Welcome to Gaia! ::

As of recent, I've found more and more people are taking a greater interest in either defending their religion or picking on various other religions. Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to have a religion, mind you, but I must say that so many people now a days are trying to interpret things and seem to be going about it the wrong way.

So you can quote the Bible, Koran, etc.? Does that make you smarter than everyone else? No, it doesn't. It just proves you're able to memorize things, that's all it proves. Granted some people do understand what it is these passages are trying to convey, but not a lot of people do and thus the go about their merry little way quoting passages they have NO right quoting.

Therefore, I say we should leave Theology to Theologians. So unless you're looking to BE in that field of study, why bother trying to translate something you know nothing about? Not everyone can KNOW everything, and trying to sound like you do makes you sound like a complete moron. It's a two sided coin my friends, and odds are you'll end up with the side that makes you seem like an imbecile.


Therefore, I have to ask the following.
Do you often find yourself quoting things?
Should we leave things to be interpreted by true scholars?
Religion:
People who act as if they know everything:
Etc:

Also: What makes scholars an exception to your rule?

I wish I could quote things off the top of my head. It'd be great to flatten someone with a quote from Tolstoy or something.


The issue of religion has always been a touchy subject. This is not exclusive to my case, but also in the case of many others. Primarily because there are a lot of people in the world who want to talk about existentialism and suchwhat, and do question their own existence frequently.

The problem with religions and I guess what you can call "anti-religions" (IE - aetheism and such) is that there are always people, Theologists or otherwise, that follow their personal bushido like maniacs and want to spread "the good word" to everybody. Obsessive Christians want to save everybody, outrageous Aetheists want everyone to "grow up", mad Muslims want everyone to get the ******** out of their country and want everyone in their country to not go anywhere near the West, Buddhists don't really care either way, and so on. To them, to those self-proclaimed experts on worldly whatnot, I have only this to say:

"Shut up and let people believe what they want to believe."

My stance on religion is that everybody is right and wrong in their own way, shape and form, and the sooner we all admit that, the better we'll all be. Just because someone worships Higher Forces a different way from you, just because someone is a polytheist over a monotheist, just because someone actually has a faith to begin with, doesn't mean that they are any less of a person and doesn't mean that they are ignorant, naive, megalomaniacal, "peace-hating" scallawags.


As for people who claim to be experts on religion or worldly events, I shrug my shoulders and say "feh". In my mind, 45-50% of all people who claim to be experts on anything aren't actually experts, they just like to hear themselves talk and like to hear people say how smart they are. On the other hand, 45-50% of them are not experts but well on their way to being there, and are a lot more honest than the other half. Leaving things to the hands of true experts is often better than leaving it in the hands of the inexperienced, the whole "chimp with an A-Bomb" argument comes into play here, but sometimes someone who has little to no prior experience or knowledge of the matter might actually have something profound to say on the subject.


So, those are my thoughts. You want fries with that?

To me, that's like saying "leave reading books to the english majors!" Anyone can read a passage from The Odyssey and get what they want from it. Pretty much all literature is open to interpretation, and that includes the Bible and other religious texts as well. Sure, theologists are probably better at figuring out what the Bible means, but the quotes in all of those books are so broad and vague, and most of those books have ben translated so many times that the text gets changed and twisted, so they could mean absolutely anything.

And besides, people are and should be free to argue about whatever they want, I think what you're looking for is for them to realize that they could be wrong.

It looks like most people hit the main points I was going to say, so I'll just fill in.

Everyone should have their own right to speak their opinion. Granted, there are going to be people who know more about the subject than you, and it's their perogative to correct you should you say something false. What matters is that people realize that they don't know everything, and they take other people's viewpoints into account.

The problem isn't people being know-it-alls, it is people not stopping to hear the other side of a debate. I certainly don't trust everything someone has to say, but if they defend their argument in a clear and logical manner, than I am more inclined to believe them.

The tricky thing about religion is that nobody is going to have any real answers. Unlike science, which can experiment and log data and results to back up opinions and theories, religion is pretty much open to interpretation by whomever. Every piece of religious literature has to be translated from its original language, then translated again, and again, etc. Many meanings are lost in translations, and many translators put their own spin on things according to their personal opinions and bias. Short of God himself (assuming he exists) coming down from the heavens and telling us exactly what he meant for us and how we should do things, people are going to have their own way of interpretting their religion. They might gain some insight as to how the holy texts read by learning and studying theology, but any theologian will tell you that in the end, it's up to you to decide how to interpret them. Some people take the books literally, others believe they are metaphorical.

It's all up to each person to decide how they want to believe.

The reason we don't leave it to the theologists is because it's part of our lives - just as you don't let someone walk into your home and start rearanging all of your things you don't let them walk into your religious beliefs.
But religious beliefs aren't physical like houses are- they're spiritual. They are symbollic. Just by saying that things work a certain way you are stepping on these symbols-
While it seems as though the question is whether or not what those symbols represent is worth devoting yourself to it is really whether or not you can agree to let other people have their own beliefs. Most of the problematic religions have passages that tell the followers not to step on other people's beliefs but the followers conveniently ignore them.

Before I begin I would first off like to make a general apology for a few things, first my poor spelling and grammer. secondly the fact that I only perrused the prior posts so I could place some important facts on the table. off of the prior apologies I would like, if I may, call a certian point to 'Brand Name Sex''s attention that has disturbed me quite deeply. not too point a finger in any sense at all, but I feel that the topic "should we leave the thology to the theolegians" is in essence a counter productive topic to ask for several reasons. The first being the self exploration of faith.

Point one:
The idea of religion is discovery of the God(s), and in many cases the words this entity has written down for us is very unclear. Take the bible for instance, if we look at it in its most litteral forms then we have to accept the following truths. first off the world is just under seven-thousand years old and it was created in seven days. However, science, and common sense tells us that this idea is absurd. thus without reflection we must either except one of the following, either the bible is wrong, science is wrong, or there is a greater answer of which we are unaware. however like before with reflection all the sanity we have tells us this premiese is not viable, because of its sophesty, so there must be an alternative.

I would like to call your attention to the idea of religious interpretation or not taking everything at face value. then instead of saying that the bible or science is wrong, you can say that the bible isn't wrong, but mearly is using a type of interpretation to show a message. A 'parable' or 'moral story' If I dare put a term to it.

Thus if we apply this to the creation story, we might come to the conclustion that it is a parable that explains the power, and glory of the almighty. To summerize, if we anaylise the bible we can find that there are cases in which it is not historically, nor sintifically perfect, yet these stories tend to teach us something about what the christians view as their god.

Now, I admit that I have strayed from the orginal topic of leave the theology to the theologans, but I must contend that my purpose has substanance in fact that by analising the bible I have learned something about faith threw the philosophy of theology. Now my point is, without the use of theology, I would have never been able to come to my conclustion about the creation story, which is a parable. I myself am not a theologain, but rather a simple man with simplistic ideas; a fool if you would. Yet my premise of dismissing the creation story as parable is non-the-less true. therefor, if I may, I will put forward the following assumptions:
1) Religion and science seem to contradict.
2) If science contradicts religion, I put forward that one is either slightly, or completely incorrect unless we assume what I will now refer to as parables, or moral stories.
3) threw these assumptions even a simple fool, such as myself, can learn something about god, faith, or morals.

Point 2
yet, by no means does this conclude the arguement, therefor I must take it in a different direction. I would wish to call plato to the table, yet I fear that his name may distract you from making your own descisions on the topic, which by no means do I wish to choose for you. however, I feel that ultimately I must call on platos brilliance.

Plato, threw socraties concludes a good is growth, (the meno) therefore I set this a a premise for the following argument: theology, as I mentioned breifly is a philosophy, and philosophy is a science is a causes the growth of mind, therefor I conclude that theology is good.

Point 3
but whats does this prove? the answer is everthing. I wish to call another figure who said that the good is the ultimatle goal, I believe it was aristotal, yet I am unsure, either way the point who said it is irrelivant. the point itself is brilliance.

1) Because theology deals with moral and spirtual growth it is good.
2) People are always in search of the good.
3) theology is usefull to all
4) I conclude that because of this, theologys good, is good for all.
5) all people should study theology for personal growth, good.
6) Theology should not be left to theologians, therefor I conclude.

Point 4

However, I must say that there is an exception to this, any theology that does not lead to personal growth is not good. therefore should not be studied. In common day aplication it would be using redhoric and misinformed opinions to sound correct. Because under my theroy, the right kind of theology for us, must lead to personal growth, not bigitory.

I wholly agree with what Ever-Infamous Kojiro-san said. I'm no good with words and putting my thoughts INTO words, so I'll leave it at that to avoid making myself look dumber than I already have.