| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Religion and images
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Religion and images

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Mable01 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mable01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Religion and images
    Posted: 04 Oct 2012 at 17:27
It is just to show some art forms through these paintings. I wonder why people relate these paintings to some religious non-voilance issues even though they are based on some religion.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Feb 2011 at 20:25
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

[
 
Apparently, some do not know how foolish they look when they claim competence and skills they do not have and then challenge another for not having such. Naturally one can resort to weasel words drawn from the latest abstractions on space junk ["interchangeability and satellites through time", shades of Saganistic ritual pomposity!] but then when that weasel goes "pop" all that is left is Humpty Dumpty on his Wonderland wall. Anyway, one does not need to be a "rocket scientist" to understand why the terms image and symbol are not interchangeable or synonymous, and any who pretend otherwise are simply abusing language usage! An image is a reproduction of a person or thing while a symbol is an abstraction that represents something entirely different from its own appearance.
 
As for the claim on "expertise" in ancient art just how ancient does one want to be and then posit fixed knowledge as to what any object actually represents? Go ahead Carch an expound on detail why the "Venus" of Lespugue, or for that matter the "Venus" of Willendorf, are symbols rather than images? And to top it off actually give us an authoritative declamation on their purpose.
 
For once give honest answers rather than circumlocution, or will such an effort prove too much of a mental strain?
 
It seems that you have not partaken in the latest discussions about rock art, at least not Scandinavian such, with discussions about changes in interpretation and changes in meaning of symbols and images, and also what is a symbol for some, in a certain time can be an image in another context and revert to a symbol again, and so on, several times. To study the changing meanings of imagery and symbols and the transformation of meaning is a topic that has been discussed for a while now. But perhaps you have not been on any rock art seminar lately?
 
Symbols and images can indeed be interchangeable or replacable with each other, but they do not necessarly have to be so either. Many times they are also separated and not interchangeable. But you can not simplify the discussion by saying it is always so or so. These categories has to be problematized now and then, and they indeed are.
 
And I have not worked with the Venus figurines so I will not claim any expertice about the discussions about those. But Scandinavian rock art I have worked with for a while, and I have attended seminars and conferences in the subject.


Edited by Carcharodon - 19 Feb 2011 at 20:36
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Feb 2011 at 01:42
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nope. Symbols and images aren't interchangeable in the history or religion.
 
Well, you would not know would you? Have you any university studies in anthropology and archaeology, or history of religion? Do you follow the academic debates about symbolism and imagery in ancient art? Do you follow the discussions of interchangeability and satellites through time?
 
Apparently, some do not know how foolish they look when they claim competence and skills they do not have and then challenge another for not having such. Naturally one can resort to weasel words drawn from the latest abstractions on space junk ["interchangeability and satellites through time", shades of Saganistic ritual pomposity!] but then when that weasel goes "pop" all that is left is Humpty Dumpty on his Wonderland wall. Anyway, one does not need to be a "rocket scientist" to understand why the terms image and symbol are not interchangeable or synonymous, and any who pretend otherwise are simply abusing language usage! An image is a reproduction of a person or thing while a symbol is an abstraction that represents something entirely different from its own appearance.
 
As for the claim on "expertise" in ancient art just how ancient does one want to be and then posit fixed knowledge as to what any object actually represents? Go ahead Carch an expound on detail why the "Venus" of Lespugue, or for that matter the "Venus" of Willendorf, are symbols rather than images? And to top it off actually give us an authoritative declamation on their purpose.
 
For once give honest answers rather than circumlocution, or will such an effort prove too much of a mental strain?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2011 at 22:26
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Maybe it is just me, but i don't find the link in original thread topic in any way artistic, inspirational, provocative or even worthy of being debatable! Maybe i just pine for the days when art was art just for the sake of art, with religion and politics being separated from everyday life.


Indeed. We should let Carcha to talk alone.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2011 at 21:52
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Maybe it is just me, but i don't find the link in original thread topic in any way artistic, inspirational, provocative or even worthy of being debatable! Maybe i just pine for the days when art was art just for the sake of art, with religion and politics being separated from everyday life.
 
It seems that art, religion, power and politics often have followed each other through history.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2011 at 08:33
Maybe it is just me, but i don't find the link in original thread topic in any way artistic, inspirational, provocative or even worthy of being debatable! Maybe i just pine for the days when art was art just for the sake of art, with religion and politics being separated from everyday life.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 23:28
Yes.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 23:26
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
Well, you would not know would you? Have you any university studies in anthropology and archaeology, or history of religion? Do you follow the academic debates about symbolism and imagery in ancient art? Do you follow the discussions of interchangeability and satellites through time?


Do you?

Never forget that "What Nature doesn't give, Salamanca won't provide"

Edited by pinguin - 17 Feb 2011 at 23:28
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 23:01
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nope. Symbols and images aren't interchangeable in the history or religion.
 
Well, you would not know would you? Have you any university studies in anthropology and archaeology, or history of religion? Do you follow the academic debates about symbolism and imagery in ancient art? Do you follow the discussions of interchangeability and satellites through time?


Edited by Carcharodon - 17 Feb 2011 at 23:03
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 22:54
Nope. Symbols and images aren't interchangeable in the history or religion.

Why you insist so much in your irrational oppinions? I wonder.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 21:37
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Baloney. A symbol is the cross.

Well, have you studied archaeology or anthropology?  You are just simplifying things. Many times images and symbols can be interchangeable, some symbols can also be images or the other way around. Just read up on the archaeological debate about for example rock carvings.
 
 
Well, Carch, I have studied Archaeology and Anthropology and have the "papers" that entitle me to pontificate the following: You are all wet here specially with your nebulosity as to "rock carvings"! If you wish to describe "rock art" (and I do not mean a concert by Mick Jagger) you had best be specific and satisfy the distinctions between the pictographs, the petroglyphs, engravings (the incised motifs), the petroforms, and the geoglyphs. However, since you yourself in opening this thread specifically detailed we were addressing images (the pictographic), you can not weasel out as easily as is your usual wont and wish. A cross is an image solely when it is a pictorial of the crucifixion, at all other times it is a symbol. It's as simple as that. Images and symbols are not interchangeable given that the former can include the symbolic but the latter can never include the former since then it ceases to be a symbol as it becomes an iconograph! 
 
Actually you simplify things (papers or not). Symbols and images can be interchangeable in the way that a picture can have both functions. An image can also change its function over time to be a symbol, and also the other way around. If you had followed the latest discussions about rock art here in Sweden, and also internationally, you would have known that this is much discussed among archaeologists. Especially the changes of the interpretation of images and symbols over time are objects of interesting discussions.
 
And regarding rock art, here in Sweden we have both engravings (petroglyphs) and paintings. They are subdivided in cathegories as northern hunters engravings (jaktristningar) and southern farmers engravings (jordbruksristningar) and some cathegories that comes inbetween or have elements of both. The paintings are mostly thought of as belonging to the tradition that encompasses the northern engravings.
Also there is a discussion about northern rock art about if they have some connection with later Sami pictorial art and traditions.
 
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 17 Feb 2011 at 21:44
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 08:29
Agreed with Drgonzaga fully. What a beautiful image of Mary and Child. Another example of Image full of symbols.



Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 07:17
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Baloney. A symbol is the cross.

Well, have you studied archaeology or anthropology?  You are just simplifying things. Many times images and symbols can be interchangeable, some symbols can also be images or the other way around. Just read up on the archaeological debate about for example rock carvings.
 
 
Well, Carch, I have studied Archaeology and Anthropology and have the "papers" that entitle me to pontificate the following: You are all wet here specially with your nebulosity as to "rock carvings"! If you wish to describe "rock art" (and I do not mean a concert by Mick Jagger) you had best be specific and satisfy the distinctions between the pictographs, the petroglyphs, engravings (the incised motifs), the petroforms, and the geoglyphs. However, since you yourself in opening this thread specifically detailed we were addressing images (the pictographic), you can not weasel out as easily as is your usual wont and wish. A cross is an image solely when it is a pictorial of the crucifixion, at all other times it is a symbol. It's as simple as that. Images and symbols are not interchangeable given that the former can include the symbolic but the latter can never include the former since then it ceases to be a symbol as it becomes an iconograph! 
 
Here is a classic example:
 
 
One image and more symbols than you could ever decipher!


Edited by drgonzaga - 17 Feb 2011 at 13:18
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 05:48
Not hard to imagine at all. The psychological pattern is just about right.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 02:27
Just imagine you, addapting the Witnesses agenda! LOL
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 02:24
Do not worry, I will (even if they now and then come pounding on the doors here where I live).
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 02:19
Well, keep away from Jehova Witnesses.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 01:45
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You haven't studies the history of religions, obviosly. The religious persecution of images is always against the representation of gods. Otherwise you wouldn't interchange symbols with images.
 
Actually, both symbols and images, clothes and other religious objects (like masks, or drums or different ritual objects, and also architecture) have been destroyed and the use of it being forbidden or opposed. Religious opression can take several shapes and be directed against different expressions of religion and culture.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 01:13
You haven't studies the history of religions, obviosly. The religious persecution of images is always against the representation of gods. Otherwise you wouldn't interchange symbols with images.

Edited by pinguin - 17 Feb 2011 at 01:14
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 01:07
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Baloney. A symbol is the cross.

Well, have you studied archaeology or anthropology?  You are just simplifying things. Many times images and symbols can be interchangeable, some symbols can also be images or the other way around. Just read up on the archaeological debate about for example rock carvings.
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 00:52
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Many images symbolize something and are thus a kind of symbols. Many symbols also are images, representing real or imagined beings.

Baloney. A symbol is the cross. An image is the picture of Virgin Mary. Historically, what was persecuted by the Orthodox Church in Byzantium were the representations of Mary, Jesus, etc, and not the symbols.
In Islam, the representation of God or Mahoma was forbidden, not the Islamic symbols.
In Judaims, the images of foreign Gods were forbidden, not the symbols of Judaism.

Images aren't not symbols. At least, not from the religious point of view. You are talking here about images, and I repeat, symbols aren't images.

As usually, your childish tactic is confusing cathegories.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 22:46
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Carcha is also confusing images with symbolism. The Sami drum above shows symbols, not images. An image is a realistic representation of a person, an animal or supernatural being.
 
Many images symbolize something and are thus a kind of symbols. Many symbols also are images, representing real or imagined beings. Especially a representation of a spiritual beings from a vision can according to the one making a picture of it be quite realistic,  but can be perceived by other people as just a symbol.
 
The lines can be quite blurred. Just look at the debate about the Scandinavian rock carvings wether they are just symbolic or if they are realistic images or both.
 
In this thread I also use a quite broad definition of image where I also include some symbols, just to make it somewhat more easy.


Edited by Carcharodon - 16 Feb 2011 at 22:49
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 22:40
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

  Er, Carcharadon you are forgetting the essential distinctions that must be made that separates religion and its constructs from political action by the "state" itself.
 
The Swedish state in the 17th century was partly founded on religious ideology with a state controlled church. Religion went hand in hand with power. The control of people was a combination of wordly and spiritual domination.
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Now I must admit that there is some attraction to the possible reconstruction of practices such as bog sacrifice and the induced trance as a means for identifying enemies and starting a big business in potions and amulets...but hey whatever turns you on.
 
Actually, when it concerns Samis there are somewhat a renaissance of interest in old cultural practices and also of the old spiritual tradition, the noaiddástallan.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 03:20
Carcha is also confusing images with symbolism. The Sami drum above shows symbols, not images. An image is a realistic representation of a person, an animal or supernatural being.
This image of Ganesha (It is an Indian God; not Dumbo) is an image:







But the drawing in this Mapuche Kultrun it is not an image, but the symbol that represent the four direction of the compass, together with other complementary symbols.



What religions usually forbid are IMAGES not symbols.



Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 03:05
Er, Carcharadon you are forgetting the essential distinctions that must be made that separates religion and its constructs from political action by the "state" itself. The Romans were quite busy at eliminating druids and their oak trees (as well as proscribing their rituals) long before there were any Christians mucking about. Hence your particular phobia is little more than a grand exercise at misdirection. Further, you yourself are providing more than ample evidence that had you any political power you too would spend the bulk of your time "eradicating" Christians because somehow your belief system views them as inimical to public order and libertas.
 
Now I must admit that there is some attraction to the possible reconstruction of practices such as bog sacrifice and the induced trance as a means for identifying enemies and starting a big business in potions and amulets...but hey whatever turns you on.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 00:00
Images that was a part of a religious and spiritual contexts one could also find on the Noaid drums (shaman drums) of the Sami people. In the 17 century and onwards the practice of such drums was forbidden by the Swedish church and authorities since it was deemed pagan and diabolic. At least one noaid were burned by the christians because he refused to let go of his drum and to stop perform shamanistic rites. He was burned together with his drum and some idols of tree.
 
A Sami drum


Edited by Carcharodon - 16 Feb 2011 at 00:09
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 19:52
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
 
[quote=Carcharodon]
Well, she has stated in some interview I saw something like you said, that Jesus accepted everyone, regardless of their status in society. She said that these people that often are scorned by Christians most probably would be accepted by Jesus himself. It seems that she wants to contrast the tolerance of Jesus against the intolerance of some of his adherents.[quote]
 
I think that, while you are correct, an important distinction needs to be drawn -- and often is not: Jesus did, indeed, accept people as they were, but he often called them to be something different.
Yes, he was after all a child of his time. But it seems that he still was rather tolerant for that place and time. Some of his later adherents have been much less tolerant.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 19:49
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Still there is an element of submission in at least some religions that easy can be used and manipulated by leaders.
But there is much much more against that supposition than for it. Most oppression is secular, imposed by fanataics like you.
 
Too much opression have actually been inspired by world views created in a religious and mythological context. And still today religion inspires a lot of opression.
 
And one do not have to be a fanatic to have a critical view of religion.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 12:50
Before responding to something Carch wrote, I have a few observations. Either they are helpful, or I have completely missed the mark and am making an ass of myself -- wouldn't be the first time. Wink
 
I think it is possible that Carch is using the term oppression in a different sense than everyone else is, and one that is potentially still valid. Carch may -- and correct me, Carch, if I'm wrong -- be thinking about oppression within the religious community which, by virtue of the fact that a certain religious community might be a majority, can often become societal. This certainly has happened in the course of history, and to a certain extent happens today. I would agree entirely with you, graham, that "most oppression is secular" -- I wonder in what sense and to what extent we agree on this one, don't you? Embarrassed -- but this secular oppression is in a constant state of conflict with religious mores that have become ingrained in our culture. While the term "Culture War" has been overused and abused, it does speak to a certain truth.
 
Don't know if anything there was helpful, but I just had a few observations from reading what you guys have made a very interesting discussion. Should we spin it off into a new thread and focus on images here, or is this a necessary precursor to such a discussion. That decision, I leave to you, my more erudite colleagues.
 
-Akolouthos
 
One more thing, specifically addressed to Carch:
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Well, she has stated in some interview I saw something like you said, that Jesus accepted everyone, regardless of their status in society. She said that these people that often are scorned by Christians most probably would be accepted by Jesus himself. It seems that she wants to contrast the tolerance of Jesus against the intolerance of some of his adherents.
 
I think that, while you are correct, an important distinction needs to be drawn -- and often is not: Jesus did, indeed, accept people as they were, but he often called them to be something different.


Edited by Akolouthos - 11 Feb 2011 at 12:52
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 03:51
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Still there is an element of submission in at least some religions that easy can be used and manipulated by leaders.
But there is much much more against that supposition than for it. Most oppression is secular, imposed by fanataics like you.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.