At least for me, some of those stories were a letdown. Because quite frankly sometimes I had no idea who he was referring to.

Those stories were not to beneficial mainly because I cant really remember any of Heisig's stories mainly just my own. What did bother me is that he would give key words that didn't have any explanations for example #1309 he gives the key word Story and I didn't know it was for a story in a house or a building like the first floor or second floor. I thought it had to do with a story in a book. When I finished the book and got to my sentences that's when I started to figure out what was going on.

sethg Wrote:

yukamina Wrote:It goes the other way too. No one seems to bat an eye at all the things people say about Christianity and Christians. Some how it's normal to say "I hate Christianity", but it's not okay to say "I love Christianity".

True. So why don't we all keep our opinions about entities that may or may not exist to ourselves and avoid any potential offenses?

Well like George Carlin used to say on his religious stand up rants: "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."

One part of me wants to agree with you sethg but sometimes I just want to argue even if we agree to nothingness. It's like it's OK to argue about why your soccer team is better than mine and vice versa or which Heisig stories are poor and which are not but for some people the topic of religion is untouchable.

Seeing the complaints about Heisig stories (not necessarily his religious ones) validates Heisig's point that people need to come up with their own stories. The guy created stories that worked for him.

But hey, you're on RevTK so you have access to figurative tons of stories to find the one that fits your mindset.

PS: The religious nature of some of his stories has been talked about on this forum before. Same results came about, go figure.

jmkeralis Wrote:I would like to point out that all of these things are attributable to human nature rather than religion. Similar things have been done in the name of ideologies such as Communism, which makes a point of being atheistic (which was extremely important to Marx). Humans will twist any idea they can get their hands on (including ones that encourage you to live your life in a loving way) to suit their own selfish needs.

I think Heisig went out on a limb and published his own personal stories because people really wanted insight into his METHOD, which is the point of the book. Just because you use his method doesn't mean you have to use all of his stories. He's just illustrating by example.

Yeah, even though I'm an atheist, I don't like trying to blame any great problems on religion--there are a whole lot of factors at play in those situations. Just look at the fact that some Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin, while others don't. Obviously being Christian does not make you homophobic. It may be true that other factors being equal, Christianity promotes homophobia, but it's really hard to verify whether this is true--and even harder to verify to what degree this might be true.

Yet, what we believe is true dictates what we believe is morally acceptable. If Christianity is true, then homosexuality might well be a sin and be bad. If atheism is true, and perhaps utilitarianism is a good principle, then it seems as if homosexuality is not bad at all.

So, we should be very worried with what is true and what is not true, because we have to take that decision and decide how to live based on it. We can't first decide what is morally acceptable, and then decide what is true based on our morals(which is essentially what the "OMG, Christianity causes death" and "OMG, atheists are bad people" arguments seem to be trying to do). You have to go in the other direction. First, we have to figure out what it means to say something is true, then we have to have a method of determining what is true, and only once we have an idea of what is true do we pick our moral code.

Anyway, I think you're right, Heisig is just giving example stories.

sethg Wrote:

yukamina Wrote:In cases where it doesn't affect you negatively. Like Heisig stories.

I haven't really noticed it in Heisig, but I can understand the sentiment of being angered by constant mentions of religion. It can bring up some really bad feelings, emotions, or memories, depending upon your background. This is not to be taken lightly, either, ya know? I mean, some may say, "Oh please, bad memories... you weren't alive when people were really dying because of Christianity.", but many African Americans weren't alive when their ancestors were being whipped and kept as slaves, yet certain inappropriate words can really make someone feel terrible.

Yes, I can see how a story about falling asleep in church can make the tears begin swelling to the surface...

If simply mentioning religion drudges up bad feelings, how are Heisig's stories any different from this topic? I don't remember any attempts to guilt anyone or persuade anyone or tell anyone what they "know" they should be doing. It's hey, are you familiar with this? Perhaps you can try using it; cuz it's so pervasive in virtually every English speaking country.

Aside from the already mentioned, using your own stories, there are other techniques that get things done faster; where you, yourself, get to choose which sad memories you want to drudge

Heisig not Giving out Stories: Heh, have any of you guys noticed Heisig stops giving you stories about a quarter of the way through. It reminds me of the time my dad stopped reading me bed times stories after he was fatally wounded in stingray attack. My mom tried reading me stories but her voice was scratchy and her turrets keep acting up so the stories would go "Wance apona mik mik tayeem." At random times she would just hit me. Eventually she stopped reading altogether and just hit me and ticked as I made up my own stories, so now I have an aversion to a person no longer giving me stories and having to make my own up. Share the rage.

Religion has been at the core of a lot of F***ed up S***! So has love, obsession, sex, politics, money, drugs, lying, stealing, cheating.... wait... all this fall under politics... politics is religion... by golly religion is at the core of our existence....

*attempts to jump off bridge* wait suicide means hell...don't it...
*continues sad miserable life*

What I mean to say is relax. Heisigs didn't make his stories as an attempt at some sort of humane\ethical\politically correct argument. He did it to help you remember. It's a proven face we are more likely to remember a painful experience than a politically correct one.

Edit:

Damn and I was doing so well these last couple of months...

Heisig just knows a lot of Bible stories, more than the average person. I do think his stories would be much better if they were based more on popular culture than on Bible stories. Robin Hood, King Arthur, ninjas, dragons, unicorns, pirates, Alice in Wonderland, nursery rhymes, batman, spiderman, superman, Santa, Easter bunny, Tooth fairy, the Beatles, Elvis, etc. are all much more known by all Westerners than the obscure Bible stories he dredges up. I can think of so many better things to relate to.

Mr. T.

As one of the main propagators of Biblical stories here, I'll chime in. In one sense, they are no different than LotR stories--if you know the LotR stories, the characters and situations are second-nature to you and very memorable. Likewise the Bible. At its most base-level, that's why I use the stories, and why I share them.

Some of the stories have more of a theological bent to them. A few of my stories I think present truths about Christianity in ways others would might find obnoxious or offensive. And you know what--*I dont' share those stories*. I could easily do so, get a million reports and things, and then play the x-rated argument of, "If you don't like it, get off the interwebs, you baby." But, like I said, I'm a Christian so I do try to consider the feelings of others where it is reasonable to do so. So I leave those stories off, and ask that others self-censor for the good of their neighbor. Consistency.

I'm not going to get offended at the Buddhist stories in Heisig either. Why should I? Likewise, I've written some Islam-related stories. I'm not muslim, but they're memorable from the little bit of study I've done on Islam. I'm currently doing some study on Buddhism myself, so had I started RtK now I might've incorporated it into my stories.

With regards to Heisig, RtK was created way before the internet, so one man by himself in Japan back when it was written has only so many references to go on. He *could* have used the Beatles, sure, but what if he didn't much care for them? I don't know the Beatles very well, so Beatles stories would be useless to me. Frankly, I think they'd be as useless these days across today's culture. Who listens to the Beatles anymore, really? Older folks, primarily. I also think that some of his stories could use some refreshing, but nowadays with sites like this it's hardly worth the effort for him to do so.

Tzadek, I really enjoyed your post up above. I wish more atheists--*and* Christians--thought along the same lines. I'll just make one qualification: thinking homosexuality is a sin does not equate to being homophobic. It means that you will not approve of or condone it, but you can easily be friendly and loving to homosexuals. I think premarital sex with an opposite-sex partner is a sin, too. But neither behavior means I can't easily befriend and treat with love someone who does either. Homophobia (hatred of gays) is something else entirely, quite removed from the moral question.

plumage Wrote:Tzadek, I really enjoyed your post up above. I wish more atheists--*and* Christians--thought along the same lines. I'll just make one qualification: thinking homosexuality is a sin does not equate to being homophobic. It means that you will not approve of or condone it, but you can easily be friendly and loving to homosexuals. I think premarital sex with an opposite-sex partner is a sin, too. But neither behavior means I can't easily befriend and treat with love someone who does either. Homophobia (hatred of gays) is something else entirely, quite removed from the moral question.

Thanks, I'm glad you liked my post. I'm going to go way off topic from Heisig to respond to this qualification, and I'm mostly doing it to help myself think it over--so my apologies everyone!

Thinking it over, I think you're right that a distinction should be made between homophobia and thinking homosexuality is a sin. They're not the same thing, though I connected them so hastily.

I think the reason I did it is because I view them as being similarly problematic. The problem with homophobia in my mind is the hurt it can possibly cause to people who are gay. This could manifest itself through insults, or someone's choosing not to hire someone based on them being gay, or anything along those lines. I'm not specifically sure what problems gay people most commonly face due to homophobia, but I'm betting there's a range of them. Things in this range are upsetting to them and are hurtful.

I believe that even if you can be loving to homosexuals, and accepting to them as people in the same way you're accepting of people who have premarital sex, that it is still sometimes hurtful. You wouldn't be purposefully trying to be hurtful, and I'm sure it would usually be hurtful to a lesser extent, but I think that the problem still exists.

I do Yahoo! Answers sometimes, and I just can't get out of my mind a post that a gay man from a Christian family once made. Though he was a homosexual, he too thought that homosexuality was a sin. So his post was essentially asking for advice on how to stop being a homosexual. His family, he said, had already talked to a number of priests about the problem, and he'd gone through all this stuff trying to fix it. This, to me, seems very hurtful in a more (I guess you could say) existential way. This constant worry that 'Something is wrong with me, but I can't fix it.' Seems pretty horrifying, actually--and this despite the fact that his family was trying to care lovingly for him.

And of course, in line with my above post, if homosexuality really is a sin then it really is the loving thing to do. But since I don't see it that way I can't find it as anything but hurtful. This, by the way, is why communication between Christians and Atheists is difficult--because we both see the stakes as very high sometimes.

Wow, I seem to have stirred up the pot a great deal.

For the record, I am atheist, but the more I progress through RtK the more I don't mind the Biblical stories. I was a bit relieved to see that his field of study is actually various religions. But anyways, when he refers to things like "the myth in the Bible" and calling God a she, I start to wonder if Heisig actually is a practicing Christian himself.

phauna Wrote:Robin Hood, King Arthur, ninjas, dragons, unicorns, pirates, Alice in Wonderland, nursery rhymes, batman, spiderman, superman, Santa, Easter bunny, Tooth fairy, the Beatles, Elvis, etc. are all much more known by all Westerners than the obscure Bible stories he dredges up. I can think of so many better things to relate to.

I'm only about 1/4 through Heisig's book, so perhaps I haven't gotten to the "obscure" stores you speak of. Still, your entire list of preferred subjects will likely provide no more insight into the kanji for any given person than would biblical references. Your list leans heavily on British themes (Robin Hood, King Arthur, dragons, Alice in Wonderland, nursery rhymes, and the Beatles are all British exports), and most of these are a minuscule part of my own life experience.

Heisig wrote his book in the mid- to late-1970s, a time when biblical knowledge was more commonplace in the general (American) population. I find it amazing that so many people today, only thirty-two years removed from RTK's initial publication date, have lost not only the knowledge but also the cultural appreciation of how "the obscure Bible stories" have influenced Western culture, and by extension, the entire world. As I grow older, I find myself increasingly frustrated with the self-aggrandizing influence of the entire Me Generation.

jmkeralis Wrote:I would like to point out that all of these things are attributable to human nature rather than religion. Similar things have been done in the name of ideologies such as Communism, which makes a point of being atheistic (which was extremely important to Marx). Humans will twist any idea they can get their hands on (including ones that encourage you to live your life in a loving way) to suit their own selfish needs.

Puh-lease.

zer0range Wrote:

jmkeralis Wrote:I would like to point out that all of these things are attributable to human nature rather than religion. Similar things have been done in the name of ideologies such as Communism, which makes a point of being atheistic (which was extremely important to Marx). Humans will twist any idea they can get their hands on (including ones that encourage you to live your life in a loving way) to suit their own selfish needs.

Puh-lease.

Puh-lease?

The problem brought about through religion stem from belief. Belief regardless of the source or target can often come from a group irrational perspective. It's this group irrational perspective that leads atrocities. When groups are involved individual morality is thrown out the door. Morality becomes group morality. Said group can be political/religious, love/hate, pain seeking/pleasure seeking or any number of combinations.

Please, I don't think people appreciate how difficult it would be to make up hundreds of mini stories while not offending anybody. I think Heisig's work reflects that he's well cultured and worldly, and a) when the book was written there was less of this political correctness bullcrap, b) criticizing a religious scholar for writing about religion is a bit ridiculous.

vosmiura Wrote:if you can't stand religion then don't read books written by scholars of religion

Amen! Preach it brother!

NOTE: Read this reply at your own risk. The terms "amen" and "preach it brother" are not guaranteed to religion-neutral, and may induce a spiritual response in certain readers. You may wish to seek professional advice to find out if these terms are right for you. God bless you.

timaki Wrote:Amen! Preach it brother!

NOTE: Read this reply at your own risk. The terms "amen" and "preach it brother" are not guaranteed to religion-neutral, and may induce a spiritual response in certain readers. You may wish to seek professional advice to find out if these terms are right for you. God bless you.

I frankly wasn't offended by any of Heisig's stories, because I grew up in Alabama... I went to church every Sunday, twice, and every Wednesday night for a large part of my childhood, so I'm pretty familiar with the Bible and I'm past the point of allowing memories of religion tearing my family apart to make me curl into the fetal position. Instead, yeah, I think they're useful for remembering things like kanji.

That being said, Timaki, that's really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate. Is it really Christ-like to taunt people and purposely attempt to incite anger? I don't often "quote scripture", but even in Ephesians it says, "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." I think that this general idea kind of applies across the board, though. Instead of taunting people and trying to "smite" them with Biblical sayings, why not make a logical and insightful response?

:: sigh ::

sethg Wrote:Timaki, that's really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate. Is it really Christ-like to taunt people and purposely attempt to incite anger? ... Instead of taunting people and trying to "smite" them with Biblical sayings, why not make a logical and insightful response?

I think you must have misread my post. It was a humorous response to a thread that, frankly, could use all the humor it can get. I didn't even quote any "Biblical sayings," unless you count "Amen" as a biblical saying. Where did I "smite" anyone or "taunt people and purposely attempt to incite anger"?

I did IMHO post a "logical and insightful response" just a few minutes earlier on this same thread. I know that people from all over the world participate in this forum, but let me address you in my admittedly-limited American viewpoint. The reality is that Westerners have almost no reason to gripe about the influence of religion in their books or their culture. Although there are exceptions even today (some of the priest/adolescent abuse scandals of recent years come to mind), the vast majority of Westerners, even atheists, receive tremendous benefits from living in a culture that has strong biblical influences. America's Founding Fathers made reference to this in unending detail. Even Thomas Jefferson, who despite being a borderline Christian/deist/agnostic, was benevolent in his acceptance of the religious underpinnings of the colonial worldview in which he lived. It's easy to find support for this view in the writings of Tocqueville, but even Thomas Paine, no friend of Christianity, understood the priority and role of religion within the emerging nation.

When some say that they are offended or bothered by the presence of religious content in RTK, they are (at least the Westerners) dismissing without reason the whole of what religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has meant to their way of life. They cherry pick the offenses, leaving the positive aspects to rot on the ground as if those aspects never existed. It's an historically and culturally inaccurate view of the place of religion in history. I can try to debate it, and I often do, but to little effect. I have found that satire and blunt humor are often equally effective, and sometimes more effective, then brute force dialogue.

Let me ask this: if the way we gauge self-censorship is by potential offense caused by stirring up bad memories, does that mean all controversial historical figures are off limits as well? Is mentioning a story about Hitler or Saddam Hussein also taboo because of the amount of people they had killed? Jesus never said to kill anyone in his name or to hate gays or that slavery was a good thing. (although to be fair, he never said to free the slaves either.) His main message was turn the other cheek, to love one another, and his martyrdom on the cross reflects total submission to fate rather than forceful opposition in any way to the people who were going to kill him. There are a lot of whackjobs who have killed or tortured in the name of Christianity, but again, why not get angry at those people instead of the stories themselves.

BTW, is Martin Luther King a no-no subject as well since he was a reverend? How about Malcolm X who was a Muslim and, as a result, had an even more controversial stance? Is it ever okay to mention basic historical facts such as the Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11 bombings or should we all just shrivel up in balls and limit ourselves to stories about Teletubbies and Big Bird?

Dragg Wrote:should we all just shrivel up in balls and limit ourselves to stories about Teletubbies and Big Bird?

actually i have a theory that teletubbies is a lot to blame for todays society.. teletubbies were created 10-11 years ago? so all the 2-3 year olds watching it are now .. teenagers? and guess what, britain has the highest teen pregnancy rate in europe. tell me all those subliminal messages about playing with "dipsy" and "tinky winky" didnt have a knock on effect.

i know this is irrelevant to the thread. but i also feel that this subject is borederline getting out out of hand and really isnt all that relevant on a language learning forum.
lots of good points been brought up.. lets just let it lie, before someone gets upset and all kinds of problems appear

delenir Wrote:Wow, I seem to have stirred up the pot a great deal.

For the record, I am atheist, but the more I progress through RtK the more I don't mind the Biblical stories. I was a bit relieved to see that his field of study is actually various religions. But anyways, when he refers to things like "the myth in the Bible" and calling God a she, I start to wonder if Heisig actually is a practicing Christian himself.

Referring to God as She, and to the stories in the Bible as myth are my favorite ways of kind of feeling out how deep a dialogue I can have with a Christian when I meet them for the first time. Fundamentalists go nuts if you call God "She". "Does God have a penis? If so what does He use it for? If not, why have an organ that has no use? If He does not have a penis, then He is a She."
EVERY religion uses myth to explain things in a way the masses can relate to better. When the major religions were founded, most people were illiterate and so memorable stories had to be created to be passed on orally.

There were of course homosexuals during Jesus' time. He didn't make a big deal about it. The church makes a big deal of it now because hatred is a strong tool to keep the congregation energized and donations pouring in. If you walk by a church on a Sunday morning and see all the shiny new cars parked out front, it is easy to see people do not care about what he actually taught.

God is neither male nor female, but since He is called "He" in the Bible, that is the pronoun that should be used.

That's a reasonable answer

Curious, is there a distinction between he/she in old Hebrew, Aramaic, or classical Greek?

Wow, we're off topic.

timaki Wrote:

phauna Wrote:Robin Hood, King Arthur, ninjas, dragons, unicorns, pirates, Alice in Wonderland, nursery rhymes, batman, spiderman, superman, Santa, Easter bunny, Tooth fairy, the Beatles, Elvis, etc. are all much more known by all Westerners than the obscure Bible stories he dredges up. I can think of so many better things to relate to.

I'm only about 1/4 through Heisig's book, so perhaps I haven't gotten to the "obscure" stores you speak of. Still, your entire list of preferred subjects will likely provide no more insight into the kanji for any given person than would biblical references. Your list leans heavily on British themes (Robin Hood, King Arthur, dragons, Alice in Wonderland, nursery rhymes, and the Beatles are all British exports), and most of these are a minuscule part of my own life experience.

If Robin Hood and King Arthur are British themes, then Bible stories are Middle Eastern themes, and of no use to you. Americans don't sing nursery rhymes? Not even Humpty Dumpty? Sure. And of course no American has ever seen a movie with a dragon in it, or a Disney version of Robin Hood, Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, etc. Also those books are available in English, to English speakers.

I suppose if you accept the influence of the Bible on Western culture, then you might also like to accept the influence of English things, you know, Shakespeare and the like. Didn't he invent a couple of words and phrases or something? I can barely remember, he's a bit of a nobody hack IMHO. Anyway, my point was that more people know about all of those things than the bible. Of course people know basic bible stuff, but most haven't read it much, if at all.

phauna Wrote:If Robin Hood and King Arthur are British themes, then Bible stories are Middle Eastern themes, and of no use to you. Americans don't sing nursery rhymes? Not even Humpty Dumpty? Sure... Didn't (Shakespeare) invent a couple of words and phrases or something? I can barely remember, he's a bit of a nobody hack IMHO.

This is precisely why I don't waste much of my life in discussion forums. Everyone seems to have some brilliant point based on one or two words in another person's post taken completely out of context. What part of "my own life experience" didn't you understand?

phauna Wrote:my point was that more people know about all of those things than the bible. Of course people know basic bible stuff, but most haven't read it much, if at all.

And my point was that when Heisig wrote his book, knowledge of biblical themes was more common than it is now. As an author, he weighed the sensibilities of his target audience, and adapted the content accordingly.