Funny anti-religious Internet pics

[bankside]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

(FWIW, I don't think contemplating religious stories literally is always a bad thing, but only when that interpretation is removed from its proper sphere: meditation, worship, prayer, ritual. If one maintains a literal interpretation in a rational sphere in spite of a vacuum of evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence, then the question of common sense does arise.)

If you mean the "suspension of disbelief" as you might when reading a novel and allowing the author the opportunity to create real, relatable characters, then I might finally see where you're coming from.

Or sometimes in a play, we know the cast can "break the fourth wall" or not depending on the artistic intent. Generally the audience should leave that decision to the playwright and the cast to get the most out of it.

Coming away from an evening like that saying "Wow I really believed those characters! That was the best play I've seen in ages!" is a wonderful experience. Coming away thinking "After that curtain parted, we were witness to a strange portal that allowed us to see with documentary clarity into the real events of actual people's lives, as it was happening!" would be a worrisome and unhelpful delusion.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

If you mean the "suspension of disbelief" as you might when reading a novel and allowing the author the opportunity to create real, relatable characters, then I might finally see where you're coming from.

I would say that it's the essence of religion to contemplate the sorts of human problem that are of such gravity that the narratives are "sacred," for example our condition of awful imperfection or the question of what is virtuous. So, when contemplating sacred literature, the suspension of disbelief isn't quite of the same character as when one is merely reading a novel on the beach, or even when reading a work of penetrating insight like The Brothers Karamazov. Rather, it's engaging the story in a way that brings an organizing principle, a transforming idea, to the reader's life. In short, yes, I think you've summarized my position correctly above. In the same way that I think it's silly for a religious literalist to inject their ideas into an empirical sphere, though, I think it's equally silly for an empiricist to interrupt "sacred" meditations with the claim, 'they're only fictional'. I think a sophisticated person could maneuver back and forth.

 

[kallipolis]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

In the same way that I think it's silly for a religious literalist to inject their ideas into an empirical sphere, though, I think it's equally silly for an empiricist to interrupt "sacred" meditations with the claim, 'they're only fictional'. I think a sophisticated person could maneuver back and forth.

That's a sensible observation that even our most virulent anti religion activist can understand.....

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

My impression is that the Bible means to convey there really is a creator of our existence who might be said to have a "consciousness" as far as we can understand it, who is capable of selecting and formulating and dictating the laws of physics, the properties of matter, the parametres for how and when life can be sparked, etc., and indeed who did all of these things and arranged it deliberately such that we are now here to ponder the question.

To take that literally means we accept that as a relatively accurate insight into the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

To take that figuratively means we don't particularly expect that account to be remotely factual, nor do we particularly care, because we interpret it to be relevant in documenting human wonder about the circumstances in which we find ourselves, or in giving some other similar insight.

Literalism means holding all the details as literal, even to the extent (this one really makes me groan) of taking the differing figures of men on each side at the same battle reported once in the books of Kings and once in the Chronicles, and spinning explanations of how the two different figures are both literally correct (as I recall, one account says one side had 70,000 men while the other says it had 72,000 men, which to me can be easily explained as a rounding difference).

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Sure, why not? Now, instead of supposing imaginary quantum scientists who find quarks delightful, why don't we stick to the subject at hand: that is the interpretation of the bible? Certainly, it's every bit as ridiculous to sustain the singular belief that Jesus literally returned from the dead and literally went to heaven as it is to believe that Illinois is blue.

(FWIW, I don't think contemplating religious stories literally is always a bad thing, but only when that interpretation is removed from its proper sphere: meditation, worship, prayer, ritual. If one maintains a literal interpretation in a rational sphere in spite of a vacuum of evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence, then the question of common sense does arise.)

You have to deal with interpretation of literature before you get to interpretation of the Bible. Literalism is a way of reading literature, and it applies regardless of the subject matter. Literalism is why so many Americans reject evolution, because if you take the words of evolutionists literally then you have to ascribe to genes and species the power of thought and planning.

Reading the Bible that was is just as stupid, unless you happen to be in a section that is meant to be read that way. You have to begin with what kind of literature it is, and then decide. Even in a poem, as an example, some points may mean to be taken literally, but that does not mean that all parts of the poem are to be taken literally. Literalism means taking it all literally, regardless, so that reading Joyce Kilmer's work would lead on to conclude that trees have arms, and can compose praise to God.

Genesis 1 is a literary type where the main points are to be taken literally, and nothing else.

 

[ShawnWest]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Pardon my asking the obvious: Is the original thread - Funny anti-religious Internet pics - officially [STRIKE]hijacked[/STRIKE] dead?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Literalism at work:

 

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[dralockhart]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Funny thing about this is that just as some people cherry pick only the good parts, people who are anti-religion cherry pick the bad parts to build their own counterarguments. I think evangelical Christianity and evangelical atheism/agnosticism are two sides of the same coin.

You do you, I'll do me. As long as we don't try to dictate what each other does, I'm cool.

 

[Jacquemar]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Funny thing about this is that just as some people cherry pick only the good parts, people who are anti-religion cherry pick the bad parts to build their own counterarguments. I think evangelical Christianity and evangelical atheism/agnosticism are two sides of the same coin.

You do you, I'll do me. As long as we don't try to dictate what each other does, I'm cool.

I think people cherry pick what's useful to their purpose, regardless or how good or bad it is. The Levitical proscription against sodomy, for example, as a way to limit gay rights; and numerous out-of-context verses to support various theological positions.

 

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Funny thing about this is that just as some people cherry pick only the good parts, people who are anti-religion cherry pick the bad parts to build their own counterarguments. I think evangelical Christianity and evangelical atheism/agnosticism are two sides of the same coin.

You do you, I'll do me. As long as we don't try to dictate what each other does, I'm cool.

I would have a problem advocating any book as an authority on moral behavior to anyone that contained verses detailing how your slave should be beaten or that rape victims be required to marry their rapist. The bible does contain verses that I consider to be moral behavior but these verses are undermined by the absolutely atrocious things the bible advocates. Christians are more than welcome to update their bible and ditch the bad parts but they would first have to acknowledge the horrible things the bible says.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I would have a problem advocating any book as an authority on moral behavior to anyone that contained verses detailing how your slave should be beaten or that rape victims be required to marry their rapist. The bible does contain verses that I consider to be moral behavior but these verses are undermined by the absolutely atrocious things the bible advocates. Christians are more than welcome to update their bible and ditch the bad parts but they would first have to acknowledge the horrible things the bible says.

At the time those commandments were extremely merciful.

If you're not cherry-picking, you'll already know that those were for a limited time and place.

 

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

At the time those commandments were extremely merciful.

If you're not cherry-picking, you'll already know that those were for a limited time and place.

All the more reason to ditch or update the bible and leave the 1st Century morality where it belongs.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Literalism at work:

Literalism at work:

 

[pat grimshaw]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

At the time those commandments were extremely merciful...

I have said that The Ten Commandments need to be updated for our times.

Most of JUB ignores half of them and they have created a couple of sins (which involve the "r word") to replace Moses' ten sins.

 

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I have said that The Ten Commandments need to be updated for our times.

Most of JUB ignores half of them and they have created a couple of sins (which involve the "r word") to replace Moses' ten sins.

"Thou shalt not own other people as property" seems like it would have been a good commandment to have. I guess not saying the Lord's name in vain was more important though. Oh, well.