Abrahamic religions can be hazardous to you health

[MoonWater]

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

The meaningful objective content of those 2 paragraphs is about the same.
:sleep:

Clearly you have never had to do a poetry study on that poem nor are you familiar with alice in wonderland or you would realize that such a comparison is actually a compliment, especially to a writer such as myself as you have said that what I wrote is on the same level as two great and classic works. However I also know that your intent was not to compliment but to insult and ridicule, as is your way. Let me know when you're done with your childish retorts and are ready to have an actual conversation.

 

[MoonWater]

Sure I can, many poor and uneducated people are easily blinded by their religion, although thats not always the case, many people simply do not understand the basics of how science works so they fall victim of religious dogma. In a resent example here on this site a well spoken person claimed the weather was controlled by Allah, could not understand why it would rain in some areas and there would be a drought in others, not matter how we tried to convince he could only believe Allah's special angels controlled the weather. Gullibility, uneducated, all contribute to religious blinding.

They certainly can. So then wouldn't the problem be lack of proper education rather than religion? After all that is what leads to religious blinding (as you say).

Still waiting for a response to this richard.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Clearly you have never had to do a poetry study on that poem nor are you familiar with alice in wonderland or you would realize that such a comparison is actually a compliment, especially to a writer such as myself as you have said that what I wrote is on the same level as two great and classic works. However I also no that your intent was not to compliment but to insult and ridicule, as is your way. Let me know when you're done with your childish retorts and are ready to have an actual conversation.

Perhaps you could stoop to informing we simple minded Cretans just WHAT objective meaning is contained in a classic example of nonsense verse.

Or - failing that - perhaps explain what is logical or objective or meaningful about a statement that many observers can experience the same thing and not be able to demonstrate what they experienced. Or even agree on content of the experience.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

". . . Religion is a tool, it is neutral, whether it does good or bad is wholly dependent on the character of the people using it. If you wish to claim that religion is bad because it has been used to help people do bad things then you must also believe that government and philosophy are bad for they have also been used by people to do bad things. To do otherwise reveals a double standard."

Essentially this is an argument that ideas don't matter. That what a person believes has no bearing on how they behave. That if Lenin had never a read a thing by Marx the USSR would still have existed.

To seriously advance such a position invites ridicule.

 

[MoonWater]

Perhaps you could stoop to informing we simple minded Cretans just WHAT objective meaning is contained in a classic example of nonsense verse.

Poems are meant to be subjective not objective. As such you won't find an objective meaning in that poem. I can tell you what I see and what I see is a classic adventure story told in verse. If you bother to look beyond the surface you will see that while most o the words are made up gibberish you are still able to garner what they mean by looking at the context. To look for objective meaning is to miss the whole point of the story.

Or - failing that - perhaps explain what is logical or objective or meaningful about a statement that many observers can experience the same thing and not be able to demonstrate what they experienced. Or even agree on content of the experience.

It's not meant to be objective and since when is art logical. As for the meaning that depends on the individual and will vary from person to person. if you feel that makes it meaningless then perhaps that only means poetry is not your forte, which I suspect it isn't. And there is nothing wrong with that. One person's nonsense is another person's masterpiece. That doesn't mean one person has to be right and the other has to be wrong. It simply means that we all have our own opinions, our own points of view and our own ways of looking at things. It means that we are individuals and as such what we see in the things presented to us will reflect that individuality. This is why objectivity has no place in art and why searching for objective meaning therein will get you nowhere.

 

[MoonWater]

". . . Religion is a tool, it is neutral, whether it does good or bad is wholly dependent on the character of the people using it. If you wish to claim that religion is bad because it has been used to help people do bad things then you must also believe that government and philosophy are bad for they have also been used by people to do bad things. To do otherwise reveals a double standard."

Essentially this is an argument that ideas don't matter. That what a person believes has no bearing on how they behave. That if Lenin had never a read a thing by Marx the USSR would still have existed.

To seriously advance such a position invites ridicule.

don't be ridiculous of course a person's beliefs influence their actions, the thing is the person chooses how that influence goes into affect and what actions they take as a result of that influence. Ideas do matter but it is the people who ultimately come up with those ideas. If a person comes up with the idea that penguins are demons and following that seeks to wipe out all penguins, do we blame the idea or do we blame him for entertaining and believing in that idea?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

don't be ridiculous of course a person's beliefs influence their actions, the thing is the person chooses how that influence goes into affect and what actions they take as a result of that influence. Ideas do matter but it is the people who ultimately come up with those ideas. If a person comes up with the idea that penguins are demons and following that seeks to wipe out all penguins, do we blame the idea or do we blame him for entertaining and believing in that idea?

Both. The idea is Father of the act. Hence he seeks out penguins not black and white cats.

"Poems are meant to be subjective not objective."

Really? Homer would beg to differ. So would my namesake. AND his translator. As for logic do please explain how Shakespeare is not logical.

#73 cannot be understood except as a LOGICAL argument.:areyoucra

 

[Riverwolf]

Someone who believes Jesus was killed and rose from the dead to be with his father, a mythical god, in heaven, a mythical place, and that this mythical being created all there is.

Remove "mythical" as Christians do not believe any of it to be such.

Now, the problem with this definition is it doesn't include some Christian sects, such as the Gnostic groups.

You've described Orthodox Christianity.

Something either is or is not visible, if we can't see it, touch it, smell it, have no physical evidence that it exists, then it is invisible. So tell me, in what beliefs is there physical evidence that this god thing exists?

In the monistic ones.

I don't know about you, but I relate very well to gravity, a mere trip and fall does a lot for my relationship with gravity. The difference is, I have examinable evidence of gravity, I can see and understand the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of gravity.

I actually take back my "you don't" statement, as I'm not a Jew; therefore, I don't know what the Jewish relationship with God is.

So it is impossible to find these "golden rules" without the Tanakh? You would not instictively know how to act without reading these golden rules?

I don't think I'm making myself clear. I look to see where the Golden Rule is in the Tanakh. I know what it's supposed to be; I said as much in an earlier post.

 

[Riverwolf]

And what Islamic, Jewish, or Christian sects are there? Name the ones in each religion that focus on stripping away the dogma and focus on the spiritual and communal aspects.

Kabbalism. Gnosticism. Sufism. These just name the mystical sects, and are a very small example.

Haven't you heard of these?

 

[Riverwolf]

"Poems are meant to be subjective not objective."

Really? Homer would beg to differ. So would my namesake. AND his translator. As for logic do please explain how Shakespeare is not logical.

How about T.S. Elliot? You need to dig deep to figure out what he was talking about in Rhapsody on a Windy Night. Same with Poe. What the heck does the Raven even mean? Understand what happened in his life before he wrote that poem, and you'll have ONE of the possible answers.

Homer was telling stories with his poems; stories need to be logical in their structure (at least, most of the time.) I admit I've never read the works of your namesake, though I want to. Shakespeare was also telling stories with his poetry. However, "A beast that wants discourse of reason would have mourn'd longer..." most other animals do not mourn (as far as I know), therefore this statement is not logical. Nevertheless, it's a great line for Hamlet to express his astoundment and disapproval of his mother mourning only a month for her husband and then immediately marrying her husband's brother.

Now, as an amateur poet myself, I can say that often when I write, I do have a vague meaning in mind, but often I can find a completely different meaning that I didn't think of while writing, yet is still there. I can also sometimes find many different meanings that I didn't think of that could still be there.

 

[MoonWater]

Both. The idea is Father of the act. Hence he seeks out penguins not black and white cats.

And the person is the father of the idea.

"Poems are meant to be subjective not objective."

Really? Homer would beg to differ. So would my namesake. AND his translator. As for logic do please explain how Shakespeare is not logical.

Perhaps I should have clarified. Logic can certainly be used in art and when it comes to stories is common place, but it is not necesary. As riverwolf pointed out with his example often the best way to describe something isn't through logic, but through metaphor. And while it is true that a story must overall make logical since in order to be good I would add that it only needs to make logical sense within the terms and bounds of the universe in which the story takes place. For example in the harry potter universe it makes perfect logical sense for harry to pick up a wand and cast a spell or go flying around on a broomstick. However in our universe that would not make any logical sense. Hence yes the story needs to be logical overall but only in terms of what is considered logical in the universe the story takes place in.

#73 cannot be understood except as a LOGICAL argument.:areyoucra

Are you referring to this:

Wait a second...

Reading more on religious topics somehow makes you blind?

I'd love to hear your theory on how that is actually possible.

If so I'm afraid I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

[/color]



Are you referring to this:


If so I'm afraid I'm not sure what your point is.

Guess "Shakespeare" and "#73" was just t-o-o-o much of jump for your knowledge of poetry.

William Shakespeare, well known Elizabethan English playwright and poet wrote a series of short poems in the sonnet form. They are untitled and are referenced by numbers assigned to them by one of the early publishers of his works.

#73 is one of the more oft quoted ones and speaks of the effect of aging on one's attitude. I'm sure if interested you could find a copy. If so, I defy you to make sense of it OTHER than by logical analysis.

 

[MoonWater]

Guess "Shakespeare" and "#73" was just t-o-o-o much of jump for your knowledge of poetry.

William Shakespeare, well known Elizabethan English playwright and poet wrote a series of short poems in the sonnet form. They are untitled and are referenced by numbers assigned to them by one of the early publishers of his works.

#73 is one of the more oft quoted ones and speaks of the effect of aging on one's attitude. I'm sure if interested you could find a copy. If so, I defy you to make sense of it OTHER than by logical analysis.

I am thouroughly aware of shakespear's sonnets. The fact that I did not realize you were reffering to sonnet #73 when all you did was blurt out the number itself has nothing to do with my familiarity with them, it just means you need to be a teensy bit more specific. As for the rest your post I would say that the interpretation you've given seems more metaphorical rather than logical as the sonnet doesn't directly state that it is speaking "of the effect of aging on one's attitude." Besides like I also mentioned in that post, art can certainly have logic in it, but logic is not a necesary component of art.

edit: now would you care to respond to the rest of my post?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Poe's raven is simply grief. No further analysis necessary or useful. And the idea is at least as old as Sophocles. And as new as:

There's a grief that can't be spoken.
There's a pain goes on and on.

ANOTHER work of art that only makes sense as a logical argument.

 

[Perfect Circle]

I never said he called me stupid, he made a stupid comment, and it was in fact insulting. As you were not part of the conversation, I would suggest you mind your business, or get involved in the actually exchange.

Do you realize that you are on a PUBLIC forum. The keyword being PUBLIC. Any conversation you have within this PUBLIC forum is open to the general PUBLIC. So yes, I was in fact part of the conversation.

I will attack when I feel the need and don't particularly care if you take me seriously or not.

It's not me that won't be taking you seriously, it's practically any reasonable person on this forum. Threads like this get started more than you realize. You're not bringing anything new to the table here.

Congratulations to you and your friends and family for rebelling against the norm, it's called the "bible belt" for a reason, of all people you should know why that is. I'm not on a "high horse" you only see it that way,

It's also called the dirty south, but not everything down here is dirty. And since you like to generalize an entire population based off an antiquated term, it's easy to see why someone would think you're on a horse.

I am in fact discussing how awful religion is, tell me why you don't agree instead of crying like a little girl about my posts.

I do believe I've provided pretty sound arguments in posts #48 and #55. So has Moonwater, Riverwolf, and several others...

You always have the option of ignoring my posts, that was my polite reply.

What.. and skip all the fun of pummeling you're ridiculous argument around? Nah.. I'll stick around and see what other non-sense you're going to dream up.

And what is "that was my polite reply" supposed to mean? You going to bust out the big guns on me soon? I don't know what polite is to you, but I would think calling other forum members stupid doesn't fit into it. Of course... that could just be my southern manners..

 

[MoonWater]

Poe's raven is simply grief. No further analysis necessary or useful. And the idea is at least as old as Sophocles. And as new as:

There's a grief that can't be spoken.
There's a pain goes on and on.

ANOTHER work of art that only makes sense as a logical argument.

To claim a work of art only makes sense as a logical argument is to fail to look beneath the surface. A work of art certainly can make sense logically but that does not mean it is the ONLY way it makes sense.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

The only thing the belief in supernatural religion has done is provide us with another excuse to kill and maim each other.

If you think this, then you obviously haven't done enough research because there are faiths out there that teach no such thing and practice no such thing--indeed, quite the opposite!--; and further are some of the most peaceful and loving groups you'll ever meet!

Bruce

 

[Riverwolf]

Poe's raven is simply grief. No further analysis necessary or useful. And the idea is at least as old as Sophocles. And as new as:

There's a grief that can't be spoken.
There's a pain goes on and on.

ANOTHER work of art that only makes sense as a logical argument.

JUST grief? Kind of a long poem to just describe what grief feels like.

It's also loneliness, longing for what was, nostalgia, some anger... negative feelings in general. And that's still just the surface. What's so interesting about that? The true heart of the greatest poems is found beneath the surface. Is it necessary? For the layman, no. For the poet, it's essential. So what may not be useful or necessary for YOU may be essential for me in my studies.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Phffft!

 

[BruceDLimber]

And what makes yo so "sure" this isn't going to happen?

My own study and experiences.

People will eventually outgrow their need for superstition and magic, unrealistic children's stories and illogical assumptions. I believe science will eventually show us all we need to know just as it showed us that thunder and lightning were not the wrath of an angry god.

True IF you restrict the topic to children's stories and illogical assumptions!

I don't, and indeed see things quite differently from your negative viewpoint!

There are clear positive results out there for anyone who cares to look for them.

Peace,

Bruce