Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,851 Year: 4,108/9,624 Month: 979/974 Week: 306/286 Day: 27/40 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Educated versus Popular Religion
Phat
Member
Posts: 18345
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 9 of 43 (175155)
01-09-2005 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by robinrohan
01-08-2005 6:53 PM


Re: The Bible according to ER
Hi, Robinrohan! I edited your first post to highlight the point that you are making about ER and PR. I am not quite clear on some of this. Lets throw a few word definitions around and clarify our discussion, OK?
1) Does ER mean that religion is a philosophy of early man that is studied by us? Is our study based on our own educated relativism?
robinrohan writes:
ER is the accurate version, but this is not saying that someone who embraces PR is not authentically religious, and it is also not to say that someone who purportedly embraces ER IS authentically religious. It depends on the individual.
You seem to assert that education defines accuracy. This is true in most cases, but it depends on the definition of truth and on the belief that an individual has in God as a person and the weight of this source of knowledge apart from human wisdom.
Based on Websters, the very term "religion" is a relative construct.
Websters writes:
religion \ri-li-jen\ n 1 : the service and worship of God or the supernatural 2 : devotion to a religious faith 3 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes, and practices 4 : a cause, principle, or belief held to with faith and ardor religionist n
2) Define what you see as the definition of PR?
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-09-2005 02:59 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 01-08-2005 6:53 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by robinrohan, posted 01-09-2005 1:22 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18345
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 36 of 43 (179575)
01-22-2005 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by robinrohan
01-19-2005 12:14 AM


Re: Specifics about PR
robinrohan writes:
If you want facts you go to science. If you want meaning, you go to religion. You can also go to the local bar, of course, which can be religious in its own way. (The meaning at the local bar is that there is no meaning. But when two or three come together at the local bar in the name of Nothing, then Nothing is with them. So saith their patron saint, Ernest Hemingway).
PR at its sincere core is the same as ER, but also has all sorts of absurdities attached to it which are the result of a lack of religious education. But as I said before, religion is not just for the educated but for everyone, so PR is a natural phenomenon.
To be frank, to ER the Christ story is MYTHOS, not LOGOS, which means that it is a story meant to illustrate an idea but which is not meant to be taken literally. But of course, the "Christ story" is not to be confused with the historical life of Jesus. The same can be said for the story of Mohammed or Moses.
I came back because I saw this nominated as a POTM.
You have a way with words, but when two or three are gathered together in the name of education, is this not ER? Conversely, if two or three are gathered together to experience a living personality, is this MYTHOS if that personality truly lives? I am espousing PR here. LOGOS is based on a living personality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by robinrohan, posted 01-19-2005 12:14 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by lfen, posted 01-22-2005 7:36 AM Phat has replied
 Message 43 by robinrohan, posted 01-24-2005 3:36 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18345
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 38 of 43 (179649)
01-22-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by lfen
01-22-2005 7:36 AM


Re: Specifics about PR
Ifen writes:
And who is the actor playing the role?
This is why absolutism never works. Relativists can sit and agree together, content that the agreement is relative to each of them. No personality need be the boss or have the final say...be it one of them or a Deity. Jesus,(whom I believe to be living) may reach them, yet in a manner of belief relative to the individual. Absolutists, on the other hand, not only insist that the Deity is the sole source of authority but that the interpretation of the authority is indisputable and absolute. This is fine up to the point where the absolutist insists on representing the Deity for the benefit of everyone. They are but an actor playing the role of God. I find myself guilty of this at times, but how do I communicate an absolute truth without becoming an absolute idiot?
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-22-2005 10:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by lfen, posted 01-22-2005 7:36 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by lfen, posted 01-22-2005 12:43 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024