ForumGarden

Glaswegian;604303 wrote: I'm sorry about the delay in getting back to you, gmc. But when I'm immersed in the creative process I lose all sense of time. A day can pass like a moment. I'm happy to announce that the screenplay Dungeon Of The Teenage Lesbian Vampires has been completed. Let me provide you with an excerpt from it so you can understand why it was a labour of love for me...



I shall deal with you later, Glaswegian...personally. Before this night is over you will suffer as no man has ever suffered before. Yes, Man of Insight, before I have finished with you you will envy the maggots that will consume you in death.

(Glaswegian is led away.)


No comment! But I would keep the day job for now.

Welcome back. I enjoy a good barney especially when you can have one with someone without them taking the most innocuous comments personally.

posted by glaswegian

The reason why I am an atheist, gmc, is because - unlike the religionists and occultists in this forum - I am averse to self-deception.

Another way of putting it is this: I can cope with reality. The religionists and occultists in this forum can't.




Define reality. If reality gets you down create your own. Is religion fantasy carried too far so people actually believe it is real?

Mind you when I look at your story and then some of the more imaginative stories about satan and devil worship promulgated by the church maybe you have more in common with religious fundamentalists than you would like to admit. You and Tomas de Torquemada might have been great pals who knows?

Never found much to interest me in horror or fantasy, reality was always more horrific and fantastic than anything you could actually make up, like Torquemada himself for instance.

gmc wrote: Welcome back.
Thanks, gmc.

It's good to be back.

gmc;582632 wrote: if you believe in god does that mean you also have to believe in the devil?

Mind you it was the catholic church that created him wasn't it?


The Devil is a convenient scapegoat for all those Christians who are embarrassed and ashamed of the horror and suffering which their religion has inflicted on the human race. He functions as a cop out for them. 'It wasn't our religion which did all those terrible things', they say. 'It was the Devil! He is the one who is to blame.'

But rational individuals know better. They know that the Devil can't do a thing for himself for he exists only as an idea, a symbol, a phantasy. He is our projection. He is the receptacle of all the things we can't face in ourselves, all the impulses and feelings which make us frightened and ashamed, all the so-called 'evil' inside we want to wash our hands of.

Poor devil!

Glaswegian;605220 wrote: The Devil is a convenient scapegoat for all those Christians who are embarrassed and ashamed of the horror and suffering which their religion has inflicted on the human race. He functions as a cop out for them. 'It wasn't our religion which did all those terrible things', they say. 'It was the Devil! He is the one who is to blame.'

But rational individuals know better. They know that the Devil can't do a thing for himself for he exists only as an idea, a symbol, a phantasy. He is our projection. He is the receptacle of all the things we can't face in ourselves, all the impulses and feelings which make us frightened and ashamed, all the so-called 'evil' inside we want to wash our hands of.

Poor devil!


I would disagree with you there to some extent. The devil rather than being a scapegoat is a convenient invention for them to justify all the bigotry and hatred they felt against anyone who didn't conform, had property they wanted or of whom they were envious. Pagans were no longer just people following a different religion there had to be some way to justify their persecution, god forbid anyone should think they could ignore mother church. You are a heretic and we are going to do the Christian thing to cure you by burning you at the stake after torturing you . You have to be insane or religious to consider that logical.

Same with Muslim suicide bombers. Convert others to Islam by blowing yourself up and anyone standing next to you as well. Because it's religious fanaticism you're not supposed to call it insanity because it implies all religion is insane.

I see there is now a Scottish Christian party, as if we don't have enough problems caused by religion as it is.

Thanks for providing the link to the newspaper article in The Independent, gmc. I enjoyed reading it. In that article the Pope's chief exorcist, Father Gabriele Amorth, stated:

"Of course the Devil exists, and he can not only possess a single person but also groups and entire populations", such as the Nazis. "You can tell by their behaviour and their actions...and the atrocities committed on their orders. That's why we need to defend society from demons."

What about atrocities like the Inquisition? Was that the work of demons? Because if it was then the demons belonged to the ranks of the Catholic Church. Apparently, a great number of them enjoyed performing the Mass.

Glaswegian;606060 wrote: Thanks for providing the link to the newspaper article in The Independent, gmc. I enjoyed reading it. In that article the Pope's chief exorcist, Father Gabriele Amorth, stated:

"Of course the Devil exists, and he can not only possess a single person but also groups and entire populations", such as the Nazis. "You can tell by their behaviour and their actions...and the atrocities committed on their orders. That's why we need to defend society from demons."

What about atrocities like the Inquisition? Was that the work of demons? Because if it was then the demons belonged to the ranks of the Catholic Church. Apparently, a great number of them enjoyed performing the Mass.


If you think religious belief is irrational then expecting a rational explanation for atrocities committed in the name of religion won't get you very far.

Rather begs the question of why the catholic church didn't condemn the Nazis and call for all Catholics not to help stuff Jews in to the incinerators.

http://www.cathnews.com/news/303/124.php

Interesting question. If the pope condemned the war in Iraq and called for all Catholics not to get involved. What would happen do you think?

gmc;606312 wrote: If you think religious belief is irrational then expecting a rational explanation for atrocities committed in the name of religion won't get you very far.


Good point.

When attempting to explain atrocities committed in the name of religion it's very difficult to separate the rational elements from the irrational elements which fuel them. Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Since we're on the subject of the Catholic Church, a good example can be gotten from among the countless atrocities inspired by this Gigantic Tarantula during the Wars Of Religion which occurred in the wake of the European Reformation: namely, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in which thousands of Protestant men, women and children were slaughtered by Catholics in Paris in the late 16th century.

Here are three rational explanations for this massacre:

1. It could be argued that the massacre was the outcome of the anger and resentment felt by one social class (the Catholic poor) towards another (the Protestant Huguenot rich).

2. It could be argued that the massacre was not the outcome of class conflict but was inspired by the flood of public executions of Protestant heretics carried out by the French state. Thus, the effect of these spectacles of violence was to fan the bloodlust of those who witnessed them. As one writer put it: 'The audience at executions were no longer content to be mere spectators, but wanted to be executioners themselves.'

3. It could be argued that in order to understand horrors like the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre it is necessary to look at how Protestants were perceived by Catholics in the latter half of the 16th century. Thus, what occurred throughout this period was the transformation of the Protestant in the eyes of the Catholic into a non-person, something inhuman, the dangerous and repugnant Other. This process was accomplished through rituals of violence (e.g., public executions of Protestant heretics); ceremonial violence (e.g., the burning of Protestant effigies and the desecration of Protestant corpses); Catholic Church propaganda (e.g., the portrayal of the Protestant as sexually depraved and as an enemy of the community); and so on. Once Protestants had been dehumanised in this way, once they had been constructed as mere things wholly undeserving of compassion, then the most terrible forms of violence could be directed against them by Catholics without any compunction.

Here is an explanation of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in terms of religious irrationality:

It could be argued that the massacre was rooted in the terrible apocalyptic fear produced in Catholics by their Church's teachings about the Last Judgement and the possibility of eternal damnation. When apocalyptic fear is especially high religious heresy is viewed as intolerable by 'true' believers and they feel compelled to act against it ruthlessly. As one writer observes: 'If God's wrath against religious heresy was liable to be manifested at any time, one needed always to be ready to demonstrate to the Almighty not only one's own rightness of belief but one's zeal against religious error.' Thus, it was the apocalyptic fear, anguish and hysteria fomented among believers by the Catholic Church which found expression in the monstrous violence of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

These are just four possible explanations for the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. No doubt you could think of a few others yourself, gmc. I think that religious atrocities arise out of a combination of rational and irrational factors. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the influence of both.

posted bt glaswegian

These are just four possible explanations for the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. No doubt you could think of a few others yourself, gmc. I think that religious atrocities arise out of a combination of rational and irrational factors. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the influence of both.


I would agree with you there. Although to a bigot their reasons are entirely rational in a dementedly logical kind of way. Sadly the same pattern of human behaviour keeps being repeated-the more things change the more things remain the same.

gmc:-6

I strongly suspect that the one and only thing we learn from history is that we in fact learn nothing from history. If we did learn something we wouldn't keep making the same mistake over and over.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Or in Glaswegian's case, 87,643 mistakes.

Ted;608526 wrote: gmc:-6

I strongly suspect that the one and only thing we learn from history is that we in fact learn nothing from history. If we did learn something we wouldn't keep making the same mistake over and over.

Shalom

Ted:-6


One can, and many do, live without any exposure to formal history. It is I think a truism that those who do not understand the past are doomed to repeat it is generally true; but many people, at the same time, live perfectly satisfying lives without thinking much about or studying any formal "history." Nevertheless, all people, by the act of living in an economy, society, political system and culture in the world interact with and derive meaning from systems that people in the past helped establish or construct. You cannot really understand the world around you without appreciating where it all comes from. It's one of the reasons that the first thing any govt does that wants complete power is to start writing their own versions of history.

Studying history or even just reading about it in an informal way is one of the ways you can learn to think for yourself. Many people don't like to think or to have their preconceptions challenged which is why often times on this forum when someone points out an uncomfortable historical fact people react emotionally rather than objectively, their intellect has been tweaked and it hurts if you are not used to it.

Most notably many extreme religious groups don't want their followers studying history because they want to control the way their followers think and the way they see the world.



I strongly suspect that the one and only thing we learn from history is that we in fact learn nothing from history. If we did learn something we wouldn't keep making the same mistake over and over.




Or if you prefer the smart alec answer only someone who had never studied history or even just read a little would be daft enough to come out with a statement like that. Or it's only because not enough people are aware of their own country's past that we allow our politicians to get away what they do.

spot:-6

Yep.

Shalom

Ted:-6

If there are any males in the Forum Garden who are thinking of getting married then I strongly urge them to consider the following...

The last words of a husband are always these: 'OK, buy it!'

(From The Wisdom Of Glaswegian Vol. XXXVII)

Glaswegian;620519 wrote: If there are any males in the Forum Garden who are thinking of getting married then I strongly urge them to consider the following...

The last words of a husband are always these: 'OK, buy it!'

(From The Wisdom Of Glaswegian Vol. XXXVII)


"Home is where you hang your head."

From the wisdom of Andy Capp.

Glaswegian;620519 wrote: If there are any males in the Forum Garden who are thinking of getting married then I strongly urge them to consider the following...



The last words of a husband are always these: 'OK, buy it!'



(From The Wisdom Of Glaswegian Vol. XXXVII)




ha your wrong glas





its yes dear your always right :wah:





or i swear i did not have sexual relations with that woman



sorry thats my back up line ,,,,it gets her back up every time :wah:

The following observation is not uncommon amongst husbands...

'I'll never forget the first time I met my wife. One day I opened up my wallet and there she was.'

posted by jimbo

ha your wrong glas



its yes dear your always right


Ha you get to speak do you? I married a northern lass (north of england that is) Offering an opinion is not required from the spouse of a northern female. When i met my future father in law for the first time (also northerners) I thought he was anti-social. Later I came to realise that he wasn't used to making conversation.

Why the sudden posting complaining about your wife Glaswegian? Have you been taking the bravery pills or is it she never looks at the computer?

gmc;623700 wrote: I married a northern lass (north of england that is) Offering an opinion is not required from the spouse of a northern female. When i met my future father in law for the first time (also northerners) I thought he was anti-social. Later I came to realise that he wasn't used to making conversation.


You shouldn't be surprised by what has happened to your father-in-law, gmc. For I can assure you that marriage very often has that effect on husbands. He is not the only one who has been turned into a vegetable by it. The process whereby marriage reduces a husband's mind to a purely vegetative state - a process which is terrifying in its subtlety and stealth - is referred to by our culture as 'domestication'.

'Any man who thinks he can read the mind of a woman is doomed.'

(The opening sentence to The Thinking Man's Guide To Women And How To Survive Them by Glaswegian. Previously published as Night After Night The Blood-Red Nails Of A Thousand Women Rip My Flesh.)

What jimbo and gmc are trying to say in a roundabout way in their posts has been expressed very incisively by Mother Teresa. Viz....

'Many men who have been in love with a great piece of ass have made the mistake of marrying the whole girl.'