Discussing Religion

[jhonerliz]

Hi to everyone!

I just want to ask if do we really need to discuss religion here in Litnet?

Because we all know that we will just have an unending argumentation to our co-members here with this topic.

We come from different places with different ideas and beliefs and we cant blame others why they do or don't agree with what we believe.

I already read the thread, Religious Texts Forum Rules , but I still want to know why we should discuss religion.

Anyways, I'm just asking... I am not telling to delete discussing religion here.

[blazeofglory]

Discussing religions do not become injurious as long as we do not kind of hurt others' sentiments.

Here on this thread we comfortably share views and opinions.

Of course we set kind of demarcations on discussions.

Here I think we respect one another.

[Mathor]

Personally, I don't think any of us on this forum mind telling others if we think they are wrong, and I feel like most of us are mature enough that we do not mind a healthy debate on the issue. We're never going to agree, but I feel like most of the people who get involved in said debates find fun in the whole thing.

[JBI]

I personally have been against it for a while, and am trying to move the boards back to their original purpose of discussing texts, not religion. As it is, this isn't a religious discussion forum, and since discussing politics are banned, I see no reason why discussing religions shouldn't be banned as well. We don't need to discuss the Muslim religion to discuss the Koran. We don't need to discuss Christianity to discuss the Bible. Why then are there no Bible discussion threads, and countless "I believe in God" threads.

The way I see it, as long as there are believers and unbelievers, a debate about the universe can never be "respectful". Why then, should we bother in these boards? Why can't we just talk about the texts, and not worry about whether God is good or not. Quite frankly, I blame 2 types of people. The Religious preachers who use these boards for their own propaganda to promote their God(s) and religions, or say how good their God(s) or religions are, and the Atheists, who try and convert people to their own cause. And in the middle of this, there is very little text, absolutely no text generally - just a bunch of obnoxious zealots preaching their pseudo-intellectual rubbish - and yes, you know who you are. All these idiotic claims about how evil God is, or how Good and generous God is, have nothing to do with the forum's purpose, to discuss literature. As such, I see no point in allowing these threads, and consider it a double standard, considering one is not allowed to discuss contemporary politics on these boards, yet somehow the Religious and I guess nonreligious can discuss contemporary religion.

I would hate to suggest that some of the Mods are biased, but I have seen some of them even posting on threads, that given the biased rules of this forum, should have been locked anyway. Why should Religion be discussed here? What gives people the right to preach here about religion, but people on other forums no right to talk about politics? Here you can make a thread talking about the benevolence of whatever faith you want, and get away with it. If I dared make a thread about the benevolence of a current regime, or war, it would most certainly get locked. If I made a thread trying to bring people over to the Republican party, or whatever other party, that too most certainly would be locked.

Yet every day threads pop up trying to convert people, and express the goodness of x religion.

[billyjack]

become a moderator then or cut it out with the litnet holier than though persona

[JBI]

One could reply, "Become a preacher then, or cut it out with the attempts to convert people." Seriously, one doesn't become a moderator, one is made a moderator, and I don't even have a + beside my name.

[NikolaiI]

Discussing religions do not become injurious as long as we do not kind of hurt others' sentiments.

Here on this thread we comfortably share views and opinions.

Of course we set kind of demarcations on discussions.

Here I think we respect one another.

This is the right idea. The purpose of religion is understand God. Religion and God are both words that mean nothing. And to some they are good, and to others they cause distress. For this reason we should always be humble and sincere in our approach to others regarding these topics.

Religion is about understanding the question of the soul, and understanding the question of reality and our own nature. Buddhism stipulates that our unhappiness comes from, primarily, our own actions. By seeking satisfaction outside ourselves, we become embroiled more and more with externals, and we neglect and ignore our inner being. Buddhism teaches the way to end suffering is to understand the nature of our mind, and make it clear and open, as opposed to limited, grasping, and clinging to sense objects which will only jerk us around when change occurs.

In another sense, religion is about transcendence, and in this case the community of various faith-based believers is essential. I can extend my own knowledge simply by associating with a saint from another religion. We are trying to understand the nature of infinite reality, and in this we will broaden our horizons and encompass all of creation, instead of being trapped or frozen as you say, within our ego.

The different religions are all valuable. We only reject this if perhaps we have neglected to look at them, or if we have looked but not practised, or if we have practiced but not gained spiritual advancement. The work of all religions is to purify one's mind and strengthen one's good works, as well as enlarging or broadening one's consciousness. There are two steps to increasing the scope of our consciousness; one is gradation and the other is revelation. They are not independent or separate from each other, and both are needed.

All these religions have value but we cannot become enlightened instantaneously, nor should we try. There can be damage done if we follow something we do not know to be true.

My own path, which I would not discourage anyone to take, was to also study different religions. I guess you could say I began with Buddhism. I think this is good. Buddhism is a good place to begin because the goal in it is liberation, which is so closely linked with balance. As I said before the goal is to understand the nature of our mind. Buddhists say this is not an arbitrary thing, it is actually enlightenment. And in my experience it is also appreciation of reality.

The basis of all mystical thought is understanding the nature of the mind. The nature of the mind is not the same as the ego. The ego is very limited, while the mind, the pure source of all we know, is not limited by the habits or karma of our ego. The nature of our mind is Enlightened, or Buddha-nature, or Awake. One main tenant of Buddhism is interdependence - all things are connected. And yet we do not feel this in our normal lives. But it is absolutely attainable to experience this.

[Drkshadow03]

I agree with JBI to an extent.

I had an idea a little while back to start a Religious Text bookclub that would approach the text from a textual academic viewpoint (although, there would be times when it would be useful to consult religious viewpoints to supplement the academic viewpoint). The way I envisioned it we wouldn't do whole books in one big book club section, nor even a single "book" (such as Genesis), but maybe single chapters. Genesis 1 - 3 for the first thread. Then onward, covering all holy books, and moving onto to some obscure books perhaps. Maybe even mythologies?

I would love to see this happen at some point. However, I can't lead or even participate in it right now because I'm so busy with student teaching and finishing up my library degree that I have no time to really put into substantial readings.

[Mathor]

I just think that although sometimes there are people who may be offended, this being a literature forum I feel that this thread is valuable because it allows us to understand how we are all different and how we all view things very differently. And that can be applied to the understanding of any literature.

I am a fan of Dostoevsky. He is one of my favorite authors. I am also a fan of H.G Wells and Isaac Asimov.

I like Dostoevsky because I was raised Catholic growing up when I was younger, before I broke away from it at around 18, and his constant mention of the Orthodox church I feel like I can relate to.

I am also kind of obsessed with science and space, and therefore Science Fiction authors like the other two are very meaningful to me. There are other people who love these authors for different reasons, and those reasons are important

The beliefs of myself and everyone else play a huge role in the way we interpret literature (theist or atheist), although I sometimes disapprove of the offensive and closeminded attitudes I sometimes see on this site, I think trying to rid this board of the ability for members to express their beliefs/backrounds would be a travesty and I'm sure there's a lot who agree with me.

JBI, you should start a thread discussing the Bible or Quran on a literary level if you see it pertinent. I'm sure myself and others would enjoy discussing it. But I don't see the need for that to be the only thing allowed on this part of the forum.

[JBI]

I was thinking actually, the other day, of starting a Talmud discussion thread. I thought better of it though, because I realized it may get a few posts, but I would probably be the only one posting on it. Maybe I'll start a discussion of Isaiah or something sometime soon, but like Drkshadow, I am up to my nose in coursework, and don't have time at the moment.

I see no problem really with discussing religion, I just see a problem with it on these boards, as ultimately it doesn't have much a place here. This is a literature forum, not a religion forum - this is a religious texts forum, not a religious preaching forum - I think there needs to be a clear line between the two.

Take for instance those who come on these forums trying to sell electronics. They are quickly removed, as that is not the purpose of this forum. Why then are threads that have nothing to do with literature, and only act to preach not removed? There are so many of them, it's almost ridiculous. You get maybe 1 in 50 threads here actually dealing with texts, and those threads eventually get overrun by the Religious arguers anyway by the second page.

[weltanschauung]

no one here wants to discuss stuff that matters, thats a given.
thinking is offensive.

[Redzeppelin]

As it is, this isn't a religious discussion forum, and since discussing politics are banned, I see no reason why discussing religions shouldn't be banned as well. We don't need to discuss the Muslim religion to discuss the Koran. We don't need to discuss Christianity to discuss the Bible. Why then are there no Bible discussion threads, and countless "I believe in God" threads.


Technically, you're correct: this is a literature forum. However, people who read literature tend to also think about things like philosophy (which has its share of non-text discussions going on) and religion - because both have exerted profound influence on literature (which probably explains why politics aren't discussed - they do not have such a connection to lit) - besides, intelligent people like to talk about this stuff. What - there's not enough lit threads on here for you? Why do you really care if a these threads run? Who's being hurt by this? Would you feel better if this site were renamed to "Think Net" so that we weren't violating the "letter of the law"?

What about the threads on teaching? And the "games" threads? Those aren't literature based either.


Yet every day threads pop up trying to convert people, and express the goodness of x religion.

Some, but not all. And believers aren't the only ones here trying to "convert" others to their point of view.

And, there's always the option you have of just avoiding this part of the site - that's what I do for topics and authors that don't interest me...



no one here wants to discuss stuff that matters, thats a given.
thinking is offensive.

At least in your opinion.

[JBI]

Technically, you're correct: this is a literature forum. However, people who read literature tend to also think about things like philosophy (which has its share of non-text discussions going on) and religion - because both have exerted profound influence on literature (which probably explains why politics aren't discussed - they do not have such a connection to lit) - besides, intelligent people like to talk about this stuff. What - there's not enough lit threads on here for you? Why do you really care if a these threads run? Who's being hurt by this? Would you feel better if this site were renamed to "Think Net" so that we weren't violating the "letter of the law"?



Yeah, politics aren't relevant to texts, but religion is... Admit it, the only reason you are lashing out, is because you know I was talking about you. You know that you tend to preach, and my stressing the purpose of discussing texts would ultimately end your propagating of religious opinion.

Just so you know, politics seem even more central to literature than religion. Is not the Bible talking about the politics of its time? Is not Samuel and Kings talking about the political intrigue going on in Canaan? It would make sense then, that contemporary literature, that is, literature written in 2000 +, would deal with contemporary issues, and contemporary politics. There is more to literature than just novels (which are political in themselves), there is also completely political non-fiction. Why don't we discuss that then? Why can't I talk about The Middle East, in relation to Noam Chomsky?

The answer is simple, it naturally makes people feel uncomfortable. If I tell someone I do not like their taste in literature, they may be hurt, they may think I'm an idiot, but for the most part, no damage is really done. If I call someone a fascist for believing one thing, or utterly wrong for believing another, I offend them to their core. Do that enough, with enough people, and ultimately people are made to feel uncomfortable.

As important discussing both subjects are, the boards are no place for it. I admit, I digress occasionally into politics, but for the most part, that deals with texts and traditions, not contemporary issues, and not people's core beliefs. By saying Christianity is true, ultimately you must being saying Judaism is false, and Islam is false, and every other religion is false. It is within the doctrine of the religion. By me saying Christianity is false, I would hypothetically be doing the same. Therefore, in order to make people not feel uncomfortable, or better yet, to stop the boards from going into a complete digression on nonsense, which by the way is argued nonstop to no result, why not actually have a discussion that can enlighten everyone who reads it, on a nonbiased scale, which won't offend people's beliefs?

So yes, when it comes down to it, I would like change. Not to change the name to "think net" as you suggest, but enforce the notion of "READ BEFORE POSTING" for all those who come here to preach, instead of to discuss literature. After all, this isn't a pornography discussion forum, so we don't discuss porno here, why then do we discuss religion here? There are topics, stick to them, that's the point of discussion, not to preach.

And I would also note, I never once only targeted believers. Don't make false accusations and ad hominems please. I made it clear that I was in favor of ending the atheist and agnostic preaching that goes on to. It would be better for you, to stop trying to suggest I'm some sort of unbelieving heretic trying to end religion, which I think you are suggesting. I never once said that, so don't put the words in my mouth. You are trying to suppose I am some radical unbeliever who comes here to convert. Personally, I couldn't care less - as far as I'm concerned, that has no business on these boards, so stop trying to suggest it.

[Redzeppelin]

Yeah, politics aren't relevant to texts, but religion is... Admit it, the only reason you are lashing out, is because you know I was talking about you. You know that you tend to preach, and my stressing the purpose of discussing texts would ultimately end your propagating of religious opinion.

Wow - I'm notorious :D

To be honest, I had no idea your comments were directed at me personally (I'm flattered that you care enough to target me :)) - primarily because they do not accurately describe me at all. I do not "preach" and if you think I do, you'll need to clarify what you mean by that word. I do not attempt to convert anybody; clarifying who God is, what Christians believe and why they believe it involves no "preaching" whatsover. It is often true that those who choose to see religion/Christianity as silly or irrelevant tend to see any mention of it whatsoever as objectionable when that really isn't so. Not every mention of God, the Bible, or Christian theology counts as preaching. I suggest you clarify your terms.

It should be mere child's play for you to find things I've said that count as preaching - but be careful that you don't commit the fallacy of quoting me out of context merely to prove your point; that would be dishonest. As well, if you could quote the portion of my post that you consider "lashing out" that would be most instructive.


Just so you know, politics seem even more central to literature than religion. Is not the Bible talking about the politics of its time?

Only in tangent.


Is not Samuel and Kings talking about the political intrigue going on in Canaan? It would make sense then, that contemporary literature, that is, literature written in 2000 +, would deal with contemporary issues, and contemporary politics. There is more to literature than just novels (which are political in themselves), there is also completely political non-fiction. Why don't we discuss that then? Why can't I talk about The Middle East, in relation to Noam Chomsky?

I have no issue with whether the site allows us to speak of politics or not. I simply tried to provide a plausible reason for the seeming inequity.



As important discussing both subjects are, the boards are no place for it. I admit, I digress occasionally into politics, but for the most part, that deals with texts and traditions, not contemporary issues, and not people's core beliefs. By saying Christianity is true, ultimately you must being saying Judaism is false, and Islam is false, and every other religion is false. It is within the doctrine of the religion. By me saying Christianity is false, I would hypothetically be doing the same. Therefore, in order to make people not feel uncomfortable, or better yet, to stop the boards from going into a complete digression on nonsense, which by the way is argued nonstop to no result, why not actually have a discussion that can enlighten everyone who reads it, on a nonbiased scale, which won't offend people's beliefs?

Making someone feel "discomfort" and making them feel "disrespect" are two different things. Saying "my belief is right" is perfectly legitimate. Telling someone else their belief is "wrong" is legitimate. Saying "your belief is stupid and you're a moron for believing it" is not OK. Discomfort is not the determinant of appropriateness. You have every right to tell me I'm wrong in how I believe; what you don't have the right to do is to attempt to demean me as a person for my beliefs or to make fun of those beliefs simply because you a) disagree with them or b) don't understand them.


So yes, when it comes down to it, I would like change. Not to change the name to "think net" as you suggest, but enforce the notion of "READ BEFORE POSTING" for all those who come here to preach, instead of to discuss literature. After all, this isn't a pornography discussion forum, so we don't discuss porno here, why then do we discuss religion here? There are topics, stick to them, that's the point of discussion, not to preach.

You'll need (as I said) to define "preach" and then provide examples. You may very well be using the word inaccurately/incorrectly.


And I would also note, I never once only targeted believers. Don't make false accusations and ad hominems please. I made it clear that I was in favor of ending the atheist and agnostic preaching that goes on to. It would be better for you, to stop trying to suggest I'm some sort of unbelieving heretic trying to end religion, which I think you are suggesting. I never once said that, so don't put the words in my mouth. You are trying to suppose I am some radical unbeliever who comes here to convert. Personally, I couldn't care less - as far as I'm concerned, that has no business on these boards, so stop trying to suggest it.

You just admitted that you targeted me in your comments.

I have never suggested anything of the sort about you and I defy you to prove it from my posts.

You can not tell me what I am "trying to suppose" unless you are God Himself (who is the only person who knows my true intentions/motivations) - and I'm fairly certain you're not Him.

Stop "suggesting" what? Might you be a bit clearer?

[Scheherazade]

Please do not discuss each other but the topic at hand.

Further personal comments will be deleted and/or might lead to thread closure.

[Mathor]

Again, I agree much of what JBI is saying, but I also think that the right decision is to keep it here, because once we forbid the talk of it we begin to forbid members from exercising their opinions. If someone reads a religious text and finds that it shows them something within themself or even finds it as boring or hogwash or even finds that particular text to be silly, that'd be no different than someone saying about any book: This book is boring and stupid and has no purpose. I know we rarely talk about books in this part of the forum, but either you allow speak of religion and religious texts or you ban speak of religious texts and religion, i don't think you can ban one and allow the other, it just won't work.

[JBI]

I read the Bhagavad Gita, and I am not a believer in the Hindu Faith. I read The Iliad, and I don't believe in classical Greek Mythology. I read Gilgamesh, but I don't believe in Gilgamesh. There seems no problem discussing The Iliad as a text, or Gilgamesh (if anyone else has read it, I would be intrigued to discuss it), or any other text, why then do we need a separate forum so each preacher can get his turn, making threads like "God is good", or "Why I believe in God", or "God Exist", or even "Can a Christian be a Buddhist, and Vice Versa". There was a period where the place was flooded by what I call new wave Atheists, each preaching some other variant of Dawkinsism, that too had no real purpose.

If one can talk about the Aeneid without believing Virgil to be some sort of Divine prophet, why then can someone not talk about the Bible, regardless of their belief? The text is the same thing regardless of one's belief, why not focus on what the text says, rather than what one believes? Why not talk about what Jesus says in the Bible, and what the writers of the Gospels say about him, rather than whether he exists or not, or whether he is almighty and all good or not?

There have been discussions on other religious texts, as I have pointed out. Literature was founded on religious texts. It doesn't particularly matter to the text whether the characters existed or not. I can discuss Hamlet, knowing he didn't exist. Whether he exists or not won't particularly have much an effect on my reading. Why then, with this forum, is all this preaching going on? Why are non-literary threads allowed to prosper, and wannabe pastors allowed to make religious claims, without a) any scriptural reference, and b) any literary-related purpose?

And Red Zeplin, I figured you would be able to understand the "you" implied those like you, in a collective, and not you exactly, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just weren't able to understand what I said. You know perfectly well that there is preaching going on on this board. The reason, I would argue, you try and support it, is because you know, if the rules get enforced, your part in it ends too.

I would also like to point out, that when a religion specifically, from the scriptural level, decrees that there is only one God, believing in that religion necessarily means you cannot be compatible with belief in anything else. Trying to push forward that religion ultimately means, because of the nature of the religion, cutting down those others who don't believe.

[Mathor]

i think possibly the best idea would be to seperate this thread into two sub-threads. one thread can be soley about religious literature from a literal perspective, and one thread can be moreso just to discuss different beliefs, that way the people (like myself) who go to this thread mainly to find those sorts of things can just never go to the more opinionated side of the forum. And that way, a popular thread about discussing religious texts will not be pushed to the bottom because of threads like the one we are posting in right now. I think meaningful discussion about opinions is important to understanding literature sometimes, but I think that'd be the best way to do it. That allows all parties to continue enjoying the use of this forum.

EDIT: and i do think slander and preaching does go on in this forum, but I think we forget there are a lot of people who do not attempt to change the opinion of others but just like to talk about it.

EDIT EDIT: And maybe we should just enforce moreso the idea of not preaching or trying to convert. It is already against the forum rules, so why does it exist anyway?

[billyjack]

One could reply, "Become a preacher then, or cut it out with the attempts to convert people." Seriously, one doesn't become a moderator, one is made a moderator, and I don't even have a + beside my name.

they definitely could. but attacking religion isnt really preaching now is it since the attack isnt saying what is right, its just saying whats wrong.

i didnt know that about the moderator system. good to know. disregard my previous blurb then, all of it.

[Mathor]

they definitely could. but attacking religion isnt really preaching now is it since the attack isnt saying what is right, its just saying whats wrong.

i didnt know that about the moderator system. good to know. disregard my previous blurb then, all of it.

but whether a person is trying to convert someone to their religion or convert religious people into nonbelievers, it's still converting and it's still agains the rules.

[JBI]

but whether a person is trying to convert someone to their religion or convert religious people into nonbelievers, it's still converting and it's still agains the rules.

And, I would add, it still has nothing to do with literary texts, both secular or religious.

[billyjack]

but whether a person is trying to convert someone to their religion or convert religious people into nonbelievers, it's still converting and it's still agains the rules.

lets set aside what is and isnt against the rules for a moment eh. i think there is a massive void between, say, an atheist talking reason to a believer vs. a believer talking dogma and flaunting unquestioned or poorly questioned beliefs. the first is appealing to everyone from a system, reason, that is all inclusive. the latter is coming from a system, belief, which is exclusive. the non-believer isn't doing any converting, just bringing people back to what is rightfully theirs, that is, back to their senses. conversion has such religious implications. it really doesnt apply to sensible posters

[JBI]

Who cares what the difference is - that's pure rhetoric - the point is that it doesn't belong in a literary discussion. Don't pretend like preaching Atheism is somehow justified because it doesn't "technically" convert people. The point is that it isn't discussing texts, it is discussing beliefs in texts, or religions, which has no purpose in a literary discussion.

[JBI]

And on top of that, the existence or non-existence of deities has nothing to do with the discussion of literary texts, both secular and religious. One does not have to believe in the Koran to read, enjoy, and discuss it. Why then, is there a problem? You are an Atheist, good for you, I am as well, but the point is, it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the text.

[Mathor]

And on top of that, the existence or non-existence of deities has nothing to do with the discussion of literary texts, both secular and religious. One does not have to believe in the Koran to read, enjoy, and discuss it. Why then, is there a problem? You are an Atheist, good for you, I am as well, but the point is, it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the text.

but as long as people don't try to prove others wrong all the time then it's fine. But people just try to convert others is all i'm saying. If people followed the rules of the forum then this wouldn't even happen.



the law of Logos:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410

[Redzeppelin]

And Red Zeplin, I figured you would be able to understand the "you" implied those like you, in a collective, and not you exactly, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just weren't able to understand what I said. You know perfectly well that there is preaching going on on this board. The reason, I would argue, you try and support it, is because you know, if the rules get enforced, your part in it ends too.

Right.

Personally, my life is affected absolutely ZERO if Lit Net allows these particular topics or not. My life would go on whether or not I could have these conversations. You're the only one who appears to have an axe to grind on this issue. I simply defended myself and gave an explanation as to why Lit Net might allow the conversations.

Here, let me quote you:

Yeah, politics aren't relevant to texts, but religion is... Admit it, the only reason you are lashing out, is because you know I was talking about you. You know that you tend to preach, and my stressing the purpose of discussing texts would ultimately end your propagating of religious opinion.

That sounds pretty much like it was meant for me. I don't buy your attempted deflection. The "you know you tend to preach" is in no way a "collective you." Nice try.

Prove I "preach" or let it go - because baseless arguments have no force around here.

[NikolaiI]

We have to study religions deeply and even practice them before we can come close to understanding them. We cannot know everything even if we lived for a thousand years.

Learning about different religions - the only way to truly learn is to travel to another country and experience their culture, for religion and culture are closely twined - will greatly expand one's horizons. And one doesnt go to another culture and speak to them challengingly. Or one might if one is small-hearted. But of the 6.7 or how many billion people on the planet. It is really vast. More than one can imagine. People much the same, but we don't really know; we don't know. We can never know fully. We can only know limited ranges. And the only way to be sane is to always acknowledge that no matter how broad we go, we are still in a limited range.

But to say that people of religion need to be corrected, that is so very wrong.

And I would say that perhaps 95 out of 100 people I know who are religious, believe very similarly to me, regardless of what religion. I can understand them if I learn about them without prejudice. And I know that we are all part of One Reality, we just view Its Truth differently. But if you look at - and I mean this!!! - if you look at mystics from religions of different times and different cultures - mystics who have attained higher understandings - you will see that they are all so similar! Anyway, I know you have heard this before. But, they speak of One Truth, generally. They all do. They say that we are part of reality but we are missing out on it. We're missing out on the highest knowledge.

Buddhism is not about "turning one's wheels." I don't even know what that means. Buddhism is about understanding the nature of one's mind. In fact Buddhism is quite simply about understanding reality, and oneself. Buddhism teaches that we are not our ego, we are not a limited, fixed-in-form, ego, but we are part of a boundless ocean. That is all I will say about it now.

[Scheherazade]

Final Reminder:



Please do not discuss each other but the topic at hand.

Further personal comments will be deleted and/or might lead to thread closure.

Those who would like to deal with "personal" issues can do so via PMs.

[NikolaiI]

I think a lot of the issue here is creating a problem which doesn't exist. There is not a problem with discussion religion, just as there should not be a problem discussing with people, but we fall into a negative habit of insulting them, and this itself is another instance of creating a problem where it doesn't exist! Why do we insult people? Because we have insight into their - unattractive(??) - inner character? We do not know them - their life, or their heart! So yes, let us stop creating problems needlessly :) both with each other... well I guess only with each other.

Because someone speaks of faith and God does not mean they are short-sighted. In fact it does not mean this at all. Just as well as when someone states they are an atheist, this does not mean that they are short-sighted. I have been both, and I "See the truth" of this! :D:D;)

Can't we revert to simply saying "I agree, or I disagree, adn these are my reasons why? Why must we say "I disagre, and also,I think your'e rotten."

Plz, ppl! :) Find the way to not do this anymore, because it can give you a headache. ;) Thank you for listening to my rant...

Oh and of course, I am a universal humanist: People are good whereever you go. :)

[Mathor]

I think a lot of the issue here is creating a problem which doesn't exist. There is not a problem with discussion religion, just as there should not be a problem discussing with people, but we fall into a negative habit of insulting them, and this itself is another instance of creating a problem where it doesn't exist! Why do we insult people? Because we have insight into their - unattractive(??) - inner character? We do not know them - their life, or their heart! So yes, let us stop creating problems needlessly :) both with each other... well I guess only with each other.

Because someone speaks of faith and God does not mean they are short-sighted. In fact it does not mean this at all. Just as well as when someone states they are an atheist, this does not mean that they are short-sighted. I have been both, and I "See the truth" of this! :D:D;)

Can't we revert to simply saying "I agree, or I disagree, adn these are my reasons why? Why must we say "I disagre, and also,I think your'e rotten."

Plz, ppl! :) Find the way to not do this anymore, because it can give you a headache. ;) Thank you for listening to my rant...

Oh and of course, I am a universal humanist: People are good whereever you go. :)

that is how i feel as well, but if it gets negative who knows. people are prone to such hateful comments on these boards sometimes. I don't think people can just accept the fact that they disagree.

[mono]

Please, please, let us not get such a well-thought thread closed. The purpose of the 'Religious Texts' area of the forum seems to discuss religious texts, but this involves the key word: 'discussion.' In a locked thread, we cannot discuss, thus ruining the purpose of this forum.

The way I see it, as long as there are believers and unbelievers, a debate about the universe can never be "respectful". Why then, should we bother in these boards? Why can't we just talk about the texts, and not worry about whether God is good or not. Quite frankly, I blame 2 types of people. The Religious preachers who use these boards for their own propaganda to promote their God(s) and religions, or say how good their God(s) or religions are, and the Atheists, who try and convert people to their own cause. And in the middle of this, there is very little text, absolutely no text generally - just a bunch of obnoxious zealots preaching their pseudo-intellectual rubbish - and yes, you know who you are. All these idiotic claims about how evil God is, or how Good and generous God is, have nothing to do with the forum's purpose, to discuss literature. As such, I see no point in allowing these threads, and consider it a double standard, considering one is not allowed to discuss contemporary politics on these boards, yet somehow the Religious and I guess nonreligious can discuss contemporary religion.

The different religions are all valuable. We only reject this if perhaps we have neglected to look at them, or if we have looked but not practised, or if we have practiced but not gained spiritual advancement. The work of all religions is to purify one's mind and strengthen one's good works, as well as enlarging or broadening one's consciousness. There are two steps to increasing the scope of our consciousness; one is gradation and the other is revelation. They are not independent or separate from each other, and both are needed.

All these religions have value but we cannot become enlightened instantaneously, nor should we try. There can be damage done if we follow something we do not know to be true.
I could not have said it better myself. Well said, brothers. :)

If two areas of literature seek and reflect objectivism most, one could safely think of philosophy and religion. Discussing religion and philosophy requires an open mind, thus striving for objectivism; the problem seems that many minds here make free discussion difficult by unmalleable, impossible-to-sway areas of thought - many may call this extremism, mindless faith, or stubbornness. Amid these difficult individuals, however, many others can learn the most, since they type like biased dictionaries and encyclopedias, and, all sarcasm aside, one can also obtain a self-lesson in behavioral psychology.
The goal of discussing religion and philosophy does not always have to involve which belief system has superiority over another, yet putting aside all consideration that one individual's religious beliefs will always seem superior over another's beliefs, even amid two people of the same religion, and this can create a lot of tension, as we have seen in many threads here. Personally, I have always felt of the opinion that an individual who gets emotionally offended at hearing another's beliefs disagreeing with his/hers has an obvious insecurity, and, instead of defending his/her beliefs by logic, personally attacks the other, thus making a mockery not only of him/herself, but what s/he represents, his/her religious beliefs. Plato would likely call them artisans of thought, rather than philosophers, in relation to his tripartite soul, in The Republic. Would any of us like to make a poor example of his/her belief system?
As posted in another thread, even in everyday speech, I avoid at all costs discussing my own beliefs, including with those I feel very comfortable with, claming the absurdity in speaking of such subjects. We all have such a strong fixation in our ideas that even the most free and open of minds could not possibly relate with another's; even two people discussing the same text, The Bible, for example, will interpret it in two separate ways - if they see it in the same ways, we call them sheep (no pun intended). Instead, I speak of texts, thinkers, philosophers, and quoted beliefs, perhaps my interpretation of them, at most. Consideration of another's ideas seems ideal, but this castle in the sky seems rare.

[jhonerliz]

ohhh.... I'm sorry. I didn't intent that there will be debate with my question I started...

It's ok if the mods delete this thread...

I live here in the Philippines. Most of us Filipinos are Christians, others are Muslims. We believe in God, we believe in Jesus Christ.

But our school is a private non-sectarian one and we are accepting foreign students. So I have Korean students and one of them is an atheist.

Then we had a topic about abortion and euthanasia. And I asked my students if they are in favor of these two.

Most of them of course do not agree with abortion and euthanasia because they are big sins to God. But my Korean student who are an atheist opposed them and really fought for what he thinks. But he was alone in that debate. And his classmates won.

I know it turned him to a big depression because nobody wanted to listen to his side. Even his other classmates wondered with what he believes because it was their first time to encounter an atheist.

With that encounter, I promise to myself not to discuss God or religion if I know that somebody will be offended or hurt.

I read the replies and my question already answered. And thanks guys for answering my question.

[Drkshadow03]

If two areas of literature seek and reflect objectivism most, one could safely think of philosophy and religion. Discussing religion and philosophy requires an open mind, thus striving for objectivism; the problem seems that many minds here make free discussion difficult by unmalleable, impossible-to-sway areas of thought - many may call this extremism, mindless faith, or stubbornness. Amid these difficult individuals, however, many others can learn the most, since they type like biased dictionaries and encyclopedias, and, all sarcasm aside, one can also obtain a self-lesson in behavioral psychology.
The goal of discussing religion and philosophy does not always have to involve which belief system has superiority over another, yet putting aside all consideration that one individual's religious beliefs will always seem superior over another's beliefs, even amid two people of the same religion, and this can create a lot of tension, as we have seen in many threads here. Personally, I have always felt of the opinion that an individual who gets emotionally offended at hearing another's beliefs disagreeing with his/hers has an obvious insecurity, and, instead of defending his/her beliefs by logic, personally attacks the other, thus making a mockery not only of him/herself, but what s/he represents, his/her religious beliefs. Plato would likely call them artisans of thought, rather than philosophers, in relation to his tripartite soul, in The Republic. Would any of us like to make a poor example of his/her belief system?
As posted in another thread, even in everyday speech, I avoid at all costs discussing my own beliefs, including with those I feel very comfortable with, claming the absurdity in speaking of such subjects. We all have such a strong fixation in our ideas that even the most free and open of minds could not possibly relate with another's; even two people discussing the same text, The Bible, for example, will interpret it in two separate ways - if they see it in the same ways, we call them sheep (no pun intended). Instead, I speak of texts, thinkers, philosophers, and quoted beliefs, perhaps my interpretation of them, at most. Consideration of another's ideas seems ideal, but this castle in the sky seems rare.

However, one thing you fail to mention is that the atheists which frequent this board are often some of the worst offenders (weak defense of their arguments, not really interested in an actual discussion, emotional responses, personal attacks, etc.).

Putting aside, the "we should be reading texts, and not debating theology" line of thinking. The real problem of why the two "sides" go at each other in such way is one of fundamental frameworks. You don't go onto a feminist blog, for example, with the premise that "feminism is a bad idea," and "We don't need feminism anymore." It won't get you anywhere because you're not engaging in the discussion at hand, but questioning the whole premise of the blog in the first place. You can, however, go onto such a blog usually and debate particular issues, even disagreeing with those specific issues. Because fine points you can debate, but fundamental frameworks, world-views, basic core beliefs about the world, and first principles not so much. I won't say its entirely impossible to shift someone's basic core beliefs, but it is extremely hard.

If you're already starting from a framework that religion should be eliminated from human society, while the other person is starting from the framework that religion is a huge part of their life and worldview, then there really isn't much fruitful debate for either side to be had because you're already calling into question the entire framework of the other person. It will always turn into hard-liners screaming at each other, considering the other side moronic. Both would be wiser to just leave each other alone.

Mono, I also don't understand why you would automatically assume two people who had similar or even exact interpretations of the Bible are sheep. If I came to a similar or exact interpretation of The Great Gatsby as someone else, I doubt anyone would bother calling me a sheep. It is perfectly possible and reasonable for people to come to similar conclusions about a philosophy, an idea, a poem, a religion, a novel, whatever. In fact, I would argue you read secondary works either:

1) to learn what other people think as a way of learning something new about a text, which you didn't already know.

2) to learn what other people think to see if they agree with your own assessment and interpretation. In other words, to confirm what you already think you know.

3) to learn what other people who disagree with your interpretation and see if they can raise good reasons for disagreeing with that interpretation. To challenge what you already think you know.

[JBI]

We have to study religions deeply and even practice them before we can come close to understanding them. We cannot know everything even if we lived for a thousand years.

Learning about different religions - the only way to truly learn is to travel to another country and experience their culture, for religion and culture are closely twined - will greatly expand one's horizons. And one doesnt go to another culture and speak to them challengingly. Or one might if one is small-hearted. But of the 6.7 or how many billion people on the planet. It is really vast. More than one can imagine. People much the same, but we don't really know; we don't know. We can never know fully. We can only know limited ranges. And the only way to be sane is to always acknowledge that no matter how broad we go, we are still in a limited range.

But to say that people of religion need to be corrected, that is so very wrong.

And I would say that perhaps 95 out of 100 people I know who are religious, believe very similarly to me, regardless of what religion. I can understand them if I learn about them without prejudice. And I know that we are all part of One Reality, we just view Its Truth differently. But if you look at - and I mean this!!! - if you look at mystics from religions of different times and different cultures - mystics who have attained higher understandings - you will see that they are all so similar! Anyway, I know you have heard this before. But, they speak of One Truth, generally. They all do. They say that we are part of reality but we are missing out on it. We're missing out on the highest knowledge.

Buddhism is not about "turning one's wheels." I don't even know what that means. Buddhism is about understanding the nature of one's mind. In fact Buddhism is quite simply about understanding reality, and oneself. Buddhism teaches that we are not our ego, we are not a limited, fixed-in-form, ego, but we are part of a boundless ocean. That is all I will say about it now.

Those are all valid points, but what do they have to do with literary texts? I'm sure there are thousands of religion forums up, where such discussion is better suited - why then does your "One Truth" need to be posted here, where we discuss literature, not "One Truth"s.

I never said discussing religion was bad. On the contrary. I just said it has nothing to do with literary texts, and therefore detracts, and insults, rather than sticks to the topic at hand. Why don't we discuss contemporary court cases here, or contemporary issues? Why don't we create threads supporting political discourses? Because it's a literature board. These are all important things, but they go against the point of the forum, to discuss literature.

Keep in mind, I don't belief in your "One Truth". In truth, I don't believe in any absolute truth. So what does this all mean to me? It means that you perhaps are putting forward a One Truth, instead of discussing literature, which in itself has nothing to do with the point of these boards.

Did you mention scripture once there? Did you talk about any texts in your post? You talked about what people believe, and the importance of religion, but did you talk about the Bible as a text at all? What then does that have to do with religious texts? Nothing. It only concerns religion, and ultimately only really concerns the religious.

Essentially all you did was say I am missing out on the highest knowledge, I.E. I am ignorant, because I don't believe, like 95/100 of the people you know. Thanks for that - perhaps I am missing out, but what does sharing that "highest knowledge" have to do with literature? I didn't come here to be baptized. I came here to discuss texts.

[optimisticnad]

I don't think anyone here knows what faith I am, if I am at all and I've been here for more than two years. (Except maybe Niamh and Nighshade, who are friends with me on Facebook). I avoid discussions on religion like a plague here and pass over such threads. Why? Because past experience has taught me not to bother. Like people before me have said, it doesn't stay peaceful. No matter how open minded you are there is always someone much tighter minded and dogmatic enough to make up what you lack. There are always those who are quick to misinterpret you intentionally to serve their own purposes.

This is a literature forum, therefore let's stick to literature. We don't know each other well enough to talk religion and politics and frankly we lack the knowledge. Have you heard the plane joke? A man and a little girl on a plane, man turns to her and asks 'let's talk.' She says 'ok, what would you like to talk about?' He replies 'I don't know, how about nuclear power?' Little girl replies 'Interesting topic, but let me ask you a question. A horse, cow and deer all eat grass. Yet deer excretes pallets, cow flat patty and horse clumps, WHY?' The stranger looks at her baffled, 'I have no idea!' The little girl looks at him triumphantly 'Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power issues when you don't know ****?' :lol:

[NikolaiI]

Those are all valid points, but what do they have to do with literary texts? I'm sure there are thousands of religion forums up, where such discussion is better suited - why then does your "One Truth" need to be posted here, where we discuss literature, not "One Truth"s.

I never said discussing religion was bad. On the contrary. I just said it has nothing to do with literary texts, and therefore detracts, and insults, rather than sticks to the topic at hand. Why don't we discuss contemporary court cases here, or contemporary issues? Why don't we create threads supporting political discourses? Because it's a literature board. These are all important things, but they go against the point of the forum, to discuss literature.

Keep in mind, I don't belief in your "One Truth". In truth, I don't believe in any absolute truth. So what does this all mean to me? It means that you perhaps are putting forward a One Truth, instead of discussing literature, which in itself has nothing to do with the point of these boards.

Did you mention scripture once there? Did you talk about any texts in your post? You talked about what people believe, and the importance of religion, but did you talk about the Bible as a text at all? What then does that have to do with religious texts? Nothing. It only concerns religion, and ultimately only really concerns the religious.

Essentially all you did was say I am missing out on the highest knowledge, I.E. I am ignorant, because I don't believe, like 95/100 of the people you know. Thanks for that - perhaps I am missing out, but what does sharing that "highest knowledge" have to do with literature? I didn't come here to be baptized. I came here to discuss texts.

What I meant to say, is not that 95/100 are believers, and I don't thinik I did, rather - 95/100 people in my experience who are believers, are not the way you depicted them, basically, they are not fundamentalist. In other words, they are not saying, My way is the only way, but rather they look to people around the world from other cultures and religions as if they have something to learn from them, which they do.

The reason I didn't write about any religious texts is because this thread is addressing the question of discussing texts vs. discussing religion.

As I said, I think you are creating a problem which doesn't exist. But then in my defense I don't think that atheists and theists cannot discuss. I used to be an atheist, and now I am a theist, I know both side fairly well. I simply think it's absurd to say "This - this discussion - cannot be done! Why? Well, it just can't - end of discussion!" I always see limitations like that arbitrarily set and only limiting in and of themselves.

So I did not write about religious texts in my last post. Nor in this post. But I do agree that religious texts should be discussed. I am all for it. I do a lot of that on this forum.

You don't have the same views as I do. And I woulnd't want to be the same as you, or anyone else. I only want to be myself and live and learn. I would be most ignorant if I became close-minded, though, if I thought others were ignorant and had nothing to teach me. Yet I am eternally interested in these spiritual matters, and I've been richly rewarded in my life for my efforts.

There are very many reasons why it is correct to be allowed to discuss religion. One is that we are part of religion. We are people and the people who wrote the texts were also people. Now, what is religion - that means different things to different people. To me it doesn't mean Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist; religion means reestablishing our connection to God. God also means different things to everyone. Naturally I believe in God and yet equally vital to my faith are things such as the Heart of Perfect Wisdom Sutra, the Tao Te Ching, and innumerable others...

What you are asking makes no sense. The Buddha said this about religious teaching. He said, understand the teaching is like a finger pointing at the moon. The hand is not the moon, it is not enlightenment, so do not take it to be enlightenment, it is merely pointing the direction of the moon. For instance if we discussed the Heart Sutra, then we would discuss all those thing which are in it... in other words, discussing a religious text is not different from discussing the subjects in that text; which range from anything to everything, including ideas such as Truth, the Soul, God, Reality, Mind, etc. So it makes no sense to say we cannot discuss the subjects of religious texts, but only the...er, the words themselves? Especially when the words are nothing compared to the reality they are, clumsily, trying to describe.




The texts don't exist in a vacuum. You mentioned Bhagavad-Gita for instance. There are five main topics in Bhagavad-Gita: time, karma, the living entity (jivas), nature (prakriti), and God (paramesvara). So these are not separate from the text. The subjects of the text are completely fair game for discussion. Same thing with Buddhism, the subects of Buddhism are karma, the mind, reality, non-duality, things like this. They are fair game. There's a Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh who collaborated with Trappist monk Thomas Merton, trying to understand the similarities between the two religions. This is I think the best way to learn and to broaden our knowledge.

[JBI]

You keep deliberately missing my point. My point isn't that people cannot discuss things. It is that discussing such things has nothing to do with literary texts. LITERARY TEXTS not RELIGION, not ONE TRUTHS, LITERARY TEXTS, and until you can say how you discussing the texts by discussing religions outside of the texts, and personal beliefs, then I cannot possibly see how such posts could ever be considered On Topic, I.E., pertaining to the discussion of literary texts, and literature in general.


I have said before, which it seems people are ignoring, that discussing religion is important. I agree, but there is a place for everything. A Forum called the Literature Network, one would think, would discuss Literature, not religion, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the wannabe on-line pastors have it right, and Literature Network is synonymous with church gathering.

[NikolaiI]

You keep deliberately missing my point. My point isn't that people cannot discuss things. It is that discussing such things has nothing to do with literary texts. LITERARY TEXTS not RELIGION, not ONE TRUTHS, LITERARY TEXTS, and until you can say how you discussing the texts by discussing religions outside of the texts, and personal beliefs, then I cannot possibly see how such posts could ever be considered On Topic, I.E., pertaining to the discussion of literary texts, and literature in general.


I have said before, which it seems people are ignoring, that discussing religion is important. I agree, but there is a place for everything. A Forum called the Literature Network, one would think, would discuss Literature, not religion, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the wannabe on-line pastors have it right, and Literature Network is synonymous with church gathering.

If are discussing - the literature - of a story by Dostoevsky, it is fair to discuss the ideas within that story, the ideas Dostoevsky puts forth, even whta his characters put forth. Does that make sense? It's as simple as that.

The same is true with religious texts, JBI.

I am not missing your point, I disagree with it. If the subject of a religious text is karma, then karma may be discussed. If the subject is consciousness, then consciousness may be discusssed. If the subject is time, then time may be discussed. Etc. I think you maybe deliberately missing my point.

These subjects I mentioned are, predominately, the subjects of religious texts. (Such as in Buddhism, where the goal is Awakening and freedom illusion. So within the group of Buddhist texts, ALL those things may be discussed, alongside the text which brings them up.)

[Redzeppelin]

Ultimately, I just don't get the problem. Way more than simply literature is discussed here. In my original post (which was largely ignored) I pointed out that some of the most popular threads here are the "games" threads and the "General Chat" threads - which have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with literature WHATSOEVER. I don't see much of a movement to get rid of those. "Lit Net" may well be a site primarily based upon the discussion of literature - but why ban the discussion of ideas, philosophies, and areas of knowledge (such as philosophy and religion) that have played a large part in shaping literature? If you wish to be a "purist," then argue thusly; then, out goes General Chat, Lesson Plans, and Teaching, as well as the threads that deal with users posting their own creative work.

Why is it that such offense is taken about these types of discussion - except that they appear to violate the "letter of the law" that some users seem to believe the name of the site establishes? Nobody has to listen/read these religious discussions. I don't see very many believers around who are demanding likewise that discussions about atheism are offensive and violate the supposed "intent" of the site.

Where thoughtful people gather, discussions will develop. I think I'd agree more with JBI if we had threads on cooking recipes, home improvment tips and gardening advice. Those would clearly be out of place here - but discussions on philosophy and religious ideas (which come from the texts, by the way) are connected to literature in a defensible way.

[JBI]

Here's the point though, if religion and philosophy have shaped literature, why not discuss why, and how they have shaped literature, and not concern one's self with their "truth" or their preaching? I admit, religion has played a role on literature, but I don't see that as justification to promote a religion within a literature discussion. Feel free to discuss how religion has shaped literature. Feel free to discuss how the texts mean, and ultimately what the texts mean, but do not forget, it is the texts, not the religion, which should be discussed.

Whether someone believes in God or not is irrelevant to the discussion of texts. Ultimately, that sort of discussion, or the attempt to sway people to believe one way or another, have no real point in a literary discussion.

[Nightshade]

I don't think anyone here knows what faith I am, if I am at all and I've been here for more than two years. (Except maybe Niamh and Nighshade, who are friends with me on Facebook).
Actually you mentioned something soon after you joined and I at least twigged and remembered but ll things concidered I may well be the only one.

Now everyone else, flippant as the comment may seem breathe, no one here is attacking anyone else, and really you do seem to be arguing the same point sort of but from different angles. To clarify. The main line of argument seems to point to the conclusion, that I might add has been discussed and reached before, which is that the most effective way of discussion a religious text, would be to step away from ones personal beliefs and believed Truths ( whatever these maybe if you want to take either side of the argument on religion it still falls under a believed Truth under my working definition of the term, just so you follow :D) while accepting that more likely than just a religious text to influence literature but the whole culture the context the religion surrounding the text is also crucial to understanding both it and anything which may have in turn influenced.

Now everyone once more breathe and have a nice week! :D

[NikolaiI]

I don't think anyone here knows what faith I am, if I am at all and I've been here for more than two years. (Except maybe Niamh and Nighshade, who are friends with me on Facebook).


Actually you mentioned something soon after you joined and I at least twigged and remembered but ll things concidered I may well be the only one.

I don't really know you well, yet, Opti, but I am fairly sure I also know.. of course I have no idea how religious you are. Anyway :) you are correct, it's not important.

[Mathor]

Actually you mentioned something soon after you joined and I at least twigged and remembered but ll things concidered I may well be the only one.

Now everyone else, flippant as the comment may seem breathe, no one here is attacking anyone else, and really you do seem to be arguing the same point sort of but from different angles. To clarify. The main line of argument seems to point to the conclusion, that I might add has been discussed and reached before, which is that the most effective way of discussion a religious text, would be to step away from ones personal beliefs and believed Truths ( whatever these maybe if you want to take either side of the argument on religion it still falls under a believed Truth under my working definition of the term, just so you follow :D) while accepting that more likely than just a religious text to influence literature but the whole culture the context the religion surrounding the text is also crucial to understanding both it and anything which may have in turn influenced.

Now everyone once more breathe and have a nice week! :D

this is probably the best answer ive heard so far. Basically, to some people it's really important we talk about religion, some people hate it, but like why is it such a huge problem.

Who cares, 'sall in good fun.

and the people who don't like the threads should make their own threads that are soley on literature and just not read the dumb threads like these ones?

[Redzeppelin]

Here's the point though, if religion and philosophy have shaped literature, why not discuss why, and how they have shaped literature, and not concern one's self with their "truth" or their preaching? I admit, religion has played a role on literature, but I don't see that as justification to promote a religion within a literature discussion. Feel free to discuss how religion has shaped literature. Feel free to discuss how the texts mean, and ultimately what the texts mean, but do not forget, it is the texts, not the religion, which should be discussed.

Whether someone believes in God or not is irrelevant to the discussion of texts. Ultimately, that sort of discussion, or the attempt to sway people to believe one way or another, have no real point in a literary discussion.

I'll agree and say that people shouldn't be "promoting" their religion - but let's be clear on what that means. That's why I've been asking for a sample of what you call "promoting" or "preaching." Without a sample, I'm going to assume that you simply don't like it when people talk about their beliefs and how they work - which isn't the same as preaching. However, if you could give me an example, I might surprise you and say "Yes - that shouldn't be happening here."

However: if people are discussing a biblical text (say Job) and attacking the portrayal of God as they see it, it is perfectly within the scope of discussion to challenge that opinion by providing the larger context that I as a believer will have in matters pertaining to the Bible and God. That's fair game and it's not "preaching."

[blazeofglory]

I'll agree and say that people shouldn't be "promoting" their religion - but let's be clear on what that means. That's why I've been asking for a sample of what you call "promoting" or "preaching." Without a sample, I'm going to assume that you simply don't like it when people talk about their beliefs and how they work - which isn't the same as preaching. However, if you could give me an example, I might surprise you and say "Yes - that shouldn't be happening here."

However: if people are discussing a biblical text (say Job) and attacking the portrayal of God as they see it, it is perfectly within the scope of discussion to challenge that opinion by providing the larger context that I as a believer will have in matters pertaining to the Bible and God. That's fair game and it's not "preaching."
In point of fact promoting a religion is really not good, and it may trespass others' domains. Let us respect others' belief as it is not good to criticize others' religions as some of the Christian missionaries.

[afountain]

Why are the nunbers 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 40 so prominent in the bible

[mono]

However, one thing you fail to mention is that the atheists which frequent this board are often some of the worst offenders (weak defense of their arguments, not really interested in an actual discussion, emotional responses, personal attacks, etc.).
Upon a second read of my post, indeed, I failed to mention the unbelievers of religion, who can also create all sorts of trouble. I think it would seem safe to say that, not on the forum, but in life away from the computer, most atheists and agnostics seem rather in question of their beliefs rather than actual atheists and agnostics to their full definitions ('full definitions' sounds a bit silly, but bear with me :D). Not that this defines every un/converted individual, I have encountered many people who went from calling themselves a believer to an unbeliever (or vice-versa), because they 'found God' or 'gave up,' as a few examples of common phrases. There seems nothing wrong with this, but it makes you wonder how fragile their former or current beliefs seem; again this does not refer to all un/converted people, but I have no doubt we have all encountered the confused teenager raised as a Mormon who, once s/he turned 16, ended up an atheist after discovering heavy metal music and black make-up, yet who has never heard of Nietzsche or LaVey.


Mono, I also don't understand why you would automatically assume two people who had similar or even exact interpretations of the Bible are sheep. If I came to a similar or exact interpretation of The Great Gatsby as someone else, I doubt anyone would bother calling me a sheep. It is perfectly possible and reasonable for people to come to similar conclusions about a philosophy, an idea, a poem, a religion, a novel, whatever. In fact, I would argue you read secondary works either:

1) to learn what other people think as a way of learning something new about a text, which you didn't already know.

2) to learn what other people think to see if they agree with your own assessment and interpretation. In other words, to confirm what you already think you know.

3) to learn what other people who disagree with your interpretation and see if they can raise good reasons for disagreeing with that interpretation. To challenge what you already think you know.
I hold strong to this, admittedly, extreme opinion. An individual who calls him/herself a Christian, Buddhist, or atheist should carry his/her beliefs as that, but s/he should also remain cognizant of his/her own innate beliefs; for example, I once met a non-denominational Christian who believed in reincarnation.
The believers who attend a religious meeting and accept the words of the preferred religious text and the preachers' interpretations word-for-word, without questions or comments, I call sheep who likely have the capability of thought, but refuse to use it. I feel like the last person who should tell others how to live or think, but if they feel to live that way, by all means, live away, yet they appear more to me products of ridicule than actual believers.
I avoid secondary texts like the plague, and have read few.

Ultimately, I just don't get the problem. Way more than simply literature is discussed here. In my original post (which was largely ignored) I pointed out that some of the most popular threads here are the "games" threads and the "General Chat" threads - which have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with literature WHATSOEVER. I don't see much of a movement to get rid of those. "Lit Net" may well be a site primarily based upon the discussion of literature - but why ban the discussion of ideas, philosophies, and areas of knowledge (such as philosophy and religion) that have played a large part in shaping literature? If you wish to be a "purist," then argue thusly; then, out goes General Chat, Lesson Plans, and Teaching, as well as the threads that deal with users posting their own creative work.

Why is it that such offense is taken about these types of discussion - except that they appear to violate the "letter of the law" that some users seem to believe the name of the site establishes? Nobody has to listen/read these religious discussions. I don't see very many believers around who are demanding likewise that discussions about atheism are offensive and violate the supposed "intent" of the site.

Where thoughtful people gather, discussions will develop. I think I'd agree more with JBI if we had threads on cooking recipes, home improvment tips and gardening advice. Those would clearly be out of place here - but discussions on philosophy and religious ideas (which come from the texts, by the way) are connected to literature in a defensible way.
Point taken, Redzeppelin. I would like to call this entire forum and its subsidaries one long conversation of literature and its various sects; we have many genres of literature worth speaking of, and this includes religious texts. Every conversation, even amid two highly educated, intelligent individuals, however, has its playtime, where we have our General Chat and Games, which contains very few references to literature.

[afountain]

Why are the numbers 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 40 so promintent in the bible

[JBI]

Why are the numbers 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 40 so promintent in the bible

Why do you repeat your posts?

Which half of the Bible, first of all, and second of all, because you said so?

13 is a central number according to the Jewish reading, and despite Christian fear of the number, is regarded is a lucky number by Jews (it is, I would like to add, the age of Bar Mitzvah). there are 4 matriarchs, and four angels who visit Abraham, and four of many other things, why didn't you include those? If you want to study numerology, why stop there? In Hebrew, words have actual numerical values - why not go into that? In truth, there has been countless work written by Rabbinic scholars on numerology in the Bible, going back to the first centuries AD. There's no need to pretend this isn't a discussed topic, and there is no need to repeat your post as if it is the most brilliant revelation in the world.



Point taken, Redzeppelin. I would like to call this entire forum and its subsidaries one long conversation of literature and its various sects; we have many genres of literature worth speaking of, and this includes religious texts. Every conversation, even amid two highly educated, intelligent individuals, however, has its playtime, where we have our General Chat and Games, which contains very few references to literature.


Yes, so those who feel the need to go off the topic of literature, can do so on a subforum not dedicated to literature. How does that justify trying to convert people on a literary discussion subforum?

[thinkingsam]

Thought I'd chime in!

I think people tend to have pretty strong views about religion, which is what makes this area of the boards seem a little... edgy. I'm one of the victims of strong criticism of arguments myself, which is why I stopped posting here some time ago.

But I guess the people who do post here regularly don't mind their views getting criticized, and may even enjoy the debates that take place. To each his own. :)

[blazeofglory]

If one minds being criticized he had better withdraw from posting here.

[Drkshadow03]

Upon a second read of my post, indeed, I failed to mention the unbelievers of religion, who can also create all sorts of trouble. I think it would seem safe to say that, not on the forum, but in life away from the computer, most atheists and agnostics seem rather in question of their beliefs rather than actual atheists and agnostics to their full definitions ('full definitions' sounds a bit silly, but bear with me :D). Not that this defines every un/converted individual, I have encountered many people who went from calling themselves a believer to an unbeliever (or vice-versa), because they 'found God' or 'gave up,' as a few examples of common phrases. There seems nothing wrong with this, but it makes you wonder how fragile their former or current beliefs seem; again this does not refer to all un/converted people, but I have no doubt we have all encountered the confused teenager raised as a Mormon who, once s/he turned 16, ended up an atheist after discovering heavy metal music and black make-up, yet who has never heard of Nietzsche or LaVey.

Hmm, I don't know. I personally would be suspicious of someone who never questions their own belief system, whatever that system might be. I think questioning faith is a good thing, and a normal part of having faith. Emily Dickinson does this a lot in her poetry.

Heh. You have a lot of Mormons around you?



I hold strong to this, admittedly, extreme opinion. An individual who calls him/herself a Christian, Buddhist, or atheist should carry his/her beliefs as that, but s/he should also remain cognizant of his/her own innate beliefs; for example, I once met a non-denominational Christian who believed in reincarnation.
The believers who attend a religious meeting and accept the words of the preferred religious text and the preachers' interpretations word-for-word, without questions or comments, I call sheep who likely have the capability of thought, but refuse to use it. I feel like the last person who should tell others how to live or think, but if they feel to live that way, by all means, live away, yet they appear more to me products of ridicule than actual believers.
I avoid secondary texts like the plague, and have read few.

Like I said, I think interpretations are there to give you "educated" opinions, context, and a starting point. You're not bound by anyone's interpretation, but they are useful nonetheless.

[Lynne Fees]

Ah, but religion is often mentioned in the great literary works. How can we avoid talking about it? Why does it hurt if people share their own religious experiences? It might expand all of our minds a bit, as long as we are not harping or criticizing one another.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, so those who feel the need to go off the topic of literature, can do so on a subforum not dedicated to literature. How does that justify trying to convert people on a literary discussion subforum?

Provide evidence for you claim, counsel.

Prove an attempt to "convert." If it's here, there are words/statements to substantiate your claim.

(You may wish to be sure of the definition of the word "convert" before you go searching for proof.)

[JBI]

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40649
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42250
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42102

[Redzeppelin]

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40649
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42250
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42102

If these were meant for me: please, could you be a bit more exact? I don't know about your life, but I have more things to do than sort through an entire strand and GUESS at what you interpreted as an attempt to "convert." The burden of proof is on you, and I'd prefer you don't just lay a stack of evidence on my desk and say "find it yourself."

If you are correct, you should be able to quote specific sections of posts made by Christians that suggest that they are attempting "to cause [another]to adopt a different religion" (from dictionary.com). If it's there - you should be able to show it to me. If I intended to prove such an assertion, I wouldn't leave the evidence sorting to my opponent. S/he might tweak the evidence to serve his/her own purposes, or worse, intentionally pick the wrong evidence and straw man away.

Since you've narrowed down the threads, please be so kind to quote the offending posts (in context, please) and then you and I can have a real discussion.

[JBI]

Look at the title of the threads, and their first posts. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[Bookthief]

There is no such thing as religion--only faith.

[JBI]

There is no such thing as religion--only faith.

There's no such think as language, only speakers.

[Bookthief]

There's no such think as language, only speakers.

Exactly

[JBI]

Exactly

There's no such thing as an ocean, only droplets. You miss my point.

[Bookthief]

There's no such thing as an ocean, only droplets. You miss my point.

Satire--gotta love it;)

[Scheherazade]

Please carry on with your personal exchanges in your PMs.