Religion V: Utopianism, Fundamentalism, Apothesis

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

Have you ever heard the expression "you catch more flies with honey than with vinager?" I understand your fruatration but in what universe does being irritated that someone has dropped a formerly reactionary stance on an issue like homosexual marriage helpful?

I'm not irritated at all that they've dropped the stance, I'm irritated that liberals (my normally like-minded fellows) seem so willing to praise them. The Pope is the most present example of this, all he's said is that gay people should be accepted and tolerated in the Church. He still holds that homosexuality is immoral, and opposes gay marriage. He gets tons of positive media coverage and praise for this, yet all he's done is said that gays should be allowed to live openly, putting him behind in his progress by about half a century.

[Ormond]

I'm not irritated at all that they've dropped the stance, I'm irritated that liberals (my normally like-minded fellows) seem so willing to praise them. The Pope is the most present example of this, all he's said is that gay people should be accepted and tolerated in the Church. He still holds that homosexuality is immoral, and opposes gay marriage. He gets tons of positive media coverage and praise for this, yet all he's done is said that gays should be allowed to live openly, putting him behind in his progress by about half a century.

I don't think this is entirely fair, because of the international nature of Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic church has to deal with the average of opinion across the entire planet in a way that almost no other religious organization does. In the context of western Europe and parts of the Americas, the Pope's position may be "behind" (though perhaps not by as long as half a century; public opinion in the West has changed remarkably swiftly about issues dealing with GLBT people and their rights.) But in the context of the entire planet, I think the Pope is probably ahead of public opinion, not behind.

[TrueMetis]

OAR,

Have you ever heard the expression "you catch more flies with honey than with vinager?"

You don't actually.

I seriously doubt that there is any base for slavery in the Jewish or Christian religion (I do not know enough about Islam). I am not aware that slavery was ever a common practice in the last 2000 years of the Jewish tradition. Slaves were kept in the Christian occident, but to be fair, I think that both the decrease of the practice in the late antiquity and from the 18th century on was very often based on Christian arguments like man in God's image, all men brothers etc.

Slavery is all over the Old and New Testament, and slaves in ancient Israel where what we consider indentured servants.

As for anti-slavery religious arguments there where just as many pro-slavery ones. In fact the argument you just made altered as one of the biggest ones. "Man was made in gods image we are descendents of Adam and Eve, those guys aren't."

I don't think this is entirely fair, because of the international nature of Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic church has to deal with the average of opinion across the entire planet in a way that almost no other religious organization does. In the context of western Europe and parts of the Americas, the Pope's position may be "behind" (though perhaps not by as long as half a century; public opinion in the West has changed remarkably swiftly about issues dealing with GLBT people and their rights.) But in the context of the entire planet, I think the Pope is probably ahead of public opinion, not behind.

Most of the higher ups in the RCC are westerners, so why shouldn't we hold them to western standards?

ETA: Actually we should be holding him to significantly higher standard since he claims to be a moral authority and the church coming out strong in favour of homosexual could help them in places they actually have to be worried about being killed.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I don't think this is entirely fair, because of the international nature of Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic church has to deal with the average of opinion across the entire planet in a way that almost no other religious organization does. In the context of western Europe and parts of the Americas, the Pope's position may be "behind" (though perhaps not by as long as half a century; public opinion in the West has changed remarkably swiftly about issues dealing with GLBT people and their rights.) But in the context of the entire planet, I think the Pope is probably ahead of public opinion, not behind.

Most Catholics are in Western Europe or the Americas. Were the Pope to come out in support for gay marriage- he actively opposed its (ultimately successful) legalization in his home country- that would be put him ahead of a good portion of this population. But offering a base level of acceptance- it's ok to be openly gay and still be tolerated- is definitely behind. In terms of the non-Catholic global population, you're perhaps right. But I think the Pope's position has changed because he wants to woo and keep followers in the parts of the world where he and the Church have been left behind.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TM,

It's a metaphor man. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

:)

[TrueMetis]

TM,

It's a metaphor man. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

:)

I know, but I don't think it works as a metaphor either. It been my experience that most people fall into a category of refusing to change their minds no matter how nice you are or open minded enough that unless our being excessively cruel the insults don't matter much if you've got facts and a persuasive argument.

[Ormond]

I know, but I don't think it works as a metaphor either. It been my experience that most people fall into a category refusing to change their minds no matter how nice you are or open minded enough that unless our being excessively cruel the insults don't matter much if you've got facts and a persuasive argument.

I don't know who you normally talk to, but since you are just using personal experience here I must point out that my personal experience certainly has NOT been the same. I definitely have found that I am more likely to change people's opinions if I am polite and respectful to them during my arguments.

[Gears of the Beast]

I know, but I don't think it works as a metaphor either. It been my experience that most people fall into a category refusing to change their minds no matter how nice you are or open minded enough that unless our being excessively cruel the insults don't matter much if you've got facts and a persuasive argument.

:agree:

[Castel]

TM,

It's a metaphor man. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

:)

Still, I think the point stands though.

The flies aren't being caught because people on the internet.

That said, it's fascinating. I'm younger than most of you here, so I've never had the chance to see an organization (well, perhaps a religious one) just walk themselves back from an explicitly stated moral position like this. So this is how it happens.

I don't know who you normally talk to, but since you are just using personal experience here I must point out that my personal experience certainly has NOT been the same. I definitely have found that I am more likely to change people's opinions if I am polite and respectful to them during my arguments.

It depends on the topic doesn't it? When it comes to things like this I think just being behind the curve socially or being forced to confront the reality is far more helpful than explaining to someone why their belief is wrong, or not wrong but we're going to abandon it because it's inexpedient. This isn't like debating whether a certain type of lock is better than another.

After all,this is has been an issue for a while, do you really have a novel argument?

[TrueMetis]

I don't know who you normally talk to, but since you are just using personal experience here I must point out that my personal experience certainly has NOT been the same. I definitely have found that I am more likely to change people's opinions if I am polite and respectful to them during my arguments.

/shrug, don't really think it's possible to be polite and respectful while pointing out all the stupid shit in someone's religion. Then again my main interaction with these kinds of things is with literalists to whom pointing out contradictions is disrespectful.

[Ormond]

It depends on the topic doesn't it? When it comes to things like this I think just being behind the curve socially or being forced to confront the reality is far more helpful than explaining to someone why their belief is wrong, or not wrong but we're going to abandon it because it's inexpedient.

After all,this is has been an issue for a while, do you really have a novel argument?

Not for me. I really am very unlikely to take seriously the arguments of anyone who gives them to me in a rude or disrespectful manner. And I don't think where someone is "on the curve" has any bearing on that.

[Ormond]

/shrug, don't really think it's possible to be polite and respectful while pointing out all the stupid shit in someone's religion. Then again my main interaction with these kinds of things is with literalists to whom pointing out contradictions is disrespectful.

Then I would bet your are spectacularly unsuccessful in moving anyone toward your positions.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TM,

I started opposing homosexual marriage. Largely, because of my discussions here, my position changed. Honey does work.

[TrueMetis]

Then I would bet your are spectacularly unsuccessful in moving anyone toward your positions.

You'd be wrong, I'm often surprised just how many people it does seem to work on. Course they could just be saying that to get the hell away from me. ;)

[Wise Fool]

You don't actually.

Slavery is all over the Old and New Testament, and slave in ancient Israel where what we consider indentured servants.

As for anti-slavery religious arguments there where just as many pro-slavery ones. In fact the argument you just made altered as one of the biggest ones. "Man was made in gods image we are descendents of Adam and Eve, those guys aren't."

But there isn't exactly Biblical support of "people with different colored skin are not descendents of Adam and Eve" either. Way it works is, people who are for slavery because it's in their interest somehow are going to come up with bullshit rationalizations for slavery. People can twist a holy text to suit their ego all they like, you don't even need to be a believer to do so and it's very easy, but that doesn't mean their interpretation is really, well, any good. People not seeing metaphors in religious texts is, to me, kind of like the view that Animal Farm is about barnyard animals. We know about the latter not being the case because we have a lot more information about the authors and the context of location. But it's not as obvious with a lot of material, and so where it's ambiguous, some people (literalists) just choose to believe it's a literal tale and that's that, and others that there are metaphors lurking about, and neither can really be absolutely right because we're not really talking about authorial intent (which we can only guess at) but about what some old literature means subjectively.

Which is different for everybody. Oddly, most people, regardless of belief find their beliefs confirmed by the reading of any given religious scripture. Or by the not-reading of it!

[Ormond]

and neither can really be absolutely right because we're not really talking about authorial intent (which we can only guess at) but about what some old literature means subjectively.

I don't think the above is completely true. Scholars who are experts on the history and culture of the time when an ancient book was written usually have a much better idea of what "authorial intent" was than "only guessing." That of course goes for all ancient literature, not just the Bible.

[Sci-2]

But there isn't exactly Biblical support of "people with different colored skin are not descendents of Adam and Eve" either. Way it works is, people who are for slavery because it's in their interest somehow are going to come up with bullshit rationalizations for slavery. People can twist a holy text to suit their ego all they like, you don't even need to be a believer to do so and it's very easy, but that doesn't mean their interpretation is really, well, any good. People not seeing metaphors in religious texts is, to me, kind of like the view that Animal Farm is about barnyard animals. We know about the latter not being the case because we have a lot more information about the authors and the context of location. But it's not as obvious with a lot of material, and so where it's ambiguous, some people (literalists) just choose to believe it's a literal tale and that's that, and others that there are metaphors lurking about, and neither can really be absolutely right because we're not really talking about authorial intent (which we can only guess at) but about what some old literature means subjectively.

Which is different for everybody. Oddly, most people, regardless of belief find their beliefs confirmed by the reading of any given religious scripture. Or by the not-reading of it!

I don't know if the appeal to multiple interpretations is that good a defense for religions. The fact people can get a defense of slavery/misogyny/racism/etc out of many religious texts does signal the importance in reducing the authority of all such texts.

The Koran/Gita/Bible/etc are no more - or less - holy than a set of Superman comic books or the manual for Street Fighter II. All can be avenues to the sacred, if such a thing exists, but any definitive authority of the text as a special gateway to the divine is best abandoned.

[Wise Fool]

I don't know if the appeal to multiple interpretations is that good a defense for religions. The fact people can get a defense of slavery/misogyny/racism/etc out of many religious texts does signal the importance in reducing the authority of all such texts.

The Koran/Gita/Bible/etc are no more - or less - holy than a set of Superman comic books or the manual for Street Fighter II. All can be avenues to the sacred, if such a thing exists, but any definitive authority of the text as a special gateway to the divine is best abandoned.

However holy (or not) a text is, people just seek out rationalizations and they find them. They find them anywhere, in anything. A mistake here is observing that someone might 'get a defense of slavery' out of religious texts and concluding that the text is to blame here. That's like reading Animal Farm and concluding that animals are just awful.

All interpretations are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I think it's more likely the case that holy texts are contemporaneous justifications of the customs and institutions that existed in the time they were written. They're the necessary products and expressions of antiquity, of which slavery was a feature.

[Sci-2]

However holy (or not) a text is, people just seek out rationalizations and they find them. They find them anywhere, in anything. A mistake here is observing that someone might 'get a defense of slavery' out of religious texts and concluding that the text is to blame here. That's like reading Animal Farm and concluding that animals are just awful.

All interpretations are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I think the issue is you seem to be ignoring the cultural dimension that is in play here. In the last iteration of this thread I pointed out that if religions were video games people would likely be far less tolerant of the content.

The issue is not that people use holy texts as vehicles to the sacred, but rather people think the content has to be accepted "whole cloth" with a specific interpretation.

If we could say, "Hey the Koran/Bible/etc has some good points but face it there's a lot of bat-shit in there" things would be a lot easier.