Da Vinci Code analogous to Satanic Verses

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]When religion then is transposed to politics, having real and concrete effects then everyone is allowed not only to attack it, but also to state, backed up by facts, what type of interpretations can be done of the religious dogmas.

Why should they? When the Industrial Revolution first came about, the introduction of industrial machinery no d ians share anyway), the vast majority of dissenting opinions can be shown to be in error.[/b]

Given certain basic hermeneutic and theological principles (which most Christians share anyway), the vast majority of dissenting opinions can be shown to be in error.

This is incorrect. What may be true for the RCC may not be true for the Orthodox Christians. And yet, both are Christian based. You may say that they can be "shown" to be in error and I say that is only possible through dogmas that neither I neither them accept.

Besides, are you tryiong to say that the majority of Christians do not believe in Christianity (change to whatever religion you wish) but something else? I say that a religion is what their faithful believe. If scholars are unable to pass other interpretations to the faithful, then these interpretations are not representative of that religion.

Your Industrial Revolution is another flawed example, because we are talking of the religious perception of the faithful of that same religion. At best, I could say that anyone at the time was intitled to criticize or defend the Industrial Revolution. Technical details of the machine have nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Palynka

When religion then is transposed to politics, having real and concrete effects then everyone is allowed not only to attack it, but also to state, backed up by facts, what type of interpretations can be done of the religious dogmas.

In your critical context religion has primarily social, economic and political meanings; theology is bracketed out, there are no holy books (a pamphlet is as meaningful as the Bible, the Koran is an arsenal for pamphleteers). Well and good--from that perspective, a cross-section of society will show to everyone's satisfaction that religion is a set of codes (dogmas) with varying degrees of influence, and that every religion has its own set of code monkeys (dogmatics). This perspective will also reveal that sentences like "Islam is a violent religion" are meaningless except inasmuch as they reveal something about the people who utter them. On the other hand, ask why there are so many violent Muslims and you will soon be asking other questions which have little to do with theology.

--Is Islam a violent religion?
--I'm sorry, that's the wrong question.

(The above fails lamentably to convey what I'm trying to say; my apologies).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This perspective will also reveal that sentences like "Islam is a violent religion" are meaningless except inasmuch as they reveal something about the people who utter them. On the other hand, ask why there are so many violent Muslims and you will soon be asking other questions which have little to do with theology.

--Is Islam a violent religion?
g question.

(The above fails lamentably to convey what I'm trying to say; my apologies).

I agree with you in many points. But:

This perspective will also reveal that sentences like "Islam is a violent religion" are meaningless except inasmuch as they reveal something about the people who utter them.
What is the fundamental difference between saying "religion X is a violent religion" or "religion X is being used as a justification for violence"?

Religion by itself is nothing. Only in the hands and minds of men it exists and has effects. This makes religion a group phenomenon.

My point here is this: Is Catholicism a violent religion? I would say that nowadays it is fairly peaceful (some may disagree). But go back some centuries and you would see a whole different picture. The inquisition was seen as justified under the exact same book that nowadays rejects such behaviour.

So, is it a violent religion? What I'm saying is that what matters is if there is violence being made in its name and approved (or tolerated) by a significant ammount of its followers.

In such a view, religion becomes intertwined with everything else that you mentioned (i.e. the social, economic and political situation).

edit:
theology is bracketed out, there are no holy books (a pamphlet is as meaningful as the Bible, the Koran is an arsenal for pamphleteers).
Holy books are not mere pamphlets, but they defininitely can be used as weapons for pamphleteers. Holy books are static, they do not vary when the pamphleteers throw interpretations that convene them. But although the texts have been (allegedly) the same for centuries, the interpretations of them are in constant evolution. This serves as evidence that religion is not static and therefore it must be seen in context with current events and the current views of its followers. Either that, or one must accept that in the middle ages there were no Christians (or there aren't any now).

Originally posted by Palynka
What is the fundamental difference between saying "religion X is a violent religion" or "religion X is being used as a justification for violence"?

In one case the responsibility rests with an abstraction (religion X), in the other with moral agents.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In one case the responsibility rests with an abstraction (religion X), in the other with moral agents.

My point is that they are one and the same...

Originally posted by Palynka
My point is that they are one and the same...

All religions are (n)one.

Personally, I agree: a religion is a chimera, because the noun has no referent except in the shape of its adherents and the paraphenalia they cart around with them. But--

(another time)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
All religions are (n)one.

Personally, I agree: a religion is a chimera, because the noun has no referent except in the shape of its adherents and the paraphenalia they cart around with them. But--

(another time)

I agree: a religion is a chimera...

You're entitled to your self-defeating opinion.

Your "religion is a chimera" religion would also be untenable.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]I agree: a religion is a chimera...

You're entitled to your self-defeating opinion.

Your "religion is a chimera" religion would also be untenable.[/b]

It is a chimera in Palynka's discourse, Hal. Try to see things from outside your perspective sometime. I don't have a "religion is a chimera" religion. And I have a But to Palynka's views, but it needs working on.

Originally posted by Palynka
This is incorrect. What may be true for the RCC may not be true for the Orthodox Christians. And yet, both are Christian based. You may say that they can be "shown" to be in error and I say that is only possible through dogmas that neither I neither them accept.

Besides, are you tryiong to say that the majority of Christians do not believe in Christianity ...[text shortened]... defend the Industrial Revolution. Technical details of the machine have nothing to do with it.

This is incorrect. What may be true for the RCC may not be true for the Orthodox Christians.

What is true will be true regardless of whether you're Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical or Buddhist.

Talking of RCC vs. Orthodox, vistesd and I had a rather long discussion some time back on the Catholic vs. Orthodox perspectives on infallibility. vistesd (who was defending the Orthodox position) felt that the evidence I presented from Tradition were not conclusive, but that the Scriptural evidence was very strong for the Catholic view of infallibility. That's one illustration.

Another example to keep in mind might be the joint Catholic-Lutheran statement on justification where many points of salvation that were traditionally considered differences between the two were understood to be really two distinct ways of stating the same thing. That's another illustration.

You may say that they can be "shown" to be in error and I say that is only possible through dogmas that neither I neither them accept.

I presume you meant to say "neither I nor them accept". In any case, the above-mentioned discussion with vistesd was based on hermeneutic principles that are common to both Catholics and Orthodox. It's not simply a matter of "I proclaim X; if you reject it you're wrong".

As I said earlier, you're just parroting a more erudite version of twitehead's "It's all just opinion" argument. Frankly, I expected more from you - you're just adopting a superficial stance on the subject that does not even try to understand the substantive issues of dispute.

Besides, are you tryiong to say that the majority of Christians do not believe in Christianity (change to whatever religion you wish) but something else?

I'm not saying that at all. Christianity has certain well-defined basic dogmas - all Christians officially believe in them.

I say that a religion is what their faithful believe.

What the US Constitution actually says is not the same as what the majority of Americans thinks it says. Your idea of religion may apply to some Eastern religions (Hinduism, Far Eastern religions), but would not apply to many others that have well-defined doctrines (all three mono-theistic religions, Buddhism etc.)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Talking of RCC vs. Orthodox, vistesd and I had a rather long discussion some time back on the Catholic vs. Orthodox perspectives on infallibility. vistesd (who was defending the Orthodox position) felt that the evidence I presented from Tradition were not conclusive, but that the Scriptural evidence was very strong for the Catholic view of infallibility. That's one illustration.

Could you post the thread number, please?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It is a chimera in Palynka's discourse, Hal. Try to see things from outside your perspective sometime. I don't have a "religion is a chimera" religion. And I have a But to Palynka's views, but it needs working on.

Try to see things from outside your perspective sometime.

Does that include being illogical and facetious?

I don't have a "religion is a chimera" religion.

Didn't you just lower religion to the mere expression of human dogma and other “paraphernalia”? Don't you dogmatically stand by that stance? Then it is a religion.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Try to see things from outside your perspective sometime.

Does that include being illogical and facetious?

I don't have a "religion is a chimera" religion.

Didn't you just lower religion to the mere expression of human dogma and other “paraphernalia”? Don't you dogmatically stand by that stance? Then it is a religion.[/b]

Like you're never facetious, Halitose. Give me a break.

From the critical, political perspective that Palynka offers, religion is dogma and its applications, yes. That's not the only perspective that exists, nor do I dogmatically adhere to it--but I do understand it. Do you?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Like you're never facetious, Halitose. Give me a break.

From the critical, political perspective that Palynka offers, religion is dogma and its applications, yes. That's not the only perspective that exists, nor do I dogmatically adhere to it--but I do understand it. Do you?

Whichever "perspective" you want to take, it undermines your own position to claim that there can be no perception of absolute spiritual truth (which this "perspective" requires) -- since the proposition itself is being passed for a truth-claim.

It there a paradox that I’m missing somewhere?

Originally posted by Halitose
Whichever "perspective" you want to take, it undermines your own position to claim that there can be no perception of absolute spiritual truth (which this "perspective" requires) -- since the proposition itself is being passed for a truth-claim.

It there a paradox that I’m missing somewhere?

I think you missed the part that said theology (etc) is bracketed out of this perspective as irrelevant. By bracketed out I mean deliberately excluded as not being relevant to a discussion on the social and political effects of religion. You might have reasons to disagree with that--please share.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I think you missed the part that said theology (etc) is bracketed out of this perspective as irrelevant. By bracketed out I mean deliberately excluded as not being relevant to a discussion on the social and political effects of religion. You might have reasons to disagree with that--please share.

…theology (etc) is bracketed out of this perspective as irrelevant.

Then you can't infer any theological conclusions from this "perspective" -- which is what you were doing.

I further suggest that it would be virtually impossible to have a socio-political perspective divorced from all theology from which to launch a critique of religion.