| | |
|
|
Are You OK with gOd?
#643398 - Sun Apr 19 2009 02:17 PM
|
|
|
The question has once again arisen "Why do you write gOd and bibLe that way?"
It seems that here we run into the personal nature of religion. Religious people attach themselves heavily to certain works of fiction, and need for others to similarly revere them as "authoritative texts." Further, almost all religious people have an adult version of the "imaginary friend" who they claim created the universe, is all powerful, etc...
The problem is that I respect niether the fiction nor the religion, but I want to respect religious people and their right to enjoy their preferred fiction.
So we reach the rub. If a religious topic arises, I can either be completely dishonest and string the discussion along as if I accept the tennets of the religion in question, or I "offend" by demonstrating a lack of revered worship for the religion and the imaginary friend (e.g. not writing the sacred cherished holy key-words in a the manner demanded by the religion).
What's the best approach in dealing with a religious topic when one is not religious?
Ozymandias said:
My advice is to treat them like you would any other fictional entity.
The Lord of the Rings is never used as an actual reference for real world events. If it were, I'm sure you would point out the idiocy of continuing the conversation in that context. However, relgious people do exactly this every day with their preferred book of fiction.
They...
1) simply assume it to be the authoritative reference on the topic at hand and...
2) take it personally if you remind them it is a book of fiction.
I have two choices when the topic of gOd and the biBle arise. I can say "Stop! You're referencing fiction and it would be pretty idiotic to continue this discussion outside of, well, reality." ...or I can just go along with the discussion and throw in an alternate writing as a subtle reminder that I, for my part, am not accepting the fictitious assumptions.
Are you suggesting I take the former option intead of the latter?
Ozymandias said:
It could be worse. In Arabic, the name of God has to be written in a slightly different way than any other word.
Yes, "Allah" is written, more or less, as a logo. I noticed this while perusing newspapers in Afghanistan. Many people have "Allah" as either a prefix or a postfix in one of their names, and despite the text on the page being of a particular font, the occurrences of "Allah" were stamped in "the way it's supposed to be written."
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly, I don't think anybody would be terribly offended if you just lower-cased it.
That said, I don't think anyone is terribly offended by your current capitalization strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Millen Kyles said:
That said, I don't think anyone is terribly offended by your current capitalization strategy.
Right. It isn't offensive, it just looks like a typo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pentagon John said:
The problem is that I respect niether the fiction nor the religion, but I want to respect religious people and their right to enjoy their preferred fiction.
What's the best approach in dealing with a religious topic when one is not religious?
How about by not mislabeling the Bible (and many other religious texts) by calling them 'fiction'?
Whether or not you're a Christian or Jew, you really have to admit that the Bible, whatever else it might be, is a pretty fair text on the history of the Hebrew people. Given, of course, that it's written by the people it records, and is therefore no doubt biased in their favor (like a lot of histories, really). Many of the events mentioned in the Bible did actually happen, and are corroborated by archeological evidence. Maybe they didn't happen quite the way they are described; after all, ancient Hebrews didn't know much about plate tectonics, so when the walls of Jericho collapsed, possibly from an earthquake, what do you think they'd think it was?
At the very least, John, you could try accepting that what they believe is true to them, just as your own beliefs are just as true to you. While your position that it isn't 'right' just because they believe it is does have some logic behind it, you really ought to consider that the opposite is just as logical. It isn't 'wrong' just because you think it is, either.
--------------------
I was a shepherd to fools
Causelessly bold of afraid.
They would not abide by my rules.
Yet they escaped. For I stayed.
-"Convoy Escort" by Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Dawkins said:
Millen Kyles said:
That said, I don't think anyone is terribly offended by your current capitalization strategy.
Right. It isn't offensive, it just looks like a typo.
It looks more like PJ's spent too much time in a yahoo! chatroom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Fleet Lt. Myra said:
Whether or not you're a Christian or Jew, you really have to admit that the Bible, whatever else it might be, is a pretty fair text on the history of the Hebrew people.
Like Genesis, the flood, the exodus and subsequent 40 year odysee and of course the virgin birth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gumba, have you ever actually read Genesis? All the way through? Once you get past the flood or so it starts getting very, very gritty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well...actually, yeah, other than the people living 900+ years, it is often pretty believable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gumba Masta said:
Senior Fleet Lt. Myra said:
Whether or not you're a Christian or Jew, you really have to admit that the Bible, whatever else it might be, is a pretty fair text on the history of the Hebrew people.
Like Genesis, the flood, the exodus and subsequent 40 year odysee and of course the virgin birth.
Actually, Gumba, the events of the Exodus are some of the things that have been documented, at least in part. There's even a History Channel show examining some of the events from a military-history point of view.
Besides, I never said it was a perfect account, just a 'pretty fair' one. While some of the events described are suspect, some of them have been corroborated. Not so different from some of the medieval 'histories' I've seen, for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, okay, Myra, but when things are 'mostly true', they are still fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nullcast & Whatsit said:
Gumba, have you ever actually read Genesis? All the way through? Once you get past the flood or so it starts getting very, very gritty.
Yes, with all that killing, killing, slavery, killing, raping and of course killing it does get a gritty texture.Of course those people where all heathens so I guess it makes it a bit better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
okay so on a more serious note
I do not enjoy locking threads but this is turning more into A Series Of Cheap Shots At Religion which frankly I'm okay with if that is what the thread's title IS.
It is not.
If you want to make some kind of thread where we make fun of religion and it's wild good times and still a completely worthless thread go right ahead but further HIGH-LARIOUS claims without something to make this at least entertaining to read is going to fill me with anger and rage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awww, but mom...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would start trying to answer this debate, but I don't think it would help. To start with, Pentagon John showed a biased point of view by calling all religious writings works of fiction. So I would rather leave this thread to become A Series Of Cheap Shots At Religion, as Thalamasa puts it.
P.S. It annoys, but doesn't offend me, to see "God" etc uncapitalized, because many Christians do it too. Those who revere God should show that respect before I will demand those who don't to show it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estel Talroval said:
I would start trying to answer this debate, but I don't think it would help. To start with, Pentagon John showed a biased point of view by calling all religious writings works of fiction. So I would rather leave this thread to become A Series Of Cheap Shots At Religion, as Thalamasa puts it.
P.S. It annoys, but doesn't offend me, to see "God" etc uncapitalized, because many Christians do it too. Those who revere God should show that respect before I will demand those who don't to show it.
I'm somewhat confused as to why you would "demand" anybody show respect to something s/he has every reason to believe doesn't exist. It would be like a Pastafarian demanding that you respect the Flying Spaghetti Monster (as we are all touched by His Noodly Appendage), even if you think it patently ridiculous.
Respecting the people who believe in something is another issue entirely, and one I fully advocate.
--------------------
"'Don't give up the ship' isn't an Agency quote. It's a given that the ship cannot afford to be lost." ~ Agent Millen Kyles (on Agency doctrine in real-world situations)
Unless otherwise indicated, Kyles does not carry a weapon.
(THANKS Seby!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The logic becomes more apparent when you realize they are using God as a proper name. It's perfectly defensible from a grammar-nazi point of view alone. There would be a little less confusion on the subject if people used Yahweh, but that's not how the language is spoken in the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Fleet Lt. Myra said:
How about by not mislabeling the Bible (and many other religious texts) by calling them 'fiction'?
Like I said, religious people get personally attached to their own preferred fiction and get offended if someone points out what it is. You apparently demonstrate the truth of my point.
So my question is: what is the best way of proceeding with a discussion without continually pointing out the fictitious nature of the document so referenced?
Senior Fleet Lt. Myra said:
Whether or not you're a Christian or Jew, you really have to admit that the Bible, whatever else it might be, is a pretty fair text on the history of the Hebrew people.
No, I wouldn't say it is a "fair" history, nor would I consider it complete. I do, however, see your attempt to establish your preferred story as an authoritative historical reference. The rub should be obvious. If you and I decided to discuss the history of the Hebrew people, for example, you would, no doubt, reference your story as a truthful basis, and what should I do? Does the story of Noah fit into your accurate historical model? I'm left in a difficult position.
Senior Fleet Lt. Myra said:
Given, of course, that it's written by the people it records, and is therefore no doubt biased in their favor (like a lot of histories, really). Many of the events mentioned in the Bible did actually happen, and are corroborated by archeological evidence.
Many? Was there really a Jesus? Was there really a Moses?Was the whole earth really flooded? Is there archaelogical evidence for any miracles?
Senior Fleet Lt. Myra said:
At the very least, John, you could try accepting that what they believe is true to them, just as your own beliefs are just as true to you.
...so do you suggest I allow beliefs to be imposed on me?
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before I begin, allow me to briefly re-introduce myself.
Hello, my name is David. I was born and raised in Bergrüne, and as such have spent most of my life accustomed to a few things: mnimo (which includes gods, spirits, ghosts, avatars, mages, hypersentient typographical markings, cat-taur-chibis, anthro-hybrid-people-homunculi, and other supernatural critters in general) do not exist. Don't get me wrong, they're real - in the sense that people act as if they exist and so if you don't take that into account it can be a problem, but they have no existence independent of what people give them.
The standard Bergrünian perspective is that most of what y'all call "The Dream" gives mnimo far too much existence, and that people stupid enough to want to buy into crater-making-fireball-mage-powers are just getting their due when they find themselves adversely affected by a crater-making-fireball-mage-power. We don't put up with that kind of nonsense in Bergrüne, they say, as they happily enjoy their fireball-free existence.
That's where I'm coming from. It's not where I am now, but I just wanted to lay down a bit of perspective before I continue.
John, I suspect that (while I don't think you've expressed it) you care enough about language to have one of the same objections I do: naming your god "God" is an objectionable combination of lameness and arrogance. Every time such a provincial name is used, it raises the question of "What does your god have to fear from other gods, that it calls you to disbelieve them more firmly than most atheist do?" and that's not a question with any flattering answers.
If this is one of your concerns, I'd recommend taking advantage of the tendency of gods to be given many names, titles, and honorifics. In particular, the collection of gods I think you're generally referring to as 'gOd' also go by the names "Yahweh", "Yhwh", "Abraham's god". and "Israel's god".
Granted, this doesn't do anything for the problem of what to call the variety of semihistorical written traditions that are all unhelpfully labeled with a term that translates to something like "The Book" (which book? The Book! This book? No, The Book! Oh, The Book! No, no, the other The Book...). I'm tempted to suggest providing disambiguation, such as "The fifth edition of the 'King James' English-language variation of..." but that would be hideously cumbersome. Perhaps "your bible" or "their bible" would be the way to go, depending on context.
Pentagon John said:
Senior Fleet Lt. Myra said:
At the very least, John, you could try accepting that what they believe is true to them, just as your own beliefs are just as true to you.
...so do you suggest I allow beliefs to be imposed on me?
I don't remember if I've brought this up before or not, so I'll assume I haven't. A philosopher by the name of Daniel Dennet uses a concept called 'heterophenomenology' that, among other things, allows doing exactly what Myra suggests without having beliefs imposed on the user. For the most part, it's simply a formalization of what a good anthropologist does when investigating a culture: Ask them, from their perspective, what they say it's like to be them and what they see as their world and the things that make it go round. Take those reports as scientifically valid data points from the most authoritative sources on what it is like to be them and on how they claim the world works.
DO NOT, however, make the mistake of assuming that those reports have any authority on the subjects of why they make the reports they do or how the world actually works.
If you interview a Poor Benighted Tribesman (PBT) they may report having the Magical Power of Drawing Forth Spirits to carry a piece of the sun to the earth in the night-time, with the aid of a sacred Summoning Stick. They report that when performing the correct ritual with The Stick, they can feel the presence of the spirits - it makes their heart race, their body tingle... onlookers can even see their hair stand on end and sometimes tiny spirits are seen to jump away! As long as the spirits are present (and keeping them present requires an ongoing force of will on the part of the PBT, for they are alive and seek freedom) they are forced to hold a piece of captive sun which, naturally, provides illumination and warmth (and is not fire, because fire produces more warmth).
These are the PBT's report on what it's like to be a PBT and how the PBT thinks his world works... but this does not at all suggest that you adopt their belief, or in any way cease trying to understand how the heck they got their hands on a flashlight with a broken wire but enough juice to allow human skin to complete the circuit. Nor does it mean that you have to accept that the PBT is correct because they "feel the presence of the spirits" - you certainly should try to understand the actual events that cause them to make that claim (i.e. mild electrocution) but you're not forced to take their account as a canonical explanation of anything but what they think is going on.
For the most part, Dennet's discussion of heterophenomenology comes up a lot more in the context of studying mechanisms of consciousness - a test subject reports "I saw a light moving from right to left" is a data point whose explanation can shed light on how the brain works, especially considering that nothing actually moved, there were just a couple distinct but nearby lights turned on and off in order. The researcher doesn't have to accept that the test subject's explanation is correct - the lights didn't magically move - but they should accept that the subject's brain somehow got into a state where movement is what they think happened, and they should then try to figure out how (and, evolutionarily speaking, why) the brain would construct such a story.
Still, it applies to situations like this as well. You should accept that when someone says "This planet is less than ten thousand years old", that they really do think that's true and aren't just being blinkered and buggered for the sheer perverse fun of it. You should accept that, and there's no reason that in accepting that you are automatically forced to have the young-earth belief imposed upon you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There seems a point at which anything can be deemed 'fiction'. Most history books could be argued to be fiction on the basis that we don't know for certain wether or not events happened exactly as the book claims they did. Maybe records of the event were doctored at a later date. Maybe it was all falsified to begin with. Maybe a recon soldier just got excited and misjudged a situation, causing his unit to fall back in the face of 'overwhelming numbers' when it was really just a handful of the enemy and one adrenaline-filled kid?
I can see the point you're making here (or, at least, I see a point, which may or may not be the one you want me to see), PJ, and it seems to be a decent one... I just think you're being a jerk about it.
No, a bible (of any variety) should not be used in an argument by itself and/or without further data to support the claims being made. It is a historical account in that it was written about a given time period and the events therein by individuals who were closer to said time period that we are now. Oh, and the authors and board who later edited the book are very, very sorry that they've left out the bibliography. If I rip the bibliography out of a modern psychology textbook, give it to several boards to edit over the course of a few centuries, and eventually go back to it, I will still have something that relates to psychology. Perhaps it does not do so perfectly. These things happen. The fact that it contains some information that happens to be false does not invalidate it as a source of information that happens to be accurate. Maybe there will be one section that talks about sex and gender and their relationships, with a section about the pink elephants in your garden of id following. The fact of the latter being false does not mean that the former is also false and to believe such is to be as blind as those who would declare the entire book sacrosanct and unimpeachable law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pentagon John said:
Senior Fleet Lt. Myra said:
At the very least, John, you could try accepting that what they believe is true to them, just as your own beliefs are just as true to you.
...so do you suggest I allow beliefs to be imposed on me?
Nooo, that's not what she said. What she means is that perhaps you should respect the fact that they have beliefs, and that they are different from your own. Just as they should respect the fact that your beliefs don't match theirs. You don't have to agree with it, just like you don't have to agree with other people's opinions. Just be respectful about it.
I wouldn't call that having "beliefs imposed on you"- they aren't asking you to start saying Hail Mary's or anything. And I'm not saying that you should start spelling "God" and "Bible" as if they are proper nouns (since you obviously believe they should not be). But spelling them with odd capitalizations is completely juvenile and as you have already stated, confusing to come people.
If you want others to respect you and your beliefs, you have to be willing to respect them and their beliefs in turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, anyway, I really expect someone to shut Marrise down quickly because I am vastly uncomfortable with this current thing where she's pretty much right.
This bothers me deeply as a person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thalamasa said:
So, anyway, I really expect someone to shut Marrise down quickly because I am vastly uncomfortable with this current thing where she's pretty much right.
Chill. S'okay. People are allowed to be right when they're paraphrasing me.
Marrise said: But spelling them with odd capitalizations is completely juvenile and as you have already stated, confusing to come people.
D'accord! It's like people who get too caught up in their Shadowrun game and start talking about how they've been inspired by Bear, and you say "Which bear?" and they say "What do you mean which bear? I mean Bear!" and you ask if they have a pet bear they just couldn't think of a good name for, and they come back with a juvenile because-I-say-so response like "No, I mean the One True Bear - how could I mean anything else? There are no bears but Bear and anything that seems like it's a bear is actually an evil impostor trying to lead you away from the True Ursine Path of Truth."
Seriously. You let people start capitalizing generic terms and confusion is the least thing you can expect to be caused.
Then, of course, there are the second-order responses that are only mildly less juvenile, like shifting the already inappropriate capitalization to a new but more obviously inappropriate location. bEar. beAr. beaR. Or giving a spelling distinct from the generic term. Bare. Barr. Bahr. Ugh. Less-confusing behavior is not the same thing as non-confusing behavior.
Hence my suggestion to pick one of the titles from the "I may be one among many, but you aren't allowed to buddy up with any others" phase, like Yahweh, rather than the "I have to spread FUD about the competition - tell you what, let's claim they don't even exist!" modern trend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marrise said:
Pentagon John said:
Senior Fleet Lt. Myra said:
At the very least, John, you could try accepting that what they believe is true to them, just as your own beliefs are just as true to you.
...so do you suggest I allow beliefs to be imposed on me?
Nooo, that's not what she said. What she means is that perhaps you should respect the fact that they have beliefs, and that they are different from your own. Just as they should respect the fact that your beliefs don't match theirs. You don't have to agree with it, just like you don't have to agree with other people's opinions. Just be respectful about it.
It's so very gratifying to see someone on here who actually reads my posts, rather than just picking the parts they want to rant about.
BTW, John, when I said the Bible was a "pretty fair history of the Hebrew people" I was not saying 'fair' as in unbiased and unvarnished. I was saying 'fair' in the context of 'less than great, better than bad'.
Are there events in the Bible that can't be documented in history? Sure. But historians are saying that even Noah's flood has a basis in fact, probably a flood in Mesopotamia that washed Noah and his family (and their livestock) downriver, while flooding all the land the eye could see and drowning thousands of people. And which tale grew in the telling before being recorded, as such tales are bound to do, even today.
Other events, Battle of Jericho, have their basis in fact, but likely also have some exaggeration or hyperbole attached. This is understandable, since the people involved wouldn't have understood plate tectonics and vulcanism. So, when they march around the city for 7 days while besieging it, then a section of wall collapses, why wouldn't they think it's a sign of God's favor? Try to put yourself in their place.
Do I claim that every line of the Bible is documented historical fact? No, I don't. It's still a religious text, and some of it you have to either take on faith, or leave. You choose to leave it: fine. But don't insult those who do believe in it and demand that they accept your opinion as fact.
That's the real problem with your argument, John. You essentially come out and say "If you are religious, everything you believe is a lie. Why can't you accept that." You're only willing to grant your point of view any validity, you don't grant that other's beliefs can be just as 'right' as yours. So, in your own way, you've become the very thing you say you're wanting to argue against: a person who's beliefs don't allow him to allow any contrary beliefs to exist. If it's not 'The Gospel According to Pentagon John', it's heresy, or apostasy, and therefore not to be considered.
Your own private 'religion' seems every bit as inflexible and unyielding as those you rail against, John.
There's these things called 'clues', John. Go get one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marrise said:
Nooo, that's not what she said. What she means is that perhaps you should respect the fact that they have beliefs, and that they are different from your own.
This is exactly the complete misunderstanding that makes people like you forever blind to my point, and will prevent you from answering my original question. You are apparently stuck in a cycle of answering a question I did not ask.
First, it is not I who have any religious beliefs on this matter, and thus, I am not insisting any such beliefs be assumed by anyone, nor am I going to have a siezure if my absence of any beliefs is not given worship-level respect.
Marrise said:
Just as they should respect the fact that your beliefs don't match theirs.
What do you think my beliefs are?
Marrise said:
You don't have to agree with it, just like you don't have to agree with other people's opinions. Just be respectful about it.
Right here! This is what I'm talking about. You feel I should *RESPECT* all idiotic fiction and that the fault is somehow mine if I don't. I think this amply illustrates why a religious topic cannot be honestly treated with a religious person. The moment one starts being honest, the religious person will become "insulted" and will blame blame blame others as being "disrespectful."
It seems to me, given my original question, that you would leave "be rude and disrespectful" as the only option. I think this is sad.
Marrise said: But spelling them with odd capitalizations is completely juvenile and as you have already stated, confusing to come people.
Juvenile? I might suggest looking at your rather less-than-mature blame game first, before leveling judgments about maturity.
Marrise said:
If you want others to respect you and your beliefs, you have to be willing to respect them and their beliefs in turn.
Suppose I have no beliefs that I wish respected. What then?
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xenix said:
I can see the point you're making here (or, at least, I see a point, which may or may not be the one you want me to see), PJ, and it seems to be a decent one... I just think you're being a jerk about it.
I'm intrigued. Please elaborate.
Xenix said: If I rip the bibliography out of a modern psychology textbook, give it to several boards to edit over the course of a few centuries, and eventually go back to it, I will still have something that relates to psychology.
OK, and you would be able to run scientific tests and see which points do, in fact, relate to psychology. If, on the other hand, I rip the bibliography out of a work of fiction, have it modified over the years to fit the tastes of different generations, and altered as it is translated into different languages, I will still have a work of fiction.
Xenix said:
The fact of the latter being false does not mean that the former is also false and to believe such is to be as blind as those who would declare the entire book sacrosanct and unimpeachable law.
But why are they "blind" and you somehow are not? If I suggest a university professor use my own "physics book" as his textbook, should I be incensed when he tells me that it is rubbish since well over half of the material therein is either false or unsubstantiated? Should I fire back that the bogus nature of the false material does not disqualify those parts that are correct? And when he tells me that my book does not identify the bogus material from the true, and that the good and the bad are all intermixed, should I blame him for not respecting my book? Should I call him "disrespectful?" Should I call him a "jerk."
...or should I recognize the incredibly silly nature of my request (i.e. blame myself)?
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
| | |
Reply Main
New Thread
Flat
Threaded
Edit
Quote
