Things I Wanted to Say But Didn't Know Where To
Submitted by Merlin on Sun, 09/18/2005 - 04:36
Tags:
- Being Judgemental - It is impossble to be totally neutral and pass a judgement. We are all biased to think in some way or the other. A neutral judgement if anything is just partiality hidden to a greater extent. I have a theory that we are all programmed to think in a certain manner right from childhood and this percolates in our judgements. That's also saying that judging something is totally a matter of perspective.
- Religion - Almost all religious faiths prescribe a certain decorum, a way of life to be followed. And most of them believe in a do-or-else-you-will-pay-for-your-sins thesis. Why is this? Why is God projected as a Big Brother that we must fear? I believe that God if anything, must be kind. And, we are solely responsible for what we get, are and what happens to us, not Him. With my immense respect to all religions, what I am trying to say is that God is a friend, philosopher and a guide to help us along the way, not show us the way.
- Music - Music (and not time) can heal all wounds. It is the universal language of love, joy and collective empathy. Why we are so inclined to music? That I don't know but Darktremor has a nice theory here.
Author Comments:
Semi-blog.
Lala-land, you, very much living in it.
I don't get it...
Whatever you mean, my world is a very small place, but it's ok...they know me in here :)
"most of them believe in a do-or-else-you-will-pay-for-your-sins thesis. Why is this?"
I personally think it might have something to do with that old saying about organized religion being a way to reward ourselves(for nothing at all really) and punish our enemies(for nothing at all really)... I believe this mostly because most religions don't leave it at 'pay-for-your-sins', which would be fine, they MAKE you pay for your 'sins' or they kill you, one or the other. It is my belief(and this may be lala land but i don't care) that god is projected as a big brother because that is how he is most useful to people in power who want to control everyone else.
Dan Brown's Angel and Demons has a very thoughtful insight on religion and how it is controlling our lives.
"Ressurect the fear. Make people fear the evil. Only then, they can worship God. Let them come back to the path they have wandered away from".
I think that round about puts across as to WHY God has to be a Big Brother. I wholly believe it is unecessary to project him as a diety to be feared.
You need to think about the title of this list. There are things you don't know, but God does. And one of them is "where to" say things like that.
Excuse me?? These are MY personal beliefs and I know what I am talking about. I am not forcing down my opinions anyone's throat.
Penny, you're a ****ing moron.
Where else to post this? It's listology, a site at which we post opinions. He can say whatever the hell he wants. Do you see people going on your lists and implying you don't have the right to state your opinion?
Against free speech are we Penny? In that case, shut the **** up, Adolf.
On an unrelated note: glad you enjoyed my theory, Merlin, but I wouldn't take that as anything scientific, that's just my own philosophizing (although I do plan to do some research into the area once I finish my Ph.D).
I loved your originality. We look forward to your thesis Dr. Andrew, sir.
Penny, I don't think I need to say anything, right?
heehee :)
No, you aren't living in la la land, grandpa chum. You're livin' in a bottle.
There has to be payment for sin, or the whole concept of "sin" becomes virtually meaningless.
I disagree. Paying-for-your-sins theory is what makes people do nasty things. It's like the forbidden fruit syndrome - the more you restrict it, the greater the probablity that it will be violated. We have all come across rebel sons of disciplinarian fathers. And everyone loves a rebel.
The solution? I think it's best for the responsible authority (and I mean the Church, the schools, the parents etc.) to tell us in a more rational manner what is right and what is wrong. And punishing is not the way out.
I'd prefer to continue this discussion through email, if that's all right with you.
No problem. But I suppose Jim could allow the mail you sent as perfectly alright... nothing offensive about it at all. Jim, an open request - please allow this single post of Penny's to be up. I'd really like more members getting involved in the discussion sessions.
Sure thing. She'll have to repost, as I don't have the deleted item. Sorry if I deleted something innocuous. I try to be careful about that.
Appealing to my intellectual exhibitionism always works, Merlin! Although I suspect you've got a better response up your sleeve...anyhow, here goes:
I disagree that the forbidden is always attractive. In any case, reason doesn't always destroy the allure of the forbidden either. Now if you add love to reason, you've got a fighting chance. Add the threat of punishment--which you hope you don't ever have to use--and you have an even better system.
I'm intrigued by your vision of a world filled with people who share the same premises and never let their reason be eclipsed by emotion, imagination, their senses, or their souls. I just don't think it's the world I actually live in.
I mean, what do you do when the authorities are Nazis? Or racists? Or they're just a little logically challenged and they can't follow your arguments? What if you know you're right, but they're smarter than you?
Indeed, I was in a haze when I replied that mail. Now I am armed. Tee hee...
Well, all the ado about sin and religion had got me so intrigued that I went and checked out probably the most honest book ever written - The Road Less Travelled. Although it's slightly unrelated, it is in religion that all the problems about immorality and morality stem up. I'll post here the definition if 'religion' by Scott Peck in the book. It's almost perfect.
" I believe we suffer from a tendency to define religion too narrowly. I have heard scholars say that Buddhism is not actually a religion."..." Religion is a set of beliefs that we are told about the world in our formative years. More often than not, what we think our religion to be is far more different from what we actually subconsciously believe in".
Bingo. Herein lies the problem. As I see it, there are two major implications-
So well, there are 2 ways to it - make him punish for his confusion or make him understand the solution.
p.s. - I have more to post, I am just sorting out the fog in my head. :)
Yes, Scott Peck is very good, very 70s-cool...I picture some woman named Bambi reading him on a shag rug in her keyhole blouse, patchouli burning away, thinking, Hey, this Bible stuff I’ve been sold is way too uptight! And there’s not nearly enough about relationships! This stuff gives me a gooooood vibe! And then she’ll start subscribing to Ms. and maybe try to read some Buddhism…no, probably not...but maybe the lifestyle/philosophy of tantra...
I’ve grown to like the 70s - I finally bought some bell-bottom jeans and I’m an admirer of Bowie’s glam period and also his drugged-out Berlin phase - but I like better what can only be called your staunch trust in reason (which has the added bonus of making one a good conversationalist).
I also agree that reason is a good tool to use with the hypothetical 15 year old. But what I would tell this kid is that premarital sex does indeed hurt people, and that’s part of the point; it’s the way romance works. It’ll also leave you burnt out and bitter before your time and make your future relationships that much more difficult. And if you have sex without emotional entanglements, you’re only training yourself to treat affairs casually. Neither way is good prep for either marriage or a meaningful life.
The only thing that works is to find something that captivates you, mind and heart, and religion has the capacity to do that. A redirected life, dedicated to God, passionately using your gifts to serve him is the only way to become a mature adult.
I’ve come to believe that this is the only way.
I hope I didn't rag on your book too hard...I'm sleep-deprived. I'm sure there's something in my "Books Read" list that you can poke fun at if you like. :)
Aah, your response, although intwined with multiple excessive superlatives, nonetheless draws a few laughs.
Scott Peck, although seemingly Bible bashing, spoke the truth . I wouldn't be surprised if you were the most effective member of SJ. Yours is a typical response to anything that even remotely wonders aloud what's actaully 'religion'. Make no mistakes, I am not criticizing you nor your Belief. It's just that I believe the only true religion is reason. It never fails. Science (read reason)today is finding answers to what were once considered religious questions. Actually, you're right. Maybe there is a God up there! Yeah, maybe one day we can all live in peace and pray. Science and religion are not distinctly exclusive though. God said, Let there be light. And then there was the Big Bang.
In the end, I think it's all 'bout agreeing to disagree. I can understand peeople are very passionate at times about religion.
Am in complete agreement about science and religion not being exclusive...I have more to say about that here .
I hope that you and yours haven't been shaken too badly.
Good luck... and you stay safe, 0dysseus
Shaken is an understatement. All's well now though. Thanks
Merlin, I find your rants quite understandable as a general rule (as in, I can relate to the sentiment). However, I must rebut your latest tirade against "fine living".
No one ever said that eating wangyu beef will make you fat. Even eating "healthy beef fat" will not make you fat. Nor are they condoning gluttony. All these magazines do is delight in food - which I feel I should point out can be done in MODERATION. There is absolutely nothing wrong with celebrating the small things in life that make us glad to be human. We can smell, see, and taste, and the consumption of beautiful food triggers something in the brain that gives us pleasure. I know you know this, as we've had more than one discussion about delicious Indian food.
As for wine critics, I agree they can go overboard with the flowery descriptions. However, I've noticed on these boards that you describe things such as trance music in terms that I would consider excessive for a musical form I don't put much stock in. That doesn't mean you're wrong - just that you clearly pay much closer attention to that kind of music than I do, and as such have much more to say about the subtleties of the subject. The same goes for wine critics. Just because you and I don't spend so much time analysing the complexities of the flavour of wine, doesn't make it wrong that they know so much about it that they've had to come up with new and more descriptive ways to differentiate between one wine and another.
Well, I was kindof expecting this... but it seems there has been some misinterpretation. I'll clear it up.
Phew! I hope I am no longer miscommunicating :)... anyhoo interesting views you've posted - had me thinking for a pretty long time
P.S. - On an unrelated note, I'm glad you relate with my rants :):)
Well, if you problem is with excessive description and over-analyzation, I still have to disagree. I remember some people in high school complaining about having to analyse poetry, claiming that doing so would destroy their enjoyment of it. My wonderful professor pointed out that their enjoyment of it was purely superficial unless they understood the poem properly, and that took analyzation. I think the same is true for most things – the more you know about them, the more you can appreciate them on different levels. People whose job it is to review food or wine are necessarily more analytical than the average consumer, and it’s my opinion that people who pay attention to that level of detail are getting more out of their enjoyment than the rest of us.
However, if you believe that analyzation ruins your enjoyment, than we are at an impasse, as we then disagree on the fundamental tenet of the argument, and I won’t convince you and you won’t convince me.
Thanks for the input – it’s made me rethink the value of intense analyzation, and though I still have the same opinion I had before, it’s good to revisit these things once in a while, just to make sure you’re (I’m) not on autopilot.
Not at all! My opposition is not at all against analysis. I have done it myself! I agree on that - you have to know the matter subject (to a limit) to enjoy it. My agony comes when there's over-analyzing and that too it is wholly plastic and FAKE!
So I guess this is not an impasse and (hopefully) you'll convince me and/or I'll convince you...
In retrospection I think I'll have to agree - analyzation does increase the beauty of enjoyment. I'll keep my opinions about over-analyzation to myself only.
Not at all - if you did that we'd not have had this discussion, and that wouldn't be good. I'm kind of out of content to add to the discussion, though. I enjoy these discussions - they're the most useful and interesting parts of Listology, in my opinion.
Jim, strangely, none of Penny's later posts are comingup here...some heavy-duty moderation?
Yup. I've been considerably more stringent in this case due to Penny's track record.
Jim I had a query - what determines the rating stars of the members? I'm really confused about that.
An arcane combination of quantity posted, number of comments elicted, number of folks that endorse you, and the rating of your endorsers. It's wacky.