I'm at work and only got to page three before needing to head off to a meeting. I will post later, but just had to get this in...
On behalf of all my colleagues who teach religious studies at a post-secondary level, I am embarrassed for this:
It absolutely boggles the mind how you managed to earn a university-level minor in religious studies, and missed this rather emphatic point with regards to the Christian religion... Mind... Boggling...
Did you go to clown college?
Well as a former student of UC's religious studies program, let me share with you what I saw as a flaw in the entire faculty. The department has no interest in searching for truth. It's the only faculty in a university (that I can think of) that operates like this.
I used to be very interested in religion. I grew up in an areligious home and university was my first opportunity to get exposed to it in any way. I remember fighting with my dad about all the religion courses I was taking because he thought they were impractical and a waste of time, but I couldn't get enough of them.
Though unconscious of it at the time, I was waiting for the course that would finally address the only questions that mattered: what aspects of which religions are true, and which are false? I mean, all my astronomy, geophysics, geology, sociology, psychology, etc. classes operated this way and I was mistakenly holding religious studies to the same standard.
Turns out the way in which religion is studied is flawed. For instance, it's my opinion that you shouldn't be teaching religion in a secular university. It'd be like a creationist teaching a paleontology course. Religion should be studied using the scientific method. Establishing the history of religios beliefs is fine, but it stops short.
With so many people believing in so much malarkey, the point of religious studies in a secular university - in addition to the history, context, beliefs - should be about proving and disproving religious claims. That would provide a useful study to humankind and maybe even further our species like other scientific efforts have.
Could maybe Catholics consider just using an image of a cross sans a violently beaten man nailed to it in their propaganda? It's a horribly appalling image...
Of course it is, which is sort of the point. Christianity is rooted in a horribly appalling event that produced unforeseen and highly positive results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
...As adults living in a western society we are pretty accustomed to the image, but if you step back and look at it objectively, it's unnecessarily violent and graphic.
Your first mistake here is in presuming that you can approach something like objectivity. Your second is to assume that the crucifixion event and its commemoration are UNNECESSARILY violent and graphic. As if these images were designed in the promotion of gratuitous, senseless violence. As if this was some sort of celebration of violence for the sake of violence. From a Christian perspective, an "uncensored" view of Jesus's crucifixion is precisely central and meaningful to the purpose of the faith. NOT "senseless" but rather unavoidably meaningful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Look, JC's crucifixion is not that noteworthy relative to the rest of his life...
The founder of the Christian religion rather emphatically disagrees with you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Apostle Paul
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
— 1 Corinthians 1:17–24, RSV
If you knew anything at all about Paul, you would know that his entire theology was rather squarely and totally founded on the crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus. So much so, that he practically says nothing at all about Jesus’s life and his teachings. In fact, there are many scholars who quite persuasively argue that Paul did not even know much about what Jesus said and did in his lifetime; only about what was truly important to him: his death, and the empty tomb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Focusing on the manner in which he died in signs, statues and other literature, to me, is like shock advertising. The manner in which he died isn't unique. His teachings are what make him significant, which is why visuals of him teaching are more appropriate, imo, particularly in a school.
Seriously? You have this all backwards. The manner in which Jesus died is absolutely, and fundamentally significant. His teachings, on the contrary, were not all that significant compared to his contemporaries. The fact that Jesus was tried and executed for sedition, that he was thought to have been charged by Jews with blasphemy, and that the circumstances and occurence of his death were universally considered ignominous completely transforms the significance of his life and message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
If Jesus led a normal life (grew up, became a teenager, went through a rebellious stage, banged some chicks, learned carpentry, got into construction, whistled at cute girls as they walked by the job site, got hammered at the pub on Fridays, etc.), then pissed off the wrong guy and was crucified, there wouldn't be the bible we have today. It is because of the life he led that his death became important.
There is nothing even remotely “normal” about your description of life here as it is applied to a Second Temple Jewish context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
...But maybe we are splitting hairs here. His teachings were important; they're the meat of the religion. The rising from the dead thing is the pizzazz...
The Apostle Paul, again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Apostle Paul
if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
— 1 Corinthians 15:13–22, RSV
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I do think my image is much more tasteful than what is out there right now, though. I can't remember seeing any statues of MLK with a bullet streaming through his head. Significant people aren't generally significant because they died. They earn their significance during their life (like JC did).
From a Christian perspective, Jesus was much more than merely a “significant person”. He was the incarnation of God, the final atonement sacrifice for sin, and the inaugerate proof of the resurrection of the dead that would coincide with the appearence of the Kingdom of God.
...I think that your alma mater should give serious consideration to rescinding your degree with a minor in religion, based on your utterly deplorable lack of knowledge about Christianity.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
That quote seems obviously wrong to me. People will do bad things regardless of religion. Milgram's experiments and the Stanford prison experiment are excellent examples of how easy it is for "good" people to do "evil" things.
Agreed, what the jist of that quote in context is that in modern terms in order for people to do horrible things like fly into buildings you need religion.
I would never suggest we are going to see some perfect world without religion because of tribalism that is so strong in humans, we have a LONG way to go before we can be more peaceful and rational beings.
I just want us to acknowledge that religion can be such a strong force for evil when its taken in the hands of the more extreme followers.
With so many people believing in so much malarkey, the point of religious studies in a secular university - in addition to the history, context, beliefs - should be about proving and disproving religious claims. That would provide a useful study to humankind and maybe even further our species like other scientific efforts have.
You're right, the U of C's Religious Studies department should focus on setting the religious record straight.
Now you and Jimmy the Undergrad should hop on a plane and negotiate peace in the Middle East.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Well as a former student of UC's religious studies program, let me share with you what I saw as a flaw in the entire faculty. The department has no interest in searching for truth. It's the only faculty in a university (that I can think of) that operates like this.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "truth" here...
Did you know upon entry into the Department of Religion that it is a branch within the Faculty of HUMANITIES? I've been doing this for some time now, and in my experience I have yet to encounter any single department in the humanities that considers "truth" to be the central component of their discipline; at least not in the way that you seem to mean it here.
"Truth" in literature? "Truth" in art? "Truth" in culture? How does one calculate such things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Though unconscious of it at the time, I was waiting for the course that would finally address the only questions that mattered: what aspects of which religions are true, and which are false?
By what measure and in what context "true" and "false"? What aspects of George Bernard Shaw's plays are "true" and "false"?
What a weird question to ask in this context...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I mean, all my astronomy, geophysics, geology, sociology, psychology, etc. classes operated this way and I was mistakenly holding religious studies to the same standard.
Yes, this approach to "truth" (although I don't really like your use of the word here) works fairly well in the pursuit of the natural sciences, but I seriously doubt that you encountered much "truth" in your studies in sociology and psychology. More likely A LOT of method, theory, pattern detection, statistics and other fun stuff that speaks meaningfully to the phenomena of social emergence and human behaviour, but not much in the way of "truth".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Turns out the way in which religion is studied is flawed.
I won't argue with you there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
For instance, it's my opinion that you shouldn't be teaching religion in a secular university. It'd be like a creationist teaching a paleontology course.
Come again? How on earth does this analogy function? Are you speaking of me directly, or does this apply to all university teachers of religion? Who "should" be teaching religion in the universities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Religion should be studied using the scientific method. Establishing the history of religios beliefs is fine, but it stops short.
So, maybe you can help me then:
My discipline within religious studies is biblical literature, and more specifically the emergence, development and transmission of scripture and its interpretation in Judaism between 500 BCE–100 CE. I study original manuscripts in their original languages, and against a panoply of other disciplines including history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, and geography among others. I am most concerned to locate intentions of authors and meanings supplied by readers, and how these inform us about their own respective world views and circumstances.
...so what precisely am I doing wrong, and what should I be doing to conform more closely to the "scientific method"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
With so many people believing in so much malarkey, the point of religious studies in a secular university - in addition to the history, context, beliefs - should be about proving and disproving religious claims.
Well, that's a bit of a mouthful right there. "Proving and disproving religious claims"? Maybe you were not paying attention during your courses on the historical Jesus or the history of Israel, but there is MUCH discussion (or, there is in my courses) about "what actually happened". In my opinion, the general goal of religious studies ought to be informing students about the insatiably influential universal cultural phenomena of religion. It's an integral part of human behaviour, which is precisely why it deserves so much attention.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Come again? How on earth does this analogy function? Are you speaking of me directly, or does this apply to all university teachers of religion? Who "should" be teaching religion in the universities?
.
I think he is saying that, much like dogs, bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica it should be banned out right.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Sliver seems to be falling into the common trap where they presume their undergrad courses provide a solid insight into the academic research their professors are actually undertaking. Boils down to someone speaking about the scientific method yet has never employed it in an academic setting.
Also, thinking a minor in anything is enough to expose the "truths" of life, the universe and everything makes me laugh.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef
I I think those folks who are unable to believe in themselves need to believe in something else that they believe is bigger than them. Without that millions of people would be stripped of the hope they have in life.
Ah, the "ignorance is bliss" argument. Much depends on whether you value happiness or truth more - who am I to say those in favour of happiness are wrong?
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Agreed, what the jist of that quote in context is that in modern terms in order for people to do horrible things like fly into buildings you need religion.
I'm not sure I necessarily agree. The Viet Cong used suicide bombers during the Vietnam war and their motive was secular in nature.
This is an opinion piece, but I believe that the facts are historically correct.
Many soldiers have gone into sure-death scenerios (arguably suicide) for the homeland and ideology. Surely not all of them were believers in an afterlife.
Quote:
I would never suggest we are going to see some perfect world without religion because of tribalism that is so strong in humans, we have a LONG way to go before we can be more peaceful and rational beings.
I just want us to acknowledge that religion can be such a strong force for evil when its taken in the hands of the more extreme followers.
I strongly agree with everything above. Religion is a convenient way to manipulate people and is often used for evil purposes... because people are evil. How religion is used is a symptom of a larger problem IMO.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "truth" here...
By truth, I mean something in accordance with reality or fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Did you know upon entry into the Department of Religion that it is a branch within the Faculty of HUMANITIES? I've been doing this for some time now, and in my experience I have yet to encounter any single department in the humanities that considers "truth" to be the central component of their discipline; at least not in the way that you seem to mean it here.
"Truth" in literature? "Truth" in art? "Truth" in culture? How does one calculate such things?
By what measure and in what context "true" and "false"? What aspects of George Bernard Shaw's plays are "true" and "false"?
Religious Studies is somewhat unique within Humanities. Look at the English department, for example. I don't know anybody who lives their life in accordance with novels such as 1984, or The Great Gatsby, or Song of Solomon, or Watership Down, etc. Those should be studied as art because that is what they are.
With religion, you have books and texts and teachings that people live by and take as truth. I believe we should study - at the academic level - what is true in these teaching and what is not. Then with that knowledge, Religious Studies scholars should be going to places like Africa to combat the misinformation organizations like the Catholic Church are spreading. I didn't see that happening in any course I took in Religious Studies. Maybe that happens later on down the line and the department was keeping those studies away from lowly undergrads. If so, they did a good job hiding it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
What a weird question to ask in this context...
What a belittling statement. It's weird to want to know what is true and what isn't in courses that study religion? I think it's the most fundamental question in religion. The truth is what religions are after (or pretend to be) - I want to know in what ways they are right and in what ways they are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Yes, this approach to "truth" (although I don't really like your use of the word here) works fairly well in the pursuit of the natural sciences, but I seriously doubt that you encountered much "truth" in your studies in sociology and psychology. More likely A LOT of method, theory, pattern detection, statistics and other fun stuff that speaks meaningfully to the phenomena of social emergence and human behaviour, but not much in the way of "truth".
There was a practical side to those social sciences that I didn't see in religious studies. Religion exists out there in the world and is obviously impactful on global and personal levels. Why isn't religious studies trying to assert itself out there more? Why don't I see religious studies professors forcing themselves into the discussion when world events involving religion are happening with a view to solving some of the problems religion creates? Why aren't they debunking religious texts that people use as support for their causes that hurt other people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
So, maybe you can help me then:
My discipline within religious studies is biblical literature, and more specifically the emergence, development and transmission of scripture and its interpretation in Judaism between 500 BCE–100 CE. I study original manuscripts in their original languages, and against a panoply of other disciplines including history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, and geography among others. I am most concerned to locate intentions of authors and meanings supplied by readers, and how these inform us about their own respective world views and circumstances.
...so what precisely am I doing wrong, and what should I be doing to conform more closely to the "scientific method"?
There's a place for your studies (yes I'm back peddling on being directly personal because I don't think that's the best road to go down), but I think everything should fall under the umbrella of boiling what we know down to fact and fiction, including your studies.
Have you had a moment where you've uncovered something from the distant past that made you say "holy crap, if that premise was built of these faulty premises, that means all this other stuff that is preached to millions of people as truth can't be true at all...I've got to get the word out!!". I would think that should be happening all the time in the field, but it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Well, that's a bit of a mouthful right there. "Proving and disproving religious claims"? Maybe you were not paying attention during your courses on the historical Jesus or the history of Israel, but there is MUCH discussion (or, there is in my courses) about "what actually happened". In my opinion, the general goal of religious studies ought to be informing students about the insatiably influential universal cultural phenomena of religion. It's an integral part of human behaviour, which is precisely why it deserves so much attention.
It deserves attention so that we can shape where it goes. Observing it is one thing, applying the knowledge we gain from studying religion to steer it in a better direction is a loftier goal and one that should be pursued.
Reminds me of a line in a Bad Religion song called 'I want to conquer the world": "Hey man of science with your perfect rules of measure, can you improve this place with the data that you gather?" I don't see where Religious Studies are applying their knowledge to improving the world or furthering the human cause. Half the work is complete (the study), but I didn't see where the second half of the equation was taking place.
Here are the lyrics to the full song (if you're interested because it is a cool song):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Religion
"I Want To Conquer The World"
Hey Brother Christian with your high and might errand,
Your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.
Hey Sister Bleeding Heart with all of your compassion,
Your labors soothe the hurt but can't assuage temptation.
Hey man of science with your perfect rules of measure,
Can you improve this place with the data that you gather?
Hey Mother Mercy can your loins bear fruit forever?
Is your fecundity a trammel or a treasure?
And I want to conquer the world,
Give all the idiots a brand new religion,
Put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
Promote equality in all my decisions
With a quick wink of the eye
And a "God you must be joking!"
Hey Mr. Diplomat with your worldly aspirations,
Did you see the children cry when you left them at the station?
Hey moral soldier you've got righteous proclamation,
And precious tomes to fuel your pulpy conflagrations.
And I want to conquer the world,
Give all the idiots a brand new religion,
Put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
Promote equality in all of my decisions
I want to conquer the world,
Expose the culprits and feed them to the children,
I'll do away with air pollution and then all save the whales,
We'll have peace on earth and global communion.
I want to conquer the world!
Last edited by Sliver; 05-30-2013 at 11:18 AM.
Reason: forgot to "end" one of the quotes and it looked messy
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
Gotta say, I did not see this thread leading to me revisiting a song I haven't heard in 15 years.
Btw, am I the only one who sees that Textcritic has commented on a thread and reacts with "please don't be replying to me, I don't want to be torn to shreds today"?
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
By truth, I mean something in accordance with reality or fact.
I think you can really quickly answer your seeking for truth with the statement that there is no scientific evidence for the existance of a God as described by any religion.
Not much else to study if you don't want to look at the cultural impact of religion.
If you expected to find out about what parts of religion were true, maybe you should have actually listened in class. I took one religion class, and about 10 minutes into the class, it was pretty clear that that wasn't the goal of studying religion.
Maybe I actually had a good prof, or the ability to comprehend the English language, though.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
