Can you imagine the collective outcry of the religious majority if religious studies were made compulsory in primary education?
The one theology book all atheists really should read
- Thread starter Musika
- Start date
Even if one's interests lie exclusively in anthropology and history, it would probably be more productive to approach scripture via commentary or school, rather than direct.
They'd be happy with it as long as the curriculum included only one religion (theirs) and took Musika's advice to present the information through a filter of "commentary" - just as the priests did before vernacular translations of the bible made its content directly available to laymen.
trm - Ever have Jehovah's Witnesses on your doorstep recite carefully highlighted biblical excerpts at you? (mostly bloody-minded old anal-retentive Paul's exhortations to long-dead Corinthians, so what's it to do with me....? but that's by the way) Point them to the previous verses for context and they freak out. Only the elders understand that part! Only the district superintendent can explain that mystery!
The notion of approaching scripture in a manner neutral to commentary (or school) is yet another atheist imagination. Contrary to identity politic ethic, the only manner to acquire a strong perspective is to arrive at it through contrast, tension, polemic, etc.
Do you approach Dilbert the same way you approach scripture?
Sounds like a silly question.
Do you?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
It is in the United Kingdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_education_in_primary_and_secondary_education
Here in the United States, even among religious people the concern would probably be separation of church and state, concern with the possibility that the state and its schools was teaching and promoting a particular theological line. There's a deep antipathy (enshrined in the United States Constitution) in favor of freedom of conscience and against establishment of religion.
Yes, I do. When I read Dilbert, I don't rely on "expert" commentaries to tell me whether or not it's funny.
So answer the question: Do you treat "scripture" differently from other literature? And if so, why?
Once again, sounds like a silly question.
The comic strip genre functions in the single-minded pursuit of the gag. You either get it, or you don't. There are no nuanced variables within the narrative, no requirement of the seer to come to a particular level or state of being and nothing at stake for comprehending the subject. If a comic strip required a commentary, it would cease to function in the genre.
It is just like asking you whether you think Dilbert should be peer reviewed.
If someone asked you that q, your immediate response would be along the lines of querying whether the person understood what peer reviewing was about.
///
Scripture is a gag. Either you get it or you do not. Evidently, you do not get it.
<>
///
They do not want their children to be taught about all religions, specially in an objective manner.
<>
I have a book called, The Gospel According to Peanuts. It is not a joke. It is, in fact, a theological commentary about the comic strip Peanuts by Charles M. Schultz, the creator of Peanuts. There is a follow-up called, The Parables of Peanuts.
So you're wrong.
Well, no. It would be the exact opposite, because you're not suggesting that the Bible should be peer-reviewed, are you? I am.
My immediate reaction is right above this line. In future, you might want to wait for my actual reaction instead of trying to write it for me.
Completely incorrect.
There are plenty of examples of "comics" where, if you had not read relevant literature, would make no sense. (Flowers for Algernon, Hamlet and Pride and Prejudice are examples here.) They are still popular.
It's a bit of a stretch to add "" and call those things comics.
Are you sure that is not some form of biblical commentary?
.
The similarity lies in bringing an epistemological tool to a situation that renders the whole thing outlandish. Demanding a commentary be brought to a popular comic strip is just as absurd as demanding one bring peer reviewing.
It relates the adventures of comic-strip characters to the adventures of Bible characters.
But why is it "outlandish" in one situation and not in the other? What distinguishes your scriptures from somebody else's scriptures, such that yours are not subject to the same scrutiny?
Nobody is demanding anything. I'm just asking why your scriptures should be treated differently from any other literature.
So if it is saying something about the bible, its a biblical commentary.
.
Unless you think it is not outlandish to peer review dilbert, it should be obvious.
.
Well, they are not "my" scriptures, any more than peer review journals are "yours".
Once again, unless you cannot fathom why peer review journals should be treated differently from popular comic strips, it should be obvious.
///
Hilarious how so much is obvious to you which is certainly not obvious outside your delirious dreamworld.
<>