quote:I agree that people who believe (or believed in the past) that the Earth was flat based on what The Bible said were quite obviously wrong. That doesn't change the fact that people believed it and some increasingly tiny minority still does.
So wait, we're off this notion that the Bible says the things you say it did, as though it were that simple, Javert?
No. It says it, and does so unclearly enough that believers could interpret it either way. Because the Earth is obviously not flat, it is much easier to make the interpretation that it didn't mean the Earth was flat.
I honestly am confused as to the problem. This is, as I view it, what is happening:
Non-Believer: "People who believe so-and-so are a problem that we need to address."
Believer: "I don't believe so-and-so."
Non-Believer: "Then you're not the believers we're talking about."
Believer: "But I'm a believer and I don't believe so-and-so. And I think those that believe so-and-so are wrong."
Non-Believer: "That's great, but again, we're talking about how to address the believers in so-and-so. If you don't believe so-and-so, then we're not talking about you. So why do you seem upset with us for criticizing the so-and-so believers?"
As always I could be wrong, confused or have been misreading something somewhere. Or a combination of the three.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Non-Believer: "People who believe so-and-so are a problem that we need to address."
That may be what is meant, but what is actually being said is closer to, "Religious people believe so-and-so, and thus are a problem that we need to address."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is she's claiming the Bible says things it doesn't, people believe things they don't and then blaming religion for those things it doesn't espouse. And I think the breakdown of communication is that people haven't been saying 'I don't believe that' but that almost no one, even fringe groups believe that. So she's creating a an argument against something some of us find very important and doing so without even attempting to understand what it is. Or certainly appearing that way.
[EDIT: Looks like Rivka was both faster and more succinct]
quote:Originally posted by rivka: That may be what is meant, but what is actually being said is closer to, "Religious people believe so-and-so, and thus are a problem that we need to address."
I have a similar problem with "Doctors believe (or do/say/are) so-and-so, and thus are a problem we need to address." It generally occurs with advocacy of one flavor or another, and there is often a real concern at the heart of it -- but stating one's proposition in black and white terms and then claiming it was meant to be read as less emphatic isn't convincing. It's making use of the battle-drumming language of hyperbole, but ducking from the consequences.
I think it's poor form with reference to critiquing religions as much as professions.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bible - even in translation - does not always "say" what it seems to say. This is what I mean by not simple. It should be understood in context.
Javert, the problem as I see it is that responding to the religious nuts is sort of like feeding the trolls. It isn't going to change their minds and they thrive on the attention.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is also the fact that no discussion about religion at Hatrack can be started or continued in a vacuum; there is a considerable amount of--debris? backwash? shrapnel?--that has built up over the years that is always present in any discussion. You have to be very careful how you word things if you want to avoid falling back into the same old back and forth.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: And I think the breakdown of communication is that people haven't been saying 'I don't believe that' but that almost no one, even fringe groups believe that.
The problem is that this is true for something innocuous, like the shape of the Earth, but not quite so much when dealing with things like the origin of species. You can't say that almost no one believes in creationism just when reading this board, let alone going off into the real world.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which makes you wonder why she had to make stuff up for her essay, doesn't it? I'm not quite sure what her point was, and I'm certainly not sure what you're arguing here but she either knows little to nothing about religion (and did about that much research for this piece) or intentionally (at best) muddied the truth in order to make her point. The latter would indicate she doesn't think the point can be made if based solely on actual facts.
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Which makes you wonder why she had to make stuff up for her essay, doesn't it? I'm not quite sure what her point was, and I'm certainly not sure what you're arguing here but she either knows little to nothing about religion (and did about that much research for this piece) or intentionally (at best) muddied the truth in order to make her point. The latter would indicate she doesn't think the point can be made if based solely on actual facts.
Hobbes
She was also talking about the history of knowing things based on religion and science. There was a time that a lot of people thought the world was flat, and they believed the bible supported that. She wasn't making things up.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:She was also talking about the history of knowing things based on religion and science. There was a time that a lot of people thought the world was flat, and they believed the bible supported that. She wasn't making things up.
She also wasn't being entirely accurate, either. Look, you can't just point to the Bible and say, "It says the Earth is flat," Javert. Which version of the Bible says that? According to which translation? Where it says such a thing - if we can all get on board with it saying so, and agree that it was accurately translated, etc. - was it being literal, or using shades of meaning, etc.?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
