• 8GotH8 a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 12 nov. 2010, 23h55m
    sorry double post :O

    Monday, 29 January, 1932:
    Something has happened to me, I can't doubt it any more.
    • LeaTelamon a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 13 nov. 2010, 14h42m
    I understand what you are saying. I don't think you could possibly get an actual answer but an opinion. Everything is relative in terms of morals. I don't see homosexuality as unnatural but I'm sure there are a lot of christians that have the same view as 70 years ago. I personally see suppression of human rights
    as unnatural

    This is a response to both of you, not anyone explicitly.

    But this is what I'm getting at - you are expressing opinions as if they are facts. "Christianity is evil" as if it would be a universal axiom. Here again you make a claim about that it is unnatural to suppress human rights. But what do human rights mean? Some scholars suggest that human rights are merely vehicles for cultural imperialism. I have to agree with them to a large extent.

    Tossing around terms like unnatural begs the question about what is natural. It doesn't really mean anything.


    You would have to ask the individual themselves.I can't speak for the black metal scene but for myself. I am pretty sure there are sheep in the scene. But what I think we need to keep in mind The black metal scene is not a ruling majority of modern society. Gorgoroth fans don't affect major political issues (abortion,gay rights,teaching of evolution in schools).Christian political leaders do however affect major political issues. This would be my bias against christianity.


    What does it mean to be a "sheep"? Is it truly possible for a person to NEVER think for oneself? Or, putting it this way, it is possible for a person to think for oneself at all? According to some social structuralists, everything we do and think is governed by social structures. Individuality does not exist.

    Why I'm raising these issues is because I notice you haven't thought them through and that you let your bias affect you. It is one thing to be against organized religion, I am, I don't want to have religious folks deciding what I, as a non-religious person, is supposed to do and not to do, but I also think it is important to highlight the other side of the coin.

    While you are absolutely right that Gorgoroth fans might not have any direct effect on anything, they are however a part of the society too, and their black metal indentity can play out in how they think about things. This is how identity works out.

    To me, as long as you identify yourself with a certain community, you are a part of a collective - hence sheep. Because you will always to some extent adapt the way to think and behave based on this identity. But it does not mean that you can also personally interpret things your own way. This is why we have so many different Christian demoniations. They are all interpretations of one text - the bible.

    This is why I believe that terms such as brainwashing and sheep-mentality are pointless, because all it does is that they tell a lot about your lack of knowledge of how identity works but it has no real life practice. You remove people agency but without the right to do so.

    I'm not necessarily trying to criticize, but as a person who has studied both religion and sociology at university level, I think I have a responsibility to highlight that the way you think is not necessarily the way things actually seem to work out.

    i see your point leatelamon... So you are basiccaly saying that religion(tool) in itself can have any impact but, according to how someone uses religion(tool), is how it's perceived right?


    Yes, if you meant that the tool cannot have any impact.

    • EvigDauden a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 14 nov. 2010, 15h42m
    I'm okay with criticism if it's respectful and thought out.It really does help develop my ideas further to be more mature and rational. You do raise some good points to think about.


    • 8GotH8 a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 14 nov. 2010, 17h24m
    What does it mean to be a "sheep"? Is it truly possible for a person to NEVER think for oneself? Or, putting it this way, it is possible for a person to think for oneself at all? According to some social structuralists, everything we do and think is governed by social structures. Individuality does not exist.

    i have always thought of this but, wasn't sure, but you can see this more clearly since , as you said, you have studied sociology at a college level, and i haven't.

    Yes, that's what i ment, that relgion, tool, can NOT have any impact on itself since, it's just a tool but, the one utilizing it can...sorry about it is just that i didn't put the ('t) into the can.

    well, it seems like now i have other areas to read, sociology!

    ----Steven Weinberg: "I think that on the balance the moral influence of religion has been awful. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion."----

    so, do you think theres anything wrong with this quote, leatelamon?

    i see it as this: i think that on the balance the moral influence of the tool (religion) has been awful. With or without the tool, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But, for good people to do evil--that takes the tool.

    am i correct? or is anything wrong with the way interprete it?

    Also,so you are getting to the point in which you say that religion can not be accused for anything , for it's a mere object but, instead, we should blame the people that has contributed to its creation, spreading it, and using it to do evil things?

    now, again we would have to think on what evil things it has done, since the debate started out on the distinction of evil and good, and its existence(if it really exists at all).

    Monday, 29 January, 1932:
    Something has happened to me, I can't doubt it any more.
    • LeaTelamon a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 17 nov. 2010, 8h35m
    so, do you think theres anything wrong with this quote, leatelamon?

    You could replace religion in that sentence with anything people have a tendency to take seriously such as political ideology or the fight for personal freedom (sometimes religion and politics can both mix in such a sense). I see it this way, a person with a goal will use any tools necessary to reach that goal. Remove the tools and the person will attempt to find other tools.

    A very good example to highlight what I mean are born-again Christians who seem to solely become born-again Christians so they can oppose homosexuality. Why Christianity? Because it is one of few ideologies that allows one to disagree when it comes to homosexuality. If you are not a Christian you are seen as politically incorrect and you are therefore automatically silenced. Here Christianity serves as a tool to voice one's opinion. But it could be anything, it just so happened that Christianity was the simplest solution to achieve that goal.

    Also,so you are getting to the point in which you say that religion can not be accused for anything , for it's a mere object but, instead, we should blame the people that has contributed to its creation, spreading it, and using it to do evil things?


    Yes. We don't blame the murder weapon in court cases for murder. We blame the person who wielded it. Just like a person might have been inspired by a video game to commit murder in a similar fashion like that in the video game, we do not put the video game on trial for doing so. A religion can motivate but it does not make the religion responsible. Motivation does not always lead to action, a person must still decide to perform it. It is the performance of this action that we accuse people for, not the thing that motivated it.

    I'm quite sure you agree with me that people who say that Marilyn Manson was at fault for the Columbine high school massacre are wrong. If we replace Marilyn Manson with religion, how does it make it any different more than you might be more inclined to sympathize with the former than the latter?

  • I'm quite sure you agree with me that people who say that Marilyn Manson was at fault for the Columbine high school massacre are wrong. If we replace Marilyn Manson with religion, how does it make it any different more than you might be more inclined to sympathize with the former than the latter?


    That is an excellent argument.

    There's no problem a few frag grenades can't fix.

    Cookies for Godlessness
    My Twin in life, love, mind, and music: ISoS
    The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. So do the spirits who are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be spirit. -Nietzsche
    • 8GotH8 a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 20 nov. 2010, 3h34m
    ok, yeah i see your point... i was wrong but, that's good. but! i still think we should try to get rid of religion because even thought it cannot do anythin by itself it can clearly MOTIVATE people to do horrible things more than can a song or a music.

    yeah i do agree with the thing anbout marilyn manson... do you bring that up because the kids that killed those people at the highschool the media classiffied them as goths? (when they were more leaning to metal..stupid media..)

    Monday, 29 January, 1932:
    Something has happened to me, I can't doubt it any more.
  • Well, the fact remains of course that Marilyn Manson did not actually motivate anyone (on purpose anyway) while organised religion does. There's just a problem seperating religion from organised religion.
    And then again, there are obviously religions that are more prone to spawning violence than others. Or is it more correct to say there are cultures more prone to spawning violent religious movements?

    I can’t think of any greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, endlessly, even though I feel that here in this world there’s no undisturbed place for our love, neither in the village nor anywhere else; and I dream of a grave, deep and narrow, where we could clasp each other in our arms as with clamps, and I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
    • EvigDauden a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 20 nov. 2010, 18h33m
    VampyreAngel said:
    Well, the fact remains of course that Marilyn Manson did not actually motivate anyone (on purpose anyway) while organised religion does. There's just a problem seperating religion from organised religion.
    And then again, there are obviously religions that are more prone to spawning violence than others. Or is it more correct to say there are cultures more prone to spawning violent religious movements?

    the problem is that the bible has so many contradictions that a religious person could be motivated to be violent or could be a charity worker. I do think some cultures do create more violence than others. I think that was the case with the abrahamic faiths. The culture was violent before these religions (Islam,Judaism,Christianity) existed.


    • 8GotH8 a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 20 nov. 2010, 23h22m
    well, see islam is not an organised religion but, it can cause much destruction as christianity. Judaism isn't as destrutive as the other two religions, but it does lead moral people to do unmoral things like the mutilation of babies.

    i don't know if the cultures in the middle east were violent before judaism came up and giving birth to chrisitianity and islam.

    Monday, 29 January, 1932:
    Something has happened to me, I can't doubt it any more.
    • LeaTelamon a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 21 nov. 2010, 9h44m
    VampyreAngel said:
    Well, the fact remains of course that Marilyn Manson did not actually motivate anyone (on purpose anyway) while organised religion does. There's just a problem seperating religion from organised religion.
    And then again, there are obviously religions that are more prone to spawning violence than others. Or is it more correct to say there are cultures more prone to spawning violent religious movements?


    I would rephrase it and say, some people are more prone to perform violent acts. For instance, men have a higher tendency to use violence in public situations than women, especially with alcohol in their blood. Furthermore, there are many instances where violence might be accepted under controlled cirumstances, but ONLY for men (e.g. football). Some scholars argue that these different social venues are meant to LIMIT violence, by letting people having their violent outlets in this controlled situation, so they will not just use it randomly or "mindlessly" against others. I just think I need to point that out.

    Lastly, I don't think it has to do so much with culture because then you ascribe culture agency and in my opinion, that's faulty thinking because I do not believe structures control us. Instead, we control the structures. The rise of Muslim fundamentalism in the Middle East has been partially explained by an article I already sent to Waldheri. I don't have it accessed on this computer, but you can probably poke him about it.

    As for Marilyn Manson, there are people out there who think he does try to manipulate contemporary youth culture into a Nazi movement. I think it is very interesting to point out the similarities this guy draws between the idea of brainwashing and the brainwashing religions are often accused to perform.

    So, I would really like it to put it another way. Religion can still not motivate by itself, a person can however feel motivated by religion, and a religious person can motivate another religious person to perform acts of violence. The Jonestown incident (tragedy?) was not built on a violent religion at all, but when motivated by a strong charismatic leader pulling the strings, at some point they were all very content at taking their own lives.

    yeah i do agree with the thing anbout marilyn manson... do you bring that up because the kids that killed those people at the highschool the media classiffied them as goths? (when they were more leaning to metal..stupid media..)

    No, I bring it up because it is a perfect example of media scapegoating with no evidence behind it whatsoever, more than the belief (oh, the irony!) that Marilyn Manson motivated these young men into committing violent acts. Video games have also been blamed, but it was Marilyn Manson that received the most attention in American media after the incident. The whole Holywood album is dedicated to the event in one or another way. If you've seen Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, you'd know that the song The Nobodies was explicitly written from the two students' point of view.

    Similarly, especially new religious movements are often scapegoated in a very similar fashion. If someone tries to leave, say, Jehovah's Witnesses and then commits suicide, it's by definition the religion's fault, regardless of what other underlaying causes there may be that lead this person to commit suicide. And of course, again, just to draw a parallel to violence and religion, I think the early black metal movement is in fact an epitome. I don't believe the violence to be mindless here, I am with other contemporary scholars when it comes to that subject that there is an underlying meaning to it (and I think all violence does have, I believe that the Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan wars are all attempts to force Western cultural imperialism on nations that have refused to accept it).

    Anyway, to go back to Vampy's statement about culture and violence, I do not believe any culture (if I have to put it that way, saying culture implies essentialism) is inherently violent per se. From an evolutionary perspective, it really does not benefit anyone to be violent more than in situations that are threatening to survival. Again, I would like to cite studies that show that the rise of say, religious fundamentalism in the Middle East is primarily caused as a counter-reaction to Western cultural imperialism. The culture identities of people are threatened and this might lead to violence. Just look at how there is a rise of right-wing nationalism here in Europe. What do most of them fear? The Muslims. In Sweden, there are currently shootings in southern town Malmö that explicitly target people who are perceived to be black or dark have an immigrant background. We had a very similar case about 20 years ago. People do this because it's their way of saying "fuck off", and here violence serves three purposes:

    1. It's a sign of power. "Islam" is still not considered a hegomonic group in many European countries.
    2. It carries the social expression of "fuck off, we don't want you here".
    3. It also has an implicit fear attached, meant to serve as a security strategy against a potential risk, that of Muslims becoming a hegemonic group.

    No, to me, violence is a often a way to solve conflicts when people see no other way to do so. Even the Incans who are often cited to sacrifice people regularly did it as a means of social control. It wasn't just mindless.

  • Anyway, to go back to Vampy's statement about culture and violence, I do not believe any culture (if I have to put it that way, saying culture implies essentialism) is inherently violent per se. From an evolutionary perspective, it really does not benefit anyone to be violent more than in situations that are threatening to survival. Again, I would like to cite studies that show that the rise of say, religious fundamentalism in the Middle East is primarily caused as a counter-reaction to Western cultural imperialism
    Without any further study, I can easily assume that back in the days of early Islam, Muslims started waging imperialistic wars (with a new religion that endorsed it) because they lived in the desert. Similarly the Vikings formed a religion and a culture that upheld valour and sanctified war because, due to their lands' lack of resources, in order for their people to thrive they had to take what they needed. The north american Indians on the other hand were (often) leaning to more peaceful lifestyles and religions because they live(d) in lands that offered them enough.
    The Jews also formed a religion that justified their constant wars against their neighbours, while early christians replaced their desire to be freed from the romans with a religion that put greater value to the afterlife.

    It should be fairly obvious that religious fundamentalism, nowadays at least, has its foundations on economic and social problems. Muslims didn't suddenly become overzealous fanatics anymore than the Germans voted the Nazi party because they all spontaneously became national socialists.

    I can’t think of any greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, endlessly, even though I feel that here in this world there’s no undisturbed place for our love, neither in the village nor anywhere else; and I dream of a grave, deep and narrow, where we could clasp each other in our arms as with clamps, and I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
    • LeaTelamon a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 22 nov. 2010, 12h27m
    Without any further study, I can easily assume that back in the days of early Islam, Muslims started waging imperialistic wars (with a new religion that endorsed it) because they lived in the desert. Similarly the Vikings formed a religion and a culture that upheld valour and sanctified war because, due to their lands' lack of resources, in order for their people to thrive they had to take what they needed. The north american Indians on the other hand were (often) leaning to more peaceful lifestyles and religions because they live(d) in lands that offered them enough.

    Yes, but has it actually to do with "culture"?

    It is obvious at this point we have different understandings of what culture means. To me, culture is a form of symbolic meaning-making that humans use universally to make sense of the world around them. This means that yes, religion is a cultural expression, but it is not culture itself. Culture itself is the symbolic meaning-making process.

    What you are talking about are the forms of meaning-making but not culture per se, in other words: "global systems of common difference". I should point out that my definition is based on anthropological cultural theory. The reason why old notions of culture have been disposed is because they limited culture to place (geographical areas) , and this leads to it essentialism of culture; hence our ideas of how people "are". This leads to stereotyping that "people from geographical area X (often nations) are this or that". The reason why this notion of culture is troublesome is because people are not able to create different/multiple sense of belonging (obviously they can) and it applies agency to culture to the point where "culture is people", rather than "people make culture".

    As anthropological evidence has shown, there is a great diversity amongst all peoples, so great that it often is greater inside a group than between groups. Groups are formed through the idea of identities and sense of community belonging. This means that what you probably refer to as "culture" is rather a large group of people adhering to a similar identity.

    I understand what you mean but I do not agree with your definitions.

  • ?I didn't make any definitions. Would it help if I exchanged "culture" for "civilisation"?

    Now, since I obviously don't know the anthropological definition of culture and in fact would mistake the phrase "symbolic meaning-making process" for a Paracelsus quote*, I would pick the definition(s):
    #1 The arts, customs, and habits that characterize a particular society or nation.
    #2 The beliefs, values, behaviour and material objects that constitute a people's way of life.




    *I find that an otherwise pointless inclusion of names such as that of Paracelsus, or Latin proverbs raises my post's level of sophistication by a factor of 1.7.

    I can’t think of any greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, endlessly, even though I feel that here in this world there’s no undisturbed place for our love, neither in the village nor anywhere else; and I dream of a grave, deep and narrow, where we could clasp each other in our arms as with clamps, and I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
    • LeaTelamon a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 23 nov. 2010, 9h48m
    VampyreAngel said:
    ?I didn't make any definitions. Would it help if I exchanged "culture" for "civilisation"?

    Now, since I obviously don't know the anthropological definition of culture and in fact would mistake the phrase "symbolic meaning-making process" for a Paracelsus quote*, I would pick the definition(s):
    #1 The arts, customs, and habits that characterize a particular society or nation.
    #2 The beliefs, values, behaviour and material objects that constitute a people's way of life.




    *I find that an otherwise pointless inclusion of names such as that of Paracelsus, or Latin proverbs raises my post's level of sophistication by a factor of 1.7.


    You didn't explicitly mention any definitions, but the way you use the word does indicate how you understand it. You didn't actually have to write those things, because I already understood that that's how you understood it from the way you used the word alone :) I guess I'm just damaged from my studies.

    I'm not sure how I'm supposed to think of the word "civilization", but it still sounds very structural to me. As should be evident from previous posts in this thread, I'm an anti-structuralist.

    I guess the best solution seems to be to agree to disagree?

  • Just like the way Voltaire never said.

    I can’t think of any greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, endlessly, even though I feel that here in this world there’s no undisturbed place for our love, neither in the village nor anywhere else; and I dream of a grave, deep and narrow, where we could clasp each other in our arms as with clamps, and I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
    • EvigDauden a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 24 nov. 2010, 18h12m
    8GotH8 said:
    Judaism isn't as destrutive as the other two religions, but it does lead moral people to do unmoral things like the mutilation of babies.

    Judaism was violent in the early years but not so much now. You could read the old testament and see that violence was committed in the name of their god. In the Old Testament ,God is recorded as punishing ancient Israelite individuals and members of other tribes for following the wrong religion, or deviating from "proper" religious practices. , God instructed the ancient Israelites to commit genocides. The victims were newborn, infant, child, youth, and adult Canaanites and other nearby tribes who followed Pagan religions.


    • 8GotH8 a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 27 nov. 2010, 9h02m
    well, u got a point there evig.. but i don't know if those fairy tales truely happened sorry someone else may know

    Monday, 29 January, 1932:
    Something has happened to me, I can't doubt it any more.
    • LeaTelamon a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 27 nov. 2010, 14h00m
    It's not whether the events in the Bible happened or not, what is important to understand is that they reflect a certain belief system of religious/ethnical superiority. We can be pretty certain Eden does not exist as it is described in the Bible, and as such, Adam and Eve probably didn't either. However, the gender roles they both perform can still be found as the basis of Western gender roles e.g. patriarchy.

    • EvigDauden a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 27 nov. 2010, 18h08m
    LeaTelamon said:
    It's not whether the events in the Bible happened or not, what is important to understand is that they reflect a certain belief system of religious/ethnical superiority. We can be pretty certain Eden does not exist as it is described in the Bible, and as such, Adam and Eve probably didn't either. However, the gender roles they both perform can still be found as the basis of Western gender roles e.g. patriarchy.

    well said.


    • TheShamit a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 1 déc. 2010, 14h42m
    All religious groups believe that they r absolutely right, most fanatic muslims would probably take pleasure in a massacre of jews, but they would still punish murder and other crimes within their own social structure, its not all limited to religious groups the same can be said for countries as well!

    • LeaTelamon a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 1 déc. 2010, 15h57m
    I don't see what you are trying to say. All religious groups cannot be all if you narrow it down to extremist and fundamentalist examples. There are obviously a lot of religious practictioners who are more humble in their beliefs and accept the fact that they might be wrong. Wicca is such an example where the practitioners think that Wicca is merely one way to worship the god and the goddess.

    Then I don't see what religions have anything to do with nation-states (countries)? Obviously a nation can be politically corrupt and thus proclare war upon another nation which is a way to legalize murder, while still ensuring that people follow the law within the nation's borders.

  • I'm not sure where you disagree with TheShamit regarding the second part.

    I can’t think of any greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, endlessly, even though I feel that here in this world there’s no undisturbed place for our love, neither in the village nor anywhere else; and I dream of a grave, deep and narrow, where we could clasp each other in our arms as with clamps, and I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
    • LeaTelamon a dit :...
    • Utilisateur
    • 2 déc. 2010, 9h19m
    How can I disagree when I don't even understand what he means? :P

  • He said that religions may not tolerate crimes within their own ranks / structure but endorse it when the victim is another religious group, and that in this they are similar to the way some countries work. I think.

    I can’t think of any greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, endlessly, even though I feel that here in this world there’s no undisturbed place for our love, neither in the village nor anywhere else; and I dream of a grave, deep and narrow, where we could clasp each other in our arms as with clamps, and I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
Les utilisateurs anonymes ne peuvent pas poster de messages. Merci de vous connecter ou de créer un compte pour pouvoir intervenir dans les forums.