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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Last edited by Tzadeck (2009 May 05, 9:30 am)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Wow, we're off topic.

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.