babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Hey dude. You seemed to be more than happy to intercede where I was directly responding to Spector, right up in this thread. I guess that doesn't come under "following" and "harrassing." That comes under the right to freely expressing ones views.
Not to mention the fact, that my response was a response to your statement about what I said. What is it now? You want the freedom to indict conflict and argue without counter comment?
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Actually, I have invited you - many times, and I do so again - to comment on my substantive views (rather than my style, my personality, etc.) - but you have religiously refused to do so. I have nothing against you, but it is really difficult to deal with such intense, burning, personal hostility. Turn it off.
I agree. However, I made this explicit proposition:
I thought it was quite a decent proposal, really. The lack of response was sufficient answer as far as I am concerned.
I can get that in a general sense, but beyond getting into a discussion about the 'spirit' of things in a general and overarching way, what is the the specific 'spirit' that they say is inherent in the stipulation against eating certain things like pork?
I wasn't talking to Spector. My request was put to you point blank, as part of a direct exchange between you and I. In fact, I have far less difficulty with Spector's approach, since he at least favours arguement over straight derrision and mockery.
Spectors points are usually substantive. Unlike this:
Which is as I said, and insult dressed up in rhetoric.
No. Really what happened is you ducked. Fine by me. Those are the ground rules, and you set them.
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
I don't think you're getting it. Not eating pork is stupid. It's arbitrary. So, they find a "logical" explanation, like: It was difficult in quasi-desert conditions without modern refrigeration techniques to keep pork free from contamination. God reveals this prohibition to Moses and through him to the children of Israel, not with scientific detail which the people wouldn't understand, but merely as a test of their faith - and by providing for their health, he concretizes His love for them. So, what appears as an irrational prohibition is in actual fact a sensible public health measure millennia ahead of its time.
They're a dime a dozen.
Yeah, that's one way of doing it. Then there's the Mary Douglas approach that talks about things that "don't fit" the classification system and are therefore dangerous and impure. Another way is more social and political and talks about social cohesion and pork in the social and economic context. I can't go into any more detail because I've never studied the pork issue.
But I don't think explanations of this kind necessarily (or even usually) justify a religious belief or practice. Sometimes, they make a pretty powerful case that the practice is not only irrational but immoral.
ElizaQ, that's an example, there are lots like that. Please understand that the Jewish approach to biblical texts is a lot less "spiritual" than the Protestant approach to the Gospels. So perhaps I left a wrong nuance by using the word "spirit". For us Jews, even spirit is quite material. Jesus emphasized faith over works, as his counterpoint to the Jewish orthodoxy of the time. Jews don't negate faith, but its role is far lower on the salvation totem pole. Learning, faith, and deeds are the keys to heaven.
What is immoral about not eating pork?
I can't address the pork question. Probably nothing. (I'm a vegetarian [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] ) But other beliefs and practices can come out of this kind of analysis quite badly.
I had other things in mind - not the pork prohibition, of which I know little.
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Oh, I totally agree. When I said that religion tries to find new explanations for old superstitions, I never meant to imply that it was successful. But it doesn't stop them from trying. Look at Margaret Somerville's alleged "pro-children" explications of all the Roman Catholic abominations, from anti-choice to homophobia.
I was trying to get back to Beltov's point about these kinds of arguments.
This time, it is "how much pork in a barrel?"
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
I understand. I do not agree with Beltov's point, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Is there an example of a religious practice which appears virtuous and holy, but after socio-historical analysis, is shown to be immoral?
If all Beltov is saying is: "Ah, you think this came from God, but actually there's an explanation which doesn't require invoking divine revelation" - I honestly think that doesn't draw much blood.
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
When a religion puts so much emphasis on their rituals and beliefs then it seems just sensible to investigate this stuff to the nth degree.
Sure, but what comes first the chicken or the egg, is the religious institution generating the social constructed moral universe or is the religious institution reflecting the socially constructed moral universe?
What about:
All right, one more comment:
Yes, I agree! That's exactly what I'm talking about - showing people the consequences for life today of religious precepts. How Catholic prohibition of divorce perpetuates patriarchy. How the doctrine of "ours is the one true faith" perpetuates hatred and justifies wars. How "saving souls" justifies and facilitates colonial conquest and cultural annihilation. How God's "promises" to the Israelites are used to justify aggression, occupation, and dehumanization. How the creation myths are used to attack scientific education and give the preachers a toehold in education - which by rights they should have lost during the Industrial Revolution.
But explaining some 2000-year-old ritual by showing where it originated and how it was used at the time - why, except for anthropologists?
Heheh heh he.
Nice try, but you're wasting your breath. He'll be quoting it in many threads to come as evidence of the inhumanity of atheism. There's a certain absence of nuance and humour which I find distressing.
I don't have any trouble myself with the idea that washing rituals, for example, or meal rituals have pre-Christian roots. I don't know if a lot of people would. But if the resurrection story turned out to be "derivative", that would be a different matter.
(A lot of this would depend on how you interpreted the resurrection story - I don't think it's about "renewal" or the cycle of death and life or anything like that.)
The kinds of arguments that have influenced me strongly are explanations of religious beliefs and practices as legitimating certain social arrangements or practices. And maybe other sorts of arguments, too - more "cultural" than "political", perhaps. (What I'd call "conceptual scheme" arguments.)
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Well, if membership in the particular church or religion turns on this or that belief, this or that ritual or practice, which turns out to have a very pedestrian, and not an otherworldly, origin, then why shouldn't atheists shout it from the rooftops? It's bound to have an effect.
Well, turning the other cheek is a Christian failing I can accept, however, I am not bound by such admonishments.
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]