'The Bible is no longer considered part of the conversation'

[Oberon]

I won't bother to contest the point. It's completely true that I don't much care for classic literature of any sort - never have - I'd much rather read something lighter, or non-fiction.

That's fine. All I'm doing is pointing out that, in acting on such preferences, you are deliberately choosing cultural illiteracy... in other words, ignorance.

Frankly, for me, reading the Bible just isn't worth it (I've tried - briefly, maybe twice - and I'll admit my nonreligious leanings are strong enough to have that aspect of it alone be a major turnoff). Even if a large percentage of classical Western literature assumes a knowledge of it - most of that's stuff that I don't enjoy anyway, and even if I can read something and say "well, this is very well written - but *yawn*" (my usual response to "classic" literature), it's not something that really makes me want to spend time on it - there are other things I'd enjoy more. Most (if not all) "new" stories are old stories in new wrappers - and have been even before and including the Bible - things that appealed to people thousands of years ago still appeal now - when presented in a context that you can appreciate. For me, the Bible isn't that context, and I've never felt much connection to "culture" anyway.

What it's really about is an ongoing conversation being passed down through generations. People in the past have had wise and perceptive things to say about things that will one day be important to you. In passing up a primary cultural reference, you are turning a deaf ear to them.

Which is fine, if that's what you want to do. It's your choice, your call.

"Educated" is a pretty meaningless generic term nowadays, I think.

You hold this view because post-moderns have lost the concept of "liberal education," in which the values of a culture are taught. You may not see the meaning of the term "educated," but it by no means follows that the term is meaningless.

There's SO much out there to know that none of us can really handle any reasonably large chunk of it. We can be educated in a topic, or even a lot of topics - but why should I choose to be educated in the Bible, for instance, instead of nuclear physics, or genetics, or geography, or geology, or economics?

Again this is an effect of the post-modern worldview, in which bodies of information are fragmented and pigeonholed, not bearing any relationship to one another, or relative value.

I'll put it as succinctly as I can, assuming you're still reading and haven't quit in disgust: Education is the process by which you learn how to decide what's important.

Please note that I didn't say that education is how you learn what's important. It's not a matter of what to think, but how to think... how to weigh relative merit of competing ideas, how to go about setting priorities in your life, how to make informed choices about what you believe about all the big philosophical questions.

At the root of it, you may discover a reason to live. (I know... to a post-modern, that very statement is absurd... it's like whistling about architecture... but still, there it is.) If that isn't important to you, well, I can't really help you.

 

[Journey]

lol. you guys.
Way to address my points.
My point is you have no idea who God is, objectively, whatsoever.
(But you talk as if you do --that's the discrepancy.)

It's all based on assumption, based on what you accept as authoritative.
There is nothing that can be known with certainty.

It doesn't matter, you know; you can believe what you want.
It's a free country.

PS. Hi Obey!!! :hi:

The point is everyone knows God objectively and authoritatively:

Rom 1:18-23
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
NIV

Men used to worship idols of stone images. Now they worship other things in the place of God, mostly man.

Everyone knows God objectively and authoritatively. They just suppress the truth by their wickedness. Sight is restored when you bend the knee and accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross as an atonement for your sins. Then you know what you have hidden from yourself for so long. And then the Son shows you more of the Father.

I don't say this to argue any "POINT" in a game with you, Jennifer.

 

[Blackmail!]

As Jürgen Habermas(another Marxist) remarked:

1) Habermas is not Marxist. He never was. This is a way to tell us you've never read his books.

2) You should have understood this quote in its whole context. But I'm not surprised you didn't. Habermas is a burning atheist, and a lot of his discussions with Ratzinger have been distorted on purpose, to make him say the opposite of what he really meant.
Let's say that this dear Jürgend was quite upset against Christians, as I've seen him during conferences complaining against these perverse manipulations.

 

[Totenkindly]

The point is everyone knows God objectively and authoritatively:

Rom 1:18-23
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
NIV

Men used to worship idols of stone images. Now they worship other things in the place of God, mostly man.

Everyone knows God objectively and authoritatively. They just suppress the truth by their wickedness. Sight is restored when you bend the knee and accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross as an atonement for your sins. Then you know what you have hidden from yourself for so long. And then the Son shows you more of the Father.

I don't say this to argue any "POINT" in a game with you, Jennifer.

Thank you for clarifying the basis for your rationality, which is really the only point I was making in this conversation. (You're arguing not from an evidential rationale but from an assumption of authority.) You assume the words are correct, because you've chosen to believe they are... not because you actually can know or show they are. Your claim is: "Someone said this was true."

Which is really what this is about: When the culture shifts and no longer assumes the same authorities are authoritative, the only common ground left is evidential conclusions -- ideas derived from common shared observable experience. This is why the conservative viewpoint is finding itself disenfranchised, because younger generations do not see evidence for the belief structure any longer, since basically it was always an assumption to start with. To have a voice in the continually changing culture, you have to be able to tie your beliefs to a pool of common experiences through which others can connect with you, not merely say, "Someone said this was true." You can do that, but the odds aren't great people will accept your advice.

So how has it all been working for you?

 

[Journey]

So how has it all been working for you?

It all works well because it is not up to me. The Holy Spirit calls those who are the elect and draws them irresistibly to God. I have only the responsibility to tell and make disciples. I love the work!

As for the disenfranchisement issue, I can only quote something I read this morning:

"No simple explanation can be given for what has been taking place, and it is essential to maintain a historical perspective. In biblical times and across the centuries there have been other periods of similar barrenness that God has mercifully interrupted with reformation and revival. Those wise in their own eyes, past and present, have regularly belittled the "credulity" of Christians and declared the gospel to be unworthy of serious consideration, but the desert sands of infidelity are littered with the whitened bones of foolish people who said to themselves and to others, "There is no God." --John R. De Witt "Judgment and Mercy," Table Talk from Ligonier Ministries February 2009, p. 70.

 

[Totenkindly]

Just wanted to say I'm not trying to be antagonistic to you as a person, I'm just challenging the idea... I realized after the last exchange it might sound differently. So I did want to clarify. It's kind of difficult to separate, I know, since we are discussing ideas that are also manifest within both of us as people.

Well, I grew up in the church, held your position for years, and finally had to move out of that mindset because it didn't seem to mesh with where I was healthiest as a human being. That's pretty much the bottom line: The stance you describe doesn't seem to fit with the experience of living nor how people become most healthy (self-sacrificial and loving). I've got to go with positive growth ("A good tree bears good fruit, a bad tree cannot bear good fruit") when I see it. I have seen much destruction occur from the mindset you are promoting and NOT a lot of positive good, and this is why the culture is shifting; legitimate needs within people will drive them to abandon irrelevant or destructive philosophies. I spent my whole life within the evangelical movement and watched it devour and destroy itself from within, which grieved me; and finally I had to accept that it was the mindset itself that prevented an understanding and engagement of the culture.

Did you note how you consistently quote other people anytime I push on your answers? You definitely like to appeal to authority. That can sometimes be beneficial, but I have no idea how you incorporate new input into your thinking. I can't do that; I have to be open to new ideas and weigh them on their own merits.

As far as your quote, I do not identify with it at all.

Labeling dissenters and critics of a particular form of Christian theology as fools, infidels, and whatever else might enable someone to justify a refusal to engage the active work of the Spirit in people's lives and how cultures legitimately change over time and God can manifest himself... but to me that is not a position of intellectual or spiritual integrity that I could endorse for myself.

Nor do I think it really helps those who need to be awakened spiritually.

 

[professor goodstain]

Honestly?

Frickin intuitives.

 

[Sniffles]

1) Habermas is not Marxist. He never was. This is a way to tell us you've never read his books.

Not yet no, but I'm working my way towards The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. I have read secondary sources about him and his views that have described him as either a Marxist or Post-Marxist. Even if he was a Marxist, he certainly is not an orthodox one and has critiqued many of Marx's original assertions.

Personally I'm more familiar with Zizek's work, could be my Slavic sympathies at work.

2) You should have understood this quote in its whole context. But I'm not surprised you didn't.

As usual my dear Blackmail, your bark is worse than your bite. If nitpicking me on questions of Habermas is all you can do, well then you're engaging in the fine art of missing the point.

So I'm mistaken in describing Habermas as a "Marxist". Ok one point for you, happy now?

Habermas is a burning atheist, and a lot of his discussions with Ratzinger have been distorted on purpose, to make him say the opposite of what he really meant.

I never said Habermas was a Christian, nor is Zizek for that matter(although I heard Zizek describes himself as an "atheist Calvinist"). I actually discussed this elsewhere about how both seem largely interested in the political implications of Christianity rather than the actual theology itself.

So despite being non-believers, both seem to agree that religion has something important to say in the conversation.

 

[Geoff]

The point is everyone knows God objectively and authoritatively:

Rom 1:18-23
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
NIV

Men used to worship idols of stone images. Now they worship other things in the place of God, mostly man.

Everyone knows God objectively and authoritatively. They just suppress the truth by their wickedness. Sight is restored when you bend the knee and accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross as an atonement for your sins. Then you know what you have hidden from yourself for so long. And then the Son shows you more of the Father.

I don't say this to argue any "POINT" in a game with you, Jennifer.

What about all other religions who claim a similar "authority" for their beliefs... Hinduism, Islam, Ahura-Mazda (might have spelled that wrong!) and so on. Are they all also "right" because everyone knows their own God(s) objectively and authoratitively?

 

[Kangirl]

You have consigned yourself to qualitative ignorance of nine-tenths of the literature of Western civilization up to the 19th century.

Yes, it's your right to do so... but make no mistake, it's what you're doing.

Education is the process by which you learn how to decide what's important.

Please note that I didn't say that education is how you learn what's important. It's not a matter of what to think, but how to think... how to weigh relative merit of competing ideas, how to go about setting priorities in your life, how to make informed choices about what you believe about all the big philosophical questions.

At the root of it, you may discover a reason to live. (I know... to a post-modern, that very statement is absurd... it's like whistling about architecture... but still, there it is.) If that isn't important to you, well, I can't really help you.

Oberon, ITA with everything you've posted in this thread. Which means I don't have to do any work to post my own thoughts, since they follow yours so closely. I'd kiss you, but that avatar gives me the heebie jeebies.

Seriously, though, great posts.

 

[Blackmail!]

So despite being non-believers, both seem to agree that religion has something important to say in the conversation.

But not for the same purpose than believers would!

Habermas is a sociologist, so he can't possibly try to ignore the social effect of religions. That would be clearly unprofessional.
That's about all you can say, because otherwise, Habermas's main works focus on the critique of any form of proselytism, whether ideological or religious.

 

[Kangirl]

What's your point, Blackmail, in terms of the thread?

 

[Sniffles]

But not for the same purpose than believers would.

Of course. In fact I have read Christian comentaries that speak both ways(pro, con) towards Habermas and Zizek on their supposedly positive stances towards religion.

Habermas is a sociologist, so he can't possibly try to ignore the social effect of religions. That would be clearly unprofessional.

Indeed, but the Secularization thesis has been a major part of sociological discussion in regards to religion. Post-Secular studies are about lchallenging that thesis on the grounds that religion not only has continual but even renewed relevance in social matters.

Just earlier this month, Yale University held a conference "Exploring the Post-Secular", which discussed issues related to this, and even addressing renewed academic interest towards religious issues.

I haven't read any transcripts from this conference, so I can't comment specifically on what was discussed there. But this does seem part of a growing trend in intellectual and academic discourse. And I pointed to Zizek and Habermas, since they're probably the two more famous names often referenced to within these studies.

Quick aside question: what would you classify Habermas as? I see him as more INTJ in nature.

 

[kelric]

That's fine. All I'm doing is pointing out that, in acting on such preferences, you are deliberately choosing cultural illiteracy... in other words, ignorance

I'm sure it doesn't come as a surprise to you that I find some of what you said a bit patronizing. It's the "if you don't like/believe what I do, you're ignorant" viewpoint that gets me. Obviously people in the past have learned a lot, and have a lot to say that's relevant today - I'm just not interested in the Bible as a tool for that sort of thing. There are plenty of other places to learn - I just choose other avenues.

Again this is an effect of the post-modern worldview, in which bodies of information are fragmented and pigeonholed, not bearing any relationship to one another, or relative value.

I'm not sure how you got that I lack the desire and/or ability to build relationships between different topics from my post - that wasn't my intent. In fact, I'd wholeheartedly agree that this is important - I just don't think that the Bible (or any other single work - especially a religious one) is imperative for this.

I'll put it as succinctly as I can, assuming you're still reading and haven't quit in disgust: Education is the process by which you learn how to decide what's important.

Please note that I didn't say that education is how you learn what's important. It's not a matter of what to think, but how to think... how to weigh relative merit of competing ideas, how to go about setting priorities in your life, how to make informed choices about what you believe about all the big philosophical questions.

No, I'm not upset. Annoyed at worst . And I agree - education is not *what* you learn, it's how you pattern yourself to think and make decisions. Again - no argument there... I just don't find religious references, including the Bible, to be necessary ingredients to knowing this.

At the root of it, you may discover a reason to live. (I know... to a post-modern, that very statement is absurd... it's like whistling about architecture... but still, there it is.) If that isn't important to you, well, I can't really help you.

Well, I'm not really looking for "help" there, really. "Reasons to live" come in many places, in many ways. Friends, love, accomplishments, the joy of learning new things, seeing new places, experiencing new things, connecting with other people. From my perspective, there is no *a* reason to live - to limit yourself that way seems very closed-in and limiting. Might not be what you meant, but that's how I see the "there's one way to be educated" argument - sort of elitist, exclusionary, and condescending. Now I certainly have no issue with people educating themselves in classic literature, including the Bible - it's them high-handedly calling me "ignorant" when I consider different things important that annoys me. We're all ignorant if you look at things in the wrong light.

 

[Kangirl]

Kelric, you're making my lower lip tremble.

 

[kelric]

Kelric, you're making my lower lip tremble.

Aw Why's that, Kangirl?

So I was trying to think of a better way to say things when I was working out... this is what I came up with:

"There are many paths to wisdom - that mine is different from yours does not make it inferior."

So there you go. Part fortune cookie, part swimming liger.

 

[Oberon]

I'm sure it doesn't come as a surprise to you that I find some of what you said a bit patronizing. It's the "if you don't like/believe what I do, you're ignorant" viewpoint that gets me.

No, that wasn't my point at all. What I said wasn't my opinion so much as an observation.

What if I told you that I was going to undertake to learn modern biology without reading Darwin or anything that referenced Origin of Species very heavily?

You'd say I was being foolish. You'd say "Modern biological theory draws so heavily on the work of Darwin and those who followed and refined his ideas that excluding Darwin from your reading is tantamount to educational malpractice." You'd say "It doesn't matter if you like Darwin or not... if you don't get Darwin, you won't really get any of the guys that came after him, which is just about all the discipline these days." You'd say "You can skip Darwin if you like, but if you do you're handicapping yourself. It's your choice, but you need to understand that that's what you're doing."

And you'd be right.

Well, the same is true of the Bible and Western literature. No, scratch that... it's bigger than just literature. It's Western culture, Western civilization. The art, the architecture, the music, the politics, the way the common people in Prague or Seattle or London think. Try to understand all those things without a nodding acquaintance with the Bible, and you're as much as trying to study biology while avoiding Darwin.

 

[kelric]

No, that wasn't my point at all. What I said wasn't my opinion so much as an observation.

What if I told you that I was going to undertake to learn modern biology without reading Darwin or anything that referenced Origin of Species very heavily?

You'd say I was being foolish. You'd say "Modern biological theory draws so heavily on the work of Darwin and those who followed and refined his ideas that excluding Darwin from your reading is tantamount to educational malpractice." You'd say "It doesn't matter if you like Darwin or not... if you don't get Darwin, you won't really get any of the guys that came after him, which is just about all the discipline these days." You'd say "You can skip Darwin if you like, but if you do you're handicapping yourself. It's your choice, but you need to understand that that's what you're doing."

And you'd be right.

Well, the same is true of the Bible and Western literature. No, scratch that... it's bigger than just literature. It's Western culture, Western civilization. The art, the architecture, the music, the politics, the way the common people in Prague or Seattle or London think. Try to understand all those things without a nodding acquaintance with the Bible, and you're as much as trying to study biology while avoiding Darwin.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Actually, now that you mention it, I *haven't* read the original Darwin (or Mendel, for that matter, and I probably haven't read anything that referenced them *directly*, either) - and yet I have a very good grasp of modern biology (studied it for years in grad school). You don't have to read the original to read and understand concepts - you always *can* go back if you want to, but not having read the "original" (and Darwin wasn't the first or only to posit evolution, if I recall) doesn't necessarily diminish understanding. I could make a strong point that you gain *more* from reading the derivative works, as they've taken into account new knowledge and have refined the theory (of evolution, in this case).

My point is that there are many ways to gain wisdom, or understanding, or most anything, really. To say that "if you don't do it this way, you can never understand anything wholly" seems limiting and to me, a bit condescending. That would be like me saying "You got from point A to point C *without* going through point B? How Ignorant!" Maybe you had your reasons - maybe you found point B uninteresting, or liked the route via point D (or E, or F) better. Has the Bible influenced modern Western culture? Undoubtedly. If you want to make a study of how it has influenced it, or compare different works from a biblical perspective, or the links between works drawn through biblical references, sure - I'd agree that a working foundation in it would be required. But I don't consider it absolutely required to "be educated" in general, and I believe that it's becoming less relevant in general as people have many more opportunities for reading (and learning) outside of a religious context.

Anyway, I've said my bit .

 

[Blackmail!]

Well, the same is true of the Bible and Western literature. No, scratch that... it's bigger than just literature. It's Western culture, Western civilization. The art, the architecture, the music, the politics, the way the common people in Prague or Seattle or London think. Try to understand all those things without a nodding acquaintance with the Bible, and you're as much as trying to study biology while avoiding Darwin.

You're deeply biased Oberon. Do you know it?

Why don't you want to respect Kelric's way of life?

---

If you want my opinion (for what it's worth), the Bible is an empty book. There are some pages worth reading in the Tanakh (especially the Kohelet and the Book of Job), but you don't get far besides them. And just as Nietzsche noticed, the New Testament is absolutely uninteresting and has a very weak literary content.

This book is partly responsible for the long atrophy that froze Western civilization, during centuries of scholastic babblings. Anything that was brilliant within the Western antiquity period, the birth of science and philosophy, was almost destroyed by early Christian attempts. Those fanatical, intolerant savages waged a war against intelligence that lasted during centuries.
It took millenias so we could be free at last, free from the grasp of this boring, shallow book, that is not worth a single line of what Epicure, Aristarcos or Democrite could have written instead. But the Christians burned their books by dozens, everywhere they could find them, because they hated, hated, hated, hated, hated, hated, hated, hated INTELLIGENCE.

To hell with the Bible! To hell with the Quran!

When I read them (and I've did it several times), I'm stuck between hilarity and contempt. It's like having a perverse fascination for the iron chains that kept the slaves locked, or when you visit a museum of torture.

Metaphysics are meaningless. There's absolutely nothing we can do with them, just as Kant noticed. What a waste of time and energy!

---

"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

David Hume, "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"

 

[Oberon]

You're deeply biased Oberon. Do you know it?

Oh, absolutely!

It would be dishonest of me not to face up to my biases, which are many and profound.

Why don't you want to respect Kelric's way of life?

Because Kelric is deliberately choosing ignorance.

Look, I hope one day to read the Bhagavad Gita... it's on my lifetime to-do list. I will do this to broaden my understanding. What would you say of me if I declared to you that I found this essential summary of the Vedas to be absurd, nonsensical, and irrelevant, and therefore not worth my time?

I say none of these things in fact... but if I did, you would be right to answer me that my opinion of the text has no bearing on its essentiality to a thorough understanding of Hindu culture.

When I read it (and I've did it several times), I'm stuck between hilarity and contempt.

Blackz, I respect your point of view on the matter far more than I respect Kelric's. Regardless of your opinion, you have at least bothered to do the reading. You may think it absurd that so many people spent their lives so foolishly building Notre Dame cathedral, but at least you know why they did it. At least your opinion is an informed one. Thank you.