|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » The Pagan 'problem' |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Sep 26, 2010, 00:15
Sep 25, 2010, 23:13
|
||
|
That's right Gladman, if the honey monster helps me through the day its no-one's business but my own ... and I really don't see what war criminals Bush and Blair have to do with it. Everyone knows the invasion of Iraq was about Power and Greed. As it happens I don't believe in the honey monster or any other religion but I do defend the individual's right to practice religion according to their own conscience - which is not the same as advocating terrorism or fundamentalism. Otherwise its a return to the oppressive atheistic regimes of Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao Tse Tung's China ... or for that matter any totalitarian regime (Nazi Gemany!!!). That's all I have to say on this thread ... peace and good will to all (and it aint even xmas).
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6219 posts |
Sep 25, 2010, 23:31
|
||
|
tjj wrote: That's right Gladman, if the honey monster helps me through the day its no-one's business but my own ... and I really don't see what war criminals Bush and Blair have to do with it. Everyone knows the invasion of Iraq was about Power and Greed. As it happens I don't believe in the honey monster or any other religion but I do defend the individual's right to practice religion according to their own conscience - which is not the same as advocating terrorism or fundamentalism. Otherwise its a return to the oppressive atheistic regimes of Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao Tse Tung's China ... or for that matter any totalitarian regime (Nazi Gemany!!!). That's all I have to say on this thread ... peace and good will to all (and it aint even xmas). Hi June, Nice day at Cherhill by the look of it... What Bush and Blair have to do with it is that they use their own religious beliefs (which ultimately are no more compelling, no more or less true than anyone else's) to justify actions that have immense repercussions for millions of other people. Whereas my belief in the Honey Monster is not hurting anyone, because I'm not doing what he "tells" me to do and then using that as a justification. What's that Honey M? Do what to next door's cat?
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Sep 26, 2010, 00:56
Sep 25, 2010, 23:53
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: tjj wrote: That's right Gladman, if the honey monster helps me through the day its no-one's business but my own ... and I really don't see what war criminals Bush and Blair have to do with it. Everyone knows the invasion of Iraq was about Power and Greed. As it happens I don't believe in the honey monster or any other religion but I do defend the individual's right to practice religion according to their own conscience - which is not the same as advocating terrorism or fundamentalism. Otherwise its a return to the oppressive atheistic regimes of Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao Tse Tung's China ... or for that matter any totalitarian regime (Nazi Gemany!!!). That's all I have to say on this thread ... peace and good will to all (and it aint even xmas). Hi June, Nice day at Cherhill by the look of it... What Bush and Blair have to do with it is that they use their own religious beliefs (which ultimately are no more compelling, no more or less true than anyone else's) to justify actions that have immense repercussions for millions of other people. Whereas my belief in the Honey Monster is not hurting anyone, because I'm not doing what he "tells" me to do and then using that as a justification. What's that Honey M? Do what to next door's cat? Hi tsc I spent quite a long time answering Gladman's post (I have the greatest respect for him btw) then deleted it and started again. Don't get me going on Bush and Blair ... I recall having Very Heated arguments against the Iraq war. Yes, they used their God to justify their actions as many have done before but I still hold the view that if we start 'banning' all religion we are on a slippery slope to an authoritarian state. Thank you tsc, TE and Drew for your kind comments on another thread (I have just sent a message to Mega). And yes, the Cherhill walk was just what the doctor ordered ... we walked through Yatesbury and up and around Cherhill Down; it was bright and very breezy. I have had a great 'summer sabbatical' this year spent exploring the Cotswold long barrows and countryside - but my heart belongs to to those rolling Wiltshire Downs.
|
|||
|
The Eternal 924 posts |
Sep 25, 2010, 23:59
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: The Eternal wrote: thesweetchea wrote: I also take offence when those in the higher echelons of organised religions like catholicism are held up as "speaking for all 6m catholics in the UK" or whatever. Do they? Do all catholics genuinely agree 100% with the views espoused by their designated mouthpiece? I doubt it. I live in a secular country, where we have a hereditary system of monarchy in which I have no say. Does this mean that the Queen speaks for me? Do I share her views? No. So how does the pope represent the views of all catholics? And what was that in the Bible about? Ah yes, I remember now: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Well, that's the Pope fucked then, and all those associated with the Vatican. And I was brought up a Catholic, so no bias. A non-practising TE. I'm guessing that the pope doesn't speak on your behalf then TE? Was that a complete guess, or just a hunch? (;>D) Methinks religion is generally about controlling a large number of people by installing a fear of God, literally, into them. A do as I say, not as I do arrangement. The list of illegal wrongdoings by so-called religious leaders of all faiths is endless. Hypocrites the lot of 'em. Here's me heading for eternal damnation, TE.
|
|||
|
The Eternal 924 posts |
Sep 26, 2010, 00:13
|
||
|
tjj wrote: Thank you tsc, TE and Drew for your kind comments on another thread (I have just sent a message to Mega). And yes, the Cherhill walk was just what the doctor ordered ... we walked through Yatesbury and up and around Cherhill Down; it was bright and very breezy. I have had a great 'summer sabbatical' this year spent exploring the Cotswold long barrows and countryside - but my heart belongs to to those rolling Wiltshire Downs. Hi June, Sounds like your day on "those rolling Wiltshire Downs" was perfect - with a nice wind. I've fancied going to Yatesbury, but have never found time when in that part of the World. Any chance of a blog about it? I crave details of your route. I'm quite keen on the Cotswold long barrows too. Take care, TE.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6219 posts |
Sep 26, 2010, 10:52
|
||
|
The Eternal wrote: tjj wrote: Thank you tsc, TE and Drew for your kind comments on another thread (I have just sent a message to Mega). And yes, the Cherhill walk was just what the doctor ordered ... we walked through Yatesbury and up and around Cherhill Down; it was bright and very breezy. I have had a great 'summer sabbatical' this year spent exploring the Cotswold long barrows and countryside - but my heart belongs to to those rolling Wiltshire Downs. Hi June, Sounds like your day on "those rolling Wiltshire Downs" was perfect - with a nice wind. I've fancied going to Yatesbury, but have never found time when in that part of the World. Any chance of a blog about it? I crave details of your route. I'm quite keen on the Cotswold long barrows too. Take care, TE. Hi both, Despite living in the midst of Cotswold long barrows, my heart belongs to Cornwall, with Wales taking up an increasingly large chunk of my affections. Back on thread, I wouldn't necessarily advocate banning religion, but I do have a problem with heads of state using it as an excuse. Like you June, I have no wish to revisit the whys and wherefores of Iraq though. Happy Sunday both, Alken
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Sep 26, 2010, 11:27
|
||
|
tjj wrote: I spent quite a long time answering Gladman's post (I have the greatest respect for him btw) then deleted it and started again. Don't get me going on Bush and Blair ... I recall having Very Heated arguments against the Iraq war. Yes, they used their God to justify their actions as many have done before but I still hold the view that if we start 'banning' all religion we are on a slippery slope to an authoritarian state. Morning June, For me this is what TMA forums are all about - no point having debates if everyone has the same viewpoint... perhaps, eventually, if us and people like us keep on having these debates humankind may whittle down its differences and find a consensus common enough to work with. I certainly have no problem whatsoever with individual beliefs. The moment we start censoring people for that we are well on the way to Orwell's dystopian nightmare where certain people decide what is 'right' and 'wrong' above the standard requirements for a civilised society. My own interest revolves around how humankind attempted to relate the wonder of the natural world to everyday existence during prehistory, before complex social structures allowed certain groups to dominate the outlook of others. This is why I am constantly drawn to places where the raw primeval essence of the landscape, weather systems etc has most effect on the human psyche. That these places also often are the locations for the earliest monuments I feel is no coincidence. Where I draw the line, and what I will resist until it's no longer possible to resist, is where religion - i.e. the unsubstantiated views of others - is used collectively to justify the enforcement of views upon other people - e.g 'these Africans are heathen savages because they do not believe in the one true Christian God and must be educated accordingly', or 'infidels who do not accept the Koran must be destroyed'. Or even Dawkins' 'if you believe in God you are deluded'. Enforcement is the key word here. Freedom of choice must be preserved for any idea to be worth more than jack. What IS acceptable, indeed desirable in my opinion, is to present arguments for viewpoints, publish the evidence and let people choose for themselves, and this is where Dawkins and other scientists come out on top for me. Whether this will ever be compatable with humankind is a moot point. Look at the problems Darwin had. Challenging the existing power structure isn't on, old boy. Even the so-called 'atheistic' totalitarian states of Hitler and Stalin were very heavilly quasi-religious, ostensibly doing away with God but employing a messianic, infalliable father figure instead. Heard that one somewhere before. Hitler was fond of quoting he believed he was 'guided by the hand of providence', had the cooperation of the church in his Jewish pogrom and even had "Gott Mit Us' emblazoned on the belt buckle of every Wermacht soldier. And as for the SS.... was there ever a more typecast pagan sect? Stalin's 'Mother Russia'? What I object to most is having leaders such as Blair and Bush invoke organised religion to justify damaging actions in my name. What they believe privately is absolutely fine, since we elect them for their actions, not how they come to decisions. Churchill needed the old liquor, but since the outcome of his policy was successful the ends justified the means. I don't care if Cameron consults the three witches out of Macbeth - or even bloody Hamish Macbeth - if his actions are to our benefit. How many times have I seen the Daily Mail quote 'this is a Christian country with Christian Values' - whatever they might be - to justify policy. No problem if the Christian theocracy - or Moslem etc etc could provide any rational evidence whatsoever for their beliefs being the only option. Dawkins, on the other hand, does. And according to that rag HE is the bigot... imploring people to think for themselves. Some crime. Lock him up with Russel Brand and Wossy. So no criticism whatsoever of you, June. My beef is with those who cynically use organised religion to gain and hold power over others and somehow expect that they cannot be challenged. I cannot call myself a true atheist since I would be quite happy to change my views if/when(?) religion presents cohesive arguments with rational, hard evidence. However what I currently see is organised religion making a lot of money out of the fear and alienation of many people across this planet, stating that blind faith and obediance is the only way. I disagree.
|
|||
|
tomwatts 376 posts |
Sep 26, 2010, 11:57
|
||
|
......Someone emailed me the other day..................... http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=150746811621277&ref=mf
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6219 posts |
Sep 26, 2010, 12:18
|
||
|
GLADMAN wrote: How many times have I seen the Daily Mail quote 'this is a Christian country with Christian Values' - whatever they might be - to justify policy. Interesting enough, some poll figures I saw this week that show that 20% of people in Britain give "no religion" as their denomination, against only 1% that give "other religion", which presumably includes Paganism. Still over 70% give "Christian" as their religion: http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/?tag=office-for-national-statistics
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6219 posts |
Sep 26, 2010, 12:19
|
||
Sorry Tom, I'm not on facebook, so can't view.
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
