What Do People Know About What They Pretend to Discuss?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Tiassa, Nov 15, 2017.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    It's understandable that it all gets boiled down to more basic issues on a forum of this sort. Many of the theists on here are rather extreme and there is no real "discussion" possible.

    Any that aren't extreme (either on here or in life in general) aren't necessarily causing the problems that vocal atheists are out to address. Therefore "debates" tend to be the basic one's that we see on here.

    I don't really see much need for a forum on Religion unless this site becomes more of a general discussion forum that attracts more moderate and thoughtful discussion. Even then I think most of the discussion in the Religion forum would then tend to just be among the "faithful".

    I'm not suggesting that the Religion forum not be here. I just don't see that it's ever accomplished much (probably largely due to Jan) but in general there just isn't much to talk about.

    That doesn't mean I won't post in any Religion threads. You take what you get here sometimes but in a more balanced forum I probably wouldn't be in that sub-forum very often.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Ignore Kristeva: Click to headbang.

    So, hey, and just for instance: You think, maybe, if you had a better clue about religion, you might have something more useful to say about Roy Moore than two-bit politicking in a manner reinforcing rape culture?

    No, really, do you think maybe if you understood a little more of the literary and historical record describing the development of these beliefs and behaviors, you might be able to accomplish something more useful than reinforcing rape culture by subordinating women and their stories to your political need?

    No, really. You can't argue shit about what it actually is without having some clue of what it is supposed to be. If a murdering, raping high priest shouts, "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!" are you going to accept his claim that this is Christianity?

    See, that's the thing about this desk-potato sloth:

    No. Really. Seriously. This is part of the reason why, when staring at the beating heart of American rape culture, the best you can come up with is complaining about Republicans↗, and a defense of the "grey area question" of "unintentional" sexual harassment↗, these territories requiring deliberately disrespectful presuppositions.

    If someone tells you asking about her panties is respectful, will you believe them like you do any half-wit pretending religion? (Is it, instead, "not disrespectful"? If so, what is difference?)

    Seriously. Really. I mean, fuck, dude, whatever. Despite your claim that "these shallow critics often know what they are talking about, and speak accurately of it", the audience has long stopped waiting for them to show it. Because compared to such claims, your inability to countenance rape culture, as such, only labors to advance it.

    You behave as if this is simply about pride, but what pride do you expect to have in skeezing your way through a two-bit hack job? You have a clue? Show it. You want people to believe this about anything but your own ignorant bigotry, show it. Same with any of "them".

    But compared to the literary and historical record, at some point the critique needs to attend Christianity more directly than, "Hey, they rape, they believe in God, there is no God, there you go."

    Hey, you know that weird dispute about Islamist terrorism and the question of virgins or raisins? Meanwhile, have you ever heard the story of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible? The overlap is that the bit about whether a virgin means a young woman or a woman without sexual experience is weirdly relevant because it was one of many disputes arising around the RSV. The fun part doesn't have to do with virgins, per se; the question had to do with the prevailing narrative, a notion you sometimes have trouble with. But sometimes the definitions tell us whether one is reading an "originalist" version according to the records available, or a "subject" version revised to suit secondary needs. And maybe terms like "Hebrew Scripture" and "Christian Scripture" seem like mere questions of respect in terms of pride, but therein lay the heart of the dispute; the RSV, in abiding Hebrew regard for words, broke the presupposition that these elements, including virgin birth, were not experiences unto themselves but, rather, precursors to the Christian experience. That is to say, if the Hebrew Scriptures are Hebrew, and not Christian, it fucks up the prophecies. It's kind of interesting, to the one, since what happened was they all went back to the planning table and tried again, but the New Revised Standard Version only exacerbated the complaints of Christian decontextualization; the more accurate the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures according to the Hebrew experience, the less stable the Christian foundation, or so the objectors seem to complain; these years later, if you know any KJV advocates, this is part of the reason why. Still, think about the difference 'twixt definitions of the word virgin, and then go ahead and wonder, cynically and superficially, at the idea that Christianity as we've known it in our lifetime can actually come apart over this.

    I know, I know, it seems obscure. And, yeah, it's a huge puzzle; no bit of trivia holds such answers.

    But it's been about women, or, at least, a woman, what, since the proverbial beginning. Woman is the stuff of legendary utility since the beginning of human storytelling. By the time we get to the tenth century of the common era recalling the eighth of the prior, it's an old story, but we can guess the tale of Misda seducing Qudar had been around long before Muhammad replaced Saleh in the Testimony. No, really, you'd think at some point they could come up with a better reason for destroying everything than an outsider having an affair with a wicked woman sent to compel him to do what the empowerment majority wanted but was afraid to do themselves. There are days when it doesn't matter whether we recall Troy or Eden or Hegra; it's always about a girl.

    The ridiculous tragedy that is the Roy Moore spectacle reminds that sometimes it is useful to have a clue. If we should intend to consider the tale in some context regarding history, i.e., how we found our way to this circumstance, which in turn is a fundamental question if we might be at all useful in comprehending what is happening and figuring out what to do about it, at some point we need to stop relying on what people we don't trust tell us and scrutinize what they tell us against what they claim it to be.

    Still, don't fret; there will, someday, be humor in it all. There will come an occasion, for instance, when we find ourselves faced with the prospect of explaining to a claimant why they cannot properly call themselves a theistic atheist, and what will be really fucking hilarious about it all is that atheists will lose the argument; not because they will be wrong, but, rather, for failing to actually make the proper argument. Well, you know, as long as they let the unreliable claimants define the terms.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    Maybe the terms of the discussion are never established. Obviously when you have opposing views not much will be resolved. I personally have no problem with atheists expressing their opinions. Also, what's the issue with Jan?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Christian authority absolutely forbids bearing false witness like that.
    So do I conclude you - and anyone else who deals in ignorantly foolish presumption at that level of juvenilia - cannot be Christian? Personally, I don't think that's valid reasoning - regardless of how Christianity is supposed to influence behavior, the manner in which it does influence behavior remains an important characteristic of that religion. You might very well be Christian, despite that post.
    Fortunately, I'm not in that position. But suppose I were:
    Supposed to be according to whom?
    Seriously: who determines what Christianity is supposed to be, with such authority that they can overrule observation and evidence of what the bulk of it is?
    Taking the word of an authority, against observation and evidence, would be your approach, not mine. I specifically and explicitly rejected that approach, which is what launched you on this ranting in the first place. You appear to be projecting.
    Here's the quote, from my post in that other, different, only tangentially relevant thread:
    "The grey area question would not be whether these actions are "unintentional", but what the intention is.
    If you pretend there are not very ugly intentions, much worse than others, you provide cover for the ugly - they hide in plain sight, under the cover you have thrown them."
    As you can see, what I actually posted is going to be almost the opposite of "defense of the "grey area question" of "unintentional" sexual harassment", regardless of whatever that turns out to mean (defending a grey area question is what, exactly?).
    Did you have trouble reading that with comprehension, or do you have overriding issues that justify this kind of fundamental dishonesty here?
    Things you apparently have no clue about:
    The relevance of the Roy Moore spectacle, and its dedicated (and quite sufficient) thread, to this thread.
    The content of my posting in that thread, and this one.
    My background and education in the Christian religion, its history and issues.

    But hey - the nature of your posting does indeed remind us, of not only that but when it is useful to have a clue. When assuming a moral high ground, would be one such time.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Define "issue". Define "Jan". Define "talking to a brick".
    spidergoat likes this.
  9. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Interesting to have sometimes, but not really necessary. Christianity codified the model of a patriarchal society started by the Jews, where woman were considered hardly more than property, but I don't need to know that to believe Roy Moore violated all kinds of modern laws. Unless you are talking about a scholarly approach to religion, which I totally respect, theological studies aren't a real subject. Theology is a fake degree, like being an expert in homeopathy.
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Define " Define"
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Good point. If we don't get these issues pinned down, how can be even start to debate?
  12. Seaman Registered Member

    I consider myself to be a liberal Christian.
    What do you want to discuss ?
  13. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member


    This sounds like an excuse for one's own behavior along the lines of, they are not rational (fill in some other positive adjective) so why should I be? Well, if you think of yourself as rational, might as well engage that way or ignore the issue. I cannot see any possible rational argument for behaving otherwise. The theists are not responsible for the behavior of atheists. IN any discussion both sides can be irrational, fill in your negative adjective of choice. And there is little excuse in blaimng the other for doing the very thing you think distinguishes your team

Share This Page