Religion

muriel_volestrangler

(101,399 posts)

41. No, it's not "the way most people approach their sacred texts"

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 12:56 PM

Aug 2014

If it were, then most people wouldn't bother praying. They wouldn't bother building huge buildings with specific decorations in, or employing people to recite formulaic scripts inside them.

We read Greek myth, Aesop's Fables, folk tales, the works of Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain etc. for their meaning, not as sacred scripts, and as a result, they are just books that get talked about or are the occasional subject of education. They don't get special treatment in constitutional amendments, or blasphemy laws, or special seats reserved in the House of Lords for their interpreters.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

117 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What if we took the historicity of sacred scriptures off the table, and focused on their meanings? [View all] Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 OP

Sure, and 'we' somehow agreed, all of a sudden, elleng Aug 2014 #1

Well they wouldn't be "sacred" then would they? phil89 Aug 2014 #2

Of course they could still be sacred. cbayer Aug 2014 #6

So there are "sacred" things that are untrue? Isn't that twisting the meaning a little? Brettongarcia Sep 2014 #93

Sacred merely means revered due to a connection with a god or religion. cbayer Sep 2014 #94

Look at the dictionary definition of sacred Brettongarcia Sep 2014 #95

Calling it sacred and not true in it's entirety is not a problem for me at all. cbayer Sep 2014 #96

So when you apparently supported "Religion," you aren't really supporting Religion so much? Brettongarcia Sep 2014 #97

I don't think I can be clearer and the idea that I oppose cbayer Sep 2014 #98

A very strict atheist would say, probably suggest there is no God, and no good in Religion Brettongarcia Sep 2014 #99

A very strict atheists might well suggest that there is no god. cbayer Sep 2014 #100

Early Christians would probably agree with you about the value Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #59

You are suggesting taking the atheist position in this regard. Promethean Aug 2014 #3

Pointing out the atrocities and evil actions is cherry picking cbayer Aug 2014 #7

Sure hope not, because it doesn't end well for people like me in that book. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #10

Yes, there is horror. There is also beauty. cbayer Aug 2014 #12

I'm aware of the nice bits. The United States Military has a lovely collection of paintings AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #13

That's a GODwin. rug Aug 2014 #45

Still a relevant point. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #46

"If there's one turd in the pool, I'm not gettin' in" as Bill Maher said. phil89 Aug 2014 #52

Well, Bill Maher has turds in his pool frequently, so cbayer Aug 2014 #81

Doesn't that depend on which cherries one picks? LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #105

Of course it depends on what cherries one picks. cbayer Sep 2014 #106

Surely it is possible to arrive at entirely opposite conclusions from the same reading. LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #107

I absolutely agree. It is possible to arrive at entirely opposite conclusions. cbayer Sep 2014 #108

Re: It does no good to wholly condemn religion. LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #109

It does no good to paint religion with one negative brush. cbayer Sep 2014 #112

I'm curious. LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #114

The objectification of women comes from many sources and many cbayer Sep 2014 #115

Are you familiar with the idea that LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #116

Not familiar with it, but I don't agree with it at all. cbayer Sep 2014 #117

Well, no, I'm not suggesting that we ignore sacred scriptures if they Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #60

If we did all that, it would still be a collection of fever-minded scratchings of bronze age desert AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #4

What is fever-minded and what does it mean in this context? cbayer Aug 2014 #8

I use it interchangeably with 'Sun-Addled'. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #9

So do you believe that the people who wrote the bible were sun-addled and brain-fevered? cbayer Aug 2014 #11

Garbage in-garbage out. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #14

Good night AC. You are much more fun to talk to during your daytime. cbayer Aug 2014 #15

What? I just woke up. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #16

Ok, I see you are back. I hope you got all your shit done. cbayer Aug 2014 #18

I did, and I'm glad I didn't sit there waiting for a response. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #19

Oh, no. You should never, ever do that. cbayer Aug 2014 #20

This is your own myth. okasha Aug 2014 #51

Well, you are right. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #55

None of it is that old. okasha Aug 2014 #56

So sure of that, are we? AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #58

Yep. okasha Aug 2014 #67

Remember, you said "none of it". AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #70

You know, it really shouldn't be necessary okasha Aug 2014 #75

One relevant religion holds that the book is the record of an oral tradition that links AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #76

If we're thinking of the same relevant religion-- okasha Aug 2014 #77

Goat-herding meant not being under the thumb of the Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #61

A challenger appears! AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #62

"Shepherd" was a common royal title okasha Aug 2014 #68

But then we wouldn't be able to hold believers to literalism cbayer Aug 2014 #5

What straw man are you attacking now, cbayer? trotsky Aug 2014 #17

No, it's not "the way most people approach their sacred texts" muriel_volestrangler Aug 2014 #41

What does prayer have to do with it. cbayer Aug 2014 #42

Prayer is what most religious people indulge in muriel_volestrangler Aug 2014 #43

I still have no idea what looking at the sacred texts in this way has to do cbayer Aug 2014 #44

Consider what the OP says muriel_volestrangler Aug 2014 #50

But remember, after I said that a presumption of historicism was out, I went on to say Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #63

Sure, there's meaning to be found in considering why people wrote about a resurrection muriel_volestrangler Aug 2014 #83

Two things about that: Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #88

Yes edhopper Aug 2014 #21

I agree that it should not be used literally as a tool to base the cbayer Aug 2014 #22

I wasn't thinking about how people comport themselves edhopper Aug 2014 #23

Well, once again you are making an assertion without any facts. cbayer Aug 2014 #25

The weekend thingie edhopper Aug 2014 #26

Gotcha. I missed that. cbayer Aug 2014 #27

Yeah edhopper Aug 2014 #30

While those communities exist, I think they are at the extreme. cbayer Aug 2014 #31

In this country true edhopper Aug 2014 #32

I'm not sure. cbayer Aug 2014 #34

I agree that there edhopper Aug 2014 #36

I don't know that we will ever know how the population feels about it. cbayer Aug 2014 #37

And the larger issue edhopper Aug 2014 #38

Seeing them as literal tends not to be a good thing. cbayer Aug 2014 #39

From the POV edhopper Aug 2014 #40

Maybe he saw the 'back in five minutes' sign. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #49

Well, the Sumerians took Gilgamesh fairly literally, okasha Aug 2014 #53

It's your problem edhopper Aug 2014 #71

And I treat comments such as this okasha Aug 2014 #78

on the internets everyone is a nominal dude. Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #85

You may be thinking of 4chan and reddit. rug Aug 2014 #90

Socrates was executed for atheism (and other crimes) in the same era that the temple of athena was Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #84

What?!? Do you mean to say a ruling political group used religion for a political purpose? rug Aug 2014 #91

Then we compare it to other works of literature Goblinmonger Aug 2014 #24

Shakespeare edhopper Aug 2014 #29

Most of his stuff is better. Goblinmonger Aug 2014 #33

More evidence than that for Jesus :) edhopper Aug 2014 #35

At last, something we agree on! okasha Aug 2014 #69

By whom? okasha Aug 2014 #54

Just Google edhopper Aug 2014 #65

My thoughts exactly phil89 Aug 2014 #57

This is such weak soup. cbayer Aug 2014 #82

And other people would feel differently, and either way, that's ok. nt. Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #64

Sure. Lots of fictional stories are good literature with moral of the story endings on point Aug 2014 #28

Why would we want to do that? It's just catering to the ignorance of certain groups Leontius Aug 2014 #47

Yes to both of your questions carolinayellowdog Aug 2014 #48

I don't think we should wrench sacred texts out of historical context. Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #73

Ok, so what is the deep meaning of a deity that slaughters innocents? Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #66

I'm a cherry-picker, remember? Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #72

No I'm not a cherry picker. Having actually studied the bible as literature, which is sort of what Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #74

True about Moby Dick Dorian Gray Aug 2014 #86

That cherry picking was likely to avoid the naughty bits. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #103

i know Dorian Gray Sep 2014 #110

Of course you are. You just did it in 66. rug Aug 2014 #87

If I'm a cherry-picker when I read the rest of the Bible in light of its best parts, Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #89

Having never been religious, I couldn't discard the bible. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #104

Maybe that IS the meaning Prophet 451 Aug 2014 #80

If you take away the historicity, the meaning is whatever you want it to be. enki23 Sep 2014 #92

superficially the meaning is that it is perfectly ok to slaughter innocents Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #101

Speaking of historicity, do you have evidence that inniocents were in fact slaughtered? rug Sep 2014 #102

Why, it's a metaphor for how terrible it is to slaughter innocents. enki23 Sep 2014 #111

yikes, suddenly I'm worshiping Yahweh. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #113

Interesting question Prophet 451 Aug 2014 #79