read the bible with me, Part 2

[wavyarms]

I am going to have an incredibly busy semester coming up. I'm probably going to explode with everything I have to do. Therefore, why not pile on one more thing?

I formed a community, bible_babble, for starting that online Bible discussion group I was talking about. My plan is to post a reading assignment each week and then have everyone talk about it in the comments. Let me know if you want to join!

Comments

[kcobweb.livejournal.com]

Hey, I have a 10-month-old child to chase, and I'm moving in a month! Nevertheless, I'm interested in following the conversation. I may join and just lurk (if that's all right).

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

No problem! Feel free to add.

[ethicsgradient.livejournal.com]

Sounds good to me....what bible version are we using?

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

I thought it would be a good idea for people to use different versions. It probably means more quoting, but I think it would be a good idea for us to get a sense of the variety of translations out there.

Go to the community and click on the link and I'll approve you!

[zdenka]

I was curious, so I just went to read the community's userinfo, where you say the point is to understand and come to terms with the "dominant religion of the U.S.". I am slightly puzzled, because I would not know how to define the "dominant religion". Do you mean Protestant Christianity (or some sect thereof), or Christianity as a whole, or something else? And doesn't defining the community's mission as understanding the one dominant religion (whatever it may be) seem to exclude the views of those who don't belong to it?

Or is it intentional -- trying to indicate that you only want to discuss Christian perspectives? It's okay if so, because that is also a valid purpose.

I'm probably getting too caught up in that one phrase, but I figured I should at least make sure I understand what you mean before I start arguing with you. :-)

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Well, I define the dominant religion as Christianity as a whole. No doubt members of various denominations would kick up at that, but they do more or less kind of approximately for the most part all share the same Holy Book. (For parts shared by the Hebrew Bible I would expect that Judaism would also enter the conversation.)

I also don't agree that wishing to understand one point of view implies a lack of interest in understanding other points of view. And it would pretty much be impossible to discuss only Christian perspectives, seeing as I'm a pretty staunch atheist. Basically, I feel that becoming more familiar with a book that's had an extremely significant impact on my culture can only be to my advantage.

I'm not sure I really understood your objection, so you'll have to tell me if I answered it.

[kcobweb.livejournal.com]

I sort of read that part of the userinfo as standing for Judeo-Christian religions/values/etc, and the ways they have influenced life as we know it in the U.S. But that was my interpretation, and may not have been wavyarms' intent.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Yes, that is what I meant. Perhaps it would be clearer to say something like the "particular religious culture" in the US?

[kcobweb.livejournal.com]

Or even "cultureS" - since many people would point out that (especially those from within) it is not necessarily very homogenous, but very diverse with many splits and divisions.

[kcobweb.livejournal.com]

Actually, I just looked at what you have there now, and I like it.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

I poked at it. Is that better?

I didn't really address the perspectives part, b/c I think maybe for me I do want to primarily investigate Christian perspectives. I don't expect other people will join and discuss for that reason, though.

[zdenka]

Yeah, I feel like I have a clearer sense of what you intend from reading the new version. And you also took out the word "dominant," which had just been raising my hackles for some reason. :-)

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

DominantDominantDominant! Maybe you've watched too much DS9 and it sounds like Dominion? :)

Or maybe subconsciously, "dominant" implies "in power" which implies "corrupt"? Not logical, but instinctive. People don't intuitively have a lot of sympathy for powerful or "dominant" institutions, perhaps.

[zdenka]

:-)

No, it's because "dominant" implies "that which dominates," and I don't like the implication that someone else's belief set has the power to dominate me (since I am not Christian). Like being told that women are "the weaker sex" or something. Though I knew that wasn't what you meant.

I'm an amateur linguist; the way I react to words is usually not subconscious, though it is not always logical.

[(Anonymous)]

Well I'm doing it, of course. But we expected that. (p.s. did you call the y yet?)

-afs

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Yay! You'll need a livejournal account, however. You should see a link to signing up for one on the main page. Let me know if you need help.

No, I haven't called yet, but I'm going to do it RIGHT NOW. (I figured calling on Sunday wouldn't work, seeing as they're the YMCA, and I was out all day Saturday.)