a turn to religion, anarchy or enlightenment?

Communication is difficult, most times it's a one way traffic thing, hence, it builds pyramids of misunderstandings. sometimes it's better to avoid the hold-up.
Time is gracious and merciful; although, it has an end, and the end is dreadful. If justification exist at the end then, I hope we all escape condemnation....

Mag,
Sorry if I got ya hurt by any derogatory statement and same to anyone else....



I'm outta hia!!!
peace....

lepperochan said:aright, Vee.  I'll hold my hand up and say you were wrong to get so defensive and subsequently snarky, and I'm sorry for that. for what it's worth I wasn't calling you crazy, more an observation on the tone of some threads.

I read the quote in it's entirety first time around. it's plausible that people would see the structure and discipline as an important part of maintaining a society, especially governments who like he says would utilise religion.

my point about the segment I  had isolated was that even in the context of the whole post, that sentence sticks out as something unworthy of the rest of the  paragraphs.

I've never read the chap, but come on: all men are bad ? and the only reason they do good is out of fear ? necessity and self serving ? he sounds like an outdated angry feminist to me, and that was my point.

anyhow, my apologies for the confusion. do carry on        

Craic,  thanks for offering a civilized explanation and I'll write off the above exchange of sentiments as misunderstandings.


I know that particular line seems to stand out but hopefully i can clarify by what he meant.  Every one of us is capable of being bad, hurting one another and even turning to killers, depending on the situation, the cause and conviction.
But in the presence of fear for the self for the most part, it tends to halt that momentary thoughts of violence in forcing one to re'think the consequences of actions.

Again, what is the definition of bad ..well it all depends which side of the fence one is standing.  One may view it as a killer, while the other may view it as a survivor.

The following is an excerpt from his classic book called The Prince.

Machiavelli writes,
"The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved." Chapter 17, pg. 60


Now i know that sounds like a shocking statement at first glance, but if we look at it closely, he's saying most often greater achievements can happen by the presence of both but in the absence (or inability) of one,  fear will give one greater results.

Pertaining to religion, fear has given the organized religion far greater power than love and that's why he states that fear is very much of a tool, despite the fact that he does not like the idea of it.

Too much of anything, good or bad, is inherently bad.  Life is about finding balance... mentally, physically and spiritually.

Generalizing all of mankind is a tough push, for sure, but like any stereotype, where there's smoke there's fire.  ....and reason for an entire psychological field of study on behaviorism.   Man is beast with a consciousness of I.  So... in general, we can't help our damn selves but salivate when the dinner bell's a ringing...no matter if it's flesh or soul dangling delicious, tempting us to BITE! (YUMMY:D)

Jesus, Joseph...Mary Too?
Tinkle tinkle in the loo

Sometimes, you just gotta piss a rainbow...and SMILE:D

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KOkscLl8zTk/U0LdaQTk0LI/AAAAAAAADI8/_mDycJaWkIc/s1600/rainbow.jpg

thanks  for the convo every1... some real good and interesting points made in here
anyway


god... devil...

good... bad...

yin... yang... what the fuck ever.


i think i prefer dreams and nightmares. however corny that may sound it makes more sense than angels and demons.
they say everyone has a dream to believe in at some point. they should follow it and believe in that.
for better or worse. i think if you can't think and dream for yourself and NEED religion... then maybe you're already dead.

Vee - Had you actually used a quote rather than paraphrasing it then this thread would be a lot simpler and smoother. Seeing as I have read the The Prince the 'quote' did not jump out at me right away. Besides The Prince seems to regard most things as a necessary binding-agent rather than a necessary evil. - It would be far easier for a Prince to run his kingdom as his wont without fear of rebellion or invasion. Yet that is not the reality, because of possible invasion by the French/ other and a combination of natural resentment and poor governing.

The correct religion is simple when concerned with the individual or a closed group. Globally however it becomes harder and more open to conflicting and altogether lack of cohesion. The Egyptian Pantheon would be ill-fitting in Northern Europe where the Sun is not always seen during the day, nevermind that half the pantheon would lack native creatures, such as crocodiles and jackals.

I dislike how this thread has turned from talk on religion/non-religion (from a position I dislike anyway) to generalising talk about man. I mean really, thought we'd got passed that.

Anyway, a religion based upon fear is not healthy, spiritually or psychologically; less likely to do something extraordinary and humanity benefiting, than one which is based upon free choice. However organised religion requires a set of rules and lore in order to stay one organised religion and not many.

But we are all made of particles when it comes down to it, made from the same stuff as stars and planets just in different quantities.

Austin, reign in your comments. Although you do have free speech you are wobblind dangerously close to insulting those with religion who hold it more than dear. You may not 'need' or want or like religion but others do, so bear that in mind.


No single thing is everything, yet it is all richer and better for that.

Machiavelli for me is one of those philosophers that I don't feel mentally equipped enough to explain in a Forum. I know I objected strongly to his writings, until I had to study him more closely in college. So I applaud you all for going where I am so reluctant to go!

In the end in some way, I think Dylan had it right, "You Gotta Serve Somebody".

Belive in yourself. Follow one rule, do into others as you would have them do unto you. If you don't want others to harm you or take what you need to survive away from you, then you won't do that to them. Now if only we could convince everyone to follow that one simple rule, we wouldn't need religion or laws. The trouble is people are greedy, hateful, jealous and care only for themselves. So it is easy to take food from your neighbor even if you neighbor barely had enough to survive. People who have plenty build walls around themselves, be it physical or imaginary, in houses with locked doors or on paper in constitutions and bibles. If we are going to live together we need laws. Otherwise the greedy will kill to have more. We still have that now. In America, in spite of all we have, we horde our money far beyond need while others around us starve, get sick, go homeless and suffer through life. We have no choice but to create gods and God because we just don't give a shit about each other enough to follow one simple rule, do unto others. So we make up a god that will punish those who can't respect another's right to life and give that god the authority to send sinners to Hell. Well, except for those who don't believe or made up some other god or religion.

Screw them all and follow one rule. But it will never be so because selfishness breeds greed. Greed is a seed of hatred. See my poem, "3 Seeds". Fear, greed and pride...
I have spoken. LoL!!!

One of my brothers believes he is God. Seriously, he does. But I keep telling him he can't possibly be God because I am... HA! Well, he is writing a book that he claims will make everything clear, it will change the world. But I already wrote two books, not including the Bible of course, and they didn't change he world. But I will read his book anyway. I figure it ought to be entertaining at he very least.
God knows my book "Seeds and Weeds" barely sold a few hundred copies. How is it supposed to change the world if nobody reads it? Geeze, don't get me started...
JJ

Without trying to rephrase my grade-school catholic education, I will try to discuss this logically.  

Faith does not have to include giving any or all of yourself over to anything.  It is merely a theory designed to help those who do believe in something other than themselves, to recognize that they may not be alone and that if they think along those lines, they will have a clear path toward free will and judgment designed to avoid hurting yourself or others.  (Note that I seem to be rephrasing one of the addict's 12-steps...interesting.)

I would question if atheism frees up a person to be all for themselves, and I wonder why more atheists are not "enlightened".  

Human beings are all different, and to put all of them into one such category, i.e., religion, anarchy or enlightenment, would not work.  But, I see no benefit to atheism; there is some historical significance to religion; and, so far, has anyone reached enlightenment?  

Please provide your definition of a utopian society.  Thx., Pr

i should have wrote this right from the start though. in this discussion there will be no disrespect to other individuals, cultures or religions. we are just discussing in theory which is the better model for an imaginary society to turn to.

Lord Viddax- lord knows im no lord so no one need at all listen to me... im just sharing my personal thoughts on the subject for others that may want to converse

Primogenito- thank you for participating i chose these three words to highlight what i think are three very different styles of life. IE organised religion (as a whole conformity without individual personality IMHO), anarchy (all personality and no substance, law or creed IMHO) and enlightenment (an attempt to learn and grow in whatever possible ways be it personally, religiously or through ways that one just has not yet experienced IMHO)

i dont really know how to answer about what a utopian society should look like. i know that any past attempts to create a so called utopian society out of existing societies have been steeped in jealousy, greed, evil deeds and blood shed. and frankly there will always be semi-higher powers in the world that try their damndest to wipe out (or monetarily enslave) at least a fraction of poor/middle class people (when you have oil, Microsoft or RX type of money they're really the same thing) seemingly to make the world less populated and somehow a better place for them.
i suppose the simplest "utopian" society would be a primitive hunter gatherer makeup. But if that was perfect, why do we build up and advance? i think its just like childhood; we all grow up and then wish we were young again at some point.
i also i think we all have our own image of utopia be it heaven, a penthouse, a throne, or smack dab in the middle of a burning man festival LOL.

anyway as far as atheism goes i see it just as rejection of religion. what a single atheist does with his time after that rejection is up to them individually. for example i see kids all the time turning atheist (and sometimes act like satanists LOL) just for the sake of rebellion and to be different however many, many, people turn atheist for many, many, different reasons.
I believe that perhaps no one is truly enlightened. if someone was how could we know? what the hell exactly is enlightenment? it seems just as difficult as asking the straight up meaning of life. but if someone was enlightened (whatever that means) that would not make them better than us in any way. True enlightenment in my eyes would be just constantly thinking of ways to make the world a happier place for all to live in, or whatever your definition of enlightenment perhaps an omniscience of every way the world should already be better.
logically we know that no person could ever reach that.
but what we can do, and i like the way poetryman put it which is the teachings of true christianity i think, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. be good for goodnesses sake. (i think of christianity as emulation like you're looking up to jesus as a role model (not the organised religion but the individual practice(and perhaps other religions believe this too i'm just not familiar with other religions)) but i can't even list the times people have seen me growing up just thrown into the streets. they all just said fuck it for their own selfish reasons. i think when we do bad shit we take it for granted that the world will always be the way it is but we don't realize that the more bad shit we do the worse the world becomes.
i also like the thought that a person HAS to serve somebody (be it themselves, another person, government, God or simply humanity is up to the individual person to decide)

delete

If you judge me by my pseudonym then good luck with that wild goose chase. The main point was that this site has had some troubles lately so a slightly bad word on the powder-keg of religion could have led to unfortunate actions and words.
Though I do agree with you that 'enlightenment' seems a weird thing to claim as you cannot really test it, other than the person seems to make the world better. It also seems that enlightenment is often used in contrast to someone else; ie someone is more englightend and tolerant than someone else, which is all circumstantial.

The hunter gatherer society seems a good idea for a utopian society, but does not seem that valid in the modern world. Plus personally I see a utopian society as not one that looks in and is self-contained but one that expands, grows, discovers and is altogether getting 'better' and progressive.

If anything religion is often good at making the point about equality and the sense of connecting people together in a unity, though the fine words of equality do not always create such a thing.

sorry Viddax i did not mean offence by saying that "lord knows i am no lord". i meant that literally and sort of as a pun at your (cool and funny) pen name but was not trying to in any way say that i have any knowledge of you thinking of yourself as a lord. i was just making a half good hearted ribb and half of a serious statement.

i agree with you except for the point about religion bringing equality...
when heathens are not treated as equals and are historically butchered for noncompliance.

lepperochan said:"He also emphasized that all men are bad and the reason they do good is because of fear, out of necessity and the benefits for themselves"

nah, utter cods-whallop. that's the thing about quoting people. at the end of the day they're just people. anyone who starts a sentence off with or includes all men or all women or all people in one should just be quiet

Only Sith deal in absolutes.