stretched said:
"If that system is rejected -- what is to come into its place?"
Tabula rasa.
Tabula rasa? In effect, you want to undo humanity then. It is impossible for a human to not have a certain stance on something.
Unfortunately to undo the indoctrination that has been impacted over the millennia, (read same religious mindset, different names) would seem an almost impossible task.
Why advocate it then -- if it is an almost impossible task?
The reality of the information age should be fomenting free untethered thought, but if we look at the resurgence of Fundamentalist thought, especially in the US, along with the presidents apparent Christian stance, the present religious worldview seems deeply entrenched.
To you, Bush is an exemplatory Christian?!
Are you crazy?!
Unfettered thinking is the key.
Go to outer space then.
Chewing on that, but raging against the machine, and I will not go gentle into that good night.
But still, you do all this that sanity be kept.
"Return to the natural man ...
How?
Why?
Define "natural man".
*Natural man as in: "I eat to live, not live to eat". As in: "now is all I have, yesterday is gone, tomorrow is but a possibility". From this perspective, springs forth the redefinition of motivation in all aspects of life. If not redefined, the question will remain: "where does the present road lead?", and because the answer is unknown, superstition will be the consistant outcome.
How do you redefine the perspective of the future -- if you are surrounded by so much technology that demands you to think ahead? If tomorow is but a possibility -- then why the hell should I buy a car, build a house?! If people live by your criteria, I bet the present economic system crashes within a week.
The fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones, indeed.
*I am the son of my father, but I do not need to like or even love my father.
Of course. And out of the window, out go your ideas of "good parents tend to raise good children" ...
What then defines my identity? Why would I need others to agree with me.
Try living with people who do not agree with you -- people who fundamentally disagree with you. You won't live an hour.
The ego is the culprit, the conscious control of ego is the key.
Go tell this a Zimbabwean farmer.
"Both fighting parties can be prp-eace, pro-tolerance, but if there isn't enough food or space, they will fight."
*Alas this is the state of affairs, but what of the mindset that thinks, " if we gather food together, we can provide more!"
If there are too many people, if there are more people than the environment can naturally sustain, then people will fight for survival.
Religious doctrine has caused the divide that prevents this mindset. The Jews are gods "chosen people", before modern Israel was established, there was no Middle Eastern conflict.
There was "no" Middle Eastern "conflict" because we didn't bloody know of it.
Before WW2, those countries dealt with their matters on their own terms, and quite effectively. It only after WW1 and WW2 that the Allies went there and drew new borders, made new countries on the Arabian peninsula. Then this mess as we know it started.
Now there is not enough space. Que?
What can you grow in a desert ...
*Superstition as in "tradition" is probably unavoidable. But even this has a natural progressive evolution. But superstition as in "indocrination" is silly.
Sure it is "silly". But you can't prove it. We are indoctrinated by science every day. And ever so often science makes "new findings", "disproving" earlier findings. Bloody reliable this science, yes.
Rational scrutiny exposed the spinach fallacy. Testable in the lab.
Note that the spinach idea came from the science camp in the first place. They measured something wrongly (as it later turned out), made the wrong thoeries, but propagated them as truth, under the flag of Science Almighty.
At the time the spinach myth came out, they didn't know about iron absorbtion what they know now. And what they know now may be disproved in a couple of years ...
"Exactly what you are doing. Only the names are different. If what you are saying to me now, you would be saying to a more militant capitalist, he would say that you are trying to impose communistic ideas on him, and make him a feely touchy twat like yourself ...
*No, I am obeserving life and commenting. There is no imposition.
No imposition?! People feel that commercials are imposing ideals on them -- even you yourself agreed that we are *conditioned* into seeking happiness in material things.
You stating your opinion is to me no more imposing than a commercial.
What I'm saying that what qualifies for "imposition" is highly, highly relative. Anything can qualify for imposition.
There is no consequence for disagreeing with my thinking.
Yes there is. Or do you think that you still consider people who vehemently disagree with you to still be your friends? Do you not break up with them?
*Ah, so the way we are conditioned to think, is that the only way to lessen division, is to go primitive. Heh. Hi-tech should technically (he, he) improve the lot of the underpriviledged.
Not when the numbers are so huge.
Once again, disparity in wealth, a byproduct of consumerism is the gremlin. So if human nature could find a way to embrace "sharing", which has to do with compassion and empathy, why do we need to go primitive to achieve unity?
And where should this "sharing" lead to? What is the result of it?
You do realize that only the rich would be the ones effectively sharing and giving -- the poor had nothing to offer. How's that for unequal society?
Religion inhibits sharing as it creates division. Share, yeah, but only within out own church.
Exactly. You don't feed someone else's children, you feed your own.
*The concept that primitive is undesirable is open to debate.
Go tell this to Donald Trump.
The societies that flourished around the globe, before the white man tainted them with disease and religious imposition, were generally "happy".
Are you saying that "religion" is something that only the white man has?
The infant death rate was an accepted part of life. Westeners have a terrible habit of assuming that our mores are universal. Is a happy life of 30 years equal to a unhappy life of 80 years? If I ask honestly, how many days of the month are you truly happy water?
What a strange question. Happiness can be quantified?
*Religion creates division. Period.
In your head, yes.
"Your suggestion is vile as it is based on the supposition that a certain amount of people has to sustain the system as it is (and remain enslaved in it), so that you can then see yourself in a particular antagonistic relation to it."
*I see your point but I talk from my experience.
I doesn't matter if you "talk from experience". The point is that you are suggesting solutions that suppose inequality, and can work only if inequality remains. It is vile to parade around with such solutions, under the flag of humanism.
*Fair enough, I am not into enforcing any "ism" onto anybody. I am in favour of advancing humanistic principles, based on what I see around me. My motivation is pure empathy.
Empathy is short-sighted.
Someone else then has to do the dirty work and clean up the mess "empathy" made.
"you are saying Anything you think is right, is right."
*Yes, this is essentially what I am saying. "Do as thy wilt, shall be the whole of the law".
Then, according to you, one should freely go around, killing people -- for he is only doing as he wills, and considers this the whole of the law. How humanistic! Oh, the empathy!
*I am normally wierd, and they are wierdly normal. But yes, This is my POV only, as is all my observations. I try to think objectively.
You say "I am normally weird", and somoene is to believe that you are trying to think objectively?
Give me a break. You can't be taken seriously.
*Test it for yourself. If you smile at someone, they generally smile back.
And?
What is this to mean?
Are you speaking about ethics or measurable phenomena?
*I have studied religion, and the psychology of religion for many, many years, and on a certain level I can identify with the persona called Jesus. But this would have to be in isolation. When one brings the entire Christian belief system into the picture, there is no way I can identify with Jesus the Christ.
I find it odd anyone would even try to ***identify*** himself with Jesus.
To identify oneself with Jesus. I guess if one thinks like a martyr, then yes. But martyrdom is sick, it is not for a human to go and freely choose to be a martyr.
*As above. Unfortunately to find faith in the Christian religion, all the aspects of God and Jesus need to be reconciled.
Why do they need to be reconciled? Do you have issues with the Trinity concept?
"Do you believe that to God, humans are puppets?
*Yes, if you mean the Christian god, no if you mean my understanding of god.
It is said that God is our Father, God loves His children, and that God gave us free will.
What you are saying above is unbiblical.
It seems that you think (correct me if I'm wrong) that humans should have an identity existing apart from God -- and if they don't have that, then they are mere puppets.
I think what bothers you about Christianity is that you are "not allowed" to have a spot all for yourself, a spot that only you would know and noone else, not even God. You would accept God, but only if there was always a spot He wouldn't know.
*Have you seen Mel Gibsons "The Passion"? If you did, how did it make you feel?
I haven't seen the film yet, but I've seen pieces of it. And I've seen plenty of other films about Jesus.
How I felt watching the torture? Interestingly, it never evoked sympathy in me. While I may be moved seing people suffer in films, this doesn't happen when watching Jesus suffer.
I think this is due to me being such a professional film watcher -- I know it is a film, and my emotions are not of the same kind as with real people.
If I see my friend cry, I am moved, hurt.
If I see a film character suffer, I may be moved or hurt as well -- but it is not out of sympathy with the character, not in the least. Sorrow is being displayed, and sorrow is evoked in me. Films and books are direct this way.
With a living person, one has a relationship. And it is then in accordance with this relationship that one's emotions are displayed.
One doesn't have a real relationship with a film character though. In a film or a book, one has the emotions, but is not with the person. In real life, one has both the emotions, and is with the person.
But back to Jesus in films. They all leave me almost fantastically cold. I don't see Jesus -- I see Willem Dafoe and his mucles. I don't see Jesus, I see Jeremy Sisto's cute face.
That's my problem with Jesus (I've also started a thread on this): The real Jesus can only be he himself. When portrayed in a film, it is the actor, that character -- and I know that that character is NOT what Jesus is or was. This is why they leave me unmoved, these films tell me nothing about Jesus. They may tell me some historical particularities, but that's all. I might have read them in a book as well.
In a biographical film, the actor impersonating the one whom the film is about is merely a place-holder, a shadow.
I might be impressed by the film and the character if I had not known it is biographical.
For example: John Nash's life could have been filmed, right then -- and maybe it would have been no more dramatic than the film. But knowing that the film is biographical, Russel Crowe was a place-holder, he wasn't the character John Nash. In biographical films, I feel that there is a hollow there, walking around, a puppet -- whose only claim to the real person (about whom the biographical film is about) are the name, his actions.
And while in a film where all characters are fictional, I can have smypathy etc., this breaks when the film is biographical.
*Good for you water. Do you find comfort in this relating?
No.
"How do you know that God doesn't hear those prayers?
You think that if God would hear them, He would immediately grant them?'
*In a nutshell, people are still suffering.
I think they were praying to the wrong God, or the wrong prayers.
"I read that some SoutAfrican black men believe sex with a virgin will cure them of AIDS. So they rape. And infect their victims. Those victims may reject the notion that sin transcends the sinner -- but they still have to live with being infected with HIV. They have to live with the consequences of another person's sin."
*This is another sad example of the power of superstition. This is not the same concept of "original sin" as per the Christian religion.
Hm? What are you trying to say?
I was talking about how the sin transcends the sinner.
"We love with the HOPE of an outcome. We don't expect it. If we'd expect it, then love would merely be a means to an end -- and wouldn't be love anymore. But if we hope for an outcome, then love itself is what we are hoping for."
*Yes, you are right. So the love remains conditional, upon the outcome of love reciprocated. If no reciprocation, the potential relationship would probably die, and thus the conditional nature of this love. In my experience there are higher levels of love, that transcend this type. Maybe love for the sake of itself. Even in spite of itself.
No. You do't seem to understand hope.
If you hope for an outcome, this isn't a condition.
"Kant and his disinterested affection. Bah. If it is affection, it can't be disinterested.
When one loves, one doesn't expect something in return, one hopes for something in return."
*See above, in a sense yes, but not necessarily. One may feel love for someone who invokes admiration or respect. This type of loves needs no outcome. It feeds off itself.
It feeds off itself, and it eats itself up.
Admiration and love are not the same, not even similar!
*It appears silly to me because I have devoted more than enough time to reach that honest conclusion.
More than enough time? By whose criteria?
You could only say you have spent "more than enough time" on it if you had known ALL of Christianity -- but as you admit later, you don't know everything --
That does not mean I cannot gain more knowledge on the subject, and thus my conclusions are subject to change if need be.
so you can never say you have spent "more than enough time" on it.
*Relative to the following. I am not sure how much love I can find for someone who harms me or my kin.
A test of your humanism.
*No? Whats wrong with you water? I think I was just trying to say that the possibilities are endless.
Unprovable.
In terms of "infinity", anything that you can think or imagine is possible.
What am I to do with this "infinity"?! If I imagine that I can study for 2 tough exams in 5 days -- and that this is possible in "infinity" -- what the hell does such thinking help me?!
*Pardon, I am with you now. Right one does not need a new fridge if the old one works. OK. QM may well be a superstition, but at least it is a harmless superstition.
How do you know it is harmless?! Some use to prove we have no free will, and some others use to prove that we have free will.
If they "prove" so, then the law system (based on personal responsibility) would have to be compeltely redone.
No amount of mathematics can verify one iota of the Bible.
Of course not. How could it? No amount of mathematics can verify "one iota" of my love for a friend -- does this prove that I don't love him?
You are making yourself look stupid, saying things like "No amount of mathematics can verify one iota of the Bible." That may sound cool, but it has no content.
*See, I told you, you are a nice person! How can such a person be born in sin?
But Saddam Hussein was?
You are judging the past by the present.
*I can choose to a certain degree of accuracy, how close I allow that hammer, and the circumstances surrounding the hammer, to get to me. If the hammer still gets to my skull, I can choose to become a victim, or to grow from the experience.
Surely you can grow from the experience, pushing up flowers in the cemetery.
*Without the seed, you have nothing. Once the tree takes root, a forest becomes a distinct possibility. This is not complicated.
Once it takes root! Do you what it takes for a seed to take root?
People walk around with their pockets full of seeds -- seeds nobody planted and watered and took care of. If the people who got those seeds were well-disposed enough, they dug out the seed and put it back to their pocket, waiting for someone to show them how to plant it and how to take care of it, so that it could take root.
You give out ideas, but you don't make sure that people can understand them, you don't wait to see whether they can really put them to practice. You love and leave.
That's not of much worth.
*Human nature at first seems to be as unfathomnable as seeing eternity in a wild flower. On closer inspection we may find that superstition compells us to make the wrong choices.
Yeah right, superstition. Has it ever occured to you that people simply want things the easy way?
* * *
stretched said:
Indeed, it was an illustration of his life experience in Christian France. His conscience was a product of this religious environment. A beautiful book in which Sister Simplicity, finds her own morals in conflict with what her religion teaches. Because she does the "right thing" to save Jean Valjean from Javert, she has sinned. The irony.
You are stiff. You automatically, self-victimizingly take up any religious assertion to be religion. Do you think that if a person says that God told them to do something, that it was indeed God who told them to do it?
* * *
stretched said:
*Why what? Why Mel Gibson thinks he is the main authority on what went down on crucifixion day? What do you mean why?
This is so odd.
What on earth makes you think that Mel Gibson thought himself to be "the main authority on what went down on crucifixion day"?!
What a gross self-victimizing assumption.
* * *
Jenyar said:
Why it happened; why Jesus voluntarily submitted himself to such torture, and why it was considered singularly meaningful among thousands of crucifixions just like it. Why do the same people who enjoy Pulp Fiction, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Kill Bill and Reservoir Dogs call it "meaningless"?
As I have started about it before: a film about the crucifixion is meaningless -- as it is a *film*. If the viewer knows that the film is biographical, a very different approach is needed -- in opposition to a film that is not biographical.
A biographical film is meaningful (probably) only if you believe the real biographical story. If you don't, the void, the hollow I spoke of ealier emerges.
In a non-biographical film (or if the viewer doesn't know it is biographical), the depicted violence is merly graphic. One does not engage in it much, other than the inter-textual and technical concerns; the ethical conflict that emerges is sterile and abstract. Easy to approach. The motivations can be understood from the story itself.
In a biographical film, the depicted violence is a report of the real thing. The ethical conflict presented is real. The motivations cannot be understood from the story itself, they have a real, biographical background. That is, we don't simplify the motivations the same way we tend to simplify them in characters in non-biographical films.
