Religion

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)

63. But remember, after I said that a presumption of historicism was out, I went on to say

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #50)

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 07:18 PM

Aug 2014

Last edited Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)

that the meanings were still in, so everything you just said was out for lack of historicism is back in for meaning. And I don't see why literature can't cause people to pray, or why people can't have reasons for praying independent of scripture.

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