Is religion an imposition on society, or a product of a society's evolution?

[Arrian]

[DaShi]

I stopped reading at "the west."

[Ben Kenobi]

On the other hand, the predominant Indian attitude is that religion is something that evolves out of society, and thus changes as society changes, but changes society as it itself changes. It's a much more organic relationship.

Perhaps the modern world, but the West used to be the same way too.

It remains an ideal to have this organic relationships which is really tough to do today with all the pressures and features of today. I see religion as part of a society, if you want to understand the society you have to understand the religion that they practice.

[Elok]

Enough about The West. It's time to talk about The East. Confucius clearly tells us to honor traditions and not change them; isn't Aneeshm's suggestion a flat contradiction of Eastern Values?

[Fake Boris]

Well, there is a certain truth behind the idea that monotheism is doomed to entropy — Nietzsche for instance believed that Christians, by creating their fiction of the One God and the One Son, were bound to collide one way or the other with the never to be seen return of the Messiah. This lack of a Messiah is a cultural illness, which is exhibited today through the political utopias of liberalism and socialism (both believe in progress, and try to rally the notion to their cause).

The Greeks, on the other hand, with polytheism, had gathered a recipe for 'eternity', in a cyclical manner. The truth is that polytheism, in ancient times, was a political tool : a polis or a state would celebrate the inclusion of a new member of the royal family, or a new alliance, by introducing a corresponding God to their pantheon. Incidentally, there was no universal definition of 'man' in those religions — the mobility of gods was also the mobility of what makes mankind (no qualms about slavery, for instance). Prometheius, the Titan, had stolen fire from the gods, and yet there was dignity in his sacrilege, something that is unthinkable in a monotheist religion.

The bottom line is that the elevation of God through unicity exhibited the foolishness of transcendence ; you spit in the air expecting your crap to fly and progress indefinitely, and well, DUH, it falls back again.

[Fake Boris]

I'm always amazed, too, by those who explain Jesus' prophecies as lack of science.

What's the formula already that states whether his kingdom is of this world or not ?

[Robert]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Umm, what is the need for Grace if there is no law? Why must Christ die for the sins of the world if there is no sins?

Jon Miller

Yes, there is a law, and that law is there to show that there are sins. But if a person admits he's a sinner, gives his live to Jesus, then he dies with Jesus and rises with Jesus, and is free of the law (Romans 7, first part)

Christians are supposed to live through love, guided by the Holy Spirit. Not by written laws. The letter kills.

Jon Miller: I am not suggesting that ceremonial law is required, I think that Christ himself said that He had come to fulfill the ceremonial law. It is obvious in the New Testament that we are still suppose to follow God's law. And this included the 10 commandments.

Show me!

Ps. Jesus didn't say that he fulfilled the 'ceremonial' laws, he said he came to fulfill the law. Which means that he totally lived up to the laws (all laws) of Moses. If we are 'in' him, then that means that we are rightious because of him, and.

[Fake Boris]

For an exhibit of the cultural illness that Nietzsche describes in his later works like The Antechrist (but has arguably let transpire throughout his life), see :

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165118

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Show me!

Show you!

[Fake Boris]

The key here is mobility.

Nietzsche considered that we lived in a world void of tragedy, where it has been replaced by drama. To this end he quotes a revealing comment he heard after seeing a play by Sophocles - one spectator claimed that the play didn't bother to 'demonstrate' anything. Nietzsche's answer is that things are actually 'demonstrated' in the cultural context of hellenism ; what was unthinkable, and thus 'meaningless' for us, is to conceive that the tragedy strives to dignify the immanent sacrilege of man through cyclical actions.

Despite common opinion, tragic heroes are not really 'oppressed by fate'.

I wish I could have an opinion of my own, but I'm simply overwhelmed by Nietzche's brilliance.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The key here is mobility.

Nietzsche considered that we lived in a world void of tragedy, where it has been replaced by drama. To this end he quotes a revealing comment he heard after seeing a play by Sophocles - one spectator claimed that the play didn't bother to 'demonstrate' anything. Nietzsche's answer is that things are actually 'demonstrated' in the cultural context of hellenism ; what was unthinkable, and thus 'meaningless' for us, is to conceive that the tragedy strives to dignify the immanent sacrilege of man through cyclical actions.

Despite common opinion, tragic heroes are not really 'oppressed by fate'.

I wish I could have an opinion of my own, but I'm simply overwhelmed by Nietzche's brilliance.

True tragedy isn't dead.

Ever read the Mahabharat?

[Fake Boris]

Nope.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Nope.

OK. Then try to. The debate about who was the greater of the two warriors - Arjuna or Karna - rages, and rages very intensely, even today. Arjuna is the "Successful hero", Karna is the "Tragic hero". He has achieved immortal glory.

There are very moving books written about this character even today. One such is "Mritunjay".

Tragedy is not yet dead, fear not.

[aneeshm]

And in case you ever feel the desire to read the Mahabharat in English: Link.

[aneeshm]

And the entire Mahabharat itself could be considered to be tragic in nature, because:

a) The heroes lose all their sons, and only one grandson is left to continue the lineage
b) The Kali Yuga begins on Earth
c) Everyone is forced to fight against, and loses, their relatives, loved ones, teachers, or other people whom they are attached to
d) War is a bich, and this is very accurately portrayed, in horrifying detail