Dream to Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Hope you do not mind this being posted here Dream, (my reply was too long for private board).

Dream:
Tao,

as long as I've been on the board (not long) you have projected a disdain for religions. Over the last 10 years incidentally I have changed from someone who believes in myths, to someone who is choosing whether or not to cooperate with mysticism. Why destroy a religion? I suspect there would be some serious fallout if a religion were destroyed suddenly. That is why no one tells the whole story in one swipe, a belief that change should come slowly. Here is one resource you've never posted which argues Jesus as a myth and does a very good (if incomplete) job: YouTube - Real Proof that Jesus was NOT real Its pretty good, although 'Proof' is maybe a misnomer. Its more of a lemma.

They tell half of the story. Suppose you could tell the other half -- why would it be important and would there be some reason to hurry? Eventually it would come out anyway.

I do have a certain disdain, antipathy even, for certain religions....principally the Abrahamic ones. I find them unpalatable in the same way you might find cannibalism primitive and barbaric. To the cannibal their rituals convey meanings important in their tribal history. None the less in the global village such practices are unacceptable. Equally all these competing religions vying for the minds and wallets of the worlds peoples may have had a value in our history but as the world homogenises into a pluralistic whole we face new pressures that competing religions are simply not equipped to deal with and indeed, exacerbate. But on an individual level I think people could cope with just the facts if it were not that they are lied to with design from birth. It is that indoctrination that is endemic, insidious, throughout every society that really annoys me. I firmly believe it will, if not beaten, destroy us. We do not hurl sticks and stones any more, its ballistic rockets and biological agents. So my antipathy toward religion is for me but self-preservation, and the survival of my genes. I want such a survival because I want some kid 1000 years from now to marvel at some new knowledge we cant even imagine yet. I find humankind beautiful, wonderous and worth keeping, not sinful, decadent and corrupt....even if such traits are a part of our make up. Whilst that piece from Zeitgeist illuminates that ancient mythos that was wholesale adopted by Constantine for his new politcal religion, Catholicism, all of them are fables and remain fables with no relevance to the challenges now facing us in our close to cancerous domination of this planet. That so many people devote so much time to gazing back at the fevered, hallucingenic dreams of the shamans and all their derivitive naratives instead of focussing on our present and future I find a great depressant.
There is that old quote from, if my memory serves me right, William Shakespeare... "The Truth has its own need to be told". But even if it is told....is anybody listening? Or are they all corrupted as babes to only hear fairytales?

 

[Netti-Netti]

Whilst that piece from Zeitgeist illuminates that ancient mythos that was wholesale adopted by Constantine for his new politcal religion, Catholicism, all of them are fables and remain fables with no relevance to the challenges now facing us in our close to cancerous domination of this planet.

...There is that old quote from, if my memory serves me right, William Shakespeare... "The Truth has its own need to be told."

It appears that Shakespeare was a Catholic, so to quote him here seems like a bit of a misapplication of his words.

 

[Tao_Equus]

It appears that Shakespeare was a Catholic, so to quote him here seems like a bit of a misapplication of his words.

I wonder if a man with his insight into the human character was religious at all. At that time in Europe to call him a catholic is no more enlightening than to state that he was white.

 

[Dream]

Tao, as you wish.

To send a message 1000 years ahead you need to create a connection from one generation to the next, but its not as easy as it seems.

Everything (not just technology) keeps getting reinvented. If you want the generations 1000 years from now to have any inkling of who we are, what we have discovered, you must provide an institution to preserve much more than just the raw data. But institutions become religions as people begin to put faith in them. At the center they are enshrined principles. It requires one generation to stop giving a damn and erase every advance. Women naturally are enslaved, children reared in ignorance. Suddenly every library is nothing but hieroglyphs, and we burn them for heat.

People only live for 70 years or so, and that is really the problem. We just do not have enough time to learn everything and still do something with it. If I talk to somebody that is twenty years old, they just cannot relate to me. As we age the difference (15 years) matters less and less, but now new generations are appearing and I have even less in common with them (30 years)! Innovations don't just come to humanity, they diffuse into it (or not). If you rush any innovation, humanity promptly forgets it.

That being said, the laws we live by are the essence of our culture. I mean all of our laws, both written and not. These are the effective impact of a religion -- how you live. Religion aside -- if you can pass on a totality of how to live, then you have succeeded in creating a cultural connection. How will you do it? One day, 1000 years from now; your descendents will just have discovered that all things are connected, that there is some underlying connection. They will name this principle, and they will argue about whether to make it a mandatory belief. You want to send them a message on what to decide, so here is what you will do: You will get married. You will encourage your kids to participate in their festivals, history, dialogue, and self defense. You will teach them how to fit in whilst trying to give them a competitive advantage. It is the same thing people have always done.

 

[wil]

It appears that Shakespeare was a Catholic, so to quote him here seems like a bit of a misapplication of his words.

Heck he likes to quote Gibran too so why not...

On Religion
Kahlil Gibran
Have I spoken this day of aught else?
Is not religion all deeds and all reflection,
And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom?
Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations?
Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for God and this for myself; This for my soul, and this other for my body?"
All your hours are wings that beat through space from self to self.
He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked.
The wind and the sun will tear no holes in his skin.
And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage.
The freest song comes not through bars and wires.
And he to whom worshipping is a window, to open but also to shut, has not yet visited the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn.


Your daily life is your temple and your religion.
Whenever you enter into it take with you your all.
Take the plough and the forge and the mallet and the lute,
The things you have fashioned in necessity or for delight.
For in revery you cannot rise above your achievements nor fall lower than your failures.
And take with you all men:
For in adoration you cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair.


And if you would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles.
Rather look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children.
And look into space; you shall see Him walking in the cloud, outstretching His arms in the lightning and descending in rain.
You shall see Him smiling in flowers, then rising and waving His hands in trees.

 

[Saltmeister]

I wonder if a man with his insight into the human character was religious at all. At that time in Europe to call him a catholic is no more enlightening than to state that he was white.

Just because he thought deeply about humans doesn't mean he wasn't religious. It's like you're suggesting that people with deep insight into humanity can't be religious, as if religious people don't think, can't think or are confined and inflexible in their thinking.

So are you by that statement suggesting that he was non-religious? Was he never religious? If Shakespeare participated in Catholic community then I'd have to say he was religious and Catholic because he owed something to Catholicism and felt obliged to participate. But that wouldn't have prevented him from thinking deeply about humans. Catholicism had its obligations, but he was free to do other things when he was not in a church building.

What was Jesus' Golden Rule? Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's?

What about that saying that the "true politician" is the one with "no opinion?" He would rather manipulate others than to be consistent in his expression of views?

Maybe Shakespeare was religious. He was just a very good politician that could make himself appear religious to some people and non-religious to others.

Maybe Shakespeare was a shape-shifter.

 

[iBrian]

It appears that Shakespeare was a Catholic, so to quote him here seems like a bit of a misapplication of his words.

Interesting - I would have presumed he'd have been classed on Protestant, considering his troupe was in favour with the daughter of the man who broke away from Rome.

 

[Tao_Equus]

You will teach them how to fit in whilst trying to give them a competitive advantage. It is the same thing people have always done.

I find it sad that you have apparently little hope for humanity not repeating the mistakes of history. Of being incapable from separating visionary from tyrant. In this I think you display a complacency as to the scale of challenges that face our species. I see it that the problems society has been plagued by throughout its history are simple ones, it is installing or allowing the installation of power on one or a few men. Religions are not about your private audience with your supposed master of the universe, they were invented and are sustained by leaders to maintain their power. Modern capitalism is no different, any benefit to the average man relies on a trickle down of a few dregs from the body of wealth that exists and is in the hands of a very few. So I am less enthused about the competition you speak of than you are. I see it as a part of the problem, as it has and as it does exist. There are many links in the chain of human enslavement but it is religion itself that is the pig iron from which all these links are cast. And that remains true to this very day. Only in a few secular democracies are we spared the direct appeal to god by our leaders, the US is not one of them. I prefer to dream of a world where co-operation is the norm, not competition. As these boards show, religion makes that impossible.
To put on my own megalomaniac hat on for a moment.... I believe I am a visionary, closer to the spirit of the Christ story than very many of the Christians I encounter. I did not ask for the mind I have, it grew as it did for reasons that did not include personal choice. I am the product of what I have looked at and I happened at a relatively tender age (10 or 11) to start looking at political systems in an analytical way. My influences saw to it that this was with cynicism for the intent of the power-seeker and this has remained with me with what I believe to be every justification. Politician or preacher, they are all self serving liars feeding us a line of bull to assure their own supremacy. Anything we do get is just trickle down slops from the vast reserves humanity really has at its disposal. I believe we are capable of more. I have hope that thoughts like mine are the inevitable consequence of a broad spectrum education and that one day this view will predominate. On that day we can do away with all the old tribal justifications not to share and co-operate for our common good. And not to let any more tyrants, kings, mufti's or popes give sanction to the rape, murder and theft that identifies the vast bulk of our history and far too much of our present.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Just because he thought deeply about humans doesn't mean he wasn't religious. It's like you're suggesting that people with deep insight into humanity can't be religious, as if religious people don't think, can't think or are confined and inflexible in their thinking.

So are you by that statement suggesting that he was non-religious? Was he never religious? If Shakespeare participated in Catholic community then I'd have to say he was religious and Catholic because he owed something to Catholicism and felt obliged to participate. But that wouldn't have prevented him from thinking deeply about humans. Catholicism had its obligations, but he was free to do other things when he was not in a church building.

What was Jesus' Golden Rule? Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's?

What about that saying that the "true politician" is the one with "no opinion?" He would rather manipulate others than to be consistent in his expression of views?

Maybe Shakespeare was religious. He was just a very good politician that could make himself appear religious to some people and non-religious to others.

Maybe Shakespeare was a shape-shifter.

Interesting - I would have presumed he'd have been classed on Protestant, considering his troupe was in favour with the daughter of the man who broke away from Rome.

Found this on wiki, looks to me as though "SURPRISE SURPRISE !! ", the catholic propaganda machine has been at pains to claim another great man to their ranks....and invented the evidence to do so.
Shakespeare's religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[iBrian]

Found this on wiki, looks to me as though "SURPRISE SURPRISE !! ", the catholic propaganda machine has been at pains to claim another great man to their ranks....and invented the evidence to do so.
Shakespeare's religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does indeed look like it - we know precious little about about Shakespeare as a man, so to try and pin down his faith or outlook does read as propagandist. If he was a Catholic, he did an awfully good job of demonising Catholic-sanctioned kings, and lauding the protestant Tudors.

However, it's not surprising this should happen with Shakespeare - many people have claimed him as his own, to the point of absurdity. It's become such a standing joke, it was even claimed in Star Trek VI that Shakespeare was, in fact, Klingon - by the Klingons of course.

 

[the breeze]

I prefer to dream of a world where co-operation is the norm, not competition. As these boards show, religion makes that impossible.

Tao, you write about the state of society as though it were the product of indoctrination or conspiracy. As far as I can see over the last few thousand years of human 'progress' only the technology and details of social organisation have changed. I can't find much sign of spiritual or moral progress. Maybe this is just how human beings are.

The mystics were persecuted and their stories debased and turned into history lessons. In the 20th century there were two world wars (amongst many other obscene conflicts) and even that experience of murder and slaughter failed to rouse the masses from their slumber. We take on and accept the ideas that reflect who and what we are. Depressing perhaps but this seems to me to be what long experience suggests.

 

[Dream]

Tao,

That's because hope and despair are two ways of looking at it, and you can't see them both at once. Humanity is something so much bigger than me or you and really takes observations in different seasons of life (like astronomical observations do). I think about the cycles of humanity one way now, but I will think about them differently during better times! From this vantage, I agree with Breeze about it not being so much of a conspiracy as a naturism. I also think the pig iron is our tendency to lie. A lie can get bigger and better and more insupportable as it goes just like a pyramid scheme. The cost of coming clean keeps going up, up up. Quoting your own post Tao "Politician or preacher, they are all self serving liars feeding us a line of bull to assure their own supremacy." Well, that about sums it up sometimes, doesn't it?

Taking action! 'The scale of the challenge' is what makes planning so crucial, but planning requires a positive outlook -- a different season of life. We found out recently what happened when the banks finally came clean with their lies. The whole world stopped. We believed in those banks, and we got reminded that we can't do that. The economy shrank, and people stopped working. There is also an economy of Faith In The Future, and that also might have banks. Suppose those banks are positioned so that they now are part of the economy, needed to keep everyone 'working'. When one goes bankrupt, the others are weakened. Now lets call those banks governments and religions. They are all interrelated in a great currency of hope for the future, and we need that currency to keep flowing. If it stops, we enter a period of wild fluctuation in the 'Market'. Sudden changes have to be justifiable and should be timed appropriately. I didn't make the market, and I'm not a banker. I'm just wondering if slow change might be best.

 

[Saltmeister]

Found this on wiki, looks to me as though "SURPRISE SURPRISE !! ", the catholic propaganda machine has been at pains to claim another great man to their ranks....and invented the evidence to do so.
Shakespeare's religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without looking too deeply into the article or Shakespeare's life and biography, one theory I have is that Shakespeare would have dabbled in anything either to make friends or to pursue his career in plays. That would have at least given him a vested interest in religion, making him therefore "religious."

Maybe not religion for religion's sake, but religion for the sake of something else . . .

 

[Dream]

Tao, that is not really why I've asked you the question though. My reason is simply that a lot of people, witnessing all of the same things as you nevertheless choose to give money and time to religions. They do not believe, but they believe in doing what was done before. Do you know what I mean? In fact, I have been acquainted with some of these. I don't claim to know why they made their choice. I for one have no desire to 'hurt the feelings' of family further than I already have. It would take an iceberg to push me there, besides parents and siblings don't listen. The real strength of a religion is not about cold facts like you might think. Instead, knowledge serves it.

I've seen several famous authors pull their punches, even combine with Christianity where they at first studied it to debunk it. I know my Bible verses and reasoning, so I can sense when an author has been down the roads less traveled. Some famous authors really could have gone on a rampage against Christianity, but they did not. (Ehrman...ahem) Some also lend aid, covering over the weak spots (will not name them -- too much money earning potential). I've personally always known persons that do not believe in a literal sense, yet they are churchgoers (no I did not realize until later in most cases.) Then there is the Soviet Union experiment of non-religion -- ending in complete failure. I am saying there is a class action decision all over the world where people have decided, regardless of whatever, that they simply think religion is important and to overlook certain aspects of it. Naturally with so many people making that decision, it gives additional pause. Despite the "Supersize Me" movie, there are still billions of McFries being eaten. Maybe the answer is to improve the recipe for Fries?

 

[the breeze]

Dream,

I didn't make the market, and I'm not a banker. I'm just wondering if slow change might be best.

So where's the change, slow or otherwise?

 

[Dream]

First of all, people collect rare coins. That has never happened before in previous ages. We highly value all ancient items and even squabble over them. That is just representative of how much more people value knowledge nowadays and how much more widespread is the desire for a connection with the past. We are more aware of ourselves maybe.

Laws are improving, and that is another big one.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao, you write about the state of society as though it were the product of indoctrination or conspiracy. As far as I can see over the last few thousand years of human 'progress' only the technology and details of social organisation have changed. I can't find much sign of spiritual or moral progress. Maybe this is just how human beings are.

What has not changed is that self-serving leaders/dynasties continue to maintain a stranglehold on global resources. Everything in politics and religion is geared to keeping things that way. If anything looks like threatening the status quo it is stomped on ruthlessly. The structure between the plebiscite and the ruling class was traditionally controlled by religion, religions are all geared up to giving power to a single individual...and that is no accident.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Maybe not religion for religion's sake, but religion for the sake of something else . . .

A persons religion is a bit like their personality. To others it rarely appears as it does to them. I know a woman who often beat her son mercilessly for no good reason but thinks her prayers and her rosary make her a good person.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao, that is not really why I've asked you the question though. My reason is simply that a lot of people, witnessing all of the same things as you nevertheless choose to give money and time to religions. They do not believe, but they believe in doing what was done before.

I cannot explain the behaviour of such people without knowing them well. It would demand a case by case analysis. I do not think there is a single cause for such people to do such things....they will each have their own reasons. But I would doubt it likely that many of them do so because other people in the past did. Unless it was someone they individually respected.

I do get your point though Dream, even if this example is far from clear cut. As a youth I read something by Jung which went something like this "To fully embrace the future you have to understand the past". Now there is a difference between understanding the past and clinging to it that, it seems to me, some people just never get. I think man has a fear of entropy....and tomorrow, every tomorrow, brings us more only entropy. I think clinging to the past is hiding from the fear of the unknown, of the chaos of tomorrow. To have some idea of what is possible tomorrow you cannot hide from today.

 

[the breeze]

What has not changed is that self-serving leaders/dynasties continue to maintain a stranglehold on global resources. Everything in politics and religion is geared to keeping things that way. If anything looks like threatening the status quo it is stomped on ruthlessly. The structure between the plebiscite and the ruling class was traditionally controlled by religion, religions are all geared up to giving power to a single individual...and that is no accident.

No it's not an accident but my question is, does this situation persist through coercion or consent? It looks like reluctant consent to me.