Recent Posts5376
Living Room / Re: What books are you reading?
« Last post by 40hz on August 30, 2012, 09:42 PM »@NigelH - no affront taken. But I think you might be misunderstanding what I'm actually saying here...
My point has nothing to do with the fundamentals of faith - or what constitutes the notion of "actual" in that regard.
Not being a trained theologian, I do not feel qualified to enter into that sort of discussion, despite sixteen years (eight with Jesuits) of what may be considered "religious education." If I have learned anything from that experience, I have learned that theology, as a science, is not a polite intellectual parlor game - or an excuse to indulge in wordplay. Theological discussion and debate, in actual practice, is something best left to professionals.
What I am talking about is human behavior and how it may be manipulated through the use of certain books which are held in especial regard, and afforded a high degree of credibility, because they are considered (by their adherent faiths) to be divinely inspired. And because these books, and the words they contain, are so frequently and successfully employed for dubious purposes, I therefor consider them - as books - to be dangerous.
As far as the underlying truths contained within them (or the lack thereof) you'll need to find someone far more academically qualified and spiritually gifted than I am to comment on them.
I hope that clarifies for you what I'm actually talking about.
@k - While it may be laudable to "stand up" for what one believes, in this particular thread I can't see where there was anything that needed to be stood up against considering nothing was being said that in any way challenged a belief, a faith, or some variety of revealed truth. (See my above comment to Nigel.)
..... I consider those books extremely dangerous ....-40hz (August 30, 2012, 06:13 PM)
I've seen a number of like minded comments in other threads by other board members over the last few months but I've not said anything.
40hz, don't take this reply a personal affront, it is not specifically aimed at you.
Perhaps we need a new thread for this where things can be discussed civilly.
Not that there are not enough other discussion boards on this subject where one could have a field day, so perhaps not.
Much wrong is done in the name of "religion" when what was done has no relevance with regard to the fundamentals of the actual faith.-NigelH (August 30, 2012, 08:13 PM)
My point has nothing to do with the fundamentals of faith - or what constitutes the notion of "actual" in that regard.
Not being a trained theologian, I do not feel qualified to enter into that sort of discussion, despite sixteen years (eight with Jesuits) of what may be considered "religious education." If I have learned anything from that experience, I have learned that theology, as a science, is not a polite intellectual parlor game - or an excuse to indulge in wordplay. Theological discussion and debate, in actual practice, is something best left to professionals.
What I am talking about is human behavior and how it may be manipulated through the use of certain books which are held in especial regard, and afforded a high degree of credibility, because they are considered (by their adherent faiths) to be divinely inspired. And because these books, and the words they contain, are so frequently and successfully employed for dubious purposes, I therefor consider them - as books - to be dangerous.
As far as the underlying truths contained within them (or the lack thereof) you'll need to find someone far more academically qualified and spiritually gifted than I am to comment on them.
I hope that clarifies for you what I'm actually talking about.
I happen to agree with your stance, NigelH, as seen here, but you will discover as I have that our metaphysical views are a distinct minority here. Still, I congratulate you for standing up for our faith.-kyrathaba (August 30, 2012, 08:45 PM)
@k - While it may be laudable to "stand up" for what one believes, in this particular thread I can't see where there was anything that needed to be stood up against considering nothing was being said that in any way challenged a belief, a faith, or some variety of revealed truth. (See my above comment to Nigel.)
)
) that pinpoints rather precisely what the problem is with Linux that it hasn't successfully managed to obtain parity with Windows and OSX on the desktop. Definitely worth a read if you're a Linux user or spectator.
