Christ on the Cross - Time for a Rebranding?

[Hack&Lube]

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.

Wow. You've missed the point of academics entirely. University is there to provide you with the facts. It's YOUR job to build on that knowledge, add to that knowledge through your own research, and to create your own understanding and your own arguments. They are not there to tell you what is right and wrong. That's not the point of an education.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

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?

You do this all the time. Grab snippets of what I say, ignore the rest, then say I'm incomplete in my understanding.

I've had whole posts talking about why I think it's lower. I'm not going to fall into a pattern of repeating myself over and over for you, valo.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Why does the subject matter make it necessarily different?

One reason among many is the fact that one relies on faith as the very basis of its existence, and is therefore completely unprovable.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.
.

What's your source? I would love to find out which countries do this.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

One reason among many is the fact that one relies on faith as the very basis of its existence, and is therefore completely unprovable.

Yeah, I guess that is kind of a problem. Maybe the department should start there.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Why does the subject matter make it necessarily different?

If you teach anything in the social sciences, of which Religion is a part, you are dealing with people.

If you teach things about a non-social science, like Math for example, you are dealing with numbers.

You can compare properties of a number, like its equality to another number. You can prove this to be true. How do you do the same thing with a person and their motivation or thoughts? You can't.

Are you sure you went to University of Calgary? Or is the UofC you are talking about actually the University of CrackerJackBox?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You do this all the time. Grab snippets of what I say, ignore the rest, then say I'm incomplete in my understanding.

I've had whole posts talking about why I think it's lower. I'm not going to fall into a pattern of repeating myself over and over for you, valo.

No snippet grabbing at all, I've read all of your posts and it's quite clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're comparing the standards applied to hard sciences to those applied to the study of a subject that quite simply cannot be proven by any means. It is impossible to verify something that is based on the idea that you have to make a leap of faith to complete the picture.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What's your source? I would love to find out which countries do this.

Here is one, while it is not a simple as Sliver says, same sex love is not looked on favourably in a large part of Africa.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_...sexuality_Bill

Also an interesting read:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news...ocial-policies

Speaking to the Register Feb. 13 on the sidelines of a conference on Africa at the Vatican, the Guinean cardinal said “African bishops must react” to such a move, as “this is not our culture; it’s against our faith.” He described the secretary general’s comments as “stupid” and added that the “Catholic bishops of America must help us in Africa, by reacting themselves.”
“It’s not possible to impose on the poor this kind of European mentality,” he said.
In a Jan. 28 address to 54 African nations at the African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ki-moon said discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender equality “has been ignored or even sanctioned by many states for far too long.” He added that some governments treat homosexual people as “second-class citizens or even criminals” and that “we must live up to the ideals of the Universal Declaration.”
According to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), most African countries frown upon homosexuality as immoral and degrading, with many criminalizing homosexual acts, some even going as far as prescribing the death penalty. Many of these laws post-date the colonial period and have been enacted during the past 10 years. In most of these countries, “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender” (LGBT) rights are not even contemplated as possibilities in the distant future.
Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, the Church has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstance can they be approved (2357).”

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What's your source? I would love to find out which countries do this.

Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_...sexuality_Bill

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Why does the subject matter make it necessarily different?

Because calculating a reaction curve in thermodynamics and saying that somebody has the wrong answer is different from studying Buddhist Monasticism and saying that somebody is wrong for wanting to live an ascetic lifestyle based on those beliefs.

The very nature of religions and religious practices makes them inherently alienated from scientific/rational proofs.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If you teach anything in the social sciences, of which Religion is a part, you are dealing with people.

If you teach things about a non-social science, like Math for example, you are dealing with numbers.

You can compare properties of a number, like its equality to another number. You can prove this to be true. How do you do the same thing with a person and their motivation or thoughts? You can't.

Are you sure you went to University of Calgary? Or is the UofC you are talking about actually the University of CrackerJackBox?

Religious Studies is a Humanity, Rathji, not a Social Science.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Religious Studies is a Humanity, Rathji, not a Social Science.

Social Sciences and the Humanities are often interchangeable or part and parcel of the same departments and faculties.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_...sexuality_Bill

Yeah, that makes sense. Ugandans have been killing each other for decades. The British colonialism of that country really screwed it up.

The thing people have to remember about Africa when it comes to Christianity and Islam, is that many areas have merged the religions with their native African tribal beliefs. It's difficult to separate the two at this point.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yeah, I guess that is kind of a problem. Maybe the department should start there.

How?

[GGG]

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.

But what are they debunking? Looking at correlations between religiosity some of the closest are level of education and wealth. Those two factors reduce how religious people are. So if your goal is to reduce the impact of religion poverty reduction and general education will benefit, not a preacher.

What argument is the religious studies prof supposed to make. If I say The bible says this therefore I beleive it as long as I believe that bible is a holy book that is infallable no arguement is going to change that. The concept of faith supercedes logic so no logical scientific based argument is going to change that.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, that makes sense. Ugandans have been killing each other for decades. The British colonialism of that country really screwed it up.

The thing people have to remember about Africa when it comes to Christianity and Islam, is that many areas have merged the religions with their native African tribal beliefs. It's difficult to separate the two at this point.

speaking of Africa and xtians.

NSFW!

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

speaking of Africa and xtians.

NSFW!

How awesome if Africa? It really is amazing.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Religious Studies is a Humanity, Rathji, not a Social Science.

From Wikipedia:

Social science refers to the academic disciplines concerned with the society and the relationships of individuals within a society, which primarily rely on empirical approaches. It is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to anthropology, economics, psychology and sociology. In a wider sense, it may often include humanities[1] such as archaeology, area studies, communication studies, cultural studies, history, law, linguistics, political science, and rhetoric.

Plus, they have offices in the Social Sciences building at the UofC.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

How awesome if Africa? It really is amazing.

Amen undercoverbrother, Amen.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Sliver

By truth, I mean something in accordance with reality or fact.

But I presume that for you the establishment of “reality” and “fact” would derive entirely from materialistic philosophy. You and I both might be naturalists, but I find that a common failure among proponents of this worldview is their inability to recognise that only the tiniest fraction of the world population holds to this same principle. Religion—by almost universal characterisation—is in direct contravention with materialism, and thus matters of “reality” are practically never afforded the sort of empirical attention by proponents that you think they ought to receive. What you are calling for is apologetics, which in my opinion is bad religion because it completely misses the point.

Originally Posted by Sliver

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...

...Which is basically the property of theology or apologetics, and while these matters do present some interest to religion scholars, they are well outside of their own purposes in study. For the most part, the sorts of questions we ask are of the “what / how / why” variety in our pursuit of attempting to understand the phenomenon of religion and all its intricacies. Furthermore, your premises for investigating the “truth” are flawed in their approach to religion, precisely because they presume a materialistic philosophy. Religion thrives in the margins of the natural world, and to presume this sort of evaluative approach that rejects supernaturalism is extremely adversarial. At this point, there is no interest in actually learning about religion; only in debunking religion.

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

Religion is deeply interested in what is “true” and “right”, but from a much more nuanced metaphysical perspective than you are willing to concede. I teach the Bible as an ancient collection of religious insight and inspiration that is flawed in its pre-scientific perspective, and corrupted by tribalism, politics, and xenophobia. Yet I can also maintain that the Bible contains truth. On the one hand, I am absolutely committed to disceminating fact from fiction, but on the other, I am also concerned to remain sensitive to the deeper meanings of texts, rituals, and beliefs that have shaped and continue to shape our culture.

Originally Posted by Sliver

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?

Seriously? You expect tenured professors with enourmous research commitments to drop what they are doing and sally forth to invade pre-industrialised cultures with their own post-modern brand of “truth”? That sounds precisely like colonialism to me. Not only is your suggestion astonishingly presumptuous, it is probably also exceptionally dangerous. Do you think all us religious scholars are both well equipped and eager to challenge deeply seeded tribal traditions and beliefs to the face of proponents who still regard thought-crimes as capital offenses? Maybe this is my own sense of self-preservation speaking here, but I’d rather not, thanks.

For the record: I just reconnected on FB with a former student of mine yesterday. She was a fundamentalist, evangelical, born again Christian when I met her, and she became an athiest, PRECISELY BECAUSE OF WHAT SHE WAS LEARNING IN MY CLASSES. You tell me if what we are doing in religious studies is “impractical”, based on what she says of her own experience:

“I've realized in this whole journey that i think I might just be a person who is meant to be secular. I feel more comfortable with myself and definitely a lot more fulfilled than when I was trying to be a Christian. My favorite thing in life is to get to know people from all sorts of backgrounds and talk to them and hear their stories and I find that it's easier for me to relate to people of the world when I'm one of them (if that makes sense). When I was a Christian in the traditional sense it was hard to relate to people and I always felt like I had more power because I had the truth and no one else did- which I think is somewhat demeaning for others. And you know, I think if Jesus were around today, he'd be cool with my stance.”

As a biblical scholar, these are the sorts of people that I deal with every day. In my classes, not a day goes by without needing to confront some kind of crisis of faith. Because I understand faith; precisely because I know the nature religion and am acutely aware of the stakes tied to confession / rejection of beliefs, these sorts of matters must always be handled with exceptional care and sensitivity, and not so ham-fistedly as you imagine.