(December 8, 2023 at 9:25 pm)ShinyCrystals Wrote:

(December 8, 2023 at 7:59 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That speaks to the pastoralist source, or, in the case of the nt, imitation of said source.  Sounds weird today, but these weren't bad things back then.  Sheep were wealth and warmth and food - they did not have the negative connotations we associate with them today.  In it's time, that sort of stuff was life affirming.  It comes out of the development of small hillholding families and communities.  The Shepherd was very often the pater familias (or his responsible sons) and the good shepherd is, essentially, the picture of a good family man.  Some of the best descriptions of the abrahamic god and gods relationship to man come out of these semantics.  If it were written here and today, god would be the good company man.  He'd be a union boss...or a randian hero.  

Leads me into a comment on some other things in thread.  The idea that the religious cannot think for themselves.  It's not that.  They can.  Even in the hypothetical of a family religion or ancestor worship it may be that the people do the thing but they do it because they also agree with the thing.  Ancestral gods that people no longer agree with or organize around have become imps and devils and demons in the new religions, when they're remembered at all.  I have a private little giggle everytime that the faithful tell me their god is immortal and immutable.  I know that's not true. In the wider view, it's usually not because a person believes in some private god that they act out in novel ways.  It takes gods whole society to keep gods children in line..so much as they can, god himself is not up to the task - anymore than any of our own dead fathers were up to the task of controlling every aspect of their childrens lives and thoughts.

Well, maybe "can't think for themselves" were not the right words, but for those who can think for themselves, it is still a thing for them to worship a being that does not really exist that is authoritarian/dictator like. In fact, there are those abusing God's word for their own power over others, so even if those who believe in God do realize he is authoritarian, chances are they don't care, and want to use the idea of God and God's being authoritarian to take advantage of others. It's quite sad, really.

(bold mine)

'That's not a bug, it's a feature.' - The Grand Nudger (PBUH)

Boru

(December 9, 2023 at 2:47 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No one abuses a gods power or word. God is abuse.

If you take away a gods authority, do you still have a god? Or are you, then, talking about something else? It's not sad. Sad is when your kids miss their cookie drive marks so the program can't be funded. The god thing is just a tuesday, warts and all.

Yeah, that too.

Though honestly, that is the thing that is sadder here. Plus, it is sad that people follow a nonexistent supreme being to begin with, one who is not really on their side and is authoritarian, whether they realize it or not.

(December 9, 2023 at 9:04 am)ShinyCrystals Wrote:

(December 9, 2023 at 2:47 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No one abuses a gods power or word.  God is abuse.  

If you take away a gods authority, do you still have a god?  Or are you, then, talking about something else?  It's not sad.  Sad is when your kids miss their cookie drive marks so the program can't be funded.  The god thing is just a tuesday, warts and all.

Yeah, that too.

Though honestly, that is the thing that is sadder here. Plus, it is sad that people follow a nonexistent supreme being to begin with, one who is not really on their side and is authoritarian, whether they realize it or not.

Well is it really "sad" if people willingly do it to themselves?

(December 9, 2023 at 10:04 am)Ahriman Wrote:

(December 9, 2023 at 9:04 am)ShinyCrystals Wrote: Yeah, that too.

Though honestly, that is the thing that is sadder here. Plus, it is sad that people follow a nonexistent supreme being to begin with, one who is not really on their side and is authoritarian, whether they realize it or not.

Well is it really "sad" if people willingly do it to themselves?

Yes because they vote with their beliefs

(December 8, 2023 at 7:59 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(December 8, 2023 at 1:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Look at the metaphors they use: they are a herd of sheep to be led by the Shepherd. They are clay on the Potter's wheel. This rather speaks to their sense of being helpless nonagents, to be shaped by their lord. I bet they don't see God as authoritarian because they have voluntarily surrendered a good part of their agency.

That speaks to the pastoralist source, or, in the case of the nt, imitation of said source.  Sounds weird today, but these weren't bad things back then.  Sheep were wealth and warmth and food - they did not have the negative connotations we associate with them today.  In it's time, that sort of stuff was life affirming.  It comes out of the development of small hillholding families and communities.  The Shepherd was very often the pater familias (or his responsible sons) and the good shepherd is, essentially, the picture of a good family man.  Some of the best descriptions of the abrahamic god and gods relationship to man come out of these semantics.  If it were written here and today, god would be the good company man.  He'd be a union boss...or a randian hero.  

Perhaps. Just keep in mind that in that era, a "good father/family man" was a guy who fucked his wife whether or not she wanted it, beat his son for the most trivial of violations, and sold his daughter for a plot of land or an alliance to a richer family. So both our metaphors seem to map fairly well to authoritarian mindsets.

(December 8, 2023 at 7:59 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Leads me into a comment on some other things in thread.  The idea that the religious cannot think for themselves.  It's not that.  They can.  Even in the hypothetical of a family religion or ancestor worship it may be that the people do the thing but they do it because they also agree with the thing.

True -- and I didn't bring up the shepherd metaphor to imply that Christians are, in the modern sense, "sheeple". They're not, as I know from the believers in my family.

(December 9, 2023 at 3:43 am)Ahriman Wrote:

(December 9, 2023 at 2:47 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No one abuses a gods power or word.  God is abuse.  

If you take away a gods authority, do you still have a god?  Or are you, then, talking about something else?  It's not sad.  Sad is when your kids miss their cookie drive marks so the program can't be funded.  The god thing is just a tuesday, warts and all.

Sad.....I think "unfortunate" would've been a better word to use. Still, it's only unfortunate for those who can't get with the program. The leaders don't even need to try, their God has them vetted for success from the get go.

I see, it's the other people's fault for not buying into the lunacy. Thanks for clearing that down.