credit to their faith. It's pursuasive discourse here...not "judgement day" with severe penalties for those I dissagree with. Let me go on record as speaking only of those dogmatic Christians with loveless hearts. What was that scripture, "though I speak in the tounges of angels and have faith to move mountains, if I have not love I am nothing..." or something like that. It's been a while.

[ravital]

Actually, except for one sentence that post was all about the OT, and, as such, could probably also apply to the Jewish religion.
Given that a major part of it had to do with heaven/hell as reward/retribution for our actions in our lives, no, it couldn't.

[MorWired]

Actually, except for one sentence that post was all about the OT, and, as such, could probably also apply to the Jewish religion.Given that a major part of it had to do with heaven/hell as reward/retribution for our actions in our lives, no, it couldn't.Um, no. What part of this (except for the portion of the last sentence I alluded to) has to do with heaven/hell? And what part of this (except for the last portion of the last sentence I alluded to) wouldn't apply to Judaism?
. It begins with a six day creation that flies in the face of all evidence,
has all of humanity condemned to death because a woman eats some fruit, has a God who repeatedly commits genocide because the imperfect beings he created...are imperfect, continually sends prophets whose cryptic and symbolic prophesies can only be understood long after the fact-and then only by theologians who more often than not dissagree-has fractured into dozens upon dozens of religions that seek to kill the adherents of different interpretations, whose ultimate conclusions never seem to be utterly determinable (cause you don't know till you're dead) has heroes like David who send loyal men to their death so he can have intercourse with the man's wife,

be forgiven and go to heaven while the Budhist monk who never harmed a cricket is going straight to hell for not "knowing Jesus", and a whole set of other wonderful things....

[Steve]

Yes, there is, quite obviously, a great deal of ignorance about religion.

This thread reminds me of the blind men attempting to describe the elephant.

[ravital]

Do you think that Arch's description of the differences in religions was wrong? Can you (both maybe) explain more. Ethics,

I happen to be the product of a public education system that teaches you the alphabet in First Grade, and in Second Grade gives you "Genesis" where you start with "In the beginning," and go on studying the OT all the way through 12th Grade. That's in their secular public school system. In a country that has no official separation of Religion and State, where political power-plays have produced government-enforced religious coersion (you literally gamble with your life if you drive your car on the Day of Atonement - your car with you in it will be literally stoned, or at least that's how it was until well into my 20s). In a modern democracy, mind you. By the time you graduate High-School, you are sick to your stomach of the whole thing, utterly disgusted.

This should tell you that there is absolutely nothing in my background or upbringing, to make me tolerant of religion. To me, it stood for a clique that enforced its will on me and the other secular 88% of the country, and did not tolerate my secular choices, so tolerance towards those who did not tolerate me, was nowhere on my radar. Had you caught me back then, I might have easily come up with just as venomous a response as Archidante's (no offense, Arch, I understand where you're coming from and I don't judge).

As with everything else in life, you put some mileage on your bones, your mind and your soul, and you gain some carat, and some appreciation and understanding you couldn't possibly have been capable of when you were younger. I am still secular, secularer, secularest, and plan on remaining so to my grave. But I find myself re-reading the same OT that so many times came so close to making me puke back then, and finding indescribable beauty, wisdom, intellectual challenge, and excitement in it. The best thing I can wish for Archidante is that someday, he too will experience the same thing.

Religion does not begin and end with the scriptures, and much of the history of the three western religions (for practical purposes, Islam is a western religion), has at least as much (if not more) to do with distorting them as with teaching them. Without wishing to offend anyone, if you are looking for the root cause of intolerance, both by and towards religion, you need look no further than the practice of proselytization - and expand the definition of the term a bit, to include not only Christianity and Islam - who seek to convert members of other faiths to theirs - but also Judaism, where some take it upon themselves to "save the souls" of fellow-Jews who they feel have "strayed from the flock."

To cite a positive example of tolerance and decency, all I ever got from my Southern-Baptist in-laws (regular Church-members in Lynchburgh, VA, a.k.a. "Fallwellville" no less), by way of proselytization, was a single polite invitation to join their faith, apologetically explained as complying with a requirement from all good Christians. Once, and it was over, done, never to be brought up again. Oh, and a lot of real, unwavering love, inclusion in the family as one of their own, and genuine curiosity about my own background and faith (anything from "what's the real meaning of Hanukah?" to "what makes a pickle Kosher?"). It doesn't kill me, or convert me, to say Amen when they say Grace, when I have Thanksgiving Dinner at their table.

It's absolutely amazing what you can accomplish, when things are not presented as a threat, and when people are confident enough in the strength of their own beliefs, so they don't feel compelled to imagine a threat in every corner of public or personal life.

I addressed your specific questions in an earlier reply, I don't know if this one comes closer to what you were looking for, but I felt this thread needed a suggestion that the root of all evil is in the "isms" waved around like flags, by institutions of orthodoxy (and we all know secularism is no exception there), not in the scriptures written by people who had no clue of what would be done in their name centuries later, not in clerics who choose to quietly serve those who turn to them in times of need or plenty, not in individuals quietly pursuing their own fulfillment of inner peace.

[Steve]

And that response deserves an "amen" of its own.

Well said, ravital, very well said.

[ravital]

Um, no. What part of this (except for the portion of the last sentence I alluded to) has to do with heaven/hell? And what part of this (except for the last portion of the last sentence I alluded to) wouldn't apply to Judaism?
. Just because Ethics, the thread-starter, felt it was relevant enough to ask for elaboration, and because it's much more constructive than lecturing someone to "go Google it" like a professor talking down at a sophomore, and with sincere apologies to Archidante, I don't mean to pick his message apart:

a God who repeatedly commits genocide because the imperfect beings he created...are imperfect, Zero connection to Judaism. Judaism holds that imperfect as we are, we are endowed with the ability and privilege of making choices for ourselves, and we are not pre-destined to make one choice over another. If we were, I could murder someone, they say "Hey God, what nerve do you have to punish me now? YOU made me a murderer, didn't you?" That's not how it works in Judaism. YOU make choices, and every one of them is a test, of you and you alone.


has fractured into dozens upon dozens of religions that seek to kill the adherents of different interpretations,
Zero to do with Judaism. Judaism has never sought to enforce itself on anyone, nor convert anyone, neither by sword nor by invitation. On the contrary, try to convert to Judaism, and the first thing you'll hear from Judaism will be "You want to be one of us, do you? Really? Prove it!" and believe you me, even with a Reform-Judaism conversion, it will seem to you like much more than you bargained for.

whose ultimate conclusions never seem to be utterly determinable (cause you don't know till you're dead)
Zero to do with Judaism. There is no "afterlife" - you do have an "immortal soul" according to Judaism, but you won't "find out how the game ends" or anything of the sort, it's not even existence as we are capable of understanding it.

has heroes like David who send loyal men to their death so he can have intercourse with the man's wife, be forgiven
Zero to do with Judaism. David was forgiven? Really? By whom? When? Chapter and verse, please?

David is the perfect example of the greatly flawed human being achieving greatness not so much for himself, as for the people he served, in the truest meaning of the term "to serve."

and go to heaven Zero to do with Judaism. See "no afterlife" above.

and a whole set of other wonderful things.... Indeed, a whole set. I recall a self-proclaimed - and for all I know, perfectly real and legitimate - Canadian Reverend on "the other board" posting similar, er, stuff about how the story of Jacob working for his father-in-law was an endorsement of poligamy. Why he felt necessary to denigrate a story of true, enduring love in the face of contemptible deception, I'll never know. At least Archidante is not a Reverend, I have to wonder what his excuse was. But I don't.

Archidante, in case you're reading, I'm not lecturing, just sharing something I've learned that I think might help you understand: Faith is not about evidence (you brought that up). Evidence negates faith. Evidence lets you KNOW. When you don't know you either BELIEVE or you don't. Once you have evidence, you KNOW, and have no further need to BELIEVE.

Why would you ever need to believe? I can't answer that, but I know that if and when you do, you can't ask for a contract, free samples, free trial-periods, commitments to meet your expectations, or anything of the sort. You accept or you don't.

Example: One thing you'll find in the OT is that the Kingdom of Israel, under King Saul and mostly King David, fought wars on its own soil, to ban what the OT politely calls "idol worship." [This was not to enforce their own faith or to convert anyone. No one was killed for working on the Sabbath, yelling at his mother, or sleeping with his neighbor's wife.] This was done to eradicate practices that more often than not involved prostitution and human-sacrifices, from their own soil and nowhere else. In the process, as you can imagine, many soldiers were maimed. When the Temple was finally built, amputees were not allowed into it. Fair? Of course not. These guys fought practically "on the command" of the same God that now forbids them to enter the Temple that exists thanks to their sacrifice. But that is Faith. It's not logical, it's not fair, it's not justice, it's not evidence. It's something that human beings create when they feel the need to look up to something greater than themselves. It's Faith, and anyone is free to take it or leave it.

[archidante]

Just because Ethics, the thread-starter, felt it was relevant enough to ask for elaboration, and because it's much more constructive than lecturing someone to "go Google it" like a professor talking down at a sophomore, and with sincere apologies to Archidante, I don't mean to pick his message apart:
I never said it had anything to do with Judaism
Zero connection to Judaism. Judaism holds that imperfect as we are, we are endowed with the ability and privilege of making choices for ourselves, and we are not pre-destined to make one choice over another. If we were, I could murder someone, they say "Hey God, what nerve do you have to punish me now? YOU made me a murderer, didn't you?" That's not how it works in Judaism. YOU make choices, and every one of them is a test, of you and you alone.

The fact remains the scriptures allege the wholesale genocide of cities, nations, races (at one point everybody but Noah and his group)as just retribution. No talk of individuals working out their salvation here. Zero to do with Judaism. Judaism has never sought to enforce itself on anyone, nor convert anyone, neither by sword nor by invitation. On the contrary, try to convert to Judaism, and the first thing you'll hear from Judaism will be "You want to be one of us, do you? Really? Prove it!" and believe you me, even with a Reform-Judaism conversion, it will seem to you like much more than you bargained for.
My brother went through a seven year full conversion at Temple. He has always been more than the family bargained for. Zero to do with Judaism. There is no "afterlife" - you do have an "immortal soul" according to Judaism, but you won't "find out how the game ends" or anything of the sort, it's not even existence as we are capable of understanding it.

Zero to do with Judaism. David was forgiven? Really? By whom? When? Chapter and verse, please?
David is understood to be repentant (the essence of forgiveness in Christianity .The woman still bore his child. David is the perfect example of the greatly flawed human being achieving greatness not so much for himself, as for the people he served, in the truest meaning of the term "to serve."

Zero to do with Judaism. See "no afterlife" above.

Indeed, a whole set. I recall a self-proclaimed - and for all I know, perfectly real and legitimate - Canadian Reverend on "the other board" posting similar, er, stuff about how the story of Jacob working for his father-in-law was an endorsement of poligamy. Why he felt necessary to denigrate a story of true, enduring love in the face of contemptible deception, I'll never know. At least Archidante is not a Reverend, I have to wonder what his excuse was. But I don't.

Archidante, in case you're reading, I'm not lecturing, just sharing something I've learned that I think might help you understand: Faith is not about evidence (you brought that up). Evidence negates faith. Evidence lets you KNOW. When you don't know you either BELIEVE or you don't. Once you have evidence, you KNOW, and have no further need to BELIEVE.

Why would you ever need to believe? I can't answer that, but I know that if and when you do, you can't ask for a contract, free samples, free trial-periods, commitments to meet your expectations, or anything of the sort. You accept or you don't.

Example: One thing you'll find in the OT is that the Kingdom of Israel, under King Saul and mostly King David, fought wars on its own soil, to ban what the OT politely calls "idol worship." [This was not to enforce their own faith or to convert anyone. No one was killed for working on the Sabbath, yelling at his mother, or sleeping with his neighbor's wife.] This was done to eradicate practices that more often than not involved prostitution and human-sacrifices, from their own soil and nowhere else. In the process, as you can imagine, many soldiers were maimed. When the Temple was finally built, amputees were not allowed into it. Fair? Of course not. These guys fought practically "on the command" of the same God that now forbids them to enter the Temple that exists thanks to their sacrifice. But that is Faith. It's not logical, it's not fair, it's not justice, it's not evidence. It's something that human beings create when they feel the need to look up to something greater than themselves. It's Faith, and anyone is free to take it or leave it. From what I understand the whole notion of Judaism has evolved over the millennia, from primitive nomadic tribes worshiping a desert sky God, to a bronze Age nation with an evolving religion based on principles of justice, to a dispersed group of peoples maintaining & evolving their culture across the globe through numerous ages and changes. But that wasn't what the threadt was about-it was about "understanding other peoples religion". I merely pointed out that the source of the Judeo Christian tradition holds many things that are quite violent and cruel, and by todays humanistic standards even wrong. Quickly, in my opnion, the cherished texts were defended, the murders and violations rationalized.
Perhaps they are just what they apear to be; echoes of a violent and cruel time when respect for humanity (true humanism) hadn't evolved past the gender/race/tribe/nation line of "we're okay", "you're not okay".
Here's a thought to ponder; what if most of it's exagerated history, near myth, and a lot of it was plain made up? Great stories,
great morality plays, astounding poetry, epic struggles....
We can't even agree on the religous backgrounds we share...much less the ones that oppose us. Why? Because it comes down to interpretation, opinion. It's not the boiling point of water, the speed of light, the table of elements, specific gravity, or mathematics. It can never be answered as so or so unless the big G (or G's as the case may be) came down and took up residence in Hoboken Moscow and Kabul. Till then...duck, cause here we go round again-


Also, I can be critical of something and still believe in it's worth-starting with my crusty old self-and I do believe in freedom of religion and the states duty to protect it. Except fer maybe them crummy...

[ravital]

Here's a thought to ponder; what if most of it's exagerated history, near myth, and a lot of it was plain made up? Great stories,
great morality plays, astounding poetry, epic struggles....
You are learning, Grasshopper ;)

I'm really sorry, I couldn't resist. In all seriousness, if you can see that, then you can see a lot more than you give yourself credit for.

So here's another one to ponder, relating to your argument about "today's humanistic standards," point blank: do you want to lay any money on how you and I will be judged in 50 years? Let alone 500? Or 2,000?

Take just one example of objectionable practices talked about in the OT - poligamy (the OT never condemns it, but never approves of it either, by the way). It's inconceivable to me why a man would want more than one wife (one is plenty enough, thank you), let alone be permitted to have them. But it seems it was a norm, once. And it still is, in some parts of the world, and then there are a few matriarchal societies where men are the ones being denied rights, and a few where the women actually choose themselves multiple husbands. And it's all natural to them. To my modest understanding, passing blanket judgments on these things, out of context, is the equivalent of Brigitte Bardot lecturing Koreans about eating dogs, and carries as little weight.

You're right, this is about tolerance through a better understanding of other religions. As has been alluded to earlier in this thread, maybe we should all start with a better understanding of the ones at our own origins.

[MorWired]

Actually, except for one sentence that post was all about the OT, and, as such, could probably also apply to the Jewish religion.Given that a major part of it had to do with heaven/hell as reward/retribution for our actions in our lives, no, it couldn't.
Um, no. What part of this (except for the portion of the last sentence I alluded to) has to do with heaven/hell? And what part of this (except for the last portion of the last sentence I alluded to) wouldn't apply to Judaism?
It begins with a six day creation that flies in the face of all evidence, has all of humanity condemned to death because a woman eats some fruit, has a God who repeatedly commits genocide because the imperfect beings he created...are imperfect, continually sends prophets whose cryptic and symbolic prophesies can only be understood long after the fact-and then only by theologians who more often than not dissagree-has fractured into dozens upon dozens of religions that seek to kill the adherents of different interpretations, whose ultimate conclusions never seem to be utterly determinable (cause you don't know till you're dead) has heroes like David who send loyal men to their death so he can have intercourse with the man's wife,

be forgiven and go to heaven while the Budhist monk who never harmed a cricket is going straight to hell for not "knowing Jesus", and a whole set of other wonderful things....
.a God who repeatedly commits genocide because the imperfect beings he created...are imperfect,Zero connection to Judaism.So the great flood has zero connection to Judaism?
.has fractured into dozens upon dozens of religions that seek to kill the adherents of different interpretations,Zero to do with Judaism.So the tribes of Israel and god repeatedly commanding throughout the OT that his will was that people kill those who don't obey him (for example the man whose wives/concubines/children/relatives/servants/animals were commanded be killed for disobedience as I mentioned in my post) has zero to do with Judaism?
.[continually sends prophets whose cryptic and symbolic prophesies can only be understood long after the fact-and then only by theologians ... ] whose ultimate conclusions never seem to be utterly determinable (cause you don't know till you're dead)Zero to do with Judaism. (Helps to quote accurately.) So the "cryptic and symbolic prophesies" of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others have zero to do with Judaism? Whether one believes in an afterlife or not, you still don't know whether you were right until after death.
.has heroes like David who send loyal men to their death so he can have intercourse with the man's wife,

[interesting that this is part of the last portion of the last sentence that I alluded to, and had separated from the first part]

be forgivenZero to do with Judaism. David was forgiven? Really? By whom? When? Chapter and verse, please?Nice try changing my meaning so you can beat me over the head with an inaccuracy not of my creation, but as long as the original quotes are here to be seen, it ain't gonna work.
.and go to heavenZero to do with Judaism. See "no afterlife" above.Um, yeah, as I said, not part of what I was discussing, and this was clearly delineated in what I quoted, so I don't see why you felt the need to drag it into this, but whatever.

[MorWired]

I never said it had anything to do with JudaismYeah, no, you didn't, that was my doing. You were being accused of criticizing Christianity, and I pointed out that with the exception of a small part, what you said also pertained to Judaism (and therefore, in addition to being true, wasn't "anti-Christian").

I guess this pretty conclusively confirms the nature of the paving materials of the road to hell. ;)

[ravital]

Ethics,

I apologize for contributing to the derailment of this thread.

[archidante]

.So the great flood has zero connection to Judaism?
.So the tribes of Israel and god repeatedly commanding throughout the OT that his will was that people kill those who don't obey him (for example the man whose wives/concubines/children/relatives/servants/animals were commanded be killed for disobedience as I mentioned in my post) has zero to do with Judaism?
.(Helps to quote accurately.) So the "cryptic and symbolic prophesies" of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others have zero to do with Judaism? Whether one believes in an afterlife or not, you still don't know whether you were right until after death.
.Nice try changing my meaning so you can beat me over the head with an inaccuracy not of my creation, but as long as the original quotes are here to be seen, it ain't gonna work.
.Um, yeah, as I said, not part of what I was discussing, and this was clearly delineated in what I quoted, so I don't see why you felt the need to drag it into this, but whatever. One current theory is that "Moses" (an egyptian Prince) was actually an itinerant priest with that sect of the Egyptian religion that wanted to establish the "one true god" but was later rejected, and that he absconded with the Isrealites who had a simaler monotheistic desert sky god. It fits. Especially in Exodus where over and over again the Isrealites seem to be doing their own thing and Moses has to coerce them back into the fold. As for the flood, it was a common myth in the region-one theory an exagerated tale from a mass flooding when land bridges broke down. From an outsiders point of view, and this is only that, I really don't equate modern Judaism with the attitudes and practices in the old testament. The culture apears to have matured, humanized, and evolved hugely.
I didn't want to target Christian or Jews or Catholics or Mormons or anyone in particular as "extra juicy" religious fodder.I just think we have a double standard in our critical thinking about our own religions (mostly Judeo-Christian traditions here I'm observing). We're so used to these stories , have accepted the watered down humanized and modernized "understandings" of their meanings that we fail to see what's there-Bronze age histories, nomadic myths in transition into organized religion, and then Roman era mystery cults.

Or it may be the literal word of God. Literally.

[ethics]

As with everything else in life, you put some mileage on your bones, your mind and your soul, and you gain some carat, and some appreciation and understanding you couldn't possibly have been capable of when you were younger. I am still secular, secularer, secularest, and plan on remaining so to my grave. But I find myself re-reading the same OT that so many times came so close to making me puke back then, and finding indescribable beauty, wisdom, intellectual challenge, and excitement in it. The best thing I can wish for Archidante is that someday, he too will experience the same thing.



Excellent post, Rav, but I wanted to comment more on the above statement.

I feel the same way as you do here. I wasn't brought up in the same (or similar) type of country but I did go to Yeshiva and was taught basically similar things. But this is where our paths diverge.

You were indoctrinated, my Judaic teachings consisted of parallels to real life. The story of a man who could not get a room in a hostile inn lives because he has no place but to sleep in the woods. The inn is burned down that night by bandits and everyone is killed. Teacher would say, "when you think you are down on your luck, perhaps you are being blessed and you should take the good and the bad and think that this is for the best, somehow, sometime."

But as you, as I grow older, I too am re-reading a lot of the OT and think that it's not that God ruined it but religions. Mainly men who sought power and used religion to achieve this (this is even true today with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam).

[Steve]

I'm currently reading a "History of Christianity", keeping a Bible alongside it for reference to the source material behind so many decisions.

"...men who sought power and used religion...." pretty well sums up everything.

[MorWired]

I didn't want to target Christian or Jews or Catholics or Mormons or anyone in particular as "extra juicy" religious fodder.I just think we have a double standard in our critical thinking about our own religions (mostly Judeo-Christian traditions here I'm observing). We're so used to these stories , have accepted the watered down humanized and modernized "understandings" of their meanings that we fail to see what's there-Bronze age histories, nomadic myths in transition into organized religion, and then Roman era mystery cults.

Or it may be the literal word of God. Literally.It seems pretty clear, to confirm your hypothesis, that those religions equating their scriptures with the actual, literal word of god are those that are far less tolerant and accepting of any other religions (and any deviations within their own), while those that simply see them as inspirational writings and remarkable literature generally have a much broader and more accepting world view.

[ravital]

You were indoctrinated,
I agree completely with your excellent argument and examples. I just wanted to correct a mistaken impression - indoctrinated is too strong a word, though I can see how you'd get that from my description. You could say that the educational system knew it would be a losing battle, so it tried everything it could without resorting to extreme measures, in the hope that something of the massive teaching effort would carry through into adult life. Only the smallest and best parts did, as it turned out.

As a parallel to what you just quoted from your Yeshiva teachings, let me offer a very short verse, that exemplifies life as one long lesson, never-ending learning, and what we try to do in these forums (my own translation, not King James):

Proverbs, 25:2:

It is the Honor of G-d to conceal a thing, and the honor of Kings to study a thing.

Best regards.

[Fiona]

*snip But in retrospect, I was kind of harsh. I know many, many Christians who I can hold up as a credit to their faith. It's pursuasive discourse here...not "judgement day" with severe penalties for those I dissagree with. Let me go on record as speaking only of those dogmatic Christians with loveless hearts.Apology accepted ;)

Lighten up people! Religion is a wholly (and holy) worthy, incredibly complex, intricate and wonderful puzzle. It is such a fascinating subject on many levels. It is so hard to discuss when people get all wrapped up in intolerance.

Yes Ethics, I think religions should be taught. Not brainwashed in ;) but explored. At least a sampling. My son's Waldorf school teaches about several different theologies and theories in the 3rd grade. Christianity, Judaism, Budhism, etc. I approve of that. Even though Christianity, my religion, is explored as myth, I find it a very good thing to teach. Does it promote tolerance? As far as I know. I hope so!

[MorWired]

Apology accepted ;)

Lighten up people! Religion is a wholly (and holy) worthy, incredibly complex, intricate and wonderful puzzle. It is such a fascinating subject on many levels. It is so hard to discuss when people get all wrapped up in intolerance.

Yes Ethics, I think religions should be taught. Not brainwashed in ;) but explored. At least a sampling. My son's Waldorf school teaches about several different theologies and theories in the 3rd grade. Christianity, Judaism, Budhism, etc. I approve of that. Even though Christianity, my religion, is explored as myth, I find it a very good thing to teach. Does it promote tolerance? As far as I know. I hope so!Absolutely, some comparative religion studies would give everyone a better understanding that we're not so different after all. This thread reminded me this morning that I had started a book some time ago that I've lost track of (need to find and finish it -- I usually read about 3 or 4 books at the same time, and sometimes one gets away from me :blush: ) that was an overview of the beginnings of the 3 faiths. As far as I got, it was very good, and should give people a better-rounded perspective.

A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong and also Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths by Bruce Feiler both were very good reads, very enlightening.

[ditch]

I'm currently reading a "History of Christianity", keeping a Bible alongside it for reference to the source material behind so many decisions.

"...men who sought power and used religion...." pretty well sums up everything. My, brief, response to that is yes, I agree totally. And Ethic's comment earlier, "its not God that ruined it, its religions". I agree with that also. A lot more insightful comments here, Rav included, but those two stand out from the short list for now.

If I'd more time or atleast when I do, I'll say more.

[ditch]

OK, anyone can find a few more minutes, ;). Despite us both being baptised ourselves my wife and I decided not to have our two children baptised. We both have a similar opinion of religion that is not at all related to our feelings on spirituality. We are both anti church but interested the history of religion. To go through the procedure of baptism would have been a hypocritical thing to have done without any real dgree of conviction. However, we encourage the kids learn about religions of all types as part of their education. I always felt that I wanted them to be educated and not to be indoctinated.

If they decide at some stage in their lives to become a member of a particular religion then I won't mind at all so long as its because of an educated evaluation and not a result of indoctrination/ brain washing or whatever you like to call it.

Give me a child until they're seven and I'll give you a .... for life. We've all heard it.

[RetFireCapt]

Give me a child until they're seven and I'll give you a .... for life. We've all heard it.
Didn't stick with this former child. I was a regular Sunday Episcopalian church going little boy all the way through 4th grade. Now, according to my Christian friends, I'm an empty shell of an atheist.

They got the atheist part right.

[ditch]

Didn't stick with this former child. I was a regular Sunday Episcopalian church going little boy all the way through 4th grade. Now, according to my Christian friends, I'm an empty shell of an atheist.

They got the atheist part right.
Well that's reassuring Capt. I don't like the idea that we are all so automated that the old adage applies no matter what.

[archidante]

Excellent post, Rav, but I wanted to comment more on the above statement.

I feel the same way as you do here. I wasn't brought up in the same (or similar) type of country but I did go to Yeshiva and was taught basically similar things. But this is where our paths diverge.

You were indoctrinated, my Judaic teachings consisted of parallels to real life. The story of a man who could not get a room in a hostile inn lives because he has no place but to sleep in the woods. The inn is burned down that night by bandits and everyone is killed. Teacher would say, "when you think you are down on your luck, perhaps you are being blessed and you should take the good and the bad and think that this is for the best, somehow, sometime."

But as you, as I grow older, I too am re-reading a lot of the OT and think that it's not that God ruined it but religions. Mainly men who sought power and used religion to achieve this (this is even true today with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). I've stated in many posts in the past that the Bible is great literature. But born into a culture where it was revered as the unchallenged word of God, one has to be sure. Then, one tries to grasp the historical realities of what was present in the world at the times it was written. And I agree, you go back to it and find layers and layers of meaning and beauty-perhaps more meaning and more beauty than the "Earth was made in six days!" crew can possibly fathom. And I do think David was a great man, his vulnerabilty all the more poignant-but the casual way his generals life is brushed off by many of "faith" (sure, they give a serious nod-but they don't feel the loss of the man's life) strikes me as disturbing and reflects a calousness that gets built up by religion where humanity is divided into the fine lovely sheep and the detestable goats....Sunday after Sunday.

[amjezioro]

Faith is not about evidence (you brought that up). Evidence negates faith. Evidence lets you KNOW. When you don't know you either BELIEVE or you don't. Once you have evidence, you KNOW, and have no further need to BELIEVE.



So after reading this entire thread I am left with questions pertaining to what I am quoting here- What do people do when what is written in the bible is proven incorrect? If someone is a critical thinker but they also believe, if evidence is presented that their faith is based on exaggerations and naturally occuring events that show that G-d had nothing to do with these things what heppens then? Does that religion fall apart ? Or do you(general) still beleive even though its proven not true? If the oldest stories no longer have merit as relating to the chosen Diety(whichever one it may be) what becomes of the followers when they are given new information that shows that they "had the wool pulled over their eyes" ?

[Steve]

I don't think that's much of an issue when it comes to matters of historical record. Finding out, for instance, that the Israelites probably didn't wander the desert for 40 years doesn't really change any of the things associated with faith, it just shows that people who write books are prone to exaggeration and mistakes.

[amjezioro]

I don't think that's much of an issue when it comes to matters of historical record. Finding out, for instance, that the Israelites probably didn't wander the desert for 40 years doesn't really change any of the things associated with faith, it just shows that people who write books are prone to exaggeration and mistakes.
sorry- I should have provided an example-
the 10 plagues of egypt- were proven to be naturally occuring events- and the 10th- the smiting of the pharoh's son was not done until the son was approx 30 years old and the marks on the skull show blunt force trauma- not divine intervention

the parting of the red sea- was according to the show I saw, mistranslated it was the reed sea or a swamp. from what little i do remember- those are some big stories to be proven untrue.

[Steve]

My personal take on such isssues is that critical thinkers recognize that people will exaggerate, even lie, to make certain points. I personally doubt that the Red Sea was parted, as indicated in the Old Testament but I also recognize that event as a wonderful literary tool for teaching the power of God and the importance and benefits of faith.

Consider, for instance, Aesop's fables. Fiction, through and through, unless one believes in talking animals. But the morals of the stories are true enough, and eternal. Much of the Bible can be taken the same way.

The Bible is the Word of God, but it was written down by men, has been re-written, revised, expurgated, restored, edited, condensed, and so on for the better part of several millenia. I don't think that anyone, when they actually give it some thought, can believe that every single word in the Bible is to be taken literally. Especially if they first have to consider which version of which Bible followed by which Church/Synagogue/Mosque.

[MorWired]

My personal take on such isssues is that critical thinkers recognize that people will exaggerate, even lie, to make certain points. I personally doubt that the Red Sea was parted, as indicated in the Old Testament but I also recognize that event as a wonderful literary tool for teaching the power of God and the importance and benefits of faith.

Consider, for instance, Aesop's fables. Fiction, through and through, unless one believes in talking animals. But the morals of the stories are true enough, and eternal. Much of the Bible can be taken the same way.

The Bible is the Word of God, but it was written down by men, has been re-written, revised, expurgated, restored, edited, condensed, and so on for the better part of several millenia. I don't think that anyone, when they actually give it some thought, can believe that every single word in the Bible is to be taken literally. Especially if they first have to consider which version of which Bible followed by which Church/Synagogue/Mosque.Unfortunately, when it comes to fundamentalist denominations, that is what the whole religious observance is based on -- every single word of the Bible (or Torah or Qur'an) was divinely inspired and is the absolute (and error-free) word of god.

As to the very good question that was asked by amjezioro, in the (very mainstream, nothing fringe-like) fundamentalist religion of my experience, any factual contradiction to the Bible is met with the standard response: "that is only a test of faith." If you have faith, you will ignore the facts, and continue to believe. For example, the fossil records of prehistoric animals and man were placed there, and are being discovered, only as a test of man's faith in what god has told man to be true in the Bible.

There is no way to introduce facts, or to even engage in critical thought, when absolute faith is what is required. That, along with the realizations I already discussed earlier, was my point of disconnect.