Christ on the Cross - Time for a Rebranding?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Can we just make this thread about Bad Religion? God they're so solid live.

Put this in the "Cool Story Bro" territory, but I watched Cheech and Chong "Up in Smoke" with the drummer in their bus back in the day. Apparently his mom had a bit role in it somewhere.

(I had a friend that worked for an agency that booked concerts and things of the like and was able to weasel my way in for a few events)

[Nsd1]

Offensive language.

NSFW!

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Nsd1

Offensive language.

omg

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Rathji

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.

What class did you take? Individual classes won't necessarily have that mandate, but when you start taking multiple classes on the nature of religions, new religious movements, etc. I expected the curriculum to challenge that which it studies. I think when a Religious Studies professor gets his/her doctorate they adopt something akin to Star Trek's Prime Directive of not interfering with the internal development of the religions in which they study.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

What class did you take? Individual classes won't necessarily have that mandate, but when you start taking multiple classes on the nature of religions, new religious movements, etc. I expected the curriculum to challenge that which it studies. I think when a Religious Studies professor gets his/her doctorate they adopt something akin to Star Trek's Prime Directive of not interfering with the internal development of the religions in which they study.

Wouldn't the role of developing the inner workings of a religion be the job of say, someone who practices that religion? Perhaps a priest, imam or equivalent?

I'm not sure why you expect an academic who is studying religion and it's role in history and society to be taking on an active role in shaping the development of religion. Those are different roles.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Sliver

What class did you take? Individual classes won't necessarily have that mandate, but when you start taking multiple classes on the nature of religions, new religious movements, etc. I expected the curriculum to challenge that which it studies. I think when a Religious Studies professor gets his/her doctorate they adopt something akin to Star Trek's Prime Directive of not interfering with the internal development of the religions in which they study.

Religious studies in Western secular Academia is more of an objective study of world religions in relation to historical, cultural, anthropological, and philosophical aspects of human societies. It is not the job of the academic or the curriculum to take an un-objective or critical view of the religion in the way you are seeking.

If you are searching for some sort of ontological/pseudo scientific truth or criticism of religion, you are looking in the wrong place. You're not going to find a "what's wrong with Christianity" or "what's wrong with Islam" 101 in a religious studies curriculum. I agree however, that more religious studies faculties should have the balls to try this.

You might however, find that in a U of C political science (and other Humanities) courses however, as I can attest. Interestingly enough, you'll also probably encounter what you are searching for in Theology and Apologetics courses at religious academic institutions as their purpose is to educate their students on how defend their religion against criticism.

I found that having a broader focus (political science, economics, sociology, psychology, history, etc.) tends to actually focus your mind and allow you to identify the common threads of humanity behind human nature which are really the same motivations behind political, economic, and religious beliefs and their positive/negative impacts on society rather than simply taking religious studies courses.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

Wouldn't the role of developing the inner workings of a religion be the job of say, someone who practices that religion? Perhaps a priest, imam or equivalent?

I'm not sure why you expect an academic who is studying religion and it's role in history and society to be taking on an active role in shaping the development of religion. Those are different roles.

I think the people that practice the religion are too biased and too vested in maintaining the status quo within their faiths. They may also not have an objective enough perspective to scrutinize their religions with the detachment a social scientist would. And are the changes they would want to make in the best interests of society in general, or would they be in the best interest of only those in the religion?

As fellow humans, we should want to know what these large (and small) organizations are doing, what they believe, and why they believe it. When those beliefs are going to have an influence on the outside world, Religious Studies departments need to have a mechanism of bringing it to the attention of those it affects (whether that's those external to a religion or those in the religion) with a view to mitigating or changing the force of that influence.

We expect psychologists to study psychology so they can ultimately apply their knowledge in the real world to help people. We expect the same of sociologists. Volcanologists apply what they learn to save lives. In almost every field of study in which the subject of the study has a tangible affect on the planet, animals or people, scholars in those vocations try to use their knowledge to affect positive change. I don't see that happening in Religious Studies and I think that's because we are holding the department to too low a standard. I want to see something practical come out of it.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Sliver

We expect psychologists to study psychology so they can ultimately apply their knowledge in the real world to help people. We expect the same of sociologists. Volcanologists apply what they learn to save lives. In almost every field of study in which the subject of the study has a tangible affect on the planet, animals or people, scholars in those vocations try to use their knowledge to affect positive change. I don't see that happening in Religious Studies and I think that's because we are holding the department to too low a standard. I want to see something practical come out of it.

That's coming from the assumption that religion is harmful and that it must be studied to protect society from it as a practical benefit.

The way religious studies faculties operate is based on developing the understanding and framework of specific religions so people will learn more about what others believe and so that you can build a discourse around that. You are in the wrong faculty if you are looking for a place to challenge it's impact on modern society.

You'll find more benefit studying Poli Sci and Psychology for what you're looking for as I certainly had plenty of course material based on religious cults, totalitarism, brain-washing, cults of personality, terrorism, social engineering, historical revisionism, separation of Church & State, related debates (abortion, same-sex marriage) etc. which are extremes of the "negative" aspects of religion you are probably seeking to address.

This reminds me of my friend who completed a 4-year English degree and then complained to me about how he didn't learn anything he wanted to learn in it. I asked him why he decided to be an English major and he responded to me that he wanted to learn how to communicate better. I told him he took the wrong degree and should have taken Communications instead (not that I think that's a very valuable or useful degree either but the point stands). He walked away in despair. This is the sort of mix-up you are having here.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think the people that practice the religion are too biased and too vested in maintaining the status quo within their faiths. They may also not have an objective enough perspective to scrutinize their religions with the detachment a social scientist would. And are the changes they would want to make in the best interests of society in general, or would they be in the best interest of only those in the religion?

As fellow humans, we should want to know what these large (and small) organizations are doing, what they believe, and why they believe it. When those beliefs are going to have an influence on the outside world, Religious Studies departments need to have a mechanism of bringing it to the attention of those it affects (whether that's those external to a religion or those in the religion) with a view to mitigating or changing the force of that influence.

We expect psychologists to study psychology so they can ultimately apply their knowledge in the real world to help people. We expect the same of sociologists. Volcanologists apply what they learn to save lives. In almost every field of study in which the subject of the study has a tangible affect on the planet, animals or people, scholars in those vocations try to use their knowledge to affect positive change. I don't see that happening in Religious Studies and I think that's because we are holding the department to too low a standard. I want to see something practical come out of it.

How would an academic influence or challange the beliefs of a religion. For example on Gay Marriage we know that the church has a negative impact on giving rights to homosexuals. How would a religioous studies professor change this belief in the church. The separation of church and state is what is critical in defending society from the harmful parts of religion. Not religious studies professors.

To the bolded part above I think that is what religious studies departments do. What they don't do is pass judgement on it.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

That's coming from the assumption that religion is harmful and that it must be studied to protect society from it as a practical benefit.

The way religious studies faculties operate is based on developing the understanding and framework of specific religions so people will learn more about what others believe and so that you can build a discourse around that. You are in the wrong faculty if you are looking for a place to challenge it's impact on modern society.

You'll find more benefit studying Poli Sci and Psychology for what you're looking for as I certainly had plenty of course material based on religious cults, totalitarism, brain-washing, cults of personality, terrorism, social engineering, historical revisionism, separation of Church & State, related debates (abortion, same-sex marriage) etc. which are extremes of the "negative" aspects of religion you are probably seeking to address.

This reminds me of my friend who completed a 4-year English degree and then complained to me about how he didn't learn anything he wanted to learn in it. I asked him why he decided to be an English major and he responded to me that he wanted to learn how to communicate better. I told him he took the wrong degree and should have taken Communications instead (not that I think that's a very valuable or useful degree either but the point stands). He walked away in despair. This is the sort of mix-up you are having here.

I know how religious studies faculties operate. My point is it's to a lower standard than other faculties.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I know how religious studies faculties operate. My point is it's to a lower standard than other faculties.

How is it lower? It may be different, at least relative to hard sciences, but that doesn't make it lower. You do this all the time, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding on an issue and then argue that you know what's going on. It's incredible. Even better, you call out people who clearly have an understanding of the issues and concepts at play.

Can someone get Textcritic out of his meeting so he can shred another series of posts?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Sliver

What class did you take? Individual classes won't necessarily have that mandate, but when you start taking multiple classes on the nature of religions, new religious movements, etc. I expected the curriculum to challenge that which it studies. I think when a Religious Studies professor gets his/her doctorate they adopt something akin to Star Trek's Prime Directive of not interfering with the internal development of the religions in which they study.

Whatever the Intro class was.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I know how religious studies faculties operate. My point is it's to a lower standard than other faculties.

Its not a lower standard, its necessarily different because of the subject matter.

How is that so hard to grasp?

[V]

Is there even a denomination left that uses the crucifix, outside of the Catholics? I'm pretty sure Luther and Calvin were both vehemently against the crucifix as a symbol, although not for the same reason as Sliver.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think the people that practice the religion are too biased and too vested in maintaining the status quo within their faiths. They may also not have an objective enough perspective to scrutinize their religions with the detachment a social scientist would. And are the changes they would want to make in the best interests of society in general, or would they be in the best interest of only those in the religion?

As fellow humans, we should want to know what these large (and small) organizations are doing, what they believe, and why they believe it. When those beliefs are going to have an influence on the outside world, Religious Studies departments need to have a mechanism of bringing it to the attention of those it affects (whether that's those external to a religion or those in the religion) with a view to mitigating or changing the force of that influence.

We expect psychologists to study psychology so they can ultimately apply their knowledge in the real world to help people. We expect the same of sociologists. Volcanologists apply what they learn to save lives. In almost every field of study in which the subject of the study has a tangible affect on the planet, animals or people, scholars in those vocations try to use their knowledge to affect positive change. I don't see that happening in Religious Studies and I think that's because we are holding the department to too low a standard. I want to see something practical come out of it.

That's exactly what religious studies does. As for a mechanism of bringing it to people's attention, I'm not sure what you're looking for. Religious studies telethons? There is plenty of literature produced by those who study religion, are you arguing that there should be a movement by those people to proselytize or otherwise 'spread the word of religious studies'?

Studying the history of religion leads to a better understanding of how religion has shaped our societies and the role that it plays today. It allows us to be educated on who we are and why. If you don't think that's a practical outcome the problem isn't with those studying religion, it's with you.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by GGG

How would an academic influence or challange the beliefs of a religion. For example on Gay Marriage we know that the church has a negative impact on giving rights to homosexuals. How would a religioous studies professor change this belief in the church. The separation of church and state is what is critical in defending society from the harmful parts of religion. Not religious studies professors.

To the bolded part above I think that is what religious studies departments do. What they don't do is pass judgement on it.

In the same way doctors go all over the world giving vaccines and condoms to the poorest people on earth, Religious Studies Departments - if they wanted to use the knowledge they have - could put boots on the ground and educate people.

As an example, in some African countries they'll kill you for being gay by using religious justifications. The scholars need to establish where in the bible that is coming from, then debunk it, then educate people on why using religious justifications to kill people is wrong.

Closer to home, they should have done the exact same thing in California when the Mormons launched their campaign to take away gay marriage from California. Instead, I didn't hear a single thing said from scholars of religious studies debunking the rationale of the religious person's voice, to the detriment of equal treatment of gay people.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Its not a lower standard, its necessarily different because of the subject matter.

How is that so hard to grasp?

Why does the subject matter make it necessarily different?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Nsd1

Offensive language.

NSFW!

I wish this video would go viral for the sheer comedy of it but it would probably result in the death of that old married couple.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

In the same way doctors go all over the world giving vaccines and condoms to the poorest people on earth, Religious Studies Departments - if they wanted to use the knowledge they have - could put boots on the ground and educate people.

As an example, in some African countries they'll kill you for being gay by using religious justifications. The scholars need to establish where in the bible that is coming from, then debunk it, then educate people on why using religious justifications to kill people is wrong.

Closer to home, they should have done the exact same thing in California when the Mormons launched their campaign to take away gay marriage from California. Instead, I didn't hear a single thing said from scholars of religious studies debunking the rationale of the religious person's voice, to the detriment of equal treatment of gay people.

Holy ####, you seriously think that religious beliefs are the same as diseases. That's amazing.

Religious Studies Preacher (which is exactly what you are calling for):You see it says right there on page 296 that being gay is cool
African Tribal Warlord: Hmmm, mine was missing page 296. Well, let's throw on some Madonna and get fabulous.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

In the same way doctors go all over the world giving vaccines and condoms to the poorest people on earth, Religious Studies Departments - if they wanted to use the knowledge they have - could put boots on the ground and educate people.

As an example, in some African countries they'll kill you for being gay by using religious justifications. The scholars need to establish where in the bible that is coming from, then debunk it, then educate people on why using religious justifications to kill people is wrong.

Closer to home, they should have done the exact same thing in California when the Mormons launched their campaign to take away gay marriage from California. Instead, I didn't hear a single thing said from scholars of religious studies debunking the rationale of the religious person's voice, to the detriment of equal treatment of gay people.

If only we had a name for people that went to other countries to talk/educate people about their religion........