| |
UFR Forums
Home of the Insane
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fljotsdale
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 982
Location: UK
Medals: None
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:15 pm Post subject: Religion sucks - or not? |
 |
|
Hm. Religious debate, anyone? Lets put the cat...
I think all religions started out (and largely continued) as means to control the many by the few. And not only to control, but to profit from that control in terms of goods/money/power.
Look around you. They are still at the same games, though it's stronger in some places than in others.
Put the fear of 'god' or 'spirits' into a population, and you have 'em eating out of your hand. Anyone dare to question the authority of the religion? Kill 'em. That'll keep the rest down.
I'm far from the first to propound such thoughts, and certainly won't be the last! But what do YOU think?
Discuss! 
_________________
Leonard Cohen - still pulling the punters at age 75.
http://www.youtube.com/user/leonardcohen?blend=1&ob=4
This one always makes me cry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard the Great
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 388
Location: Back home
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Crap, it's been so long!
Of course it sucks. I just wrote in an essay I'm preparing: "Religion is the people's pulque (a popular and very cheap alcoholic drink here in Mexico) and there's not a single peasant that wouldn't rise ready to kill if his curado (a name for pulque) was taken away from him."
Your obedient servant:
Richard the Great.
_________________
"No one puts Richard in a corner." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fljotsdale
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 982
Location: UK
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heh! Been so long since we last .... er... spoke?
Are you saying that cheap alcohol is the main religion of Mexico?! 
_________________
Leonard Cohen - still pulling the punters at age 75.
http://www.youtube.com/user/leonardcohen?blend=1&ob=4
This one always makes me cry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard the Great
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 388
Location: Back home
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Both since I last posted here and we ... er ... spoke. 
Well, forgot to give a bit of context. The essay I'm working on deals with the reasons and motivations behind the independence of the country (will be the 200th aniversary of the beginning of the war next year), and I'm disclosing the religious components behind them. My guess is that one of the conspirators against the Spanish viceroy could well have said that phrase when seeing how to gather popular support for the movement. Remember that Spain was under Napoleon's rule at that time and there was fear here in America that he would instaurate an atheist, republican regime (saying republican in those days was the same as shouting "Commie!" under McCarthy or "Gay!" in front of Bush Son) in the Paeninsula and its colonies.
But then again, we could indeed speak about cheap alcohol being the official religion of Mexico, Brazil, and Scotland, at least!
Your obedient servant:
Richard the Great.
_________________
"No one puts Richard in a corner." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fljotsdale
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 982
Location: UK
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hm... that's interesting. I have to admit that I know absolutely nothing about your topic, so the bit of info you have given has expanded my knowledge 100% on the topic! I'm interested.
What are you actually studying? Is it history or religion, or ....what?
But I'd like to get back on topic, too - so if anyone else is out there, feel free to join in.
_________________
Leonard Cohen - still pulling the punters at age 75.
http://www.youtube.com/user/leonardcohen?blend=1&ob=4
This one always makes me cry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Womble
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 488
Location: Israel
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When was the last time you've read the Bible, Fljots? Do you remember what sort of relationship existed between the Biblical kings and the prophets?
Control of the many by the few... The original method of doing that was by brute force. Religion arose largely as an alternative power structure which put the warlords on a much shorter leash, burdening them with rules and commitments which could not be abrogated by the wish of one powerful man, or by a change of leadership. It was also a powerful social organization force which diminished the advantage of superior numbers in warfare in favor of superior morale.
People tend to dwell a lot on the instances when religion was used to rally people for conquests, and forget that it was used just as often to rally people for defense against conquerors and oppressors. Russia's St. Sergey of Radonej, the priests of Poland who led rebellions, Gandhi (whose pacifism was motivated primarily by his Jainist religious views), et cetera all the way to the present. (The Church formed the main body of opposition to the fascist dictatorship of Stroessener in Paraguay, for instance).
_________________
Faith is, at one and the same time, absolutely necessary and altogether impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fljotsdale
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 982
Location: UK
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hiya, Womble! Isn't that just like you?!
No, it's been a while since I actually read the bible as a daily practice, and I lost count of the number of times I read it through in the 25+ years of being a 'believer'. But I remember how it worked, nonetheless!
And biblical religion was and is just as much of a power tool 'back when' as all religions are now, though, as I said, more so in some places than others.
| Quote: |
| Do you remember what sort of relationship existed between the Biblical kings and the prophets? |
Yup, I think so. In most cases the prophet prophesied and the King ignored him, unless he was a 'good' King, like David (cough, Bathsheba and a small case of murder by sending to the front line, excepted, of course).
The Kings, however, paid at least lip service to either YHWH or to one of the pagan gods, and cynically used the religion to keep the people (and the priesthood) in line, yeah. But the Kings needed 'em all the same, because if the priesthood didn't say something was right and proper, the populace would have defied the King.
| Quote: |
| Control of the many by the few... The original method of doing that was by brute force. Religion arose largely as an alternative power structure which put the warlords on a much shorter leash, burdening them with rules and commitments which could not be abrogated by the wish of one powerful man, or by a change of leadership. It was also a powerful social organization force which diminished the advantage of superior numbers in warfare in favor of superior morale. |
I don't really go with that entirely. There are elements in it, of course, that seem reliable. Especially in later periods of history, but if we go way back to the time of primitive man who believed in some kind of spirit animating each individual thing - spirits of trees, waters, animals, winds, etc - animism, I believe it's called - then where did such beliefs originate? Surely in the mind of some individuals who were in need of power and saw opportunity to gain that power by exploiting the gullibility of those less acute than themselves. As I said, put the fear of gods and spirits into the populace and you hold 'em in the palm of your hand.
That attitude of mind can still be seen operating both in history and in the world today to dominate others, or to claim lands not theirs, or to attempt the elimination of faiths perceived as 'false' and therefore wicked and their priests and practitioners as deserving of death since they are destined for hell and damnation anyway, and their presence in the world 'corrupts' the morals of the 'true' believers.
| Quote: |
| People tend to dwell a lot on the instances when religion was used to rally people for conquests, and forget that it was used just as often to rally people for defense against conquerors and oppressors. Russia's St. Sergey of Radonej, the priests of Poland who led rebellions, Gandhi (whose pacifism was motivated primarily by his Jainist religious views), et cetera all the way to the present. (The Church formed the main body of opposition to the fascist dictatorship of Stroessener in Paraguay, for instance). |
Ghandi was a decent bloke. He did his best. And I think he was sincere.
But the Church supported Hitler and Mussolini, as you well know, in both the war and the extermination of Jews, and, moreover, used their spiritual authority to help keep the populace on-side. Where were the prophets, then, I wonder? I don't think I ever read about any, though I have a vague recollection that there were some. Perhaps you can enlighten me, as your knowledge of the history of the period is bound to be greater than mine.
As for priests and warfare, Jesus said that his followers should be 'no part of the world', and the early christians, therefore, took no part in warfare of any kind other than pacific religious argument; therefore the priests and 'saints' taking part in wars in any way shape or form is utterly alien to the teachings of christ.
Of course, it ain't alien to the god of the old testament who was a bloody handed god however you look at him! The most hypocritical old humbug I ever came across! For example. scripture said it was 'impossible for god to lie' but he wasn't averse to instructing angels to do it for him - oh no!
_________________
Leonard Cohen - still pulling the punters at age 75.
http://www.youtube.com/user/leonardcohen?blend=1&ob=4
This one always makes me cry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Womble
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 488
Location: Israel
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fljotsdale wrote: |
| Hiya, Womble! Isn't that just like you?! |
| Quote: |
Yup, I think so. In most cases the prophet prophesied and the King ignored him, unless he was a 'good' King, like David (cough, Bathsheba and a small case of murder by sending to the front line, excepted, of course).
The Kings, however, paid at least lip service to either YHWH or to one of the pagan gods, and cynically used the religion to keep the people (and the priesthood) in line, yeah. But the Kings needed 'em all the same, because if the priesthood didn't say something was right and proper, the populace would have defied the King. |
Uh, you have it all wrong.
The Biblical prophets were constantly butting heads with the kings. Samuel anointed Saul for kingdom (at the people's behest, I believe), only to later anoint David when Saul was found inadequate- anoint a competitor while Saul still ruled, that is. David got plenty of grief from prophets, for the Batsheba incident in particular. Jeremiah got along okayish with king Josiah, but gave such grief to Jehoiakim that he narrowly avoided being executed. Huldah the prophetess semi-disdainfully referred to the king as "that man", to emphasise that he was no greater than any other man. Ejijah openly challenged king Ahab and his wife Jezebel on every step. Basically, the prophets' function was largely keeping the kings in check. And yes, the kings did invoke religion in their favor, but they held no religious status and were essentially trying to usurp religion.
| Quote: |
I don't really go with that entirely. There are elements in it, of course, that seem reliable. Especially in later periods of history, but if we go way back to the time of primitive man who believed in some kind of spirit animating each individual thing - spirits of trees, waters, animals, winds, etc - animism, I believe it's called - then where did such beliefs originate? Surely in the mind of some individuals who were in need of power and saw opportunity to gain that power by exploiting the gullibility of those less acute than themselves. As I said, put the fear of gods and spirits into the populace and you hold 'em in the palm of your hand.
That attitude of mind can still be seen operating both in history and in the world today to dominate others, or to claim lands not theirs, or to attempt the elimination of faiths perceived as 'false' and therefore wicked and their priests and practitioners as deserving of death since they are destined for hell and damnation anyway, and their presence in the world 'corrupts' the morals of the 'true' believers. |
Fljots, the easiest method of striking fear into someone is by hitting them on the head with a big wooden club, or bringing along a few buddies to kick the crap out of whoever disobeys. Telling people about tree spirits wouldn't work unless they already believed in said spirits. I think religious beliefs are something people inevitably come to. The use of these beliefs as a social force, however, strikes me as the weapon of the underdog, someone who didn't have the raw physical power or superior numbers on his side, and had to find a counterbalance in the realm of ideas in order to fend the bullies off somehow. The geek's revenge, if you will.
| Quote: |
Ghandi was a decent bloke. He did his best. And I think he was sincere.
But the Church supported Hitler and Mussolini, as you well know, in both the war and the extermination of Jews, and, moreover, used their spiritual authority to help keep the populace on-side. Where were the prophets, then, I wonder? I don't think I ever read about any, though I have a vague recollection that there were some. Perhaps you can enlighten me, as your knowledge of the history of the period is bound to be greater than mine. |
The official Catholic church may have supported- or turned a blind eye to- Hitler, but it's hardly fair to generalize it on "religion" in general. Jehovah's witnesses would rather go to the concentration camps than enlist into the Wehrmacht. The Russian Orthodox and the Protestants in Europe and the US weren't exactly smitten either. Many in Islam did support Hitler, but the Muslims of the Caucasus and the Dagestan did much to counter it.
| Quote: |
As for priests and warfare, Jesus said that his followers should be 'no part of the world', and the early christians, therefore, took no part in warfare of any kind other than pacific religious argument; therefore the priests and 'saints' taking part in wars in any way shape or form is utterly alien to the teachings of christ.
Of course, it ain't alien to the god of the old testament who was a bloody handed god however you look at him! The most hypocritical old humbug I ever came across! For example. scripture said it was 'impossible for god to lie' but he wasn't averse to instructing angels to do it for him - oh no! |
Jesus wasn't quite the nice guy people commonly think he was, if you ask me. I find many of his ideas, and especially the idea that his followers had to be "no part of the world" profoundly disturbing.
_________________
Faith is, at one and the same time, absolutely necessary and altogether impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fljotsdale
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 982
Location: UK
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Womble wrote: |
| Quote: |
Yup, I think so. In most cases the prophet prophesied and the King ignored him, unless he was a 'good' King, like David (cough, Bathsheba and a small case of murder by sending to the front line, excepted, of course).
The Kings, however, paid at least lip service to either YHWH or to one of the pagan gods, and cynically used the religion to keep the people (and the priesthood) in line, yeah. But the Kings needed 'em all the same, because if the priesthood didn't say something was right and proper, the populace would have defied the King. |
Uh, you have it all wrong.
The Biblical prophets were constantly butting heads with the kings. Samuel anointed Saul for kingdom (at the people's behest, I believe), only to later anoint David when Saul was found inadequate- anoint a competitor while Saul still ruled, that is. David got plenty of grief from prophets, for the Batsheba incident in particular. Jeremiah got along okayish with king Josiah, but gave such grief to Jehoiakim that he narrowly avoided being executed. Huldah the prophetess semi-disdainfully referred to the king as "that man", to emphasise that he was no greater than any other man. Ejijah openly challenged king Ahab and his wife Jezebel on every step. Basically, the prophets' function was largely keeping the kings in check. And yes, the kings did invoke religion in their favor, but they held no religious status and were essentially trying to usurp religion. |
Ok, 'ignored' maybe wasn't exactly the right word inasmuch the kings got riled as hell; but 'ignored' was exactly right inasmuch as the kings ignored the prophecies and advice. As usual, we are looking at the matter from slightly different angles!
As for the prophets keeping the kings in check... well, maybe, sometimes, if it was an ok king.
As for many of the kings trying to usurp religious authority, I quite agree.
| Womble wrote: |
| Fljots, the easiest method of striking fear into someone is by hitting them on the head with a big wooden club, or bringing along a few buddies to kick the crap out of whoever disobeys. Telling people about tree spirits wouldn't work unless they already believed in said spirits. I think religious beliefs are something people inevitably come to. The use of these beliefs as a social force, however, strikes me as the weapon of the underdog, someone who didn't have the raw physical power or superior numbers on his side, and had to find a counterbalance in the realm of ideas in order to fend the bullies off somehow. The geek's revenge, if you will. |
But that is exactly what I was saying! "where did such beliefs originate? Surely in the mind of some individuals who were in need of power and saw opportunity to gain that power by exploiting the gullibility of those less acute than themselves." is what I said! Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but it was what I meant. So we agree on that point!
| Womble wrote: |
| The official Catholic church may have supported- or turned a blind eye to- Hitler, but it's hardly fair to generalize it on "religion" in general. Jehovah's witnesses would rather go to the concentration camps than enlist into the Wehrmacht. The Russian Orthodox and the Protestants in Europe and the US weren't exactly smitten either. Many in Islam did support Hitler, but the Muslims of the Caucasus and the Dagestan did much to counter it. |
No, that was a bit unfair of me. I know Baptists opposed him as well as those you mention.
But religion 'in general' DOES always seek to have power over the minds of the populace, and almost invariably goes along with the secular leadership of any nation in order to hold onto it.
| Womble wrote: |
| Jesus wasn't quite the nice guy people commonly think he was, if you ask me. I find many of his ideas, and especially the idea that his followers had to be "no part of the world" profoundly disturbing. |
Why?
_________________
Leonard Cohen - still pulling the punters at age 75.
http://www.youtube.com/user/leonardcohen?blend=1&ob=4
This one always makes me cry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fljotsdale
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 982
Location: UK
Medals: None
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grim Reaper
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 59
Location: Hell
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pardon my interruption, but are you saying that you are against any thought of a so called "higher power", or just organized religion? Though I'm not highly educated in religion, I have been exposed to several briefly (in college). Personally, I consider religion in and of itself to be extremely personal (as in: no 2 people agree on all points, nor do I think they should). Organized religion seems to be the free-floating power structure you seem to be talking about. My biggest problems usually seem to be with the Catholic Church, although I know there are other offenders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fljotsdale
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 982
Location: UK
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, Hi! Yes you are very welcome - interrupt all you like!
As for your question... well, I personally do not believe in a 'higher power' but I also know that such a 'higher power' is always a possibility. The universe appears to be vast, and anything may be true somewhere... sometime...
But I most decidedly do not believe that any possible 'higher power' is even remotely like the gods we have created for ourselves, who are all remarkably human (had you noticed?) with all the virtues and vices we have, only in greater measure - especially the god of the 3 great patriachal religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam (listed in age order) - though it has to be admitted that the gods of 'paganism' were far more sexually oriented than the above 3, which makes them even more human, come to think of it!
My biggest antipathy is directed towards the 'gods'; but yes, organised religion of any size is a blight on humanity in some ways - though not ALL ways, because they at least teach moral standards to the believers, even if the believers and the teachers both have strong tendencies to ignore such standards when convenient to do so...
A religion is no better than it's god, and if the god is a bloody-handed hypocrite, we can't expect the religions organised around 'em to be any better, can we?
Which is not to say that all believers are terrible people, because they are not. Some are, of course. They plant bombs to kill indiscriminately. But the majority of believers are not of that sort, despite the god they believe in. The majority of sincere, genuine believers are nice people who do their best to live good lives. It's just a shame they believe in such appaling gods...
Even Buddhists fight...
_________________
Leonard Cohen - still pulling the punters at age 75.
http://www.youtube.com/user/leonardcohen?blend=1&ob=4
This one always makes me cry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grim Reaper
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 59
Location: Hell
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, but all of that goes back to human nature. We should also remember that all of the holy books (the bible, the Qaran, the Tao, etc) were written by mankind. While they all seem to have the basic principles, it must be remembered that it was translated over hundreds of years into several different languages and I don't know many different dialects. It has been said that religion is the opiate of the masses, but I tend to fall back on a rebuttal saying I've heard more than once: "I'd rather live my life as if there were a God and find out there wasn't, than live it like there wasn't one and find out that there is."
Now I'm not perfect, far from it and I'd never claim to be, but I'm also not a zealot who looks down on other people who don't believe the exact same thing that they do. That's more or less what I believe in a nutshell.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fljotsdale
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 982
Location: UK
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I've heard that quote before, and I always liked it.
However, one can lead a good life without any belief in a deity. I'm not perfect either, not by any means, but I reckon my moral standards and behaviour are as good as those of any sincere believer, and are probably better than a very great many of them. Not that that is difficult...
Human nature... or ape nature? We act very like apes, you know, and surely we should be better, with our intellect? We should have grown beyond the fighting over territory, or food, or dominance - fighting over anything, in fact! We have reason on our side, but we don't use it - and neither do the gods in the so-called holy books.
_________________
Leonard Cohen - still pulling the punters at age 75.
http://www.youtube.com/user/leonardcohen?blend=1&ob=4
This one always makes me cry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grim Reaper
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 59
Location: Hell
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Humans and apes... we have the same problems. The ones who have the leadership skills and the inner drive to go get things done are NOT the same ones who have the wisdom and/or intellect to think about the actions themselves or the eventual ramifications from the actions. Now, that said, this discussion is becoming more about human issues than any "supreme being". Don't get me wrong, I can discuss that too, but I'm just trying to stay on topic.
I've heard more than one person ask "If there is a God, why would He tolerate all of this murder, rape, suffering and death?" This is a question that I've asked myself a few times, especially when my mom passed. I always end up coming back to one thing: Free Will. To me, that means we've been given the chance to improve and enhance our life or screw it up with our own choices and no outside interference from God or anyone else with "supreme powers".
As for the "holy books", we must remember that they were written by men and therefor subject to some scrutiny. I don't know if you've ever played Telephone as a kid? Several of you sit in a circle and one of you comes up with a phrase or sentence and whispers it into the ear of the person next to them, at the end of the circle, the last person says it out loud and then the first person says what it was originally. It's almost never the same, and that's within a minute or two. Think about stories related orally over generations and into different languages. There's got to be some screw-ups there! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fljotsdale
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 982
Location: UK
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grim Reaper wrote: |
| Humans and apes... we have the same problems. The ones who have the leadership skills and the inner drive to go get things done are NOT the same ones who have the wisdom and/or intellect to think about the actions themselves or the eventual ramifications from the actions. Now, that said, this discussion is becoming more about human issues than any "supreme being". Don't get me wrong, I can discuss that too, but I'm just trying to stay on topic. |
Always good to stay 'on-topic'! But I agree with what you say above.
| Grim Reaper wrote: |
| I've heard more than one person ask "If there is a God, why would He tolerate all of this murder, rape, suffering and death?" This is a question that I've asked myself a few times, especially when my mom passed. I always end up coming back to one thing: Free Will. To me, that means we've been given the chance to improve and enhance our life or screw it up with our own choices and no outside interference from God or anyone else with "supreme powers". |
Well, yes, free will, whether 'given' or just 'as is'... sort of.
With the proviso that no-one has free will as regards to where they are born, to whom they are born, the religion (or lack of it) into which they were born and instructed; the environment into which they are born - whether poverty-stricken or rich or in between; whether in a land suffering war or famine, or a land at peace, with abundant food and goods; with poor or pleasant surroundings; with reasonable leaders or vicious dictators; with good neighbours or indifferent or bad neighbours; into a society of racial or sexual prejudice, or one of tolerance... etc, etc.
The only thing in which we have any free will is our own conduct - and even that is strongly influenced by the society and conditions into which we are born.
| Grim Reaper wrote: |
| As for the "holy books", we must remember that they were written by men and therefor subject to some scrutiny. |
True. And it shows! But they were all, I believe, supposed to have been 'inspired by god' (whichever one it was), who, like the Pope, was infallible. 
| Grim Reaper wrote: |
| I don't know if you've ever played Telephone as a kid? Several of you sit in a circle and one of you comes up with a phrase or sentence and whispers it into the ear of the person next to them, at the end of the circle, the last person says it out loud and then the first person says what it was originally. It's almost never the same, and that's within a minute or two. Think about stories related orally over generations and into different languages. There's got to be some screw-ups there! |
I think we called it Chinese Whispers when I was a kid - ir is that a different game?
_________________
Leonard Cohen - still pulling the punters at age 75.
http://www.youtube.com/user/leonardcohen?blend=1&ob=4
This one always makes me cry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grim Reaper
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 59
Location: Hell
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, now we're getting to stuff we definately agree on. No, you don't have a choice about to whom you are born or the religious or financial circumstances thereof, but to me, that's the whole point, can you rise above it? Do you even want to? Do you need to? Whatever, the choice is yours.
As for the Pope, I have one thing to say to him and every single one of the popes before him: "You're no better than the rest of us, so sit down and shut the f*#k up!"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fljotsdale
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 982
Location: UK
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grim Reaper wrote: |
| Ok, now we're getting to stuff we definately agree on. No, you don't have a choice about to whom you are born or the religious or financial circumstances thereof, but to me, that's the whole point, can you rise above it? Do you even want to? Do you need to? Whatever, the choice is yours. |
Yes. But consider how hard - almost impossible - it must be for people in some circumstances to 'rise above' anything, and how apparantly easy it is for others. The very rich and the very poor are too busy having it all, or striving for mere existance, to give a thought to anything else. The scales are weighted heavily against both; and although some of both DO manage to 'rise above', they are the ones with great strength of character, which most people do not possess. I don't know if I could meet the challenges of either situation. And then there are all those in between who plod along merely living their lives and hoping for some sort of happiness, but not thinking much about life or it's challenges at all. They just want to eat, have shelter, pay their bills, and have a moderate amount of fun on weekends. People generally, be they believers or not, do not even think about 'rising above' anything. If they think about it at all, it is merely how to rise to having more money.
On the other hand, some people seem to be in situations which are favourable to 'rising above' in the sense you seem to have meant: clergymen, monks, nuns, soldiers, nurses, doctors, etc... all have opportunities to 'rise above' their natural selves and act in ways that benefit both themselves and those with whom they associate. And many do. And many don't.
Why? Is it some outside force - a god - motivating some and not others? If not, then the strength comes from within themselves, and is entirely a matter of self-motivation.
Either way, there is not equity. Some have strength, some do not, or their circumstances are such that the strength never has the opportunity to show itself. Are some people born strong, and some weak, and some just mediocre? Whatever the case, there is not equity. We are playing on a field that is uneven and favours some more than others. That can only mean that either 'the god' (whoever it is) is unjust, or that there is no 'god' or that 'god' just hasn't noticed us yet...
| Grim Reaper wrote: |
As for the Pope, I have one thing to say to him and every single one of the popes before him: "You're no better than the rest of us, so sit down and shut the f*#k up!"
|
And some of 'em were a damn sight worse than the rest of us. Think of the Borgias! 
_________________
Leonard Cohen - still pulling the punters at age 75.
http://www.youtube.com/user/leonardcohen?blend=1&ob=4
This one always makes me cry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard the Great
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 388
Location: Back home
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
You guys have too much time on your hands, and don't leave the smallest crack in your arguments for us to make a significant contribution...
| Fljotsdale wrote: |
Hm... that's interesting. I have to admit that I know absolutely nothing about your topic, so the bit of info you have given has expanded my knowledge 100% on the topic! I'm interested.
What are you actually studying? Is it history or religion, or ....what? |
I'm a self-taught student of both fields, but my major is Interpreting-Translation. 
Well, what do you want to know? We can talk about the process of independence in the Spanish colonies in the first years of the XIX century, or the situation of the Iberic Paeninsula in the context of the Napoleonic wars (you have no idea how the Wee Bastard affected Brazil when invading Spain and Portugal: he made the king of the latter flee to his colony (the first and only monarch to do such a thing) and altered South American history forever); both are fascinating subjects and I'm much up to commenting and discussing any of them. Feel like it?
Your obedient servant:
Richard the Great.
_________________
"No one puts Richard in a corner." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fljotsdale
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 982
Location: UK
Medals: None
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard the Great wrote: |
| You guys have too much time on your hands, and don't leave the smallest crack in your arguments for us to make a significant contribution... |
Nah! We only pop in from time to time. Just butt in with your thoughts/opinions; we don't mind a bit.
| Richard the Great wrote: |
| Fljotsdale wrote: |
Hm... that's interesting. I have to admit that I know absolutely nothing about your topic, so the bit of info you have given has expanded my knowledge 100% on the topic! I'm interested.
What are you actually studying? Is it history or religion, or ....what? |
I'm a self-taught student of both fields, but my major is Interpreting-Translation.
Well, what do you want to know? We can talk about the process of independence in the Spanish colonies in the first years of the XIX century, or the situation of the Iberic Paeninsula in the context of the Napoleonic wars (you have no idea how the Wee Bastard affected Brazil when invading Spain and Portugal: he made the king of the latter flee to his colony (the first and only monarch to do such a thing) and altered South American history forever); both are fascinating subjects and I'm much up to commenting and discussing any of them. Feel like it?
Your obedient servant:
Richard the Great. |
Yes, but make a different thread for it - maybe in the Politics forum? I'd like to know about Napoleonic influence in SA history. I've had a mild interest in South America ever since I read Conan Doyle's The Lost World when I was a kid. Visions of travelling up the Amazon and such...  It would be nice to get a bit of factual history!
_________________
Leonard Cohen - still pulling the punters at age 75.
http://www.youtube.com/user/leonardcohen?blend=1&ob=4
This one always makes me cry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
Album
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Games
