| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Religion and images
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Religion and images

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 00:49
gcle2003

It is always a matter of perception and taste. Some people might find it artistic. Personally, I'm not sure about the motives. I made myself clear where I could agree and where I would not. What I can agree with for sure is that this is nothing new.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 01:01
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

[
 
Frequently true, though not necessarily so. However to be art in the first place it has to have imagination, creativeness, originality and some kind of talent or skill. Which your photographs don't have. Certainly they don't have any novelty.
 
Well, what art is, or not is, is a tricky question. A view that one can hear often in todays debate is that art is the thing that is defined as such by the artist himself, ie if a person consider his work as art, it is art. Others differ from that opinion and think that what is art is defined by the concensus of a certain group of people (the "experts"). Some people also think that art shall follow certain conditions or standards to be regarded as art.
 
And we also have those who think that art shall communicate some message and that the form, or technique, is of secondary importance.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 01:14
Now, I remember cases where people are looking at a plain circle and consider it art. So, yes it is very relative. Of course the quality is to be set by experts.

In the search of being different though one can create monsters.


Edited by Flipper - 09 Feb 2011 at 01:14
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 02:27
Carch wrote:
 
"I am not always against religion, just when it have too negative effects on people. I have no special bias against catholics, I can be equally critical to protestants or muslims or others when they use their religion as a tool of opression."
 
Could have fooled me but what is telling in terms of reaching a "protest too much" moment is the concluding phrase: "...when they use their religion as a tool of opression".
 
Can any religion within the ambit of the contemporary Western world be labeled "oppressive" given that the working definition of the terms demands the exercise of political power or authority in a burdensome, cruel or unjust manner?  In essence oppression means the cruel and arbitrary exercise of power. The fact that Carch goes as far as equating religion in action as a tool of oppression reveals the extent of his artful sophistry at work.
 
The issue of cultural and/or social homophobia is far more broad than just some simplistic expression of religious indoctrination and one might even argue that choosing "religion" as the object of assault is a grand misdirection for the sake of agiprop.
 
Perhaps some should pick up this interesting book by David Greenberg: The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1990).
 
For an inkling of the contents read this review by John Thorp reacting in horror:
 
 
By the way, Fordham is a Catholic institution.
 
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 09 Feb 2011 at 02:28
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 20:04
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Carch wrote:
 
"I am not always against religion, just when it have too negative effects on people. I have no special bias against catholics, I can be equally critical to protestants or muslims or others when they use their religion as a tool of opression."
 
Could have fooled me but what is telling in terms of reaching a "protest too much" moment is the concluding phrase: "...when they use their religion as a tool of opression".
 
Can any religion within the ambit of the contemporary Western world be labeled "oppressive" given that the working definition of the terms demands the exercise of political power or authority in a burdensome, cruel or unjust manner?  In essence oppression means the cruel and arbitrary exercise of power. The fact that Carch goes as far as equating religion in action as a tool of oppression reveals the extent of his artful sophistry at work.
 
The opression can take place on different levels and scales, from the scale of family (when religion can be used for example to opress women and children and to impeed their freedom) to the level of  larger congregations or of the state (as in countries like Iran). The religious opression goes ofcourse most often hand in hand with political opression, especially when it comes to the larger entities (even if opression on an individual and family level in some sence also is political).
 
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 01:01
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Carch wrote:
 
"I am not always against religion, just when it have too negative effects on people. I have no special bias against catholics, I can be equally critical to protestants or muslims or others when they use their religion as a tool of opression."
 
Could have fooled me but what is telling in terms of reaching a "protest too much" moment is the concluding phrase: "...when they use their religion as a tool of opression".
 
Can any religion within the ambit of the contemporary Western world be labeled "oppressive" given that the working definition of the terms demands the exercise of political power or authority in a burdensome, cruel or unjust manner?  In essence oppression means the cruel and arbitrary exercise of power. The fact that Carch goes as far as equating religion in action as a tool of oppression reveals the extent of his artful sophistry at work.
 
The opression can take place on different levels and scales, from the scale of family (when religion can be used for example to opress women and children and to impeed their freedom) to the level of  larger congregations or of the state (as in countries like Iran). The religious opression goes ofcourse most often hand in hand with political opression, especially when it comes to the larger entities (even if opression on an individual and family level in some sence also is political).
 
 
That doesn't meet drgonzaga's point in the least - in fact you are really confirming it. There is oppression. There is religion. There has been religious oppression, but there have also been non-religious oppression, religious tolerance and non-religious tolerance.  They are completely independent factors/concepts.
 
Incidentally I've hardly ever come across someone as dedicated to religious oppression and ikntolerance as you are.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 01:13
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

[That doesn't meet drgonzaga's point in the least - in fact you are really confirming it. There is oppression. There is religion. There has been religious oppression, but there have also been non-religious oppression, religious tolerance and non-religious tolerance.  They are completely independent factors/concepts.
 
Often religion and opression goes hand in hand. Irrational beliefs many times lend themselves well to be used in opressive ways.
 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 01:34
Carch wrote:
 
The opression can take place on different levels and scales, from the scale of family (when religion can be used for example to opress women and children and to impeed their freedom) to the level of  larger congregations or of the state (as in countries like Iran). The religious opression goes ofcourse most often hand in hand with political opression, especially when it comes to the larger entities (even if opression on an individual and family level in some sence also is political).
 
What can one say to such other than he does a rather poor job in repressing his tendencies towards the absurd and the nonsensical. That he does not even understand the implications of statements such as the "freedom" of children and the "oppression" of women within the ambit of the secular world, and that such language is little more than evidence of getting lost in the milieu of agiprop and kookdom, becomes more than obvious. At law, children are responsibilities and as such under the discipline of tutelage where the "freedom" of action is and demands to be proscribed. Relationships between man and woman are governed under the laws of contract under which both parties cede their personal autonomy for the sake of the mutually beneficial. Anarchical abstractions are little more than the inflicting of mental violence upon the customary specially within a contemporary context where all soon becomes exercise in reductio ad absurdum.


Edited by drgonzaga - 10 Feb 2011 at 06:06
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 01:50
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
What can one say to such other than he does a rather poor job in repressing his tendencies towards the absurd and the nonsensical. That he does not even understand the implications of statements such as the "freedom" of children and the "oppression" of women within the ambit of the secular world, and that such language is little more than evidence of getting lost in the milieu of agiprop and kookdom, bcomes more than obvious. At law, children are responsibilities and as such under the discipline of tutelage where the "freedom" of action is and demands to be proscribed.
 
Relationships between man and woman are governed under the laws of contract under which both parties cede their personal autonomy for the sake of the mutually beneficial. Anarchical abstractions are little more than the inflicting of mental violence upon the customary specially within a contemporary context where all soon becomes exercise in reductio ad absurdum.
 
Please do not sound like some pamphlet for the moral majority. The old religious repression have inhibited enough many people already, giving them a lot of frustrations, which can be seen among other places in the records of mental institutions.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 01:52
Often religion and opression goes hand in hand. Irrational beliefs many times lend themselves well to be used in opressive ways.
 
I doubt that Carch requires a shovel to dig a deeper hole given the fact he is employing a bulldozer. But then he is giving ample evidence that perhaps he is in need of a little Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy [REBT].
 

Irrational beliefs

1. It is a dire necessity for adult humans to be loved or approved by virtually every significant other person in their community.

2. One absolutely must be competent, adequate and achieving in all important respects or else one is an inadequate, worthless person.

3. People absolutely must act considerately and fairly and they are damnable villains if they do not. They are their bad acts.

4. It is awful and terrible when things are not the way one would very much like them to be.

5. Emotional disturbance is mainly externally caused and people have little or no ability to increase or decrease their dysfunctional feelings and behaviors.

6. If something is or may be dangerous or fearsome, then one should be constantly and excessively concerned about it and should keep dwelling on the possibility of it occurring.

7. One cannot and must not face life's responsibilities and difficulties and it is easier to avoid them.

8. One must be quite dependent on others and need them and you cannot mainly run one's own life.

9. One's past history is an all-important determiner of one's present behavior and because something once strongly affected one's life, it should indefinitely have a similar effect.

10. Other people's disturbances are horrible and one must feel upset about them.

11. There is invariably a right, precise and perfect solution to human problems and it is awful if this perfect solution is not found.

Albert Ellis. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York: Birch Lane Press, 1994.
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 05:49
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Often religion and opression goes hand in hand. Irrational beliefs many times lend themselves well to be used in opressive ways.


Ehm...I think you need to check the number of religions historically and realize that is religion and oppression usually do not go hand in hand. Apart from theocratic Egypt and probably central America that is an exception, oppression and religion as you present it, is rather a later trend.

Oppression on the other hand is not a feature of religion. No religion teaches you to oppress. It is usually the religious leaders and others that may misuse religion for controlling the crowds.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 21:11
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Often religion and opression goes hand in hand. Irrational beliefs many times lend themselves well to be used in opressive ways.


Ehm...I think you need to check the number of religions historically and realize that is religion and oppression usually do not go hand in hand. Apart from theocratic Egypt and probably central America that is an exception, oppression and religion as you present it, is rather a later trend.

Oppression on the other hand is not a feature of religion. No religion teaches you to oppress. It is usually the religious leaders and others that may misuse religion for controlling the crowds.
 
Still there is an element of submission in at least some religions that easy can be used and manipulated by leaders.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 22:35
Yes but that is what I said. However, it doesn't make true the comment that religion and oppression go hand in hand.

Edited by Flipper - 10 Feb 2011 at 22:36
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 23:05
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Yes but that is what I said. However, it doesn't make true the comment that religion and oppression go hand in hand.
 
Still it does, and have done so many times in different contexts. The ideology of submission too often ends in opression. The step from submitting to supernatural entities to submit to their alleged spokespersons and representatives is unfortunately not always so long.


Edited by Carcharodon - 10 Feb 2011 at 23:37
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 23:44
Hmm does not the shaman of your purported Amazonian Edens (see the Amazon love thread) operate in the realm of fear and submission, so much so that the notion of "let's kill the shaman" as the bearer of evils often becomes practice?
 
The interesting part here is hardly the subject and instead it is the magnificent display of obduracy by Carcharadon in maintaining an outlandish premise against the reasoned presentations of all others. What is even funnier here is that even your run-of-the-mill libertarian would make mince-meat of his argument. Here is an example:
 

Joseph Stalin is famously said to have asked an adviser, dismissively, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Had the adviser possessed greater courage, he might have replied: "How many does he need?"

Observing the many government leaders gathered at the Vatican for the funeral of Pope John Paul II, we might well have suspected that the world's politico-military chieftains need what the Pope has more than the Pope needs what they have.

Governments have physical force--control over a society's most decisive means of dispensing violence. They may try to disguise this essential attribute by cloaking it in measures ostensibly for the enhancement of the people's "welfare" and "security"; they may paint its hardened, harlot face with cheery "democratic" cosmetics; but when push comes to shove, all governments fall back on their superior ability to beat, shackle, imprison, and kill those who challenge the exercise of their power.

They prefer, however, to avoid such resort to violence, because it is too obvious, too difficult to misrepresent, despite their adamant claim that war is peace when they do lash out. If they routinely smash dissidents and opponents with violence, they will be seen clearly for what they are: killers in crowns, mobsters in dark suits, white shirts, and red neckties. They would rather present themselves in a different guise--a kindlier, gentler semblance that not only proclaims their noble intentions but mollifies many of their subjects who might otherwise grow restive or even revolutionary. The rulers don't want to seem to be just the most powerful thugs in the neighborhood.

They crave legitimacy because, apart from its intrinsically gratifying character, a thief and a murderer can go farther with legitimacy than he can go without it. But how are such reprehensible human beings to acquire what, in the nature of things, they manifestly do not possess? Well, if there is guilt by association, might there also be virtue by association? The rulers think so.

Hence their appearance at John Paul's funeral. Clearly religion did not bring them: few of them even claim to be Catholic, and many belong to groups that have been at war with the Catholic Church for centuries. No, these rulers came in order to be seen in the presence of something not one of them will ever possess: genuine moral authority. They hope that by sitting beside the dead Pope's casket, some of his towering moral stature will seep onto them and make them appear to stand a little taller in the eyes of those over whom they rule and upon whom they prey.

 
Now that little exercise in cut-and-paste should have our resident shark in a state of beserkdom shortly.


Edited by drgonzaga - 10 Feb 2011 at 23:46
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 23:51
Do not forget that the spokespersons of religions do not always have to use direct physical violence to opress people. They can also do so by using phsycological tactics, scaring and intimidating their belivers into all sorts of things. Also political leaders can be influenced by religious ideas which in many cases can result in different kinds of opression, in violence and in instituting opressive laws and regulations.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 00:08
Carch, have you ever heard the expression "It's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel."? The vacuity of your responses and their dire lack of actual analysis renders any need of reply to your quibbles entirely superflous in an intellectual setting. What can one say other than dredge up the sharp little phrases shaped by common sense. Before you go off again take these little jewels to heart:
 
Get your ducks in a row, its shooting fish in a barrel. But don't keep all your eggs in one basket, because birds of a feather flock together. So grab that tiger by the tail, but be as quite as a mouse about it, and you'll be king of the jungle.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 00:13
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Carch, have you ever heard the expression "It's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel."? The vacuity of your responses and their dire lack of actual analysis renders any need of reply to your quibbles entirely superflous in an intellectual setting. What can one say other than dredge up the sharp little phrases shaped by common sense. Before you go off again take these little jewels to heart:
 
Get your ducks in a row, its shooting fish in a barrel. But don't keep all your eggs in one basket, because birds of a feather flock together. So grab that tiger by the tail, but be as quite as a mouse about it, and you'll be king of the jungle.
 
Your little phrases are moving but not too relevant for the subject of this thread.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 00:22
That you miss the relevance in your artful dodging is entirely immaterial. You long ago departed from religion and iconography to pursue your own demons and just because you can not accept the reality of the sky not being blue at all, does not negate the truth of such a declaration.
 
So take your own advice here and actually discuss art as a visualization of cosmography.


Edited by drgonzaga - 11 Feb 2011 at 01:37
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 00:38
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

That you miss the relevance in your artful dodging is entirely immaterial. You long ago departed from religion and iconography to pursue your own demons and just because you can not accept the reality of the sky not being blue at all, does not negate the truth of such a declaration.
 
So take your own advice here and actually discuss art as a visualiation of cosmography.
 
Well, we have discussed both religion and images, and also about religion and opression in this thread. And somewhere there the topics meet each other since religion can be an isnpiration of image but also and inspiration for the opression and destruction of image.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 01:36
Either you are a damned fool or a devious didact fixated upon caricatures of religion for the sake of noxious air pollution. Oppression of images!?! Even the utilization of language becomes obtuse at your hands Carch and if your objective is to exhaust the patience even of a saint then you have reached your goal.
 

Edited by drgonzaga - 11 Feb 2011 at 01:36
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 01:48
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Oppression of images!?!
 
The destruction of images, the hindrance of making certain images or the hindrance of displaying such images.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 02:10
Then go ahead and sue the German government in the European Court of Justice for "proscribing" the swastika! Better yet, listen to the Beatles from oh, so long ago: "If you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow!"
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 03:51
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Still there is an element of submission in at least some religions that easy can be used and manipulated by leaders.
But there is much much more against that supposition than for it. Most oppression is secular, imposed by fanataics like you.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 12:50
Before responding to something Carch wrote, I have a few observations. Either they are helpful, or I have completely missed the mark and am making an ass of myself -- wouldn't be the first time. Wink
 
I think it is possible that Carch is using the term oppression in a different sense than everyone else is, and one that is potentially still valid. Carch may -- and correct me, Carch, if I'm wrong -- be thinking about oppression within the religious community which, by virtue of the fact that a certain religious community might be a majority, can often become societal. This certainly has happened in the course of history, and to a certain extent happens today. I would agree entirely with you, graham, that "most oppression is secular" -- I wonder in what sense and to what extent we agree on this one, don't you? Embarrassed -- but this secular oppression is in a constant state of conflict with religious mores that have become ingrained in our culture. While the term "Culture War" has been overused and abused, it does speak to a certain truth.
 
Don't know if anything there was helpful, but I just had a few observations from reading what you guys have made a very interesting discussion. Should we spin it off into a new thread and focus on images here, or is this a necessary precursor to such a discussion. That decision, I leave to you, my more erudite colleagues.
 
-Akolouthos
 
One more thing, specifically addressed to Carch:
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Well, she has stated in some interview I saw something like you said, that Jesus accepted everyone, regardless of their status in society. She said that these people that often are scorned by Christians most probably would be accepted by Jesus himself. It seems that she wants to contrast the tolerance of Jesus against the intolerance of some of his adherents.
 
I think that, while you are correct, an important distinction needs to be drawn -- and often is not: Jesus did, indeed, accept people as they were, but he often called them to be something different.


Edited by Akolouthos - 11 Feb 2011 at 12:52
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 19:49
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Still there is an element of submission in at least some religions that easy can be used and manipulated by leaders.
But there is much much more against that supposition than for it. Most oppression is secular, imposed by fanataics like you.
 
Too much opression have actually been inspired by world views created in a religious and mythological context. And still today religion inspires a lot of opression.
 
And one do not have to be a fanatic to have a critical view of religion.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 19:52
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
 
[quote=Carcharodon]
Well, she has stated in some interview I saw something like you said, that Jesus accepted everyone, regardless of their status in society. She said that these people that often are scorned by Christians most probably would be accepted by Jesus himself. It seems that she wants to contrast the tolerance of Jesus against the intolerance of some of his adherents.[quote]
 
I think that, while you are correct, an important distinction needs to be drawn -- and often is not: Jesus did, indeed, accept people as they were, but he often called them to be something different.
Yes, he was after all a child of his time. But it seems that he still was rather tolerant for that place and time. Some of his later adherents have been much less tolerant.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 00:00
Images that was a part of a religious and spiritual contexts one could also find on the Noaid drums (shaman drums) of the Sami people. In the 17 century and onwards the practice of such drums was forbidden by the Swedish church and authorities since it was deemed pagan and diabolic. At least one noaid were burned by the christians because he refused to let go of his drum and to stop perform shamanistic rites. He was burned together with his drum and some idols of tree.
 
A Sami drum


Edited by Carcharodon - 16 Feb 2011 at 00:09
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 03:05
Er, Carcharadon you are forgetting the essential distinctions that must be made that separates religion and its constructs from political action by the "state" itself. The Romans were quite busy at eliminating druids and their oak trees (as well as proscribing their rituals) long before there were any Christians mucking about. Hence your particular phobia is little more than a grand exercise at misdirection. Further, you yourself are providing more than ample evidence that had you any political power you too would spend the bulk of your time "eradicating" Christians because somehow your belief system views them as inimical to public order and libertas.
 
Now I must admit that there is some attraction to the possible reconstruction of practices such as bog sacrifice and the induced trance as a means for identifying enemies and starting a big business in potions and amulets...but hey whatever turns you on.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 03:20
Carcha is also confusing images with symbolism. The Sami drum above shows symbols, not images. An image is a realistic representation of a person, an animal or supernatural being.
This image of Ganesha (It is an Indian God; not Dumbo) is an image:







But the drawing in this Mapuche Kultrun it is not an image, but the symbol that represent the four direction of the compass, together with other complementary symbols.



What religions usually forbid are IMAGES not symbols.



Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.137 seconds.