Confused about religion

Please do, Snood.......we need you around here.

Etruscia wrote:




http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

Well...........maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe.

Lola:-Ref Post1121237 P18.

Phew.I'm in for it here.

You have taken the quote about European and American literature out of contaxt.The original sentence is in Post1110023 on Page 13.It has ended up having me say the opposite of what I did say.

With all due respect I really do not think Christianity
is understood.What the fundamentalists do with their various interpretations might well have political importance in particular places but from a philosophical point of view that is neither here nor there.

In a post there is hardly room to score the faintest of scratches in the surface.One can only hope to provide signposts.

The most important one it seems to me is to try to sympathise with people who really believed in certain things.Those beliefs were not something they switched on and off as the mood took them.
They were a very serious matter.They believed in salvation and damnation.It is bootless to discuss their foolishness.They believed.And other forces were at work.Tribal conflict,internal political tensions,food supply,security,heresies,birth rates,
technologies,Church/State battles,inheritance and property matters,order,authority,human propensities,natural exigencies,traditions and customs and the general all-round impossibilty of ever making total sense of it all and bearing in mind that this list is by no means exhaustive.And at no point,including the one we are at now,could any revolutionary changes be made without debilitating and even destructive consequences.Any changes have to be slow and thought through and change of that nature often frustrates those who,to quote Dylan,"want it too fast and too hard".Orderly change can only come from debates between those who have given their whole life over to a detailed study of these matters and who HAVE to take into account ALL the facts.
I would suppose that most of us on this forum have inherited property and intend our offspring to do likewise.One simply cannot,on a philosophy forum,just take the almost absurd complexity of property relations for granted.They have been arranged for us.One tiny corner of that whole bag of tricks is going to be revealed in the issuance of death certificates relating to the missing and the unidentified in the tsunami disaster.It is expected that ten years at least is the time scale.Passing on property to one's nearest and dearest is a dogma.
A humble appreciation of that might help in an understanding of the depth of feeling associated with other people's dogma.The law texts relating to inheritance stretch wide and deep and are one of the major barriers to European integration.With the advent of DNA potential for further complexities abound.Wills must be published and they can be challenged.And this is a very superficial treatment of just one small corner of our daily lives and IT HAS ALL BEEN ARRANGED.
The only thing that matters is how you are making out in it.I'm doing fine and I not only respect and support the status quo but I will make searching enquiries of those who jump in with amateur solutions the potential consequences of which they haven't the least idea.I am satisfied that I am allowed to paint my front door in a colour which has been approved by the planning authorities just like I am satisfied with being allowed to drive along the roads they have made.If they interfered too much with libraries I might have something to say but even then I would listen to their reasons and if they were good enough bow to them.
Take a simple thought experiment.A Boeing 747 the size of Christendom with 1000 million passengers.Would anybody allow unqualified persons with finger trouble to get on the flight deck and to have a gratutious flip among the controls.I rather think not.
I am a Vegan but I would not preach that on a public forum because it is possible if my rhetoric was brilliant that I might convert everybody and I have no idea what the consequences would be.In other words I would be being irresponsible.Also,young impressionable minds might be influenced and again I wouldn't want to take responsibility for that.And that goes for any preaching.By amateurs I mean.

It would be reasonable to suggest that Constantine converted Rome to Christianity because he couldn't see Paganism taking their system forward.Augustus had attempted state control of the birth rate and run into resistance that carried clout.He failed.Cary Grant in a movie set in Paris pointed out Hollywood's determination of modern courtship rituals right there in the shadow of a famous cathederal.

There might well be "good.healthy reasons to encourage sex for pleasure" but there might also be good healthy reasons not to as well.

Anybody who doesn't think Christianity is a viable system,biologically,has to provide a process for getting from where we are to where they would
like us to be and also to explain whether or not where they would like us to be is any good.

Christianity was not "functional" in 33AD.There were hundreds,maybe thousands,of Jesus figures floating around the middle east (as we now call it) in those days.

I don't believe in the virgin birth .I can't imagine any serious theolgian doing so either.It was a metaphor which helped emphasise female "purity" possibly to try to rid the world of temple prostitution and other similar practices.Most modern men and women apply the principle enshrined in the idea to their female relatives.Often without success too.There is,of course,the absorption through the skin notion along the lines of the nicotine patch which,however far fetched,is a logical possibility.
Yes Lola-I know fundamentalists.

Okay.You can replace "religion" with "system" if you like.See property dogma.

You simply cannot discuss the "pleasures of f------g unless you define f------g.A theologian has to which is a limit you have decided not to allow to get in your way.F------g with the possibility of conception is a polar opposite to f------g without that possibility.You are guilty here of pandering to male self indulgence at women's expense.

You give yourself away with the expression "guiding one's life".Theology and philosophy are about guiding group life.Mr Black has presumably been "guiding his life".I had a short argument with the guy once about his worship of Napolean.If he gets banged up he will wish he had took notice.

On the "waaaaaaaaaaaaaay" too far thing see the difficulty of defining f------g and apply it to "sex".

It's the same problem with "some authority".What does "some" mean?Just enough to suit your purposes I suppose.Didn't de Sade dispose of that.

If I'm kicked off the forum I'd have to say that it wasn't a philosophy forum.

On the "poppycock" thingy I refer you back to "whole life"dedication.

If you have a need to "hit something,smash it against a wall.break it up" then that's a need I don't have and,I humbly suggest,rather proves my point.What is the obsession you speak of?I'm all eyes.

Medication is a necessary evil.

Oh Lola-I have a few secrets.They might dribble out in the fullness of time.

The Spectator is NOT a fascist publication.I had a long and interesting correspondence with it's editor and some of it's contributors a few years ago.Mr Auberon Waugh wrote for it and he was a modern saint.RIP.The world turned a darker shade of pale when he died.It is what it says it is;a spectator.

Phew!!!I thought I'd never make it that short.

spendius.

I disagree strongly with Spendius (and I suspect with Lola) on the issue of "respect for other people's beliefs."


Rather than create a further diversion in this thread, however....and to expand the audience for a discussion of the issue...

...I started a thread on the subject.

Hope you all stop by and contribute.


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1122800#1122800

I'm on my way, Frank. Jousting lance in hand.

If anyone thinks I'm going to read all the preceding, preceding interrupting, they'd be in error.

This isn't Lola. This is blatham. I guess you might as well know, on Thursday nights, I enjoy putting on a dress, or a nice skirt and billowly blouse. It's like opening a window. Perhaps, not just like that, but it's a kick in the pants any way you look at it, soul-wise.

You've been speaking of souls (rumor has it). Odd coincidence, I've been thinking about them. And about projects. And then I got thinking about the christian project.

So that leads me to ... does anyone want to talk about Lear?

I'll never be the same OMG - my fantasy's are ruined

That was Blatham, honest it was......sorry folks, a little gender confusion.........

P. S. Bernie says to tell you all that I'm dressed like a farmer........now, tell me, what the heck does that mean?

Naughty Blatham!

keep talking so I can feel better bout things - pleez

better Lola that sheep - am i aloud to say taht?

Absolutely.

Now Bernie, I've told you.........get back into your cage! If you're a good boy, we can talk about Lear.

How about it spendius....wanna bring Lear in on this? Speaking of a person who was confused about religion........

Don't worry Husker........I've got it under control. You can say whatever you like. Never give up your fantasies...........

live2bfree........welcome to a2k btw. Don't be shy about jumping in. Some of us are just a bit passionate........but don't let that stop you.

spendius.......sorry...........I didn't misunderstand your point. I was just putting in a word for a system I consider to be superior in every way to religion. But I agree, we can't expect the world and it's inhabitants to change too rapidly. Rapid change brings instability. And while instability is necessary, even desirable as an ingredient in human progress (and I do believe we're progressing) too much will back fire. I agree wholeheartedly.

I couldn't agree more that we are all less free than we are dependent on circumstances. However, there is something to be said for a degree of freedom. And I believe mankind is succeeding in however small a way in enlarging our spot of freedom. I think that's the freedom born2bfree is in search of. So on the macro level, you're right, but born2bfree is also right, as far as I'm concerned because he's talking about the little life we have. We're certainly freer than we have ever been.

Good ole technology.........and hooray for the human spirit. How much control and freedom do we need anyway? We only live for 8 or 9 decades. We need to enjoy every moment of it we can. That doesn't mean we should spit in the face of reality, but we can let loose a little and give ourselves a break.



understood by whom? If you mean me, with all due respect, we disagree.




Again, I agree that one must be sympathetic with the complexity of a person's value system. The passion people invest in their value system is not to be underestimated. These are complicated brain pathways and derived at a very early age. All too often, when it comes to personal systems, logic is useless. And the pace of plausible change must be considered. Believe me, I am humble in every way....well, that's an over statement, but I am truly respectful of the needs of others.

My only point (almost) of disagreement with you is that religion is the best method of stability. Admittedly the switch over for society will have to be slow and/or stormy, probably both. But neither you nor I can stop it, even if we want to........which I see you may. But it still won't do you any good. Progress is inevitable......you may as well ride the wave.



Yes, this is my point exactly. However, when you say:



are you sure this is the only way?



Searching inquiries, by all means. That's definitely called for. But one must keep an open mind and not get caught up in the dogmas of the past. We should be looking for better methods, checking for inconsistencies and doing all we can to increase what little freedom we have. The more the merrier in this task, from my point of view. born2bfree is asking questions like the rest of us. We should listen to him a bit and encourage his search.

Do you not believe that even or especially the status quo should not be examined with as much searching inquiry as you demand of your fellow man or of yourself? Surely, just because we've come this far, it's not time to stop the inquiry.



I think I didn't make myself clear here, sorry. I wasn't advocating sex for pleasure alone. I may be a liberal, but I'm not a libertine. (Or not entirely.) Still there is much to be said for as much freedom as possible within a framework of safe boundaries.

*Those boundaries should be set, I believe, based on (1) whether anyone is being hurt, (2) is there enough gratification? (3) can a person engage and maintain a sense of personal safety (4) while preserving some sense of living within one's own morality?

And I never judge the question of whether anyone is being hurt, nor do I give credence to a morality based on authority.......that is, I don't grant credence based exclusively on what the powers-that-have-been have concluded. If we are to progress, we must question authority just as we should be cautioned by authority's experience. Do you not agree? I'm not content to be limited by the advances of the generations before me. I want to make my own contribution as well.



If I understand you correctly, you seem to be willing to take too much responsibility for other's decisions. My daughters have been vegans. They were influenced by the parents of my older daughter's boy friend. My daughters were vegans for a while, both of them. But now they've changed their minds. I discouraged them because I don't believe it's the wisest way to go. But neither the boyfriend's parents nor I are responsible for my daughter's decisions.

But if you mean......as you seem to, that one should not, without study and thought, fling about ideas that may upset an entire system without having an idea about what should replace it.......then I agree here too.



Now, spendius...........I am pandering to my own self indulgence, just as well at to the men's. You can't give males all the credit or all the fun. I'm interested in having fun myself. As a woman, I'm not a commodity to be handed about and used. I can use just as well as the next guy. I can take responsibility for myself and my own decisions, just as you can, I'm sure. Use and be used, you only live once. But when you use, use well.



My suggestion for a viable method for getting us from religion to secular humanism and science is the method we are employing right now. We should debate the issues, struggle with the pros and cons, look for inconsistencies in old truths and when inconsistencies are found, search for new explanations. Then we have to search for the inconsistencies in the new theories. That's the scientific method........searching for the exception that proves the rule wrong or at least incomplete. This is the path to progress.

I believe science and the scientific method have much more to offer as a unifying system, than religion. Science is based on logic, rational and critical thinking, for one thing. And there is less superstition and magical thinking required. Superstition invites slavery and offers little protection from the frightened mob.



As I've said, I'm sure the metaphor was an improvement in it's day. But we need to move on. Women were much more helpless, relative to men, in those days. They needed help and protection. Today this is far from the case. And most women are able to define themselves as agents in the same way men have so often had the privilege to do. We need a new metaphor more appropriate to present day realities or potentialities. We've come a long way.......both men and women and thank goodness for it.



Groups are made up of individuals and if more individuals are able to responsibly make their own decisions, groups will be more productive and less manipulatable......coercible or abused for the profit of the few.



For my criteria, by way of definition of "some authority" see above (*) about the principles for judging where boundaries should be placed. IMO, authority should be defined functionally, as in how much authority is conducive to positive change, how much is required to maintain enough stability while the change is taking place, i.e., how well is this level of authority working given the realities of the times?



Well ok, but I'll miss you when you go. Hope it doesn't happen. Read the Terms of Service and make sure you find a way to live within them. It's an fine example of necessary authority.



Some of us are more aggressive than others. Although I rather doubt, based on my experience with you here, that you are less aggressive than I. Obsession is a method, aggression is a drive. In any case, if you don't want to smash things, if you don't get angry and want to hurt others, then that means you have different wishes and needs than I do. You respect the needs of Christians. I hope you see my wishes or drives and their intensity as in need of as much sympathy as those you choose to understand. Smashing a ball with a racquetball against a wall while playing a fun game is an excellent sublimation for aggressive drive. Better the ball than someone's head, I'd say. It meets my criteria for a good enough method for management of my feelings and wishes. For criteria pertaining to "good enough method for management" (*), see again "boundaries" and "some authority" above.



You're about as humble as I am........and I'm not very.



Medication is a gift of science. We should all learn to use it wisely. For definition of wise, (*) see boundaries, etc.

The Spectator is not a spectator. It's a mean bit of propaganda and it's owner, editor and contributors are not at all interested in investigation for truth. It's primary focus is self serving manipulation and coercion. There are better ways to provide structure and security to society than coercion and blatant self interest of the few at the expense of the many.

When it's not so late and I am less tired, I'll get some links for you on the history of the Spectator........but for now, I'm off to bed.

See you soon, I hope.

Edited for correct prepositions, spelling, grammar, the elimination of dangling modifiers, and an addition of bold face type in order to make reference easier. As I went down, I added a few thoughts as well, which I believe will make my meaning more evident. So read it all again if you will. Hope it all helped.

Lola:-

The first thing about Lear is that such a character provided Shakespeare & Co with a suitable vehicle for a melodrama which gobsmacked a 1606 audience of superstitious alphas and gammas.
As is usual in this oeuvre the fool is the main man.

"When priests are more in word than matter;
When brewers mar their malt with water;
When nobles are their tailor's tutors;
No heretics burn'd,but wenches' suitors;
When every case in law is right;
No squire in debt,nor no poor knight;
When slanders do not live in tongues;
Nor cutpurses come not to throngs;
When usurers tell their gold i' the field;
And bawds and whores do churches build;--
Then shall the realm of Albion
Come to great confusion:
Then comes the time,who lives to see 't,
That going shall be us'd with feet.
This prophecy Merlin shall make,for I live before
his time.

Exit fool.

Lola:-

It would perhaps be more fruitful for us to discuss Lear after you have tangled with Hughes.It is just one episode depicting the writers descent into the inferno at the hands of the female and should be seen as the starting point of a return in subsequent plays to a semblance of sanity and his home turf.
A version of Dante.
Something for you to ponder.

In Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again Dylan sings-

"Well.Shakespeare,he's in the alley
With his pointed shoes and his bells,
Speaking to some French girl,
Who says she knows me well.
And I would send a message
To find out if she's talked,
But the post office has been stolen
And the mail box is locked."

Is "talked" used here to mean "sung" or,here in the Yucky,"grassed"."alley" is ambiguous.
What could the French girl possibly be in a position to grass up Dylan with.Bernie might know.

Right after Lear there is Cleopatra(1607).Her first words after Philo's speech about Anthony's madness when his "eyes" see the "tawny front" are-

"If it be love indeed,tell me how much."
to which Anthony replies-
"There's beggary in the love that can be reckon'd.

Check out Heart of Mine
and see also-
"Valentines can't buy her" in Love Minus Zero.No Limit.

spendius.(In conditional love).

Can anybody tell me how these underlined words are determined.It isn't me.

spendius.

"talked"...american slang, particularly movie slang, out of the crime genre...squeal to the cops, betray

I don't think one has to read more into the word here than that idiomatic tradition. Bob will commonly take such slang terms and idiomatic expressions (cliches, really) and use them in some incredibly imaginitive way. And it ain't unlike bob, of course, to be talking about outlaws.

As he does in the following, where he begins with a worn-out cliche from of a thousand western books and movies (cowboy western, I mean...foundational american myth stuff) and then goes somewhere incredibly fresh and brilliant with it.

"standing in the gallows
with my head in a noose
expecting any second
all hell to break loose."

And-

"All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie."

This was my take on it too. In this case then, there are questions like: "What's he done?
....what's he feeling guilty about?......or what has he done that he believes others wouldn't approve of?........or what has he done or felt that he would be ashamed of if others knew of it?.........