[QUOTE=Yllaria]
I saw a slide show in an Art History class that included a mural from a Roman catacomb tomb featuring Apollo as The Good Shepherd. I have no clue how widespread that meme was, but, for the time, the image was considered to be a positive one with no implied insult.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but during so much of human history up to the quite recent past, people all over the world were pretty much born into a certain social strata. And except for the top guy, everyone had to meekly follow orders from above. In such a society, I can imagine someone readily buying into the imagery of wanting to be led and protected.
But it strikes me as odd that it would appeal to emanicpated folk of this (or the last) century - at least in most Western cultures.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Yeah, but during so much of human history up to the quite recent past, people all over the world were pretty much born into a certain social strata. And except for the top guy, everyone had to meekly follow orders from above. In such a society, I can imagine someone readily buying into the imagery of wanting to be led and protected.
But it strikes me as odd that it would appeal to emanicpated folk of this (or the last) century - at least in most Western cultures.
[/QUOTE]
I think in large part the discomfort with the imagery is cultural - the use of metaphorical language and discriptive imagery is highly culture-specific, and does not translate well between cultures.
When I think of “sheep” I think of “sheeplike conformity” or “easily led” or "brainless as a … ". But these were not necessarily the images that were brought to mind during the time when the Gospels were being written.
For another example, from the Bible but not a religious image … in the Song of Songs describes the beloved like this:
Now, these days if you said a woman reminded you of a horse, it wouldn’t be a complement.
More odd animal imagery, same source:
Similarly, being called a “sheep” or a “flock” evidently was not insulting and did not carry connotations such as we understand today. Obviously, modern religious groups have simply inherited this older imagery.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
But the leap I cannot really understand is someone deciding that since they believe something powerful and “unknowable” is out there, that they should accept one particular detailed version of that “unknowable.”
[/quote]
Well, in my own, we don’t think the evidence simply stopped a few millenia back and we’ve hd nothing to go on. Aside from logic, tested and thought about for a very long time, we have had prophets and miracles since. In fact, rather more of them. Now, in point of fact if you press a Catholic theologian, he will admit that a lot of what we think might not be so. There is a heirarchy of certainty. This site describes the various levels reasonably well.
Now, there’s a lot more which we are expected to accept, but that’s a whole higher level of thinking, and even then we must examine our consciences and can even disagree if we can justify it within the bounds of basic principles (the Catholic Church sorta started tenure and free thought in academia). Although in practical terms the Church does not recognize the need, Theravada Buddism, or Taoism, or really most any philosophy is compatible.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
And I’m not sure why someone would choose to belong to a religion that emphasizes that members are in need of protection, incapable of thinking for themselves, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Like you, I would not want to join any religion which declares that its members are incapable of thinking for themselves. Thankfully, Christianity teaches no such thing.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
I’m sure this has been discussed before, but the other day I saw a headline describing a priest’s relationship with his “flock”, and wondered why anyone would derive anything positive from such a designation.
I gather that Jesus and priests are/were supposed to play a protective/guiding/shepherding role concerning their followers. But isn’t calling the congregation a flock tantamount to calling them a bunch of sheep? And I can’t think of any instance in which I heard someone called a sheep in a complimentary manner.
[/quote]
There are common english-language expressions where humans are compared to apples (“The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”), birds (“Birds of a feather flock together.”), the Devil (“Speak of the Devil”), and many other things, yet nobody considers these to be insulting. The references to Jesus and his followers as a sheperd and sheep merely indicate that Christians feel our fullest potential will be achieved with the help of God.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Yes – but not for the flock’s sake. From the shepherd’s POV, the sheep are nothing but a source of wool and mutton.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
And I’m not sure why someone would choose to belong to a religion that emphasizes that members are in need of protection, incapable of thinking for themselves, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Which religions run counter to this? Even the ancient greeks reminded people of their need to be humble with tales like Achilles’ heel. Which ones laud hubris instead? I can’t think of any that don’t remind us that we’re not as powerful and capable as the Gods.
[QUOTE=elfkin477]
Which religions run counter to this? Even the ancient greeks reminded people of their need to be humble with tales like Achilles’ heel. Which ones laud hubris instead? I can’t think of any that don’t remind us that we’re not as powerful and capable as the Gods.
[/QUOTE]
Satanism, of course. Some of the neopagan religions. Most of the Hermetic/Golden Dawn derivatives. Hinduism. Buddhism. You’ve got to clear away a lot of human shit first, but then you’re good to go.
[QUOTE=davidw]
I’d have to disagree. As a sheep, I imagine I’d have a much longer life and greater standard of living as part of a flock with a shepard and his dogs watching out for me, than out on my own protecting myself against the wolves.
[/QUOTE]
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
That depends on the sheperd.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it does. And, based on the evidence of Scripture, the Lord God of Israel is not a shepherd the sheep can or should admire, honor, respect, worship, obey, or love.
[QUOTE=elfkin477]
Which religions run counter to this? Even the ancient greeks reminded people of their need to be humble with tales like Achilles’ heel. Which ones laud hubris instead? I can’t think of any that don’t remind us that we’re not as powerful and capable as the Gods.
[/QUOTE]
But, in fact, we human mortals are, at the very least, as powerful and capable as the Gods.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Do religions other than Catholicism refer to adherents as a flock? Do other non-Catholic christians?
[/QUOTE]
It’s not at all uncommon in the protestant denominations with which I’m familiar (UK Methodist, Anglican, Baptist and Kings Community Church).
Like all metaphors, it does a fair job of conveying certain concepts for which it was coined, and may break down if attempts are made to apply it beyond them.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Every (protestant) church I’ve ever attended used the term.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it’s so much fun to kick the Catholics around! (From a long-lapsed Catholic who still finds myself explaining the religion to folks down here in the Bible Belt.)
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Pasta != Shepherd’s Pie.
[/QUOTE]
But it’s all food, isn’t it?
Of course, the famous aria from Handel’s Messiah is “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd”, not “He shall shear and butcher his flock like an exploitative tyrant”, which may go some way to explaining the intent of the metaphor, at least.
Yes, and it’s a tendency I’ve noticed in some other posters - the ones I’ve noticed have been cultural Jews, but that’s got “confirmation bias” written all over it, so I’d be a fool to claim it was more prevalent amongst them - that merely abandoning the faith of one’s fathers is no bar to being offended by proxy on account of it.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Higher level of thinking? How so?
In all my experiementation, I never got so high as to perceive God.
[/QUOTE]
Wasn’t my intention to suggest it. It’s higher in the sense of being mroe complicated, further removed from the “ground” principles, and to a certain degree, airier. It’s both a little more suspect but also necessary. Humans can live without understanding these things, but wem prefer not to - we want Truth and Beauty and Peace and Love now, not in some value and shapeless tommorow. So, we improvise and take educated guesses and make logical deductions.
In short, a lot of scholars and priests and general people have worked out systems of thought and theory and “what we think is right.” But the reasoning is not something you can fit into a book or even a series of books. I wouldn’t understand the half of it, and I doubt there’s a single person anywhere who would.
It’s higher in the sense of being mroe complicated, further removed from the “ground” principles, and to a certain degree, airier. It’s both a little more suspect but also necessary. Humans can live without understanding these things, but wem prefer not to - we want Truth and Beauty and Peace and Love now, not in some value and shapeless tommorow. So, we improvise and take educated guesses and make logical deductions.