Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only one of those I don't necessarily have a problem with is blood sacrifice (of animals) yet, as the author states, it is in decline.
A humanely slaughtered animal whose flesh is eaten by the community in some sacred context is a better fate than the millions of animals inhumanely slaughtered and slapped between some cheap white bread with some ketchup and gobbled up behind the wheel of an SUV barreling down the highway or unthinkingly munched on while staring at the TV.
The only one of those I don't necessarily have a problem with is blood sacrifice (of animals) yet, as the author states, it is in decline.
A humanely slaughtered animal whose flesh is eaten by the community in some sacred context is a better fate than the millions of animals inhumanely slaughtered and slapped between some cheap white bread with some ketchup and gobbled up behind the wheel of an SUV barreling down the highway or unthinkingly munched on while staring at the TV.
I can't argue with that.
Even if I'm on the road to visit my boys and gnawing on a nuked ham n' swiss n' egg on an English muffin with ketchup and salt and pepper.
In my defense, I try to remember to give thanks to the pig, chicken, cow, tomato and spices.
That thanks usually takes the form of a satisfied belch or three.
I'm curious why you dislike it, particularly if you understand "book worship" as the charge, not some issue with the books themselves. I have no more problem with the Bible or Quran than with any other book; the problem is the special pleading for the reasoning and guidance in those books, and the elevation of their supposed immutability and depiction of capital-T Truth to a dogmatic belief.
I love poetry, and I love the religious scriptures and religious writings outside of common canons or when interpreted contextually and unsupersticiously.
I'm talking about Bibliolatry being the unskeptical and uncritical fundamentalism of these books ("Book Worship of portrayed images/characters of Gods") as if though these idols of ink and wood with messages were anything perfect or divine. (A reminder that a picture says a thousand words, so the idolized statues had messages too).
I was never taught to idolize or worship the bible, even growing up in a biblical literalist denomination. I was taught that it was a direct hotline to god's brain.
That is also the ancient pagan and current Hindu and idolater Buddhist denominations teaching of what it means that the statues have a "presence" in them (something the Catholic Christian Church still asserts about their statues of Saints). No one has ever believed that a piece of rock is a God, except maybe the most imbecilic of people. The Statues were considered "divine" works of art that "represented a god" correctly with imagery and hidden messages and a "presence." Same exact thing, I noticed it early on when as a devout Christian I tried to understand what it was God hated so much... this "idolatry" thing. I realized I was lied to by Christians, the statues of ancient Greece and Rome and Mesopotamia weren't considered "gods" but only "divine representations" of gods and "god-inspired" works of art, and some said the statues attained a "presence" of the spirit they represented.
I had the idea of 'Evolution's' 10 worst idea. Or 12, if you can think of them.
The Alpha breeding pair comes to mind.
Tribal competition for resources another?
Old age rather than a youthful vigour until your time is up, number 143?
Oh very true, the misunderstanding of the pro-science laity and even of scientists themselves can be so human! There is enough bad ideas to go around everywhere. I'm glad we've been able to spot them and correct them in science, sadly I don't think book-based religions would be able to, there will always be uneducated people revamping fundamentalism (early Christians were not Bibliolaters, or Popelaters, but things change). Still, because of science's lack of "strick" structure and dogma, it is harder to access (and even harder to re-access if scientists and their institutions were destroyed) for the laity without bothering themselves to become mini-scholars themselves.
the problem is the special pleading for the reasoning and guidance in those books, and the elevation of their supposed immutability and depiction of capital-T Truth to a dogmatic belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
That would be defined as "bibliolatry."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
And that is what the charge is in the article -- book worship.
So, why do you see it as a "problem?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
