Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
Religion ows me a fuck!
Religion and sexuality
- Thread starter SummerMorning
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Great, my first new tee-shirt motto for 2004! Thank you, Swedish one,Svenskaflicka said:
Perdita
sensualpilgrim
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 2,371
Atheism
I agree. Atheism is the opposite of religion in that they reflect questioning rather than just accepting statments. I'm atheist because I learn to challenge and to question the whole idea of religion and god due to a rather too deep reading into church history, philosophy, science, and ethics. That's one of many reasons why I'm not a Christian anymore. It seems to me that when you call atheism "religion" what you are really describing is a group of atheists who are ideological which can seem like cultish behavior at time. To me, one of problems in debating religion is that it's so old that so many uses and purposes has been added to it over human civilization. Religion is more than mere belief system, It's also theater, museum, social club, school, hospital, entertainment, political meeting place, reposition of culture and language, philosophical club and so forth. Myths and beliefs are only the beginning. That's one reason why religion stirs such emotions. To me, it seem that a better way to create a better world is to create private civil insitutions that attract people with open arms rather than forcing them to accept any beliefs or practices. This use of force on people is such a common aspect of religion in ages that we are still living with results. One case in point, organized crime suckled on the milk of enforced morality. Any step againest violation of person or property is resoundly welcome and is often undertaken privately. On other hand, enforcing morality where there is no violation of person or property tends to create great corruption and opens doors to the mafias. It would be better if we just mind our own business, but some people take pleasure in minding other people' business because their lives would have no meaning without it. Such people are natural, if unwitting, allies of mobsters who need to maintains the enforced morality in order to keep gaining obscene returns under the table.
perdita said:
I agree. Atheism is the opposite of religion in that they reflect questioning rather than just accepting statments. I'm atheist because I learn to challenge and to question the whole idea of religion and god due to a rather too deep reading into church history, philosophy, science, and ethics. That's one of many reasons why I'm not a Christian anymore. It seems to me that when you call atheism "religion" what you are really describing is a group of atheists who are ideological which can seem like cultish behavior at time. To me, one of problems in debating religion is that it's so old that so many uses and purposes has been added to it over human civilization. Religion is more than mere belief system, It's also theater, museum, social club, school, hospital, entertainment, political meeting place, reposition of culture and language, philosophical club and so forth. Myths and beliefs are only the beginning. That's one reason why religion stirs such emotions. To me, it seem that a better way to create a better world is to create private civil insitutions that attract people with open arms rather than forcing them to accept any beliefs or practices. This use of force on people is such a common aspect of religion in ages that we are still living with results. One case in point, organized crime suckled on the milk of enforced morality. Any step againest violation of person or property is resoundly welcome and is often undertaken privately. On other hand, enforcing morality where there is no violation of person or property tends to create great corruption and opens doors to the mafias. It would be better if we just mind our own business, but some people take pleasure in minding other people' business because their lives would have no meaning without it. Such people are natural, if unwitting, allies of mobsters who need to maintains the enforced morality in order to keep gaining obscene returns under the table.
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
Re: Re: Keep The Pope Off The Moon !
Perita, have you, or do you plan to read, the da vinci code? (It's sooooooooooo, good.) If you have, I'd love to know what you think of this particular Catholic woman's scathing review. You know, gotta have that Catholic viewpoint
love,
sweet (with my neetly trimmed siggy)
perdita said:
Perita, have you, or do you plan to read, the da vinci code? (It's sooooooooooo, good.) If you have, I'd love to know what you think of this particular Catholic woman's scathing review. You know, gotta have that Catholic viewpoint
love,
sweet (with my neetly trimmed siggy)
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep The Pope Off The Moon !
A smattering of what I was tought.
1. The every word of the bible is absolute truth sent from God.
The bible says:
1. God is love.
2. 'Love is never jealous.'
3. I the LORD your God, am a jealous God.
of course if none of this makes sence, simply rely on that old chestnut:
'lean not on your own understanding'
:
shereads said:
A smattering of what I was tought.
1. The every word of the bible is absolute truth sent from God.
The bible says:
1. God is love.
2. 'Love is never jealous.'
3. I the LORD your God, am a jealous God.
of course if none of this makes sence, simply rely on that old chestnut:
'lean not on your own understanding'
:
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
Re: Uh-oh.
Reminds me of something I used to like to point out- God is not a Christian. Nor is he a Jew. Nor is he any other 'religion.' Think about it.
shereads said:CHRIST CONVERTS TO ISLAM
.
Reminds me of something I used to like to point out- God is not a Christian. Nor is he a Jew. Nor is he any other 'religion.' Think about it.
G
Guest
Guest
Hi Sweet. Someone just loaned me the DaVinci book but I'm not sure how fast I'll get to it. Will definitely let you know what I think though.
Perdita
Perdita
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
perdita said:Hi Sweet. Someone just loaned me the DaVinci book but I'm not sure how fast I'll get to it. Will definitely let you know what I think though.
Perdita
Just read one page--
I dare you!
SummerMorning
ah...
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Posts
- 1,986
Re: Atheism
Perdita and Sensual - I disagree. For several reasons.
1. There are atheist religions - buddhism (at least the theravada variety and certainly the variety preached by Siddharta Gotama) is atheist. Buddhist scripture specifically warns against gods and miracles and magic - the fact that these very elements were later reintroduced (for example in mahayana and tibetan buddhism) does not detract from the fact that the original buddhism was atheist and there remain atheist varieties.
2. Atheism is in no way the opposite of religion. Religion is not the opposite of questioning. Our perception of religion is coloured by our experience with Christianity which emphasises blind faith, often in the most absurd dogmas (like resurrection and virgin births).
However, the argument: since all swans we have seen are white then all swans are white does not hold - and the same applies to religion. Yet again, buddhism is one religion that emphasizes questioning to quite an extent.
3. Perdita mentioned the lack of institutionalisation as a reason for atheism's non-religiousness. I disagree that institutionalisation is a measure of religion. It is certainly very easy to say that counting the number of people going to sunday prayers tells you the level of religiousness in a country - but that is actually bollocks. As sociology has realized over the last decades (at least more self-reflexive sociology), it is impossible to equate complex social behaviours with single indices.
Many people are religious without belonging to an organised institution. In the final instance, the basis of religion is belief. Belief in something - not necessarily a God or Gods or whatever.
Saying that because someone does not believe in God they are irreligious is as foolish as saying that because someone believes in many Gods they are irreligious. See my point? Religion is not determined by the number of Gods, but by the belief and action of every individual.
Atheism is thus not opposed to religion.
As an example - I am atheist, but am religious. And a secularist as well. And these concepts do actually go together. One just has to realise that religion is not a bible and a thumper in hand.
sensualpilgrim said:
Perdita and Sensual - I disagree. For several reasons.
1. There are atheist religions - buddhism (at least the theravada variety and certainly the variety preached by Siddharta Gotama) is atheist. Buddhist scripture specifically warns against gods and miracles and magic - the fact that these very elements were later reintroduced (for example in mahayana and tibetan buddhism) does not detract from the fact that the original buddhism was atheist and there remain atheist varieties.
2. Atheism is in no way the opposite of religion. Religion is not the opposite of questioning. Our perception of religion is coloured by our experience with Christianity which emphasises blind faith, often in the most absurd dogmas (like resurrection and virgin births).
However, the argument: since all swans we have seen are white then all swans are white does not hold - and the same applies to religion. Yet again, buddhism is one religion that emphasizes questioning to quite an extent.
3. Perdita mentioned the lack of institutionalisation as a reason for atheism's non-religiousness. I disagree that institutionalisation is a measure of religion. It is certainly very easy to say that counting the number of people going to sunday prayers tells you the level of religiousness in a country - but that is actually bollocks. As sociology has realized over the last decades (at least more self-reflexive sociology), it is impossible to equate complex social behaviours with single indices.
Many people are religious without belonging to an organised institution. In the final instance, the basis of religion is belief. Belief in something - not necessarily a God or Gods or whatever.
Saying that because someone does not believe in God they are irreligious is as foolish as saying that because someone believes in many Gods they are irreligious. See my point? Religion is not determined by the number of Gods, but by the belief and action of every individual.
Atheism is thus not opposed to religion.
As an example - I am atheist, but am religious. And a secularist as well. And these concepts do actually go together. One just has to realise that religion is not a bible and a thumper in hand.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Sensual P,
I sorta followed you and like a lot of what you said, till I came to this part:
[Use of force on people is part of religions?]
One case in point, organized crime suckled on the milk of enforced morality. Any step againest violation of person or property is resoundly welcome and is often undertaken privately. On other hand, enforcing morality where there is no violation of person or property tends to create great corruption and opens doors to the mafias. It would be better if we just mind our own business, but some people take pleasure in minding other people' business because their lives would have no meaning without it. Such people are natural, if unwitting, allies of mobsters who need to maintains the enforced morality in order to keep gaining obscene returns under the table.
It seems to say, If we'd be tolerant liberals (in morality) and mind our own business, there'd be no mafia.?? and/or
Enforcement of any morality above the basics (anti social acts and anti-property acts) is like the 'enforcement' employed by the mob. and/or
If we're used to the enforcers of a meddlesome morality, we're likely to be amenable to the enforcers of the mob. Societies with enforced morality, above the basics, are especially congenial to the mob.
Please say which, if any. Also explain. I see no reason to believe any of the above statements.
----
In general I can see you calling for an end to 'force' to settle disputes and/or maintain society and/or resolve international conflicts.
I have no problem with that, as a ideal.
There also seems to be the suggestion that atheists such as yourself are disinclined to use force in those ways. Perhaps. OTOH, Lenin, Stalin and Mao were atheists and were not averse to using force on the domestic scene or internationally.
I guess you want to compare the 'cream of the crop' gentle atheists such as yourself against the bellicose runofthemill Christian ruler, like GWB.
That's a bit unfair don't'ya think?
J.
I sorta followed you and like a lot of what you said, till I came to this part:
[Use of force on people is part of religions?]
One case in point, organized crime suckled on the milk of enforced morality. Any step againest violation of person or property is resoundly welcome and is often undertaken privately. On other hand, enforcing morality where there is no violation of person or property tends to create great corruption and opens doors to the mafias. It would be better if we just mind our own business, but some people take pleasure in minding other people' business because their lives would have no meaning without it. Such people are natural, if unwitting, allies of mobsters who need to maintains the enforced morality in order to keep gaining obscene returns under the table.
It seems to say, If we'd be tolerant liberals (in morality) and mind our own business, there'd be no mafia.?? and/or
Enforcement of any morality above the basics (anti social acts and anti-property acts) is like the 'enforcement' employed by the mob. and/or
If we're used to the enforcers of a meddlesome morality, we're likely to be amenable to the enforcers of the mob. Societies with enforced morality, above the basics, are especially congenial to the mob.
Please say which, if any. Also explain. I see no reason to believe any of the above statements.
----
In general I can see you calling for an end to 'force' to settle disputes and/or maintain society and/or resolve international conflicts.
I have no problem with that, as a ideal.
There also seems to be the suggestion that atheists such as yourself are disinclined to use force in those ways. Perhaps. OTOH, Lenin, Stalin and Mao were atheists and were not averse to using force on the domestic scene or internationally.
I guess you want to compare the 'cream of the crop' gentle atheists such as yourself against the bellicose runofthemill Christian ruler, like GWB.
That's a bit unfair don't'ya think?
J.
Gary Chambers
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2003
- Posts
- 374
Holy Chimma Rotcha, Batman!
I reached a point where I didn’t have a lot more to say on this issue. I had only two things left to say, as a matter of fact. One was to mention the Chimma Rotcha religion, and the other was to dive into a wrestling match with Sher and Gauche, which sounded like the most fun one could have with one’s Spandex on. Posting about Chimma Rotcha would have required making further preliminary points to establish relevance, and simply accepting the wrestling challenge would have been hijacking the thread, so I did neither. Sweetnpetite has looked after the relevance issue for me, however, so I’m open for business again.
You see the only thing that was still bothering me was SummerMorning’s claim that religions are necessary, and if we didn’t have any we’d have to invent them. I’m just not sure which way to go on that one. I don’t want to believe it’s true, but then there’s Chimma Rotcha. Apparently at one time there was a plane crash or some other event that resulted in a stack of Jimmy Rodgers records and a windup gramophone falling into the hands of some natives in darkest Africa. The result was the Chimma Rotcha Religion, based on the idea that the records and player were a message from the great god Chimma Rotcha.
Now if it had been Ank Welumz, Wudhee Kutharee or even Walong Chennins, I might say ‘fair enough’, it’s a logical mistake. I could even accept the deity of Channa Twayin, because they may have salvaged an album cover with a photo and been looking for a love goddess to stir some loins at the time. But Chimma Rotcha? I mean we’re talking Grand Old Opry here folks, the outfit that fired Ank Welumz and means virtually nothing to anyone outside Nashville, despite its own delusions of grandeur. So maybe SummerMorning is right. Perhaps we just have a need to invent religions.
Or maybe we just like to hear people sing through their noses about lost love, dead dogs and broken down pickup trucks.
My problem with the whole concept is that I’ve always believed religions exist only to explain the inexplicable. That’s why in early tribal societies the shaman or medicine man wasn’t just a spiritual leader, but also the Secretary of State for Science and Technology (Minister of S & T if you prefer). This was convenient because if the shaman didn’t know whether the Castor Bean was poison, he could say, “Oh that old saw. That’s the tree of life. Eat its fruit and you will be closer to God.” If the tribe member died he could henceforth say, “It’s a poison and forbidden fruit. Sorry, did I forget to mention that?” and if the tribe member lived he could say, “Okay good. Now for step two. I’ll rub your pee-pee for a few minutes because it's part of the bean ritual, and you tell us when you see God.”
I suppose religions might also have come in handy as economic tools, to hold communal property in trust or to distribute wealth more evenly. It speaks volumes that as the European capitalist hordes developed the westernmost parts of North America, one of their highest priorities became outlawing the Potlach Ceremony. This traditional festival of native religion involved the wealthiest tribe members increasing their status, by bestowing lavish gifts on the poorest. Maybe that’s why they called them redskins? The Indians don’t look especially red, but their old medicine men could have taught Karl Marx a thing or two.
I do have a slight problem with atheism because it actually assumes, “God does not exist.” Sher says she’s an atheist, but encourages children to believe in miracles and the wonder of it all. Atheism must always carry such a rider, whereas agnosticism leaves us maximum room to wiggle, which is good if you’re wrestling with the patron saint of erotica and a sarcastic curmudgeon.
All said and done, however, I still don’t trust an organised religion any farther than a year end audit by Arthur Anderson, and I detest the idea that we have some primal need to create new religions. I’m not saying it isn’t true, just that I find the idea more worthy of an obscenity charge than most things on this website. What on Earth is wrong with being a rationalist? accepting what you know to be true, and answering, "I don't have the foggiest," to the rest. It seems to me the only people who would find that position impossible are despots, who want others to place unreasonable levels of faith in their leadership. So SummerMorning, are you saying we have a primal need to be bullied by despots?
I reached a point where I didn’t have a lot more to say on this issue. I had only two things left to say, as a matter of fact. One was to mention the Chimma Rotcha religion, and the other was to dive into a wrestling match with Sher and Gauche, which sounded like the most fun one could have with one’s Spandex on. Posting about Chimma Rotcha would have required making further preliminary points to establish relevance, and simply accepting the wrestling challenge would have been hijacking the thread, so I did neither. Sweetnpetite has looked after the relevance issue for me, however, so I’m open for business again.
You see the only thing that was still bothering me was SummerMorning’s claim that religions are necessary, and if we didn’t have any we’d have to invent them. I’m just not sure which way to go on that one. I don’t want to believe it’s true, but then there’s Chimma Rotcha. Apparently at one time there was a plane crash or some other event that resulted in a stack of Jimmy Rodgers records and a windup gramophone falling into the hands of some natives in darkest Africa. The result was the Chimma Rotcha Religion, based on the idea that the records and player were a message from the great god Chimma Rotcha.
Now if it had been Ank Welumz, Wudhee Kutharee or even Walong Chennins, I might say ‘fair enough’, it’s a logical mistake. I could even accept the deity of Channa Twayin, because they may have salvaged an album cover with a photo and been looking for a love goddess to stir some loins at the time. But Chimma Rotcha? I mean we’re talking Grand Old Opry here folks, the outfit that fired Ank Welumz and means virtually nothing to anyone outside Nashville, despite its own delusions of grandeur. So maybe SummerMorning is right. Perhaps we just have a need to invent religions.
Or maybe we just like to hear people sing through their noses about lost love, dead dogs and broken down pickup trucks.
My problem with the whole concept is that I’ve always believed religions exist only to explain the inexplicable. That’s why in early tribal societies the shaman or medicine man wasn’t just a spiritual leader, but also the Secretary of State for Science and Technology (Minister of S & T if you prefer). This was convenient because if the shaman didn’t know whether the Castor Bean was poison, he could say, “Oh that old saw. That’s the tree of life. Eat its fruit and you will be closer to God.” If the tribe member died he could henceforth say, “It’s a poison and forbidden fruit. Sorry, did I forget to mention that?” and if the tribe member lived he could say, “Okay good. Now for step two. I’ll rub your pee-pee for a few minutes because it's part of the bean ritual, and you tell us when you see God.”
I suppose religions might also have come in handy as economic tools, to hold communal property in trust or to distribute wealth more evenly. It speaks volumes that as the European capitalist hordes developed the westernmost parts of North America, one of their highest priorities became outlawing the Potlach Ceremony. This traditional festival of native religion involved the wealthiest tribe members increasing their status, by bestowing lavish gifts on the poorest. Maybe that’s why they called them redskins? The Indians don’t look especially red, but their old medicine men could have taught Karl Marx a thing or two.
I do have a slight problem with atheism because it actually assumes, “God does not exist.” Sher says she’s an atheist, but encourages children to believe in miracles and the wonder of it all. Atheism must always carry such a rider, whereas agnosticism leaves us maximum room to wiggle, which is good if you’re wrestling with the patron saint of erotica and a sarcastic curmudgeon.
All said and done, however, I still don’t trust an organised religion any farther than a year end audit by Arthur Anderson, and I detest the idea that we have some primal need to create new religions. I’m not saying it isn’t true, just that I find the idea more worthy of an obscenity charge than most things on this website. What on Earth is wrong with being a rationalist? accepting what you know to be true, and answering, "I don't have the foggiest," to the rest. It seems to me the only people who would find that position impossible are despots, who want others to place unreasonable levels of faith in their leadership. So SummerMorning, are you saying we have a primal need to be bullied by despots?
Gary Chambers
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2003
- Posts
- 374
Holy Chimma Rotcha, Batman!
deleted duplicate
deleted duplicate
Last edited:
Gary Chambers
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2003
- Posts
- 374
Holy Chimma Rotcha, Batman!
I have no idea how I endedup posting in triplicate. Sorry. I tried to delete this one, but it insists I put something in the text box.
I have no idea how I endedup posting in triplicate. Sorry. I tried to delete this one, but it insists I put something in the text box.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Gary, hombre: I wont go as far as Gauche (ever), but I am in love with how you think (always a prime erotickle for me).
Perdita
Perdita
SummerMorning
ah...
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Posts
- 1,986
Re: Holy Chimma Rotcha, Batman!
Far from it! I agree with you on nearly all of what you say.
There is nothing wrong with being a rationalist! In fact, there is nothing that says that religion needs to be irrational and theistic, or that a religion needs to be institutional and led by a bunch of men in skirts who claim that if a sperm gets wasted God gets quite irate.
I think that science and religion are actually quite close together! In fact, I would argue that to an extent science has become the religion of secular society. No matter how rational our arguments, in the end they terminate in belief. If you take a meta-approach to science (which is a bit of theoretical doodle, as how can you talk about science in a scientific way? It's like looking at the back of your head) - you find a lot of belief. The belief in the importance of rationality, of knowledge. The worship of science and progress...well, that's taken a bit of a beating with the two world wars, but still.
Hehe, one little example would be the white laboratory coat that we tend to associate with the scientist (now, I know they don't all wear them - but that's the image people have in their heads). White. Interesting colour (well, tone). White seems to be the colour that indoeuropean "ideology" (or call it cultural baggage, if you will) associates with the wise men and shamans...
Now, there is nothing wrong with belief - I hold that belief is necessary for us to construct a working relationship with the environment beyond our own skulls. Ideally we should all think critically and with our heads.
I'm not saying we have a need to invent religions - I'm saying that we are religious. Religion is completely natural. It's the way we think. Secularism is religion, and so is fundamentalist bible thumping and so is scientific positivism.
Religion is not an exclusive thing - you can belong to different religions at the same time. It's despots trying to control our lives who feel the need to uniform and regulate us by having One Religion, One God, One King.
As to religion - of what, if not religion, does the neoliberal gibberish that the IMF spouts to developing countries the world over smack of if not religion? A study of developing countries has shown that those "helped" by the IMF have done more poorly than those who avoided the IMF's advice - kudos to Malaysia.
Oh, and by the way - the spandex suits you. Are you guys going for K-Y 'rasslin or the more mundane WWF variety? I'd vote for the first, as I find the second...ach.
Gary Chambers said:So SummerMorning, are you saying we have a primal need to be bullied by despots?
Far from it! I agree with you on nearly all of what you say.
There is nothing wrong with being a rationalist! In fact, there is nothing that says that religion needs to be irrational and theistic, or that a religion needs to be institutional and led by a bunch of men in skirts who claim that if a sperm gets wasted God gets quite irate.
I think that science and religion are actually quite close together! In fact, I would argue that to an extent science has become the religion of secular society. No matter how rational our arguments, in the end they terminate in belief. If you take a meta-approach to science (which is a bit of theoretical doodle, as how can you talk about science in a scientific way? It's like looking at the back of your head) - you find a lot of belief. The belief in the importance of rationality, of knowledge. The worship of science and progress...well, that's taken a bit of a beating with the two world wars, but still.
Hehe, one little example would be the white laboratory coat that we tend to associate with the scientist (now, I know they don't all wear them - but that's the image people have in their heads). White. Interesting colour (well, tone). White seems to be the colour that indoeuropean "ideology" (or call it cultural baggage, if you will) associates with the wise men and shamans...
Now, there is nothing wrong with belief - I hold that belief is necessary for us to construct a working relationship with the environment beyond our own skulls. Ideally we should all think critically and with our heads.
I'm not saying we have a need to invent religions - I'm saying that we are religious. Religion is completely natural. It's the way we think. Secularism is religion, and so is fundamentalist bible thumping and so is scientific positivism.
Religion is not an exclusive thing - you can belong to different religions at the same time. It's despots trying to control our lives who feel the need to uniform and regulate us by having One Religion, One God, One King.
As to religion - of what, if not religion, does the neoliberal gibberish that the IMF spouts to developing countries the world over smack of if not religion? A study of developing countries has shown that those "helped" by the IMF have done more poorly than those who avoided the IMF's advice - kudos to Malaysia.
Oh, and by the way - the spandex suits you. Are you guys going for K-Y 'rasslin or the more mundane WWF variety? I'd vote for the first, as I find the second...ach.
SummerMorning
ah...
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Posts
- 1,986
To conclude:
I seem to have confused some people with this position - and I agree, it is not yet completely worked out (in a decade or so once I write a book on the subject I'll let you know). Let me try to clarify a bit.
I think that there are common elements in religion, science, the media, politics...whatnot. Elements such as rituals, ceremonies, dogmas - these are found throughout. It is these that interest me - I find the apparent human need for all these trappings that we commonly associate exclusively with institutionalised religion fascinating (An interesting ceremony is "voting" in democracies...the American electoral system certainly functions primarily to legitimate authority rather than give power to the people).
Perhaps "belief" would be a better term than "religion" - certainly less contentious. Belief appears to be an integral part of the human condition.
Organised religion is not an integral part of the human condition. Neither is despotism, neither is capitalism and market liberalism - neither is Marxism for that matter (And the way Marxism was used here in the "East" - well, the "communist" secular religion certainly functioned very well...and very despotically and single-mindedly)!
Final words - if we must believe - let us believe in critical rational thought, in ourselves and above all (this is Literotica after all) the pursuit of the aesthetic (very fancy way of me saying pretty women)
Gary - have I answered you slightly?
I seem to have confused some people with this position - and I agree, it is not yet completely worked out (in a decade or so once I write a book on the subject I'll let you know). Let me try to clarify a bit.
I think that there are common elements in religion, science, the media, politics...whatnot. Elements such as rituals, ceremonies, dogmas - these are found throughout. It is these that interest me - I find the apparent human need for all these trappings that we commonly associate exclusively with institutionalised religion fascinating (An interesting ceremony is "voting" in democracies...the American electoral system certainly functions primarily to legitimate authority rather than give power to the people).
Perhaps "belief" would be a better term than "religion" - certainly less contentious. Belief appears to be an integral part of the human condition.
Organised religion is not an integral part of the human condition. Neither is despotism, neither is capitalism and market liberalism - neither is Marxism for that matter (And the way Marxism was used here in the "East" - well, the "communist" secular religion certainly functioned very well...and very despotically and single-mindedly)!
Final words - if we must believe - let us believe in critical rational thought, in ourselves and above all (this is Literotica after all) the pursuit of the aesthetic (very fancy way of me saying pretty women)
Gary - have I answered you slightly?
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
As with Chimma Rotcha there was, on a Carribean Island I think, what was known as the Cult of Cargo.
God, or the Gods apparently made a fair few, if spasmodic deliveries of advanced 'goods' by sea via shipwrecks. At a guess it was merely a manifestation of the father-sun mother-earth sort of thing, which lots of religionless peoples will come to as explanation for the inexplicable.
Explanations for the inexplicable, in my view is the sole basis of religion of any kind. The one exception in my limited knowledge would be Buddhism as I know it, which would boil down to: be nice and don't hurt anything.
Back to my favourite theory: story telling as a means of evolution. (The Science of Discworld II)
The more we can forecast, the safer we can make our selves and others around us. And forecasting is what the author calls story telling.
As story-telling (forecasting) became useful to larger and larger groups then some of the group managed to exert a sort of control over the group by lies, a modified form of story-telling. "leaving the group means that the lions on the plain will be able to pick you off because you are alone." Not a lie exactly but if you travel with a group then you don't need to run faster than a predator, only faster than someone else in the same group.
We can then extrapolate a much more sophisticated form of lies as outlined by GC (ooh same initials) the shaman. "Eat this, go there, steal women from that tribe." because when we do it this way God keeps the predators away.
Modernly, as I've said previously, the more we apparently 'know' the less need we have of religion, except for spirituality and loneliness.
Gauche
God, or the Gods apparently made a fair few, if spasmodic deliveries of advanced 'goods' by sea via shipwrecks. At a guess it was merely a manifestation of the father-sun mother-earth sort of thing, which lots of religionless peoples will come to as explanation for the inexplicable.
Explanations for the inexplicable, in my view is the sole basis of religion of any kind. The one exception in my limited knowledge would be Buddhism as I know it, which would boil down to: be nice and don't hurt anything.
Back to my favourite theory: story telling as a means of evolution. (The Science of Discworld II)
The more we can forecast, the safer we can make our selves and others around us. And forecasting is what the author calls story telling.
As story-telling (forecasting) became useful to larger and larger groups then some of the group managed to exert a sort of control over the group by lies, a modified form of story-telling. "leaving the group means that the lions on the plain will be able to pick you off because you are alone." Not a lie exactly but if you travel with a group then you don't need to run faster than a predator, only faster than someone else in the same group.
We can then extrapolate a much more sophisticated form of lies as outlined by GC (ooh same initials) the shaman. "Eat this, go there, steal women from that tribe." because when we do it this way God keeps the predators away.
Modernly, as I've said previously, the more we apparently 'know' the less need we have of religion, except for spirituality and loneliness.
Gauche
G
Guest
Guest
Gauche, re. your post above, it expresses exceptionally profound thinking; to my mind off the charts compared to any other on this thread. Just saying.
Perdita
Perdita
redrider4u
This pix is for you......
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2002
- Posts
- 5,991
Oh, Perdita
Actually, I've read this tread for a bit, and, the thought of being with you on someplace in SF where there the sea sounds along with the clinking of goblets sounds really appealing.
Please reserve me a room.
...........red
Actually, I've read this tread for a bit, and, the thought of being with you on someplace in SF where there the sea sounds along with the clinking of goblets sounds really appealing.
Please reserve me a room.
...........red
Gary Chambers
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2003
- Posts
- 374
perdita said:Gary, hombre: I wont go as far as Gauche (ever), but I am in love with how you think (always a prime erotickle for me).
Perdita
You're sweet Perdita, and you too can keep one's grey cells active, so it's okay to rely on me for some erotickle that stays within your personal boundaries. As for loving the way someone thinks, I've always felt the mind and soul are the sexiest parts of the person. The rest is just eye candy and functional bits like egg beaters or lawn sprinklers. You do have me a bit worried about Guache, however. Just how far do you think he plans to take this? He also has a mind I can appreciate, but I don't know where the rest of him has been.
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
shereads said:
So now we get to the wrestling.
Gauche
sensualpilgrim
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 2,371
Pure said:
sensualpilgrim
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 2,371
Re: Re: Holy Chimma Rotcha, Batman!
SummerMorning said:
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Re: Holy Chimma Rotcha, Batman!
Au cointreau, GC. I'm a card-carrying member of the Agnostic Church.
I said that I equate atheism with a religion. I don't know nuthin' 'bout theology, but it seems to me that a firm belief in the nonexistence of a Creator has no more basis in science than a firm belief in the existence of one.
Agnostics, I believe, are the ones who admit that we don't know.
People who don't get headaches thinking about "black matter" and stuff tell us that the Big Bang can be explained almost back as far as theh moment of its occurence. Until science can tell us what banged and what made it go bang and why matter would bother to bang, it makes just as much sense to assume that an intelligent will was behind creation as to assume that mindless matter just up and went kaboom for no good reason.
Hoping to be convinced of the non-existence of God, I read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and was almost in tears because the reviewers all said the book was written for the layperson - but I didn't get it. I wanted to sit face to face with Stephen Hawking and demand to know, "Yes, but what happens after infinity? What then?" But I knew he wouldn't give me a straight answer.
I have enough difficulty living in the dimensions that I can understand, without anybody making time curve and adding more dimensions. Who needs 'em?
When I finally decided that I don't know, and that it's okay to not know, I felt better. A friend who is intensely spiritual but not at all religious told me once, "It doesn't matter if you believe in God. If there is a God, he believes in you." I was dealing with a lot of Baptist anxiety over my need to either accept or reject the notion of God, and the consequences of a decision not to believe are an eternity of torment - or so I was told. My friend, who studied to be a Jesuit Priest long ago and then changed his mind and studied Buddhism and then changed his major to Engineering, is at peace with the certaintly that any being or lifeforce with the capacity to create intelligence from nothingness would have better things to do than punish his/its/our creation.
I'm fine now with knowing that I don't know. If there's something to find out after this life - and my instinct tells me that life, like all energy, continues - then I'll find out when I get there.
I think that makes me an agnostic.
However, I do agree with SummerMorning that human beings have a primal need to be bullied by despots.
Otherwise, we'd have to decide everything for ourselves.
Gary Chambers said:
Au cointreau, GC. I'm a card-carrying member of the Agnostic Church.
I said that I equate atheism with a religion. I don't know nuthin' 'bout theology, but it seems to me that a firm belief in the nonexistence of a Creator has no more basis in science than a firm belief in the existence of one.
Agnostics, I believe, are the ones who admit that we don't know.
People who don't get headaches thinking about "black matter" and stuff tell us that the Big Bang can be explained almost back as far as theh moment of its occurence. Until science can tell us what banged and what made it go bang and why matter would bother to bang, it makes just as much sense to assume that an intelligent will was behind creation as to assume that mindless matter just up and went kaboom for no good reason.
Hoping to be convinced of the non-existence of God, I read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and was almost in tears because the reviewers all said the book was written for the layperson - but I didn't get it. I wanted to sit face to face with Stephen Hawking and demand to know, "Yes, but what happens after infinity? What then?" But I knew he wouldn't give me a straight answer.
I have enough difficulty living in the dimensions that I can understand, without anybody making time curve and adding more dimensions. Who needs 'em?
When I finally decided that I don't know, and that it's okay to not know, I felt better. A friend who is intensely spiritual but not at all religious told me once, "It doesn't matter if you believe in God. If there is a God, he believes in you." I was dealing with a lot of Baptist anxiety over my need to either accept or reject the notion of God, and the consequences of a decision not to believe are an eternity of torment - or so I was told. My friend, who studied to be a Jesuit Priest long ago and then changed his mind and studied Buddhism and then changed his major to Engineering, is at peace with the certaintly that any being or lifeforce with the capacity to create intelligence from nothingness would have better things to do than punish his/its/our creation.
I'm fine now with knowing that I don't know. If there's something to find out after this life - and my instinct tells me that life, like all energy, continues - then I'll find out when I get there.
I think that makes me an agnostic.
However, I do agree with SummerMorning that human beings have a primal need to be bullied by despots.
Otherwise, we'd have to decide everything for ourselves.
Last edited:
Similar threads
