Non-Religious Sanctuary Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darkside_Spirit, Feb 1, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rogue_Solo Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 21, 2001
    star 3
    Wow, it's been a while since I've been here.

    I don't think I can say much to add to this topic, unless you really want me to regurgitate all I learned in DARE and GREAT. Neither of which, IMO, work.
  2. Vagrant Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 3
    I've been elsewhere for a few weeks and didn't have a chance to witness the locking the Religious thread! Dang. Oh well, back to Evolution thread.
  3. Entil`Zha Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1999
    star 4
    I hate religious threads... that's one of the reasons I almost never came to the Senate floor, every discussion was filled with religious freaks with sayings from the bible or any other holy book... confidence in yourself is the best way of life. Religion is like an eating disorder, it gives you a temporary comfort.... that's just the way I see it, no to bash anyone but anyway...

    So good idea for this non-religious sanctuary, I'll be back! :D
  4. Vagrant Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 3
    There seems to be more "non-religious" people posting here than before.(?) Maybe it is true that several christians are christian only because they were taught that christianity is THE religion from the very early childhood? This was the case with me. However, I read the Bible and saw all the murder, slavery and inconcistensies(?) in it. And the Genesis seemed to be just a bad fantasy novel. Childern are being christened before they even have a chance to condsider what religion is, or do they actually need it.
    I understand it can give comfort. If someone really believes and doesn't preach about it to me, I have no problem with him or her.
    Somehow I feel this has been said here before.
  5. Humble extra Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 1999
    star 5
    well, its like any aspect of culture, you are usualyl loyal to something if you have grown up with it. religion is no different, nor are things like circumscision or wearing trousers instead of saris
  6. Darkside_Spirit Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2001
    star 3
    We'd be aghast at the branding of "Pro-Euro children" or "Neo-Keynesian children", on the basis of their parents' economic opinions. We do not speak of, let alone separately educate, "Tory children" and "Labour children". We presume that children either are too young to know what they think, or if old enough might disagree with their parents. Why, then, do we accept, without a murmur, the existence and separate education of "Catholic children", "Protestant children", "Jewish children" and "Muslim children"?

    Of course it is very convenient for the religions that we do. Indeed, it is probably the main reason for their continued existence.


    --Richard Dawkins
  7. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    I've always considered early indoctrination of children into any belief system to be a form of mental rape (and here in the US, kids are indoctrinated into political parties as well as religions, or at least that was true where I grew up). It's a tough line to tow - anything you teach kids has an overwhelming effect on them, and they need to be taught something. Parents would do well to learn phrases like, "this is what I believe; some people believe differently."

    Also, the worst thing is when kids are taught not only to label themselves with a religion or belief system, but also taught to loathe and make trouble for those who fall under another label. That sort of herd-culling behavior is learned at home, and based on the fear that some other set of humans will come to dominate your tribe and your genes will become exteinct.

    In other words, human beings need to try to think deeper than wild dogs.
  8. Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 1999
    star 6
    Entil, let's watch the bashing.... I don't want to have any repercussions dished out here like in the Relig. Sanctuary.
  9. Darkside_Spirit Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2001
    star 3
    I thought I'd post some news stories, found through the infidels.org Newswire. Firstly, on the humorous front...

    A hard-up graduate has sold his soul on an internet auction site for £11.61.

    Artist Gareth Malham came up with the idea after watching an episode of the Simpsons in which Bart makes a similar transaction.

    The 26-year-old, of Byker, Newcastle, posted an advert on the eBay site and his soul was bought by a man from Oklahoma for £11.61.

    Mr Malham said the buyer wanted a new soul as he had lost his own in a bet over a game of air hockey. He said he would sign over his soul by writing a legal document in his own blood when he receives his cheque.

    Mr Malham graduated in photography, video and digital imaging from Sunderland University last year. He works part time in the University's photography department and began selling possessions on the Internet when he was short of money.

    It was then that he decided to sell something less tangible than old videos or computer games.

    He said: "I don't think I'm really selling my soul, I believe my soul is me. I'm more interested in the fact someone wanted to buy it. I'm playing with the idea of marketplaces and the fact that people will sell anything nowadays."

    Malham, who said he was an atheist, did not believe he would come to any harm from making the deal - although he has received warning emails from Christians. "I asked the guy who was buying it and he said he wasn't a Satanist, thank God," he said.

    He plans to sell other bits of himself and will auction off photographs of various body parts later. Eventually he would like to issue shares in himself on the Stock Exchange.

    "In a way it is like the Internet bubble where companies were being hyped out of all proportion and I am trying to talk my own worth up," he said. "But I only got £11.61."

    --http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_609637.html?menu=news.latestheadlines.uknews

    This is doubtless an amusing story, and with the small amount of money involved, it seems pretty harmless. However, I would be uncomfortable with this practice of selling your soul spreading. It's exploitative of superstition--and the buyer is really getting nothing.

    On more serious matters...

    An Ohio village ordinance banning door-to-door canvassing without a permit violates the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to free religious expression, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, the latest in a long history of First Amendment victories for the religious sect at the high court.

    By a vote of 8 to 1, the court concluded that the professed interest of Stratton, Ohio, in preventing scam artists posing as legitimate canvassers from exploiting its mostly elderly population of 278 does not justify a measure that required not only Jehovah's Witnesses but also political advocates to register with local officials before taking their respective messages to their neighbors.

    Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens repeatedly noted cases from the 1930s and 1940s in which Jehovah's Witnesses fought, and won, legal battles against efforts to block their door-to-door proselytizing, which the group believes is mandated by the Bible.

    Also, during the same period, Jehovah's Witnesses won a landmark ruling upholding their right to refuse to salute the flag as a matter of religious conscience.

    "The rhetoric used in the World War II-era opinions that repeatedly saved [the Jehovah's Witnesses'] coreligionists from petty prosecutions reflected the Court's evaluation of the First Amendment freedoms that are implicated in this case," Stevens wrote. "The value judgment that then motivated a united democratic people fighting to defend those very freedoms from totalitarian attack is unchanged. It motivates our decision today."

    Stevens noted that the ordinance was so broadly written that it would apply not only to Jehovah's Witnesses and other
  10. ktwsolo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 25, 2001
    star 4
    Wow, I'm gone for a long time and the opposing thread gets locked? I guess I'm bad luck :).
  11. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    I thought I posted my epiphany from the other night here, but I don't see it now. Maybe that was in the other reality. (For those of you who remember, I discovered a few months ago that the reality I was in had a lot of weird gaps and holes in it, like a badly staged play... and it's only gotten worse since. If I wrote it as fiction, no one would believe it, LOL.)

    Anywho....

    i had a rather humbling realization the other evening - that my main objection to certain religions is that they promote a view of morals and ethics which serve only to assuage and enlarge the ego. By following certain meaningless rules, you get a nice safe feeling that you're a good person, and even get the pleasure of pitying those who don't follow your rules. This is vanity at its finest - you get to feel better than everyone else without thinking yourself arrogant. This is no different than someone who thinks he's better-looking than everyone else, and that makes him hot stuff. ("Vanity... is definitely my favorite sin.... self-love, the all-natural opiate."

    Actually, I'm positive I remember posting this, and then noting the topic had moved to the top of the Senate board. I clearly remember this. Oh, well. I'm through the looking glass, peopl, there is no spoon, and I have a very bad feeling about this.
  12. Ki-Adi Bundi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2000
    star 4
    Your view must be true considering the kind of religious people you meet, but the most part of religious people I meet doesn't seem to be that kind of insecure person you talk about (high enphasis on the word SEEM). Religion for these people just seem to be a kind of shelter, something good that they believe there exists and that provides comfort from the lows and ups of their lives. And there is this strange case of my mother, who can be considered a religious person, but that doesn't believe (or better, doesn't even care) in most of the precepts (dogmas) of her religion (Christian). For example, when I asked her once if she believed in life after death or souls, she shrugged. It wasn't important. Important is going to the church, and praying, and being good. But she's not a fervent and proselytizer type at all, and respects anyone else's opinion (I like warmly to remember once though, when I bought my first car, she tried to give me a rosary to hang it in the car "because it would be good"; I could'nt help but laugh at her :).
    In my opinion, her position and attitude towards religion is shared by most part of the religious population that I know.
  13. cydonia Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2001
    star 5
    gimme that nice, safe feeling.
  14. Ki-Adi Bundi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2000
    star 4
  15. ktwsolo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 25, 2001
    star 4
    ...my main objection to certain religions is that they promote a view of morals and ethics which serve only to assuage and enlarge the ego. By following certain meaningless rules, you get a nice safe feeling that you're a good person, and even get the pleasure of pitying those who don't follow your rules...This is no different than someone who thinks he's better-looking than everyone else, and that makes him hot stuff...

    I don't understand how the morals of religions serve only to boost the self esteem of its members. Are you saying that the ethics from religions aren't good? I'd disagree; the rules that religions set up are for the most part good (whether they are of divine inspiration or 'true' is irrelevent), just the people that twist them aren't. Let's look at the Ten Commandments (for example):

    1. I Am The Lord Thy God; Thou Shalt have no other gods Before Me.
    Well, this isn't really a moral or ethic...it only deals with those who have spiritual feelings in the first place, so it cannot be applied when we don't assume God exists.

    2. Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The Lord, Thy God, In Vain.
    Even though this isn't really a moral or an ethic either, I can see how one who doesn't swear might use that fact to feel above one who does.

    3. Remember The Sabbath Day, to Keep it Holy.
    No one doesn't work on Sunday/Saturday anymore. I decree that this commandment is dead :). Regardless, I can't easily picture someone thinking "I don't work this day, but you do, so I'm better than you". It's not really capable of inflating the ego.

    4. Thou shalt honor thy Father And Thy Mother.
    Isn't this a good thing? Obviously maybe one shouldn't follow this in all cases, but for the most part it's a good idea to be nice to your parents. I don't see how this serves only to boost the ego, or how it is meaningless.

    5. Thou Shalt Not Kill.
    Sounds pretty good to me. I would like it if everyone followed this. I don't see how this serves only to boost the ego, or how it is meaningless.

    6. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.
    Once again, sounds good to me. People shouldn't be cheating on their spouses. I don't see how this serves only to boost the ego, or how it is meaningless.

    7. Thou Shalt Not Steal.
    Rare exceptions aside (bread for starving family sort of stuff), this is another good rule. One shouldn't take what other people have worked for. I don't see how this serves only to boost the ego, or how it is meaningless.

    8. Thou Shalt Not Lie
    Again, except for rare occasions, people shouldn't lie. I don't see how this serves only to boost the ego, or how it is meaningless.

    9. Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's House.
    Ok, now this is a little on the grey side. I personally don't really see how jealousy is really that bad, as long as it doesn't lead to something detrimental to someone. But again, do people brag about not feeling jealous?

    10. Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife.
    See above. I don't think lust is necessarily bad in and of itself. It's perfectly natural. So again, in the grey area, not clearly on either side.

    So, in conclusion, out of the 10 commandments:
    3 can't really be applied to this discussion.
    5 are good ideas to follow whether one believes in Christianity/God/religion or not.
    2 are hazy, really a matter of personal opinion.

    So the way I'm seeing this, none of these morals/laws serve only to inflate the ego, or are otherwise meaningless.

    Even if one feels that #9 and #10 serve only to boost the ego, that's only 20% of morals in this case that serve only to inflate the ego.

    Even if one feels that #9 and #10 serve only to boost the ego, and feels that #1, #2, and #3 are applicable and are merely ego-boosters, that's only 50%.

    So I don't understand how your "objection to certain religions is that they promote a view of morals and ethics which serve only to assuage and enlarge the ego. By following certain meaningless rules, you get
  16. Ki-Adi Bundi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2000
    star 4
    Sorry to intervain in place of other, but ktwsolo, don't you think that is exactly the point of TreeCave's ? She criticizes Religions for promoting themselves as better regardless the fact that the scritures they are based upon doesn't recommend or allow that at all.
  17. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    KTW, you didn't deal with the example *I* offered - rules on sex between consenting adults. Those have no meaning outside the context of religious beliefs, yet those who adhere to what their church tells them the sexual morals are look down their noses at those who deviate. For example, homosexuals. What makes a married heterosexual a better person than a homosexual who would be married to his significant other if the law recognized it? Nothing - yet some people will use a religion like Christianity to say otherwise. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

    Please bear in mind that *I* did not specifically mention Christianity alone. Islam is just as bad, and there are even aspects of these silly rules in Hindu. And, if people are determined to, they can twist any religion to serve ego's purpose. I will address your points now, but I just want everyone to remember *I* didn't make this about Christianity. :)

    it only deals with those who have spiritual feelings in the first place, so it cannot be applied when we don't assume God exists.

    Or to someone who believes in a god other than Yahweh. :) Not a very on-topic point, but I just felt the urge to remark on it - all too often, here in the US, we forget Christianity isn't the only religion.

    Regardless, I can't easily picture someone thinking "I don't work this day, but you do, so I'm better than you". It's not really capable of inflating the ego.

    When I worked at Waldenbooks years ago, in Tennessee, a woman came up and started lecturing me about working on Sunday. I told her that, first of all, the company absolutely requires all employees to work Sunday. And secondly, I told her, "If you weren't here shopping, we wouldn't be open. Did you ever think of that?" Ego deflated, she apologized.

    People shouldn't be cheating on their spouses. I don't see how this serves only to boost the ego, or how it is meaningless.

    This may be going a little deep for the level you're approaching it on, but bear with me. First, is it adultery if a person puts his job ahead of his spouse? Or his addiction to a substance? I think so. But I've known many Christians whose spouses are a distant second to many things in their lives, but because they haven't actually boinked anyone else, they consider themselves better people than, say, a homosexual who adores his would-be husband and puts that person ahead of everything else in his life. (I'm ignoring for the moment the Christian tenet that God and your kids come ahead of your spouse - other than those, your spouse should come first.)

    Thou Shalt Not Steal.

    Again, same as adultery. I know Christians who cheat their employees of money, hide assets to prevent the ex-wives they ditched from getting child support for the offspring they don't love... but consider themselves better people than a shoplifter. I disagree.

    (By the way, sorry most of these examples are painting men in a bad light - most of the Christians I know happen to be men. There's no intention of bigotry toward men implied.)

    Ki-Adi's point is well-stated. That was basically my point.

    Anyway, I hope this makes my position a bit clearer to you, KTW. Cheers.
  18. Lord Bane Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    May 26, 1999
    star 5
    The unfortunate part about The Bible is that it is abridged, edited by the Vatican to protect their interests. I'm a Christian, but I am against many of the set Churches because they have, basically, lost the faith in the face of commercialism and expansion.

    Religion, regardless of which one that is, is a personal, individual thing. When looking at religions, you cannot judge it by its other adherants, by misquoted passages from holy books or by the troubles the main Churches, Temples, Mosques, Etc get into (Papal Pedophilia, money laundering, etc). You have to push them aside and if you choose to believe in a religion, do it because you have studied it individually, maybe getting a few bits of advice from assorted folk of the cloth.

    It is all individual choice and consequence. That is one of my criticisms of this thread. You judge religions in broad strokes, basing your attacks on either the random radicals of a certain religion or, in the case of Catholicism (which I just don't like but that isn't the point), on the Vatican and the ideas of the leadership. Monotheistic religions have only one leader, and that would be God, Allah, Jehovah, or whatever name you have. These people that parade around with intricate clothing and tall hats do not represent the religion; they represent the church. You must understand the difference.
  19. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    :::[face_sigh]::: ERGH!

    I don't know if Bane's talking to me or not, but since KTW clearly didn't understand my point, let me try again for everyone's benefit.

    I'm not attacking Christianity. KTW made it about Christianity, probably because that's the only religious experience he's had, and therefore statements against religion are immediately transferred into "against Christianity" (I know I did this before I learned more about other religions.) I was expressing disagreement with dualistic schools of thought in general. Christianity is only one example of dualistic beliefs. So are a lot of economic theories, the belief that the universe is not infinite, the belief of someone who votes [Party] no matter who's running.... unfortunately, Christianity springs to mind first for a lot of people. I was actually thinking more about Islam when I wrote the initial post, but who's here to accuse me of attacking Islam? ;) As I stated, even Hindu can get rather dualistic at times, at least in my understanding of it.

    Now, you can sit there and tell yourself "Yeah, right, she's just backtracking to disguise her attack on my religion" all you want, but that's not true. EDIT - If it will make any Christians feel better, I'll list some of the meaningless beliefs easily used to assuage the ego from Islam, or strict adherence to the Democratic or Republican political party. They all have the same effect when wielded by hypocrites, which I believe was sort of Bane's point. I don't judge these schools of thought by their hypocrites, but I do find religions/schools of thought like Buddhism are a bit harder to twist into "I'm better than you are", which makes them superior in terms of shaping people into good beings that we want to have in the world. That last bit is strictly my opinion.

    Another dualistic belief is "Either you're for my religion, or you're against it" (ironic considering how much disagreement there is even among followers of any religion) and many on these boards seem to think that way. It's their right to think that way and I don't begrudge them, but I'm going to express my point of view, too.
  20. ktwsolo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 25, 2001
    star 4
    Ok, I'm just going to respond, not arguing really, just clearing some stuff up.

    Sorry to intervain in place of other, but ktwsolo, don't you think that is exactly the point of TreeCave's?

    Well it might be, but I saw: ...they promote a view of morals and ethics which serve only to assuage and enlarge the ego.. The Christians I know and have heard of basically promote what's in the Bible. Especially with the 10 Commandments, there really isn't too much deviation there [cringes from coming attack].

    KTW, you didn't deal with the example *I* offered - rules on sex between consenting adults.

    Hmm, sorry about that...guess I didn't see it :confused:. I do agree about the homosexuality thing.

    Please bear in mind that *I* did not specifically mention Christianity alone. Islam is just as bad, and there are even aspects of these silly rules in Hindu...I will address your points now, but I just want everyone to remember *I* didn't make this about Christianity.

    I know, and that's why I said that I'm only using the Ten Commandments for a familiar and relatively well-known example :).

    Or to someone who believes in a god other than Yahweh. Not a very on-topic point, but I just felt the urge to remark on it - all too often, here in the US, we forget Christianity isn't the only religion.

    Yes, I agree, that's why I tried to use vaguer terms like 'spiritual feelings'.

    When I worked at Waldenbooks years ago, in Tennessee, a woman came up and started lecturing me about working on Sunday.

    Wow, that's interesting. I'm hoping that's just an extreme case, but maybe not. There aren't as many vocal fundamentalists up here in Maine than Tennessee :).

    This may be going a little deep for the level you're approaching it on, but bear with me. First, is it adultery if a person puts his job ahead of his spouse? Or his addiction to a substance? I think so.

    Hmm, I have never heard of that way of using it. So honestly I wasn't thinking of it like that. Can we agree that if one is married, they shouldn't be having extra-marital sexual relations?

    Again, same as adultery. I know Christians who cheat their employees of money, hide assets to prevent the ex-wives they ditched from getting child support for the offspring they don't love... but consider themselves better people than a shoplifter. I disagree.

    Well yes, I think I was looking at a more theoretical level, because it's what Christians are supposed to promote, although they 'cheat' sometimes :).

    Can we agree that, in theory, most of the rules in religion are good?
  21. Darkside_Spirit Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2001
    star 3
    The whole problem with religious morality is its authoritarian nature. One assesses actions not on their consequences, but on their compliance with a set of divine instructions. "Religious rules" may be beneficial or harmful, but the problem lies in basing a moral code around rules in the first place.
  22. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    Thank you, DSS. That's what I was trying to say.

    It's exactly the same argument people make about the legal system - people get set free on technicalities, despite their obvious guilt or complicity. Like the legal system, religion was never intended to function that way - judges and juries supposed to apply common sense. But it doesn't work out in practice.

    And once again, I was actually thinking of Islam, not Christianity, when I brought this up. As bad as allegedly Christian hypocrites can be, I think Islam hypocrites have done more damage overall. Talk about "meaningless rules" - what you wear, eat, what time of day you bow to Mecca? I'm not dissing these practices as stupid, I'm just saying they have no application outside Islam, and certainly do not in and of themselves make you a good person.

    And of course the Jews wrote the book on "meaningless rules" - Leviticus. ;) No kidding - basically the story of a bunch of guys who didn't think the 10 Commandments were quite explicit enough and needed to be expounded into the most mind-numbing chapter of bizarre and very relative ideas that suited their cultural whims. Most of the Christians and Jews I've known agree that Leviticus went a little overboard. ;)
  23. Sebulba-Dug Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2002
    star 1
    Okay...before I say what I'm about to, let me say a little something about myself. I was born and raised Catholic, but have not attended church in many years because I disagree with some of the Catholic beliefs. I am Christian however, but do not look down my nose at other people because I am very far from perfect (if there is such a thing). I respect everyone's beliefs and opinions and feel they are entitled to them, just as much as it is my right to believe what I want. I also want to say that this is not an attack on homosexuals, and I personally know a few people that choose this lifestyle and like them. It does not take away from who they are, but I don't agree with their sexual preferences.

    Those have no meaning outside the context of religious beliefs, yet those who adhere to what their church tells them the sexual morals are look down their noses at those who deviate. For example, homosexuals.

    Let's set religion aside for a moment and look at nature. Even if there is no "God," nature has created us in a way so that there are two seperate sexes in which we can come together and procreate. A man and a woman. Was it ever nature's intention to use the anus as a receptacle for the male organ? I would have to say no.

    I can already hear the argument coming: "There are other species that commit homosexual acts." This is true, but for what purposes? Take dogs for example. One male dog may try to get his groove on with another male, but the male dog that is "the catcher", so to speak, will usually recognize that it is wrong and lash out towards the advancer. Also, animals commit these acts out of "horniness." They still recognize that they need to mate with the opposite sex to procreate, and I'm sure given a choice, they would chose heterosexual relations over homosexual.

    What makes a married heterosexual a better person than a homosexual who would be married to his significant other if the law recognized it? Nothing - yet some people will use a religion like Christianity to say otherwise. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

    What makes a heterosexual person better than a homosexual person? Nothing. However, their sexual preferences are wrong in the view of most religions, and also from the standpoint of nature. Even without religion it is wrong.
  24. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    Welcome to the thread, Sebulba Dug.

    I understand your opinion and respect it. But I am trying to make some logic parallels to help evaluate it.

    You seem to be saying one of two things, or both: (1) That what nature never intended is wrong or (2) That variations on natural processes are wrong.

    In the case of #1... By your logic, wouldn't using radiation therapy to halt cancer be wrong, simply because it's not something nature ever intended?

    In the case of #2, if you're arguing that it's perversion of a natural process that makes it wrong... In that case, wouldn't the following things be wrong?

    * Flying (if we'd been meant to fly, we'd have wings)
    * Nuclear fission (nature never intended atoms to do that)
    * Putting bodies in caskets to prevent decay
    * Oral sex (same argument as against anal, right?)
    * Farming (hunting and gathering being the natural process, farming being a perversion of it)
    * Alcohol production (nature never intended yeast to do that)

    Please don't think I'm being sarcastic.... there are actually people who have moral objections to flying and oral sex for exactly the reasons I suggest, which I think are parallel to your reasoning. I'm just trying to analyze your point.
  25. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    Sorry for double posting, but I had an idea for something to chat about in here that should NOT (hopefully) bring up any western religion topics at all: Could Anakin/Vader be viewed as a rejected boddhisattva?

    This just occurred to me, so if it's lame, I'm terribly sorry. But I was thinking, here you have this boy who has a great capacity to help the universe, wants nothing more than to help the universe, and from day 1, everyone around him is basically thinking, "How can I use this kid?" First, Watto harnesses his amazing power of goodness.... for the divine purpose of machinery repair. Then Qui-Gon elevates the poor kid to the status of Chosen One so he can bring balance to the Force (yes, always trust a 9 year old child with something 10,000 grown people can't do for themselves). Then I think we all suspect that Palpy would do anything to turn Anakin - including kill people he loves, torture and maim him, torture and main people he loves, manipulate him into situations where the dark side is his only hope of saving somebody.....

    Basically, no matter what, this kid is destined for abuse at the hands of power-lusters. So could we look at Anakin as a boddhisattva trying to save people who don't want to be saved, and are in fact determined to do whatever it takes to steal his power for their own agenda?

    In that case, maybe turning was the best thing he could do (notice I said "best" not "right"). Maybe he taught the galaxy a great lesson inadvertently.

    I dunno, it's just an idea I'm playing with.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.