rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/28/85)
> Food for thought. Could I ask you, Christian or not, to look over this > article and formulate WHY you agree/disagree with some/all of the authors > points? Since you asked (Christian or not) ... > From: TELEVISION AND THEOLOGY, by George C. Conklin and Linda W. McFadden > Central to Christian faith is the belief that the ultimate reality of the > universe is God, who created the world and all it contains. As creature, > humankind is _i_n_t_e_n_d_e_d to live in relationship with all Creation and with the > Creator. Why do I disagree? The bold unwarranted wishful thinking assumption presented here provides enough reason to disagree. > Created in an act of divine love, we are stewards of our lives and of the > Creation, _i_n_t_e_n_d_e_d to live in relationship and dialogue with the Creator. More of the same. > In turning away from the Creator, we cut ourselves off ... > In this cut-off-ness, we experience anxiety and rootlessness, the sense that > we have no 'home' in the Creation and that we have no essential worth. Interesting explanation of anxiety and cutoff-ness, based (unfortunately) on the aforementioned (very shaky) assumptions. With this in mind, with the entire extract so rife with conclusions based on the same vacuous assumptions, one can only conclude that the overall thrust of the whole text has little bearing on the realities of the real world (except for those people who choose to accept the assumptions for whatever reason). My question for Ken is this: you ask for opinions on this, from Christian and non-Christian alike. Do you assume that non-Christians (and more especially the non-religious) make those same assumptions that you have accepted? The thrust of almost all of your net output has implied that you believe that others make those same assumptions, taking their validity at face value. Given their arbitrariness and their basis in wishful thinking, I must ask why you think others would do the same. > The question "What must I do to be saved?" finds its way into television in > several formulations: > How can I obtain love? > How can I be valued? > How can I matter to others? > What must I do in order to be acceptable? > Television's answers also are manifold. News programs suggest WHO is > important and WHAT makes a person important or interesting. The emphasis on > economic or political power, physical or intellectual prowess, or behavior > which departs from cultural norms tends to reinforce in us the idea that > power, prowess or eccentricity make us interesting. Dramatic and adventure > programs provide role models of noteworthy behaviors which are portrayed as > obtaining the attention of others. Advertisements demonstrate countless > things which we may add to ourselves in order to be valued, loved and secure. > Television suggests that salvation from our longing for love and security lies > in things performed, worn, used, applied, driven, learned or experienced. All that's been shown is that television MAY have replaced the Bible (for some people) as the source/authority for answering the questions listed above. I would assume that, given the bias of the authors (and the quoter), the implication is that it would be better if the Bible was used for this purpose instead of television. To which I answer: why use either? Those who assume that these are questions with direct and discrete specific answers which can be obtained by accessing some authority (like Jeff Sargent seems to desire) are doomed to failure. These are questions that are answered through living and learning, not by reading a book or staring at a tube. > The message of success, power and affluence proclaimed by television is a > secular gospel in direct competition with the Christian gospel. Television > promises an easeful 'good life', a paradise on earth which is always just > beyond our grasp. Its false promises are a seductive lure away from the way > of eternal life. The assumption here, that a certain 'other' method of achieving the 'good life' is a "better" way of accomplishing these goals (transcendence, good life), is just as faulty as the assumption that television (or anything else) could perform that "trick". -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
jay@cadre.UUCP (02/03/85)
<Gobble this up, if you can!> The reply by Rich Rosen (Article #272) was excellent; it reflected most of my own thoughts. I'd advise net folks to read it carefully before embarking on, what I'd term, "religious propaganda". It does help at times to look at our own beliefs without the cloud of religion/ideolgy/etc. that each of us has acquired over the years, thanx to our parents/teachers/ friends/etc., which I'd term as an unseen form of "brainwashing" -- strong, gradual, but very potent. Maybe independent thinking is not encouraged in our schools? Even society looks down upon these "heretics" who dare step out of the fold? My own guess is that the powers-that-be (whether it be the religious leaders, politicians, or whoever) have a vested interest in perpetuating this status quo, and the brainwashing goes on in various forms. I know I've made quite a few eyebrows to raise. The intention of this posting was not to cry war at the believers. The point that I am making is this: Religions have separated people for so long. How come, even with all this progress that man has made in many other areas (and thereby becoming enlightened, presumably) has he not been able to reconcile on this one point? Wars are fought, people kill each other, all due to this man-made difference (I repeat, man-made). People swear by one holy book or the other, often times reducing the act to a mere ritual. MAYBE IT'S TIME WE ALL LOOKED CAREFULLY AT WHAT THIS WHOLE BUSINESS IS ABOUT, RAISING OURSELVES ABOVE THE ARTIFICIAL (another word for "man-made") BARRIERS OF RELIGION. I'd really appreciate well-reasoned rejoinders to this. Please, no emotional outbreaks! Jay Ramanathan "In God we trust, rest strictly in cash"
sm@cadre.UUCP (02/03/85)
In article <237@cadre.ARPA> jay@cadre.ARPA (Jayaram Ramanathan) writes: >... It does help at >times to look at our own beliefs without the cloud of religion/ideolgy/etc. >that each of us has acquired over the years, thanx to our parents/teachers/ >friends/etc., which I'd term as an unseen form of "brainwashing" -- strong, >gradual, but very potent. Maybe independent thinking is not encouraged >in our schools? Even society looks down upon these "heretics" who dare >step out of the fold? My own guess is that the powers-that-be (whether >it be the religious leaders, politicians, or whoever) have a vested >interest in perpetuating this status quo, and the brainwashing goes >on in various forms. You might call it "brainwashing", but it isn't, and the use of that term is an example of the inflammatory rhetoric you claimed that you wished to avoid. Religion is NOT science (although the latter arose from the former), and does not require the rigorous scientific justifications that other intellectual disciplines do. The fact that certain of yours (or my), beliefs are rooted in what is demonstrable through experimentation is not sufficient to require that ALL beliefs be so justified. Some of what I (and I would assert you, too), believe in, has come to us on the authority of another. This authority might be a textbook, a journal article, a speech bu a Nobel laureate, or a teacher. You may choose to accept or deny the authority of any source of information but I would venture to say that a good percentage of your beliefs are rooted in authority rather than your ability to demonstrate them to your own satisfaction. Children, long before the acquire the discipline to reason, must accept authority as the basis for certain beliefs and behaviors. You are told "Don't play out in the street!". Do you accuse your parents of being neofascist propagandists and demand that they give incontrovertable evidence for why you shouldn't play in the street? If you are like most of the children I grew up with, you accepted the fact that your parents beliefs should be observed, at least for a time, because they held higher authority than you did. As a child develops, he/she begins to question these beliefs and may reject some as untenable. Some beliefs may continue to be held because they are demonstrable to one's satisfaction. Some beliefs may continue to be held on the basis of a greater authority. Each of these approaches is valid, to the extent that only you can determine by what method you chose to believe in something. Many religions operate in just such a fashion, by providing authority as the basis for a belief or a way of life. In some of these religions, certain people are endowed with special "powers" which allow them to interpret messages from this authority (God). In the Christian religions (and some others, as well), the interpretation of this authority was not merely left to inspired humans, but instead, this authority assumed a human form in order to communicate to people, the principles in which they should believe. It is not undesirable for us to learn to accept certain things on authority from others. It is not "brainwashing" to teach beliefs in addition to facts. The mere fact that you question what you have been taught is evidence that parents/teachers/etc., whom you have accused of brainwashing you, cannot, in fact, control what you believe. Life is considerably simplified by accepting certain concepts on authority (religious and otherwise), without us demanding unequivocal proof. I agree with you that religion (as has science, and practically every other intellectual discipline), has been considerably corrupted by zealots who are unwilling or unable to tolerate dissention and those who would manipulate legitimate believers in to satisfy their own ends. History verifies these assertions. That is the nature of people, not the nature of religion, science, or philosophy. I would disagree that people who accept the teachins of religion, science, or philosophy are incapable of independent thought. To suggest that these people have been "brainwashed" whereas you have been freed from the shackles of intellectual slavery suggests to me that you have some ax to grind other than what you are expressing. Sean McLinden
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/05/85)
> The reply by Rich Rosen (Article #272) was excellent; it reflected most > of my own thoughts. I'd advise net folks to read it carefully before > embarking on, what I'd term, "religious propaganda". It does help at > times to look at our own beliefs without the cloud of religion/ideolgy/etc. > that each of us has acquired over the years, thanx to our parents/teachers/ > friends/etc., which I'd term as an unseen form of "brainwashing" -- strong, > gradual, but very potent. Maybe independent thinking is not encouraged > in our schools? Even society looks down upon these "heretics" who dare > step out of the fold? My own guess is that the powers-that-be (whether > it be the religious leaders, politicians, or whoever) have a vested > interest in perpetuating this status quo, and the brainwashing goes > on in various forms. [JAY RAMANATHAN] Thanks. It's worth pointing out that "powers-that-be ... perpetuating this status quo" does not necessarily imply (in ALL cases) a direct deliberate conspiratorial attempt at repression. Powers-that-be are people too, and they have been just as subjected to the brainwashing as the rest of us. They see their roles in society in a certain prescribed way, and act accordingly. Unfortunately (for them and for the rest of us). -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr