Seriously -- giving control to who? Or why? Jesus? He was dead (or taken up to heaven). The 12 disciples? They were largely dead or dying by the point they were probably written. What were they controlling? Who were they giving control to? The Catholic Church was still a long way from coming to be. What or who do you think the gospels were trying to control?
There have actually been several councils of religious leaders over the centuries who have met to 'canonize' the message of Christianity in order to discredit the religious teachings of other sects. For example, the Council of Nicaea met to discredit the teachings of Arius, who proposed that Christ was not eternal, and not of the same substance as the Father. The result of this meeting was that Arius was excommunicated from the church, his writings burned, and his followers exiled from the Roman Empire. Also, in addition to solidifying the leadership and canon of the Catholic church, the Council of Trent met to condemn Protestant teachings. This meeting resulted in a centuries long campaign of anti-Protestant persecution all throughout Europe.
That said, I do agree with you that the original apostles were not trying to control anyone through their teachings. If anything, I think they preached in the face of overwhelming religious persecution. For example, the apostle Paul, whom CourtFool describes as pushing his own agenda, wrote many of his teachings while imprisoned in Caesarea. That doesn't sound like a man in any sort of position of power to me. So while it may be true that later religious leaders used the Bible as part of a campaign for control, I don't think you could say that the apostles themselves were doing anything other than trying to spread Christ's religous and philosophical teachings.
|
There have actually been several councils of religious leaders over the centuries who have met to 'canonize' the message of Christianity in order to discredit the religious teachings of other sects. For example, the Council of Nicaea met to discredit the teachings of Arius, who proposed that Christ was not eternal, and not of the same substance as the Father. The result of this meeting was that Arius was excommunicated from the church, his writings burned, and his followers exiled from the Roman Empire. Also, in addition to solidifying the leadership and canon of the Catholic church, the Council of Trent also met to condemn Protestant teachings.
Glad to see that you are still around.
My knowledge of the above meetings is a little lacking but I thought that the Nicaea council was more to get a concensus and agreement to avoid in-church fighting (or something like that) and that Arius was a result of that as opposed to meeting specifically to denounce him. Maybe not -- There was some fear surrounding Arius and his teachings if I recall correctly, but I didn't think that he was the only one that was creating divisions. Trent was probably set up specifically because of the Protestants.
...the apostle Paul, whom CourtFool describes as pushing his own agenda, wrote many of his teachings while imprisoned in Caesarea. That doesn't sound like a man in any sort of position of power to me.
How many posts since the last Godwin? Hitler dictated Mein Kampf while in prison.
My knowledge of the above meetings is a little lacking but I thought that the Nicaea council was more to get a concensus and agreement to avoid in-church fighting (or something like that) and that Arius was a result of that as opposed to meeting specifically to denounce him.
That may have been the rhetoric they used. However, I think it's about as truthful as CBS saying they denied the Man Crunch Super Bowl ad because it's inappropriate for younger viewers, despite the fact that they allowed another Go-Daddy ad with a woman ripping off her top.
...the apostle Paul, whom CourtFool describes as pushing his own agenda, wrote many of his teachings while imprisoned in Caesarea. That doesn't sound like a man in any sort of position of power to me.How many posts since the last Godwin? Hitler dictated Mein Kampf while in prison.
Hitler did it.
How many posts since the last Godwin? Hitler dictated Mein Kampf while in prison.
I don't want to look up Mein Kampf at work, but wasn't that written before he was in power?
I don't want to look up Mein Kampf at work, but wasn't that written before he was in power?
Kind of my point.
Speaking of donating to charities... to be honest I find that I can not morally give money to charities that are run by or identify themselves as religious.
And to be fully clear and honest...
I have no problem with Humanitarians. Doing good, because your beliefs (religious or otherwise) dictate it, is great.
Mixing your religion with your help is deceptive, coercive and despicable.
As a side note, some areas only need help because they are not allowed to follow a traditional lifestyle anymore (mainly because of stolen land, depleted resources, or alien economies being forced on them).
Kind of my point.
Really? Because that was kind've my point too. :P
Kind of my point.Really? Because that was kind've my point too. :P
My apologies. I thought you were suggesting someone could only push their agenda while they are in some sort of power. Obviously, people in power are more successful. Of course if your agenda is to get into power so you can push more of your agenda…well, it seems obvious one can do that too.
My apologies. I thought you were suggesting someone could only push their agenda while they are in some sort of power. Obviously, people in power are more successful. Of course if your agenda is to get into power so you can push more of your agenda…well, it seems obvious one can do that too.
I think you can always push agendas, regardless of what position you're in. However, the discussion wasn't about agendas. It was about control. Hitler may have pushed his agenda once he was in control. However, the two are not the same thing. After all, there are plenty of people who have agendas that have no power or control whatsoever (Ralph Nader :P). As such, I don't think you can safely equate the two.
Hey Moff,
I'm thinking over the other stuff. I know you're a smart guy so the failing's probably in my presentation of the ideas. But while I do that, I still can't pass up the chance to be an insufferable know-it-all. :)
My knowledge of the above meetings is a little lacking but I thought that the Nicaea council was more to get a concensus and agreement to avoid in-church fighting (or something like that) and that Arius was a result of that as opposed to meeting specifically to denounce him. Maybe not -- There was some fear surrounding Arius and his teachings if I recall correctly, but I didn't think that he was the only one that was creating divisions. Trent was probably set up specifically because of the Protestants.
The Council of Nicaea did promulgate a rather influential canon as one of its deeds, but it would more about resolving the conflict over Arianism. Its canon wasn't the first Christian canon (that honor goes to Marcion), nor was it the last. It's not even the only one today, though the other canons are used by branches of Christendom which most westerners rarely encounter. (The exception being Eastern Orthodoxy, but it's canon is fairly close. The Ethiopian canon is quite a bit bigger than the Western.)
As for Trent, that's pretty much the case. A lot of doctrine that has been left a bit fuzzy and thus allowed for fairly wide latitude in personal sentiments got hammered down tight, which didn't thrill all the participants.
Wow.
I was on the path to a longer post, but I figured no one reads walls of text anyway. Plus I had to go to the can.
God help us when every bathroom is wired/wi-fi.
|
So I found this:
Voices of faith: Why does every major religion have many sects?
thought it would be a nice change of pace.
So I found this:
Voices of faith: Why does every major religion have many sects?thought it would be a nice change of pace.
Interesting... although on some level I think his reasons are superficially correct, but miss the underlying thing. I believe that, findamentally, people have a deep-seated need to form "clubs" that they can belong to and exclude others from. That way they can be "right" and can view the others as demonic or subhuman, and thus have an excuse to persecute them (some instinct for population control, maybe?).
Tribes and political factions are one aspect of this need; religions are another. If one religion becomes predominant in a region (e.g., Islam in the Middle East, or Christianity in the U.K.), then adherents naturally find reasons to create sects so that they can ostracize each other some more.
That way they can be "right" and can view the others as demonic or subhuman, and thus have an excuse to persecute them (some instinct for population control, maybe?)
I wonder about this. Maybe it is just a need to elevate oneself above another. Surely that is primal enough, alpha gets to mate and pass on their genes.
I do not think we need to. It kind of seems to me that civilization is the subversion of our base instincts.
I guess I don't understand what you are saying.
Well I am going from the assumption that needing to prove oneself superior is a base instinct. I have nothing to back up this assertation, so there are flaws with my theory right there. Secondly, assuming suppressing our base instincts (killing, stealing, doing whatever we want whenever we want) is a definition of civilization, we appear quite capable of suppressing the need to prove ourselves superior.
Therefore, I believe, we do not need to exclude (by proving ourselves superior) others.
|
|
I guess I don't understand what you are saying.Well I am going from the assumption that needing to prove oneself superior is a base instinct. I have nothing to back up this assertation, so there are flaws with my theory right there. Secondly, assuming suppressing our base instincts (killing, stealing, doing whatever we want whenever we want) is a definition of civilization, we appear quite capable of suppressing the need to prove ourselves superior.
Therefore, I believe, we do not need to exclude (by proving ourselves superior) others.
So you are saying the social entity itself is inclusive. Is this then why we exclude other social entities?
|
I guess I don't understand what you are saying.Well I am going from the assumption that needing to prove oneself superior is a base instinct. I have nothing to back up this assertation, so there are flaws with my theory right there. Secondly, assuming suppressing our base instincts (killing, stealing, doing whatever we want whenever we want) is a definition of civilization, we appear quite capable of suppressing the need to prove ourselves superior.
Therefore, I believe, we do not need to exclude (by proving ourselves superior) others.
And yet we do it all the time. Politics, religion, sports teams, game system of choice, music of choice... The list of how we exclude the Other goes on and on and on.
|
|
Thus, every religion splinters into various sects because the structures of the religions are inherently prone to change with the changing demands of the human mind. The problem arises when a sect, just like any religion, claims to possess the whole truth. This leads to conflict in the name of the same God.
this was the passage that primarily caught my attention.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
but do people need to exclude others? Are we fascinated in what is different? or could we choose to pay attention rather to what is similar?
I think it's because we are incapable of having more than a certain number of friends (Facebook notwithstanding). You can only retain relevant data about a certain number of humans. After that point, you need to start using shortcuts (aka, stereotypes) and lumping people together using those stereotypes to provide a basis for your relations with and reactions to such people. The similarities aren't really relevant to those relations and reactions.
|
|
but do people need to exclude others? Are we fascinated in what is different? or could we choose to pay attention rather to what is similar?I think it's because we are incapable of having more than a certain number of friends (Facebook notwithstanding). You can only retain relevant data about a certain number of humans. After that point, you need to start using shortcuts (aka, stereotypes) and lumping people together using those stereotypes to provide a basis for your relations with and reactions to such people. The similarities aren't really relevant to those relations and reactions.
The fact we can feel empathy with someone who we see injured but don't care when it happens somewhere else?
|
|
That way they can be "right" and can view the others as demonic or subhuman, and thus have an excuse to persecute them (some instinct for population control, maybe?)I wonder about this. Maybe it is just a need to elevate oneself above another. Surely that is primal enough, alpha gets to mate and pass on their genes.
So the root of all evil is low self-esteem, a need to build oneself up by casting others down?
|
|
That way they can be "right" and can view the others as demonic or subhuman, and thus have an excuse to persecute them (some instinct for population control, maybe?)I wonder about this. Maybe it is just a need to elevate oneself above another. Surely that is primal enough, alpha gets to mate and pass on their genes.So the root of all evil is low self-esteem, a need to build oneself up by casting others down?
It has been suggested that Pride was the cause of the fall of Lucifer.
That seems true. We all want to belong but even within that belonging, we want to 'belong' more than others. To put another way, we have a drive to be the leader of our own group.
This does not appear to stand up when I look at society as a whole. Am I suggesting everyone wants to be the leader? Yet, do we not all believe we are somehow better than others? That our perception is somehow the one, true perception? Could it be this nature does exists within us, but is suppressed by other needs and desires?
Really, I am talking out of my bottom at this point. I really do not know or claim to know. It is simply a theory that seems to work well for the why do humans form schisms.
So the root of all evil is low self-esteem, a need to build oneself up by casting others down?
A friend of mine recently told me that he tries to view the motivation for all hurtful acts as love. He said it helped him empathize with people, even enemies.
Love of oneself, money, power, what have you.
|
|
So the root of all evil is low self-esteem, a need to build oneself up by casting others down?A friend of mine recently told me that he tries to view the motivation for all hurtful acts as love. He said it helped him empathize with people, even enemies.
Love of oneself, money, power, what have you.
Maybe its just me but that sound more like lust then love. love in and of itself is selfless. Lust which can be similar, is very selfish.
Maybe its just me but that sound more like lust then love. love in and of itself is selfless. Lust which can be similar, is very selfish.
How about desire? Would that work?
I do not think we need to. It kind of seems to me that civilization is the subversion of our base instincts.
I actually agree with that. Speaking from the perspective of one who has raised/is raising children, I can say from first hand experience that what many people view as cultural norms have to be taught to children. If left to develop without an adult to socialize them children would grow up vastly different.
I'll say that again, maybe more clearly: I believe that a human, if left to develop without social instruction from adults, would behave extraordinarily differently as an adult than a socialized adult human. Every day you have to teach a child what is and is not acceptable behavior. Left to fend for themselves children very much exercise the "might makes right" principle and will very much so demonstrate a pack mentality. So with that said, I feel that what many feel are inherent traits of humans are nothing more than learned behavior gained from adults who were themselves socialized.
Well just as love has certain connotations for you, lust has rather specific connotations for me.
I am not sure I believe my friend's point. I just thought it relevant and worth contemplation. We could just go back to arguing over whether or not there is a god. :)
|
|
I do not think we need to. It kind of seems to me that civilization is the subversion of our base instincts.I actually agree with that. Speaking from the perspective of one who has raised/is raising children, I can say from first hand experience that what many people view as cultural norms have to be taught to children. If left to develop without an adult to socialize them children would grow up vastly different.
I'll say that again, maybe more clearly: I believe that a human, if left to develop without social instruction from adults, would behave extraordinarily differently as an adult than a socialized adult human. Every day you have to teach a child what is and is not acceptable behavior. Left to fend for themselves children very much exercise the "might makes right" principle and will very much so demonstrate a pack mentality. So with that said, I feel that what many feel are inherent traits of humans are nothing more than learned behavior gained from adults who were themselves socialized.
I can understand where you are coming from. Raising two children myself and watching how others raise their children, gives me much cause for concern.
That being said I think it is only part of the issue. There have been long discussions on this. Nature vs Nurture.
I feel, many of us and our children have an inherent nature. How close we get to that however is based on how we were nurtured.
Left to fend for themselves children very much exercise the "might makes right" principle and will very much so demonstrate a pack mentality.
Ah, so why do they form packs if they just want things for themselves? Does it enhance might, increase power to obtain more objectives?
|
|
Well just as love has certain connotations for you, lust has rather specific connotations for me.
I am not sure I believe my friend's point. I just thought it relevant and worth contemplation. We could just go back to arguing over whether or not there is a god. :)
No point in arguing. Neither of us will have proof until there is no need any longer for proof.
I would rather live as if there is a god because the consequences are much better that way.
Also the chances of all of this being totally random is so low that I think I will hedge my bet.
|
|
Left to fend for themselves children very much exercise the "might makes right" principle and will very much so demonstrate a pack mentality.Ah, so why do they form packs if they just want things for themselves? Does it enhance might, increase power to obtain more objectives?
partly fear of the strength of the leader? Partly greed since more can get more.
Left to fend for themselves children very much exercise the "might makes right" principle and will very much so demonstrate a pack mentality.Ah, so why do they form packs if they just want things for themselves? Does it enhance might, increase power to obtain more objectives?
I believe that humans would behave much like dogs if left to develop on their own (ie, without conditioning from an adult member of the species).
Humans would probably still cluster in "packs" and an alpha male would likely dominate the other males by sheer physical might.Why form packs? I think humans are by nature social and would still cluster into groups. I don't see it as very different from a pack of wolves. They cluster for both social and defensive purposes.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Left to fend for themselves children very much exercise the "might makes right" principle and will very much so demonstrate a pack mentality.Ah, so why do they form packs if they just want things for themselves? Does it enhance might, increase power to obtain more objectives?
Same reasons other animals form packs...
Reminds me of a joke, possibly even from somewhere in the distant past of this thread:
If you could be an animal, what kind of animal would you be?
Trick question - you are an animal.
I would rather live as if there is a god because the consequences are much better that way.Also the chances of all of this being totally random is so low that I think I will hedge my bet.
I am sure god appreciates your loyalty.
Ah, the 'someone had to create everything' argument.
|
|
I would rather live as if there is a god because the consequences are much better that way.Also the chances of all of this being totally random is so low that I think I will hedge my bet.
I am sure god appreciates your loyalty.
Ah, the 'someone had to create everything' argument.
Not exactly. I thought about not posting that part since I knew you would go there by the way.:) But it was simpler then what my other posts would have been. Easier to explain anyway.