Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 20

Thread: Opinions

  1. #10

    Default Re: Opinions

    Obviously, Jesus is a legitamate subject (arguably the most influential person in history?) It would be hard to write a non-religious paper on Jesus though, since most sources on Jesus are religious in nature and since Jesus seems to have been a very religious man himself.

  2. #11
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Parker, Az
    Posts
    3,388

    Default Re: Opinions

    Wikipedia does a pretty good job here......

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
    I am 49, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

  3. #12
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: Opinions

    Why would you have to write a non-religious paper about Jesus in school. I don't think it is possible considering Jesus main influence on the world was the birth of the largest religion in the world. I am not saying you take a pro-Jesus stance but I don't see how you could do it. I guess you could talk about his message and way of life but you would be ignoring the elephant in the room. Even if you looked strictly at Jesus as a person and what he did, he himself constantly spoke of God and said that he was God so it would be hard to do.

  4. #13

    Default Re: Opinions

    I think the whole argument is a moot point, really. If the kids wants to write a a historical paper on Jesus, he should go ahead and write it. My only caveat is that he should remain objective (something I have harped on a lot in these forums). Much of his information may come from the Bible, which is fine. I don't really think the paper has to be non-religious, it just has to be historical and objective. The author can say that some believed Jesus to be the Messiah, while others did not. This does not endorseandy paticulart view and is historic. This topic is really a non-issue.

    I think some people just want to get their shorts in a knot over something, and they happen to pick this topic a lot. If we value education, broadening of young minds, and the importance of information, we should not exclude Jesus simply because he is a religious figure. Why not give the kids all the information we can?

  5. #14
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Opinions

    Religious paper: Jesus was conceived by immaculate conception, was the son of God, and rose from the cross on Easter Sunday.

    Historical paper: Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by immaculate conception, was the son of God, and rose from the cross on Easter Sunday.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  6. #15
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: Opinions

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    Religious paper: Jesus was conceived by immaculate conception, was the son of God, and rose from the cross on Easter Sunday.

    Historical paper: Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by immaculate conception, was the son of God, and rose from the cross on Easter Sunday.

    I see so by not confirming your belief it makes it non-religious.

  7. #16
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Opinions

    Well, yes. Faith is religion, fact is reportage.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  8. #17

    Default Re: Opinions

    Maybe this is a bit too much for the topic, I am not trying to hi-jack or anything. But here is something that I have read for a class I am taking called "Religion in Critical Perspective" but has been dubbed "History of the History of Religion" by the instructor. Anyways, these 13 theses were written by Bruce Lincoln, a professor at the University of Chicago:

    1. The conjunction "of" that joins the two nouns in the disciplinary ethnonym "History of Religions" is not neutral filler. Rather, it announces a proprietary claim and a relation of encompassment: History is the method and Religion the object of study.

    2. The relation between the two nouns is also tense, as becomes clear if one takes the trouble to specify their meaning. Religion, I submit, is that discourse whose defining characteristic is its desire to speak of things eternal and transcendent with an authority equally transcendent and eternal. History, in the sharpest possible contrast, is that discourse which speaks of things temporal and terrestrial in a human and fallible voice, while staking its claim to authority on rigorous critical practice.

    3. History of religions is thus a discourse that resists and reverses the orientation of that discourse with which it concerns itself. To practice history of religions in a fashion consistent with the discipline's claim of title is to insist on discussing the temporal, contextual, situated, interested, human, and material dimensions of those discourses, practices, and institutions that characteristically represent themselves as eternal, transcendent, spiritual, and divine.

    4. The same destabilizing and irreverent questions one might ask of any speech act ought be posed of religious discourse. The first of these is "Who speaks here?", i.e., what person, group, or institution is responsible for a text, whatever its putative or apparent author. Beyond that, "To what audience? In what immediate and broader context? Through what system of mediations? With what interests?" And further, "Of what would the speaker(s) persuade the audience? What are the consequences if this project of persuasion should happen to succeed? Who wins what, and how much? Who, conversely, loses?"

    5. Reverence is a religious, and not a scholarly virtue. When good manners and good conscience cannot be reconciled, the demands of the latter ought to prevail.

    6. Many who would not think of insulating their own or their parents' religion against critical inquiry still afford such protection to other people's faiths, via a stance of cultural relativism. One can appreciate their good intentions, while recognizing a certain displaced defensiveness, as well as the guilty conscience of western imperialism.

    7. Beyond the question of motives and intentions, cultural relativism is predicated on the dubious--not to say, fetishistic--construction of "cultures" as if they were stable and discrete groups of people defined by the stable and discrete values, symbols, and practices they share. Insofar as this model stresses the continuity and integration of timeless groups, whose internal tensions and conflicts, turbulence and incoherence, permeability and malleability are largely erased, it risks becoming a religious and not a historic narrative: the story of a transcendent ideal threatened by debasing forces of change.

    8. Those who sustain this idealized image of culture do so, inter alia, by mistaking the dominant fraction (sex, age group, class, and/or caste) of a given group for the group or "culture" itself. At the same time, they mistake the ideological positions favoured and propagated by the dominant fraction for those of the group as a whole (e.g. when texts authored by Brahmins define "Hinduism", or when the statements of male elders constitute "Nuer religion"). Scholarly misrecognitions of this sort replicate the misrecognitions and misrepresentations of those the scholars privilege as their informants.

    9. Critical inquiry need assume neither cynicism nor dissimulation to justify probing beneath the surface, and ought probe scholarly discourse and practice as much as any other.

    10. Understanding the system of ideology that operates in one's own society is made difficult by two factors: (i) one's consciousness is itself a product of that system, and (ii) the system's very success renders its operations invisible, since one is so consistently immersed in and bombarded by its products that one comes to mistake them (and the apparatus through which they are produced and disseminated) for nothing other than "nature".

    11. The ideological products and operations of other societies afford invaluable opportunities to the would-be student of ideology. Being initially unfamiliar, they do not need to be denaturalized before they can be examined. Rather, they invite and reward critical study, yielding lessons one can put to good use at home.

    12. Although critical inquiry has become commonplace in other disciplines, it still offends many students of religion, who denounce it as "reductionism". This charge is meant to silence critique. The failure to treat religion "as religion"--that is, the refusal to ratify its claim of transcendent nature and sacrosanct status--may be regarded as heresy and sacrilege by those who construct themselves as religious, but it is the starting point for those who construct themselves as historians.

    13. When one permits those whom one studies to define the terms in which they will be understood, suspends one's interest in the temporal and contingent, or fails to distinguish between "truths", "truth-claims", and "regimes of truth", one has ceased to function as historian or scholar. In that moment, a variety of roles are available: some perfectly respectable (amanuensis, collector, friend and advocate), and some less appealing (cheerleader, voyeur, retailer of import goods). None, however, should be confused with scholarship.

  9. #18

    Default Re: Opinions

    Skipster and Spider, I agree...BTW my sister went through something like this in Jr. High. I think a lot of teachers don't want to touch religion with a ten-foot pole, which is kind of too bad. How can you understand the world today without understanding the powerful influences that religion have on it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •