Christ on the Cross - Time for a Rebranding?

[Textcritic]

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?

In other words, anyone who doesn’t reject religion is “too biased” to properly teach religion. How draconian.

This stereotype of the “status quo” simply betrays your extremely limited experience within the field. There are certainly religious scholars in private, confessional institutions for whom this might be true, but as an instructor who has taught in both confessional and secular institutional settings it seems to me that one’s own personal religious convictions does not deeply affect the presentation of ideas and the curriculum. Most religious scholars I know are personally religious, but I also know many who are emphatically non-religious. Their approach to religious studies is indistinguishable on these grounds; the best scholars and teachers are those who can manage to maintain “disinterest” regardless of their own personal feelings and beliefs.

Originally Posted by Sliver

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 DO HAVE SUCH MECHANISMS, and virtually every religion scholar that I know is regularly and consistently publishing their findings. If we don’t publish, we lose our faculty appointments. This is an economic problem more than anything, since the sorts of findings and discoveries that we make in our research generally do not capture headlines. There is simply not much public interest in what we do, and the influence of scholarship tends to lag behind in the practice of religion by a factor of decades. For example, Archaeological discoveries that are ongoing in Israel today will likely not have a perceptible impact on church doctrine for at least another 25–50 yearss—if at all. The publication of ancient biblical texts that I will be releasing with my colleagues next year will likely not affect modern Bible translations for another generation.

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.

I suspect that your not seeing anything “practical” in part because you are not really paying much attention. But mostly, because the sorts of results that you WISH to see—the suppression and disappearance of religion—is entirely outside of the subject of investigation for religious studies.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by BBQorMILDEW

I'm pretty sure his "argument" was prevalent throughout this thread. Perhaps you should read through the first five pages and then delete your foolish post.

Or, you can leave it and wait for CC's clever response.

Either way, you're attempted trolling of the Captain is pathetic.

LOL

Challenge posters to hold themselves to a higher standard of discourse and be accused of trolling.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

At this point, there is no interest in actually learning about religion; only in debunking religion.

Bingo. It's funny how some people don't get the concept of why learning about religion is valuable. I took a couple of religion courses in university and there were always a few students who would get all pissy and disruptive because all they wanted to do was cut one or all of them down and debunk them. They totally missed the point.

Anyone who wants to do business in places like the ME, India and east Asia would be well served to understand the influential religions in the area, so they can in turn understand why they think the way they do and what influences their decisions. The societies in general no matter how secular they are now, still have values shaped by the religions that were (or still are) relevant.

Judeo-Christian ideology played a huge roll in developing Western Civilization and aspects of it are burned into the psyche of the culture whether the individual is atheist or not. Just like Buddhism did in China. Or like how even in a highly secular country like Japan, remnants of a caste system still work their way into how people conduct business.

But no... you'd always get some loud mouth person in there raising their objections and thinking they were too smart to learn about the religions.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Bingo. It's funny how some people don't get the concept of why learning about religion is valuable. I took a couple of religion courses in university and there were always a few students who would get all pissy and disruptive because all they wanted to do was cut one or all of them down and debunk them. They totally missed the point.

Anyone who wants to do business in places like the ME, India and Asia would be well served to understand the influential religions in the area, so they can in turn understand why they think the way they do and what influences their decisions. The societies in general no matter how secular they are now, still have values shaped by the religions that were (or still are) relevant.

Judeo-Christian ideology played a huge roll in developing Western Civilization and aspects of it are burned into the psyche of the culture whether atheist or not. Just like Buddhism did in China. Or like how even in a highly secular country like Japan, remnants of a caste system still work their way into how people conduct business.

But no... you'd always get some loud mouth person in there raising their objections and thinking they were too smart to learn about the religions.

If someone has faith and belief its impossible to debunk their faith and beliefs.

You can argue with a Priest all day and its futile because a Priest or a believer see evidence of his religion all around him.

"God doesn't exist"

"Surely he does, we're here aren't we"

"Big bang,amino acid mixing etc"

"Part of gods plan, he laid the seeds"

"Jesus doesn't exist and never exists"

"Sure he did"

so on and so on.

I admire people who have that level of unshakable faith as long as it doesn't cross to fundamentalism and extremism. I don't see the need to attack someone if it makes them happy, gives them a reason to get out of bed, and keeps the toe out of the trigger guard.

Sometimes people need the concept of god and religion to fill a hole in their lives. At least until they meet me.


BTW Textcritic has been awesome in this thread.

[troutman]

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.

Well said!

“Mythology is not a lie, mythology is poetry, it is metaphorical. It has been well said that mythology is the penultimate truth--penultimate because the ultimate cannot be put into words. It is beyond words. Beyond images, beyond that bounding rim of the Buddhist Wheel of Becoming. Mythology pitches the mind beyond that rim, to what can be known but not told.”
― Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth

[MillerTime GFG]

Ok here's an honest question, I am not trying to troll like a lot of this thread seems to be (haven't read through it all because it's painful), but I would like some insight from some of you who are religious.

I'll start off by saying that I am not really a religious person at all. I would consider myself agnostic. My step-son and step daughter both attend a catholic elementary because their father is Catholic,. We (my fiance and I) think it's a good school, but lately with the new Principal, it seems quite preachy and over the top. We recently received a field trip letter where we have to give permission for our daughter to attend a play where they are traveling on a bus. One section says "risks associated" and the teacher wrote in "risks associated with traveling on a bus (but don't worry, God is in control). For those of you that are religious and did grow up in Catholic schools, is this not a little over-the-top? Honest question. There are many other instances where I've thought this, but this is the latest example. What do you guys think?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by MillerTime GFG

I'll start off by saying that I am not really a religious person at all. I would consider myself agnostic. My step-son and step daughter both attend a catholic elementary because their father is Catholic,. We (my fiance and I) think it's a good school, but lately with the new Principal, it seems quite preachy and over the top. We recently received a field trip letter where we have to give permission for our daughter to attend a play where they are traveling on a bus. One section says "risks associated" and the teacher wrote in "risks associated with traveling on a bus (but don't worry, God is in control). For those of you that are religious and did grow up in Catholic schools, is this not a little over-the-top? Honest question. There are many other instances where I've thought this, but this is the latest example. What do you guys think?

I was raised religious (Jewish), but I fully intend on sending my child through the Catholic school system. From what I've seen, the Catholic system may lay it on thick, but they're also fairly open minded and teach about other religions as well. I have met very few persons who go through the system (under 40) who come out hardcore Catholic (typically quite the opposite), but they are always very aware of the differences in religions, and seem a bit more well versed in the pros and cons (as it were) of the Bible.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I was raised religious (Jewish), but I fully intend on sending my child through the Catholic school system. From what I've seen, the Catholic system may lay it on thick, but they're also fairly open minded and teach about other religions as well. I have met very few persons who go through the system (under 40) who come out hardcore Catholic (typically quite the opposite), but they are always very aware of the differences in religions, and seem a bit more well versed in the pros and cons (as it were) of the Bible.

Why are you going to send them through the Catholic System?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Why are you going to send them through the Catholic System?

Because from what he's seen, the Catholic system may lay it on thick, but they're also fairly open minded and teach about other religions as well. He has met very few persons who go through the system (under 40) who come out hardcore Catholic (typically quite the opposite), but they are always very aware of the differences in religions, and seem a bit more well versed in the pros and cons (as it were) of the Bible.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Because from what he's seen, the Catholic system may lay it on thick, but they're also fairly open minded and teach about other religions as well. He has met very few persons who go through the system (under 40) who come out hardcore Catholic (typically quite the opposite), but they are always very aware of the differences in religions, and seem a bit more well versed in the pros and cons (as it were) of the Bible.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MillerTime GFG

Ok here's an honest question, I am not trying to troll like a lot of this thread seems to be (haven't read through it all because it's painful), but I would like some insight from some of you who are religious.

I'll start off by saying that I am not really a religious person at all. I would consider myself agnostic. My step-son and step daughter both attend a catholic elementary because their father is Catholic,. We (my fiance and I) think it's a good school, but lately with the new Principal, it seems quite preachy and over the top. We recently received a field trip letter where we have to give permission for our daughter to attend a play where they are traveling on a bus. One section says "risks associated" and the teacher wrote in "risks associated with traveling on a bus (but don't worry, God is in control). For those of you that are religious and did grow up in Catholic schools, is this not a little over-the-top? Honest question. There are many other instances where I've thought this, but this is the latest example. What do you guys think?

As a (mostly) non-practicing Catholic (probably only Catholic in the cultural sense) and someone who went to a Catholic school until grade 10, I would say that if he really believes that you shouldn't worry because "God is in control", then it is a little over the top. Personally, I would think he was joking if he didn't have a history. To be honest, I always thought of "determinism" to be an anti-Catholic thinking (which is what his statement sounds like), although I have to admit, I used to daydream through most sermons when I went to them.

Catholics are like any on sect. There are some that are very liberal and have dissenting opinions on the church doctrine, and then there are others that are quite conservative. Personally, I know way more that are liberal and tend to do a lot of eye-rolling at the conservative Catholics.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I was raised religious (Jewish), but I fully intend on sending my child through the Catholic school system. From what I've seen, the Catholic system may lay it on thick, but they're also fairly open minded and teach about other religions as well. I have met very few persons who go through the system (under 40) who come out hardcore Catholic (typically quite the opposite), but they are always very aware of the differences in religions, and seem a bit more well versed in the pros and cons (as it were) of the Bible.

I assume that your wife is not of the Jewish faith.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

I assume that your wife is not of the Jewish faith.

Nope, she's 100% Agnostic-born Chinese (though her parent's are part of the "practiced agnosticism/atheism for 30+ years in China, but joined an Alliance church group on their immigration" set).

She actually feels a bit uncomfortable about having the kid baptized, but it's a complete non-issue for me.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Why are you going to send them through the Catholic System?

I was considering it fairly strongly for the reasons stated above previously, but I now have recently purchased a home that's within a 5 minute walking distance of a Catholic K-9 (and 2.2 KM from a public one).

So, lazyness and acceptance.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Well, he did explain exactly why he was sending his kids through the Catholic system. What were you expecting Psycnet to say in response to you?