A long time ago, man God, or organized his worship, depending on your interpretation. We sought answers to questions like " Why do storms happen?" and "Why do people die?" and there were eventually those who offered answers. This ability to explain the inexplicable lead directly to power; the first known leaders of organized civization, in ancient Sumer, were not warlords or rich men, they were priests. CIties were not usually built on geo-strategic locations, or near especially fertile lands, but around religious centers. As civilization progressed, cultures developed their own distinct reglions just as they developed their own geo-centric societies...and both came into conflict. It is an unsurprising step in our development that these conflicts soon became indistinguishable; wars between cultures were seen to be reflections of conflict between deities, with victory going to the worshipers of the stronger god. Chrisitianity's place as a major world religion owes it's existence to Contantine's vision of a cross before a military victory, and the Old testament itself is replete with instances of God taking sides during battles. This kind of thinking really reached it's pinnacle during the Dark Ages, especially in Spain and Southeastern Europe, but evident in varying forms throughout the continent, especially during the Crusades. Of course we look back on this kind of thinking with the societal equivalent of a sneer these days...To assume that gods do battle through men, with victory going to the better god is now largely dismissed as primative thinking...or is it? Putting aside the debate about athletes praying for victory, or President's citing God as an ally, we have largely moved beyond this mindset directly...but have we not just replaced it with another version? Let's look back ot those primative priests...Did they really possess answers others did not, or did they merely offer answers when others did not? Were people then, as now, largely content to leave the intellectual and philosophical heavy lifting to others? Was it easier/more immediately rewarding to pursue one's own immediate interests, such as eating and staying alive than to try and percieve the answers to greater questions...to leave that practice to others, and merely decide which those others to agree with? It is my position that despite all of our progress, despite Guttenberg's Bible and the Declaration of Independance, we haven't changed much. Most of us leave most of the political and idealogical heavy lifting to others, and merely choose which soundbites to agree with. And by extension, we are still doing the Holy War thinking, although it has shifted from The Side Who Wins Has The Better God to The Side Who Wins Has The Better System, and the assumtion of moral rightness has accompanied both. It has become a truism that the Cold War was Communism vs. Capitalism, which Capitalim won, and is therefore better. Ask anyone on the street about the Cold War, and the vast majority will give you something like that as an explanation. How many of those have read Marx, or looked into the history of the political structures of both competing powers before they arrived at their 'conclusions'? How many know that neither the USSR nor the PRC were communist, in Marx's version of same, but were stuck in the Rule of the Proletariat, a supposed transitional phase which allowed for centralized power to oversee the move from capitalist system to the power of the people, a centralized power which was never relinquished as Marx forsaw? Very few...but that won't stop them from parroting the conclusions of others as 'fact'. This kind of thinking, this unacknowledged intellectual dependance on others keeps alive overly simplistic rationalization like the above...Is capitalism better than communism? I honeslty don't know...probably, but the Cold War is not evidence of the fact. But that is not the commonly accepted 'fact' of the matter. We won...therefore we were right...therefore the other side was wrong...God, or in this case Capitalism was on our side. Very few of us look beyond our schoolboks and Hollywood depictions for the historical facts, or CNN and NBC for the facts about what goes on in the world today, or the Republican or Democratic position for the political facts. The dangers of this kind of thinking are legion...it allows for Joseph McCarthys and Joseph Stalins...it leads revisionist history as a justification for present actions, such as when johnheath maintained that the US declared war on Hitler to save Europe...and jh is hardly alone in that version of 'facts' to fit our perception...We won...therefore we were right...therefore it follows that we must have known we were right before the conflict, therefore we must have fought because we were right and Hitler was wrong...ipso facto, we fought to stop the wrong that was Hitler. So fasforward to today's issue; the war in Iraq. There are people in this very site who are claiming that the war with Iraq has been justified by virtue of the fact that the US won the war...While I predicted both the quick US victory and this confusion of military might with moral right, I am still dismayed. Never mind the issues themselves, it's too much to cover here...but to state that the military victory somehow refutes the position of those who opposed it is to completely misunderstand many of those who did so, and in my case to reinforce it. Might is NOT right was a large part of my objection, and now people are saying We were mightiest, therefore we are right. People have actually called for apologies from the 'anti-war' side because the US has managed to conquer a lesser power....we won...therefore God was on our side... Have we really progressed that much when this kind of thinking is still prevelent?
Do you read all of your posts outloud when typing them? It seems as if you just like to hear yourself talk. You are nothing if not predictable. Or as you might say, consistent. Not in simply your ideas, but in the way you proccess them, your agenda in trying to promote them, etc.. As to this particular thread, do you really want a response. Is there really a response?
Religions were invented to explain the unexplainable and when the men doing the explaining realized it gave them power, religion became an institution that's essentially changed very little in the past 7,000 years. Religion is an anachronism in my not so humble opinion. The priests and preachers will tell you that there is only one god and that the gods of bygone eras were just myths and misguided beliefs. I've never seen any proof that christianity, islam, and judaism, etc are any more valid than the roman and greek gods. If one mans unseen god is determined to be a heresy then the same logic has to be applied across the board. I believe in a higher power and a pursuit of your own personal truth. I don't feel any need to give money or join an organization to do so though and I feel no need to ascribe human morals or behaviour to an omnipotent force.
If you have a point here other than insulting me, please clarify. If not, feel free to ignore my post, as I will your 'response'.
1st part - just a joke. 2nd part - just an interesting something that clicked in my head about you - it was odd and I was "vocalizing" it. Nothing insulting or judgemental, just a form of recognition. 3rd part - I honestly do not see a way to respond to your thread, that is all. Forget it.
1st part...ok. 2nd part...I find it suprising, given that i have no distinct idealogy, and have surprised people in here with my stances on issues like religious preachers going over to spread christianity in the ME, and abortion. What have you found consistent, aside from my oposition to the war? I am serious...please elaborate, esp. my way of promotion, and my agenda. And finally, do you disagree with my opposition to the kind of thinking described above? 3) Many things are open to discussion, IMO...The idea of independant thought, the idea that political systems have replaced religious organizations as bodies followed with zeal as opposed to objectivity, the concept that victory = justice...etc.
If this is a reference to me, try again. I have never claimed that victory=justice or moral correctness - please find quote supporting your idea. The war was justified long ago - back in March of 1991, to be exact - not by the current victory. And for a host of other reasons (not the least of which was the freeing of 24 million people from tyranny and the elimination of one of the world's major terrorism supporters). Stop reading such trash into my words. It's insulting. That is all. Carry on with your theology discussion. Doesn't interest me...
It was in part a reference to you...and if I got your position wrong, I apologize. I truly don't know how else to interpret your " To Those Who Were Opposed" thread, especially the part where you make reference to your lack of expectation of the admission of being wrong that those who opposed the war, even now when it should be forthcoming, but it's your position, so I will assume you understand it better than I. Could you enlighten me, though. This is not a sarcastic question. That said, there were others who have made the point I assumed you were making...
