Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead
what's the point of a debate between an atheist and a theist?
|
I love to reason with non-believers because believers are too caught up to have a serious, unbiased discussion sometimes, plus I love to gather a variety of perspectives.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ann ashtray
"cultural potency" = hand me downs. Tradition, etc.
.
|
true, but the potency in Art is what makes them continue to pass down. Why did we recreate the architecture of the Pantheon across the world, from banks, schools, palaces etc etc? Because simply put, it is extraordinarily beautiful architecture, and humans love it regardless of its origin.
People today do not walk by a Bank of America fashioned after the Pantheon and even remotely recognize that the bank is a copy of an old Roman temple, they just like the way it looks.
This is how Christian symbolism has survived so long (in my opinion), because it is potent imagery about the wide range to the human condition/experience.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
man this is so long i'll try to reply quickly
football has greater cultural potency than any of those relijuns. the beatles were bigger than jesus. paganism wins.
it appealed to the slaves, who were the majority. it's marketing genius consisted in that it celebrated the meek, the oppressed, the poor-- in other words, most of the population during the barbaric stages of history (which more or less continue until today)
i prefer the greeks, but to each their own
i grew up surrounded by baroque churches, and i always found christian imagery repellent, even when i believed-- naked crucifixions, statues with stupid faces, etc. sure, there was a profusion of religious art during the renaissance mostly because the megachurch footed the bill, but the good art came from the rediscovery of greece and rome.
i can't make logical sense of this. the "must" part always irks me though, i'm terrible at taking orders.
ok you left me behind here-- i can't catch up with your thinking. are we talking about historical truths or about how good or bad myths are regardless of their popularity? because i haven't agreed with you that popularity automatically translates into quality. it's like saying macdonalds must be awesome food because there's one everywhere.
like pokemon, or dungeons & dragons, or (better yet) greek mythology.
bullshit, christianity was spread by military and economic power-- ask any indian of the americas.
here a little entertainment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda
the media did bombard me with shitty pop and i liked it until i was 12. my mom liked the beatles and i liked them ok for a while. |
newsflash, the Spanish left mexico centuries ago, why did their imagery stick around? Mexicans today LOVE their Azteca cultural symbols, dress, imagery, architecture, dances etc etc. Why did they still embrace the foreign religious art and imagery even after the conquerors left? Why did they not just rejuvenate fully the pre-Colombian culture, why a synchronous blend of both?
It is blatantly rude to assume that all those people are merely brainwashed across centuries, I would say FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ART, that the art itself carries some potency which the people made their own, long after the edge of sword was sheathed..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
Depends on who the person is, on both sides. Bible-bashing no-nothings are equally as irritating as puritanical Athiests. As someone on the Theist side, I tend to think that it's important that both sides try and recognise the failings and strengths in each position. I'd say recognising failings was more important than the repetition of stolid arguments. Both sides tend to think their position is the 'true' one. That's not to say it's an absolutely subjective, or that either side is going to convince the other at any point. But if you can say to the hardline athiest 'hey, look, you're alright, let's have a pint' and the athiest can say 'well, he might as well believe in fairies, but he's an alright chap' then that's a good thing, innit? God knows [ha] how boring the world would be if everyone agreed (ie, had the same opinions and thoughts as me).
|
Bible bashers are indeed as rigorously and needlessly close minded as bible thumpers, both are being silly and ridiculous.
The Bible is a great book, and should be embraced as such regardless of the politics and drama of the religious history.
As Joseph Campbell explains:
"THE WORLD IS FULL OF ORIGIN MYTHS, AND ALL ARE FACTUALLY FALSE. THE WORLD IS FULL, ALSO, OF GREAT TRADITIONAL BOOKS TRACING THE HISTORY OF MAN (BUT FOCUSED NARROWLY ON THE LOCAL GROUP) FROM THE AGE OF MYTHOLOGICAL BEGINNINGS, THROUGH THE PERIODS OF INCREASING PLAUSIBILITY, TO A TIME ALMOST WITHIN MEMORY, WHEN THE CHRONICLES BEGIN TO CARRY THE RECORD, WITH A SHOW OF RATIONAL FACTUALITY, TO THE PRESENT.
FURTHERMORE, JUST AS ALL PRIMITIVE MYTHOLOGIES SERVE TO VALIDATE THE CUSTOMS, SYSTEMS OF SENTIMENTS, AND POLITICAL AIMS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCAL GROUPS, SO DO THESE GREAT TRADITIONAL BOOKS. ON THE SURFACE THEY MAY APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN COMPOSED AS CONSCIENTIOUS HISTORY. IN DEPTH THEY REVEAL THEMSELVES TO HAVE BEEN CONCEIVED AS MYTHS: POETIC READINGS OF THE MYSTERY OF LIFE FROM A CERTAIN INTERESTED POINT OF VIEW.
BUT TO READ A POEM AS A CHRONICLE OF FACT IS-TO SAY THE LEAST-TO MISS THE POINT. TO SAY A LITTLE MORE, IT IS TO PROVE ONESELF A DOLT. AND TO ADD TO THIS, THE MEN WHO PUT THESE BOOKS TOGETHER WERE NOT DOLTS BUT KNEW PRECISELY WHAT THEY WERE DOING - AS THE EVIDENCE OF THEIR MANNER OF WORK REVEALS AT EVERY TURN.
THE FIRST DECISIVE STEP TOWARD A READING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A PRODUCT, LIKE EVERY OTHER PIECE OF ANCIENT LITERATURE, NOT OF GOD'S LITERARY TALENT, BUT OF MAN'S.." Masks of God Volume iii (p 95)