Yes. 41 to 60 (45)

Same age as Hambone and had no idea. But then again, I was pretty much raised Agnostic and never have read much biblical passages at all. I might have had a fighting chance if it was a quote from a movie of note (not a religious one though).

I did know right away that curiosity was misspelled - does that count for anything besides being anal?

I asked the question because there are several Biblical allusions that are at least not rare in everyday use, although I imagine they are less common now than they might have been one day. Those include:

a. references to the parable of the Good Samaritan
b. the phrase "going the extra mile"
c. the rejoinder regarding "seeing the handwriting on the wall"

and even more common doctrinal injunctions (e.g., 'turning the other cheek').

I wonder sometimes whether the general public knows where the references come from.

Sunday School in many churches is not taught at the same level or the same 'thoroughness' as it was when I was young (I imagine there are still churches where kids get pretty good coverage). My experience with non-denominational churches (which have grown significantly in the past 30 years) doesn't lend itself to teaching at a reasonable level of apologetics (I'll defer to others who might have a better view here). The denominational church I attend has fewer folks that could teach at a level that might have occurred several generations ago, and the kids themselves seem to have shorter attention spans, and we resort to using 'modern' methods that don't necessarily focus on reading.

People a generation older than I (those who were teenagers prior to the 1960's) tend to have a stronger knowledge/base than most my age (mid-50's), and I think the combination of smaller percentages of people attending church, and even smaller attending Sunday School results in ever decreasing numbers of people who can relate to Biblical allusions.

Regardless of a person's beliefs, or lack thereof, I find it sad that fewer and fewer people are exposed to (1) what Christ taught, or (2) even some of the stories in the New and Old Testaments for their literary value.

The former is sad because I believe that Christianity is often reduced to caricature by the public at large, and the latter is sad because there are many allusions/stories that have literary value and form the basis of some of Western thought.

I grew up in Louisiana (admittedly not at the educational forefront of 1960's America) and recall textbooks that had reading assignments that included Biblical excerpts. The parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind as one I specifically recall reading. Christ's parable about the failure of organized religion to recognize our 'neighbors' and what behaviors are really intended by the two greatest commandments, leads directly into his commandment that we love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. And it certainly can be read and understood on its own without proselytizing

Before I get put in the stocks here, I understand that the role of public schools is separate from that of the church. But we have definitely lost something from our own cultural heritage by removing all basic knowledge, including the most basic understandings of why people would choose to bother to learn what Christ taught for over 2000 years, and that includes literary Biblical allusions that are still peppered throughout our culture.

We have passed 'Good Samaritan' laws over the years, . . . . . . . but I suspect that an ever increasing number of people have little idea as to who the Good Samaritan was, or why the story is timeless and has as much meaning now as it did 2000 years ago, regardless of whether your beliefs include God or not.

My question/poll was unscientific. But I suspect the knowledge of this story (or of the 'handwriting on the wall', or 'going the extra mile') is a direct function of age.

So again, this post is a lamentation, and not an impassioned call to action. To a large degree, the fault lies with the church. But there is a component that also is attributable to those who have great fear of organized religion. Which is incredibly ironic, given all that Christ taught.

I graduated public high school in Louisiana in 1975. One of the reading assignments for my Humanities class my senior year was the Book of Job. When I was in 6th grade, the Gideons gave everyone in my class a copy of the New Testament. I went to church every Sunday morning and evening and most Wednesday evenings. There was strong emphasis on the Bible and Christ's life.

My brother and sister in law are active in one of the prominent Presbyterian churches in town. There's a Bible study class, but they attend the Church and Society Sunday School Class. I attended a class lead by a Rice History Dept. member on the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education. It was interesting, but I kept waiting for him to discuss the Church's role in the case. There have been several lectures on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict but no guidance on what God or the Church wants me to do about it.

I agree we would do well to follow the teachings of Christ. But there is also value in those of Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, The Old Testament and early Church scholars, and humanists, too. I don't think it's just Christianity that gets caricatured or misinterpreted.

My father was a Goldwater Republican and said if the Church did its job, we wouldn't need Social Security.

I think churches - and family members - are less likely to do what is needed now because there is somebody else - the government - to be the safety net.

My mother was orphaned early on in the Great Depression(1931). Family and Church worked together to make sure she was taken care of, fed, clothed, sheltered, and educated. I wonder if a larger number of children like her today would end up "in the system", just because it is easier to say no when you know there is an alternative.

No, and I'm 26

(03-08-2015 09:43 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Regardless of a person's beliefs, or lack thereof, I find it sad that fewer and fewer people are exposed to (1) what Christ taught, or (2) even some of the stories in the New and Old Testaments for their literary value.

The former is sad because I believe that Christianity is often reduced to caricature by the public at large, and the latter is sad because there are many allusions/stories that have literary value and form the basis of some of Western thought.

I grew up in Louisiana (admittedly not at the educational forefront of 1960's America) and recall textbooks that had reading assignments that included Biblical excerpts. The parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind as one I specifically recall reading. Christ's parable about the failure of organized religion to recognize our 'neighbors' and what behaviors are really intended by the two greatest commandments, leads directly into his commandment that we love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. And it certainly can be read and understood on its own without proselytizing

Before I get put in the stocks here, I understand that the role of public schools is separate from that of the church. But we have definitely lost something from our own cultural heritage by removing all basic knowledge, including the most basic understandings of why people would choose to bother to learn what Christ taught for over 2000 years, and that includes literary Biblical allusions that are still peppered throughout our culture.

We have passed 'Good Samaritan' laws over the years, . . . . . . . but I suspect that an ever increasing number of people have little idea as to who the Good Samaritan was, or why the story is timeless and has as much meaning now as it did 2000 years ago, regardless of whether your beliefs include God or not.

My question/poll was unscientific. But I suspect the knowledge of this story (or of the 'handwriting on the wall', or 'going the extra mile') is a direct function of age.

So again, this post is a lamentation, and not an impassioned call to action. To a large degree, the fault lies with the church. But there is a component that also is attributable to those who have great fear of organized religion. Which is incredibly ironic, given all that Christ taught.

What I have noted over the years is the decreasing religious literacy of our society in general. Your example of the knowledge of the origin of the phrase "handwriting on the wall" is a demonstration of this (incidentally, I'm 52 and presently looking at page 314 of my copy of "The Children's Bible" given to my brother and me in 1970 by our long-departed grandmother, containing a story titled "The Writing on the Wall" about Daniel and Belshazzar). This is sad, because a proper understanding of our society and its history requires a knowledge of religious thought. Indeed, such knowledge is required for an understanding of world history and even current events. Without it, people make mistakes in analyses of past and present events (to cite a recent example, President Obama's remark that the brand of Islam proffered by the Islamic State isn't true Islam). Even on this board, populated by persons supposedly intelligent and well-educated, I've seen posts containing basic mistakes in religious doctrines and history, often asserted with great confidence. That's worrisome - no good can come from uninformed analyses of one of the most important factors shaping human history right up to this day.

(03-11-2015 02:55 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(03-08-2015 09:43 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Regardless of a person's beliefs, or lack thereof, I find it sad that fewer and fewer people are exposed to (1) what Christ taught, or (2) even some of the stories in the New and Old Testaments for their literary value.

The former is sad because I believe that Christianity is often reduced to caricature by the public at large, and the latter is sad because there are many allusions/stories that have literary value and form the basis of some of Western thought.

I grew up in Louisiana (admittedly not at the educational forefront of 1960's America) and recall textbooks that had reading assignments that included Biblical excerpts. The parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind as one I specifically recall reading. Christ's parable about the failure of organized religion to recognize our 'neighbors' and what behaviors are really intended by the two greatest commandments, leads directly into his commandment that we love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. And it certainly can be read and understood on its own without proselytizing

Before I get put in the stocks here, I understand that the role of public schools is separate from that of the church. But we have definitely lost something from our own cultural heritage by removing all basic knowledge, including the most basic understandings of why people would choose to bother to learn what Christ taught for over 2000 years, and that includes literary Biblical allusions that are still peppered throughout our culture.

We have passed 'Good Samaritan' laws over the years, . . . . . . . but I suspect that an ever increasing number of people have little idea as to who the Good Samaritan was, or why the story is timeless and has as much meaning now as it did 2000 years ago, regardless of whether your beliefs include God or not.

My question/poll was unscientific. But I suspect the knowledge of this story (or of the 'handwriting on the wall', or 'going the extra mile') is a direct function of age.

So again, this post is a lamentation, and not an impassioned call to action. To a large degree, the fault lies with the church. But there is a component that also is attributable to those who have great fear of organized religion. Which is incredibly ironic, given all that Christ taught.

What I have noted over the years is the decreasing religious literacy of our society in general. Your example of the knowledge of the origin of the phrase "handwriting on the wall" is a demonstration of this (incidentally, I'm 52 and presently looking at page 314 of my copy of "The Children's Bible" given to my brother and me in 1970 by our long-departed grandmother, containing a story titled "The Writing on the Wall" about Daniel and Belshazzar). This is sad, because a proper understanding of our society and its history requires a knowledge of religious thought. Indeed, such knowledge is required for an understanding of world history and even current events. Without it, people make mistakes in analyses of past and present events (to cite a recent example, President Obama's remark that the brand of Islam proffered by the Islamic State isn't true Islam). Even on this board, populated by persons supposedly intelligent and well-educated, I've seen posts containing basic mistakes in religious doctrines and history, often asserted with great confidence. That's worrisome - no good can come from uninformed analyses of one of the most important factors shaping human history right up to this day.

That's interesting. It's my impression that religious literacy has generally been on the rise in US society, mostly as a result of globalization of media but also as a result of pluralist agendas in public school curricula. For example, I would be surprised if anyone thought that the average 30-year-old in, say, the 1960s had anywhere near the understanding of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism that the average 30-year-old does today.

I think that might also extend to things like classic Greek and Roman mythology and other dead religions, but I could easily be wrong on that (it's my guess that my world history and literature curricula put greater focus on those things than was there for someone 50 years my senior, but I don't know.)

(03-11-2015 03:45 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 02:55 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(03-08-2015 09:43 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Regardless of a person's beliefs, or lack thereof, I find it sad that fewer and fewer people are exposed to (1) what Christ taught, or (2) even some of the stories in the New and Old Testaments for their literary value.

The former is sad because I believe that Christianity is often reduced to caricature by the public at large, and the latter is sad because there are many allusions/stories that have literary value and form the basis of some of Western thought.

I grew up in Louisiana (admittedly not at the educational forefront of 1960's America) and recall textbooks that had reading assignments that included Biblical excerpts. The parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind as one I specifically recall reading. Christ's parable about the failure of organized religion to recognize our 'neighbors' and what behaviors are really intended by the two greatest commandments, leads directly into his commandment that we love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. And it certainly can be read and understood on its own without proselytizing

Before I get put in the stocks here, I understand that the role of public schools is separate from that of the church. But we have definitely lost something from our own cultural heritage by removing all basic knowledge, including the most basic understandings of why people would choose to bother to learn what Christ taught for over 2000 years, and that includes literary Biblical allusions that are still peppered throughout our culture.

We have passed 'Good Samaritan' laws over the years, . . . . . . . but I suspect that an ever increasing number of people have little idea as to who the Good Samaritan was, or why the story is timeless and has as much meaning now as it did 2000 years ago, regardless of whether your beliefs include God or not.

My question/poll was unscientific. But I suspect the knowledge of this story (or of the 'handwriting on the wall', or 'going the extra mile') is a direct function of age.

So again, this post is a lamentation, and not an impassioned call to action. To a large degree, the fault lies with the church. But there is a component that also is attributable to those who have great fear of organized religion. Which is incredibly ironic, given all that Christ taught.

What I have noted over the years is the decreasing religious literacy of our society in general. Your example of the knowledge of the origin of the phrase "handwriting on the wall" is a demonstration of this (incidentally, I'm 52 and presently looking at page 314 of my copy of "The Children's Bible" given to my brother and me in 1970 by our long-departed grandmother, containing a story titled "The Writing on the Wall" about Daniel and Belshazzar). This is sad, because a proper understanding of our society and its history requires a knowledge of religious thought. Indeed, such knowledge is required for an understanding of world history and even current events. Without it, people make mistakes in analyses of past and present events (to cite a recent example, President Obama's remark that the brand of Islam proffered by the Islamic State isn't true Islam). Even on this board, populated by persons supposedly intelligent and well-educated, I've seen posts containing basic mistakes in religious doctrines and history, often asserted with great confidence. That's worrisome - no good can come from uninformed analyses of one of the most important factors shaping human history right up to this day.

That's interesting. It's my impression that religious literacy has generally been on the rise in US society, mostly as a result of globalization of media but also as a result of pluralist agendas in public school curricula. For example, I would be surprised if anyone thought that the average 30-year-old in, say, the 1960s had anywhere near the understanding of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism that the average 30-year-old does today.

I think that might also extend to things like classic Greek and Roman mythology and other dead religions, but I could easily be wrong on that (it's my guess that my world history and literature curricula put greater focus on those things than was there for someone 50 years my senior, but I don't know.)

Actually, the pluralist agenda, in as much as it bends to the "politically correct" belief system (whether explicitly stated, or that it all too frequently devolves into) that all religions are equal is responsible to a large degree for religious 'illiteracy'. As a society, the worthy goal of freedom of religion or freedom of belief, has resulted in an increasing number of people who blindly accept that all beliefs have equal worth, and therefore that all religions are equal. I've heard it stated frequently and it's been posted in various forms on the Parliament.

Once you accept that as a truism, there is no need to actually bother to really learn what Buddha, Christ, Confucious or Mohammed taught. And that's where an increasing part of the population really falls.

Beliefs in reincarnation, polytheism, monotheism, atheism, etc, may respectfully be followed by anyone, but they are differing beliefs, and sometimes mutually contradictory.

I used to work with a friend with a different belief structure. We respected each others view point and like each other, but both understood that what we believed was mutually exclusive. Someone in our office said to us, "I think you're both right" and proceeded to tell us that 'all religions are right'. She was shocked when we BOTH responded 'I may be wrong, or Rick may be wrong, but one thing that we both know is that you, logically, are definitely wrong'.

You can be an atheist or agnostic, as Bill Maher seems to be, and come to the correct conclusion that not all belief systems are equal, that not all religions share identical beliefs or have identical worth (which he has been criticized for by the PC on the left).

Everyone has a right to determine the relative worth of ideas and belief systems on their own, and should.

But judging every belief system equal without knowing what the actual beliefs are, what the teachings are of the people who are responsible for the system results in prejudice and caricature.

I agree that exposure to various religions and religious beliefs is good and should be encouraged. That is not an issue. But the 'equal worth/equal outcome' starting point that has become pervasive leads to true religious illiteracy (maybe it is better to say a highly superficial 'literacy' without any depth of understanding?).

I find it interesting when a cult (such as the Mormons), goes to great lengths to change, distance themselves, from fundamental beliefs laid out in their core scriptures or belief system.

A telling complaint leveled by those critical of Christianity is that Christ's followers are too often guilty of hypocrisy, of failing to actually follow what Christ taught. I've heard the apocryphal quote attributed to Gandhi that "he'd have become a Christian if he ever met one". Whether true or not, those who've studied the New Testament and observe mankind could find it believable.

The whole Reformation was a reaction internally to hypocrisy in the church, a deviation from what Christ taught.

(On a personal note, I would rather be criticized for failing to meet the standards set by Christ in the New Testament, than failing to distance myself adequately from written scriptural tenets in other systems.)

Having said that, you can be a devout agnostic (can an agnostic be 'devout'?) or atheist, and still distinguish between the teachings of the originators of the religions. And understand that the various beliefs systems, inasmuch as they do not teach the same things, are not equal.

Accepting that belief systems are not equal is also not the same as believing that all adherents of one religion are 'better' than adherents of another religion. This is obviously not true (i.e., one group of adherents being 'better'), and it's not true for a variety of reasons, some of them deserving discussion points all their own.

(and to Jonathon, I suspect I would find myself 98+% in agreement with the sentiments you expressed, were we to have a detailed discussion. I never count on 100% between any two human beings).

Rick, can you clarify a bit what you mean regarding equal worth? I understand and agree that all religions can't be "correct" in the fact that often they contradict each other in their teachings, but to me that doesn't mean they aren't equal, just not the same. Equality more deals with the same merit, and when dealing with religion, what is there to say that one religion has more or less merit than the other? Are you mainly talking about major religions versus minor? And what would define a religion's worth, such that one had more merit than another?

(03-12-2015 06:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rick, can you clarify a bit what you mean regarding equal worth? I understand and agree that all religions can't be "correct" in the fact that often they contradict each other in their teachings, but to me that doesn't mean they aren't equal, just not the same. Equality more deals with the same merit, and when dealing with religion, what is there to say that one religion has more or less merit than the other? Are you mainly talking about major religions versus minor? And what would define a religion's worth, such that one had more merit than another?

Relative worth is in the eye of the beholder obviously. I wasn't trying to imply that everyone would agree on relative worth values.

But as an example, a religion that advocated human sacrifice would probably be judged as having less 'worth' to society and mankind than a religion the asked adherents to selflessly serve the poor and needy (at least by most people).

The more nuanced you get with comparisons, the more subjective that would be.

Mankind is represented by a wide diversity of intellectual and reasoning capacity. Summarizing or simplifying things to two great commandments that 'contain all the law and all the prophets' reaches pretty much all of that audience.

(03-12-2015 12:26 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 03:45 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 02:55 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(03-08-2015 09:43 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Regardless of a person's beliefs, or lack thereof, I find it sad that fewer and fewer people are exposed to (1) what Christ taught, or (2) even some of the stories in the New and Old Testaments for their literary value.

The former is sad because I believe that Christianity is often reduced to caricature by the public at large, and the latter is sad because there are many allusions/stories that have literary value and form the basis of some of Western thought.

I grew up in Louisiana (admittedly not at the educational forefront of 1960's America) and recall textbooks that had reading assignments that included Biblical excerpts. The parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind as one I specifically recall reading. Christ's parable about the failure of organized religion to recognize our 'neighbors' and what behaviors are really intended by the two greatest commandments, leads directly into his commandment that we love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. And it certainly can be read and understood on its own without proselytizing

Before I get put in the stocks here, I understand that the role of public schools is separate from that of the church. But we have definitely lost something from our own cultural heritage by removing all basic knowledge, including the most basic understandings of why people would choose to bother to learn what Christ taught for over 2000 years, and that includes literary Biblical allusions that are still peppered throughout our culture.

We have passed 'Good Samaritan' laws over the years, . . . . . . . but I suspect that an ever increasing number of people have little idea as to who the Good Samaritan was, or why the story is timeless and has as much meaning now as it did 2000 years ago, regardless of whether your beliefs include God or not.

My question/poll was unscientific. But I suspect the knowledge of this story (or of the 'handwriting on the wall', or 'going the extra mile') is a direct function of age.

So again, this post is a lamentation, and not an impassioned call to action. To a large degree, the fault lies with the church. But there is a component that also is attributable to those who have great fear of organized religion. Which is incredibly ironic, given all that Christ taught.

What I have noted over the years is the decreasing religious literacy of our society in general. Your example of the knowledge of the origin of the phrase "handwriting on the wall" is a demonstration of this (incidentally, I'm 52 and presently looking at page 314 of my copy of "The Children's Bible" given to my brother and me in 1970 by our long-departed grandmother, containing a story titled "The Writing on the Wall" about Daniel and Belshazzar). This is sad, because a proper understanding of our society and its history requires a knowledge of religious thought. Indeed, such knowledge is required for an understanding of world history and even current events. Without it, people make mistakes in analyses of past and present events (to cite a recent example, President Obama's remark that the brand of Islam proffered by the Islamic State isn't true Islam). Even on this board, populated by persons supposedly intelligent and well-educated, I've seen posts containing basic mistakes in religious doctrines and history, often asserted with great confidence. That's worrisome - no good can come from uninformed analyses of one of the most important factors shaping human history right up to this day.

That's interesting. It's my impression that religious literacy has generally been on the rise in US society, mostly as a result of globalization of media but also as a result of pluralist agendas in public school curricula. For example, I would be surprised if anyone thought that the average 30-year-old in, say, the 1960s had anywhere near the understanding of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism that the average 30-year-old does today.

I think that might also extend to things like classic Greek and Roman mythology and other dead religions, but I could easily be wrong on that (it's my guess that my world history and literature curricula put greater focus on those things than was there for someone 50 years my senior, but I don't know.)

Actually, the pluralist agenda, in as much as it bends to the "politically correct" belief system (whether explicitly stated, or that it all too frequently devolves into) that all religions are equal is responsible to a large degree for religious 'illiteracy'. As a society, the worthy goal of freedom of religion or freedom of belief, has resulted in an increasing number of people who blindly accept that all beliefs have equal worth, and therefore that all religions are equal. I've heard it stated frequently and it's been posted in various forms on the Parliament.

Once you accept that as a truism, there is no need to actually bother to really learn what Buddha, Christ, Confucious or Mohammed taught. And that's where an increasing part of the population really falls.

Beliefs in reincarnation, polytheism, monotheism, atheism, etc, may respectfully be followed by anyone, but they are differing beliefs, and sometimes mutually contradictory.

I used to work with a friend with a different belief structure. We respected each others view point and like each other, but both understood that what we believed was mutually exclusive. Someone in our office said to us, "I think you're both right" and proceeded to tell us that 'all religions are right'. She was shocked when we BOTH responded 'I may be wrong, or Rick may be wrong, but one thing that we both know is that you, logically, are definitely wrong'.

You can be an atheist or agnostic, as Bill Maher seems to be, and come to the correct conclusion that not all belief systems are equal, that not all religions share identical beliefs or have identical worth (which he has been criticized for by the PC on the left).

Everyone has a right to determine the relative worth of ideas and belief systems on their own, and should.

But judging every belief system equal without knowing what the actual beliefs are, what the teachings are of the people who are responsible for the system results in prejudice and caricature.

I agree that exposure to various religions and religious beliefs is good and should be encouraged. That is not an issue. But the 'equal worth/equal outcome' starting point that has become pervasive leads to true religious illiteracy (maybe it is better to say a highly superficial 'literacy' without any depth of understanding?).

I find it interesting when a cult (such as the Mormons), goes to great lengths to change, distance themselves, from fundamental beliefs laid out in their core scriptures or belief system.

A telling complaint leveled by those critical of Christianity is that Christ's followers are too often guilty of hypocrisy, of failing to actually follow what Christ taught. I've heard the apocryphal quote attributed to Gandhi that "he'd have become a Christian if he ever met one". Whether true or not, those who've studied the New Testament and observe mankind could find it believable.

The whole Reformation was a reaction internally to hypocrisy in the church, a deviation from what Christ taught.

(On a personal note, I would rather be criticized for failing to meet the standards set by Christ in the New Testament, than failing to distance myself adequately from written scriptural tenets in other systems.)

Having said that, you can be a devout agnostic (can an agnostic be 'devout'?) or atheist, and still distinguish between the teachings of the originators of the religions. And understand that the various beliefs systems, inasmuch as they do not teach the same things, are not equal.

Accepting that belief systems are not equal is also not the same as believing that all adherents of one religion are 'better' than adherents of another religion. This is obviously not true (i.e., one group of adherents being 'better'), and it's not true for a variety of reasons, some of them deserving discussion points all their own.

(and to Jonathon, I suspect I would find myself 98+% in agreement with the sentiments you expressed, were we to have a detailed discussion. I never count on 100% between any two human beings).

Well, I think this discussion would benefit from a definition of "religious literacy". It's not a phrase I know, so I inferred from JS's piece that he meant a broad understanding of the history and doctrine of the major religions. I don't think it has anything to do with such trivia as the origin of common idioms.

And to be clear, while I wholeheartedly believe in the pluralist agenda of understanding different religions as a means of understanding different cultures, I don't think you're all equally correct. I think you're all wrong in fact, with differing levels of crazy in various details. It sounds like you'd agree with me here, on all religions save your own.

Also, I'm interested in your definition of "cult", such that Mormonism fits it.

(03-12-2015 07:39 AM)JOwl Wrote:  [



Well, I think this discussion would benefit from a definition of "religious literacy". It's not a phrase I know, so I inferred from JS's piece that he meant a broad understanding of the history and doctrine of the major religions. I don't think it has anything to do with such trivia as the origin of common idioms.

And to be clear, while I wholeheartedly believe in the pluralist agenda of understanding different religions as a means of understanding different cultures, I don't think you're all equally correct. I think you're all wrong in fact, with differing levels of crazy in various details. It sounds like you'd agree with me here, on all religions save your own.

Also, I'm interested in your definition of "cult", such that Mormonism fits it.

A. The term religiously 'literate' probably isn't meant to have a uniform definition. My understanding of what Jonathon meant, was someone who understood the basic tenants of the belief system and was familiar with commonly taught, or basic, teachings/stories. I learned the story of the handwriting on the wall at grade school age (in a Lutheran church). As a generalization, I think it would be knowledge that someone would've been expected to have been exposed to as a regular to frequent church/Sunday School attender. As I originally noted, both church and Sunday School attendance has dropped since I was young, and attendance then had dropped from the 1950's. I will allow that the Handwriting on the Wall is probably slightly more obscure than 'turning the other cheek', 'going the extra mile', or knowledge of what is meant by being a 'Good Samaritan'.

Yet it was still common enough to have the expression make it into our culture. For obvious reasons, I am more concerned about a generation who isn't conversant at all about the origins of he latter 3 examples.

B. Your position I understand, and while Jonathon and I were lamenting an increase in the number who lacked knowledge of those basic beliefs and teachings, or to a growing number of people who assume all religions are equal, and state it in just those terms, I'm pretty sure that neither he, nor certainly I, assumed that everyone who doesn't adhere to any religious system of belief falls into either of those two camps.

C. If there is a God, there certainly are things that are true about Him (forgive my use of the masculine if it bothers you) or Them (if the truth is that there are multiple Gods). There are also things that are not true. In as much as the true nature/definition of God (assuming He exists, again) is beyond man's finite understanding, I would agree that all of us are not perfectly accurate in our belief (i.e. wrong at some levels). But still, there is either a God, no God or many gods. there is either an afterlife or not. It is either immediate or deferred. There is reincarnation or there is not. So at some point some belief system is closer to the truth than others. I understand where you land on that. My general point was concerning the (I believe) increasingly larger group who simply don't care about the questions, or are willing to remain ignorant enough about the differences to ignore dangerous trends, equate all beliefs as equal, and/or mistakenly equate hypocrisy in one religion, with focus by adherents of other religions on less attractive/dangerous aspects of their religion.

Again, I am focusing on the actual teachings, not necessarily judging the followers of the religions, as the best followers of any religion are generally better than the worst followers of any other religion. That's a function of the individual. I believe Christ may have been addressing that in one of his parables (not talking The Good Samaritan here, but rather something a little more nuanced), but I don't think its common interpretation is quite as broad as I wonder that it may have been intended.

D. Regarding your question on use of the word cult, that word's definitions include (1) a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies and (2) an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers. Thus the word 'cult' can probably be correctly used with regard to any religion or belief system.

However, with regard to the Mormon church, the intent of my use was more closely aligned with this "a religion or sect considered to be *****, unorthodox, or *******, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader"

I have bolded and underlined the key word here. I intentionally took out two words because in one case it would be subjective and unnecessarily inflammatory, and in the other because I do not believe it fairly applies to the Mormon church.

However, inasmuch as the Mormon church includes itself as followers of Christ, I think its fair to note that their belief systems ARE unorthodox as far as other Christian denominations are concerned. Their scientifically repudiated scriptural belief that native Americans are descendants of one of the 12 tribes of Israel is unique. There are other points as well that could fairly be described as uniquely unorthodox with respect to followers of Christ. The original polygamy thing for one.

I was certainly not trying to equate them with dangerous beliefs (i.e. the culturally common 'Jim Jones/David Koresh' definition of a cult), but on a broad level Mormons (and all religions) are cults, and within the circle of groups professing to be Christian, they meet the narrower cult definition of unorthodox.

And I guess this latter point speaks to Jonathon's use of the term religious literacy. I'm not sure why you asked the question of why I used the term 'cult' in this instance. But I don't doubt for a minute that for some (probably not you, I took the question on its surface value, no more), my use of that word came across as negative, precisely because it has been used in relationship to Jones-Koresh type groups. But if you understand what the Mormon church originally believed doctrinally (whether all current Mormons believe them or practice them), then the word cult can fairly be used as a substitute for unorthodox. And to be honest, even just knowledge of the original Mormon doctrines would not be sufficient. You would also need to understand the basic tenants of 'orthodox' Christianity, shared by the majority of Christian denominations. Loosely defined: religious literacy.

And again, while all that may be fair to point out, it's also equally true and fair that there are probably hundreds of Mormons we on this board could identify who do a better job following Christ's teachings than me.

None of this discussion is meant to be about which people are 'better'.

So, would Christianity's unorthodox New Covenant be the exemplar of a cult (or unorthodoxy if you prefer) distancing itself from its core scriptures/fundamental beliefs?

(03-14-2015 06:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So, would Christianity's unorthodox New Covenant be the exemplar of a cult (or unorthodoxy if you prefer) distancing itself from its core scriptures/fundamental beliefs?

From the perspective of Judaism, absolutely.

And it's also fair to note that not all adjustments to belief systems are equal. Forgiving the adulterer, ('let he who is without sin cast the first stone') rather than stoning them moves things one way. Coming back later, and saying wait a minute, I think stoning was right in the first place could be viewed as a step backward. Of course that's all depending on what you judge to be right. Looking at the three Abrahamic religions on a single issue as an example.

Rick, I would refine your definition of a cult to be a religion that distorts or rewrites portions of the original scriptures. From that perspective I don't think Christianity would be considered a Jewish cult. The Jewish scriptures are believed by Christians in tact. However, Mormonism is a cult because they have distorted the text of the New Testament.

Returning to the original premise, who here can explain the origin of the term "scapegoat"?

(Came to mind as we enter our annual spring Bailiff bashing season on the main board, thankfully much less enthilusiasticallybthan many past years)

(04-01-2015 09:40 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Returning to the original premise, who here can explain the origin of the term "scapegoat"?

(Came to mind as we enter our annual spring Bailiff bashing season on the main board, thankfully much less enthilusiasticallybthan many past years)

I actually just learned that (or possibly relearned) this Lent.

Previously, I had it mixed up in my head and identified the 'scapegoat' with the Paschal lamb, or another animal sacrificed for sin.

It's actually an "[e]scape goat", from the Latin Vulgate "caper emissarius" - the goat that is "sent out" on the Jewish Day of Atonement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

Lev 16:5-10 Wrote:5 He shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

6 Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. 7 He shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting; 8 and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel.[c] 9 Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; 10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel[d] shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

(04-01-2015 10:32 AM)NoodleOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 09:40 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Returning to the original premise, who here can explain the origin of the term "scapegoat"?

(Came to mind as we enter our annual spring Bailiff bashing season on the main board, thankfully much less enthilusiasticallybthan many past years)

I actually just learned that (or possibly relearned) this Lent.

Previously, I had it mixed up in my head and identified the 'scapegoat' with the Paschal lamb, or another animal sacrificed for sin.

It's actually an "[e]scape goat", from the Latin Vulgate "caper emissarius" - the goat that is "sent out" on the Jewish Day of Atonement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

Lev 16:5-10 Wrote:5 He shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

6 Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. 7 He shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting; 8 and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel.[c] 9 Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; 10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel[d] shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

Yep and there are other OT references if you dig IIRC.

Generally speaking, goat offerings that were made annually to cover everyone's sin.

In our vernacular, the fall guy who takes the brunt of system, program or project-wide failings.

Sometimes the failures of specific others , and not a group.