 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2008 June 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2006 December 2006 October 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 November 2005 October 2005 February 2005 January 2004 December My Links Home TaBoo's Ezine Navigator The Greatest Maze Sudoku Tips and Tricks Joe User The Phallic Suggestion tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: surrogate (reply) post date: 01.08.07 (5:21 pm) I think you need to build a henge, preferably out of stone. In fact, I'll figure out how to do it, and instruct you as you work. posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 01.09.07 (6:17 am) Reply to: surrogate super! perfect harmony amongst men. i am thinking about building a windlass--or i was over the holidays when i saw one at a science-ee discovery museum. a fella could build one without too much trouble, and then he could lift a lot of heavy things. the first thing that occurred to me, however, is that i wouldn't have any place to put it unless i builded a very small one--and then, what would be the point? then i realized that i don't have a lot of heavy objects that i need lifted. and that's the point i started thinking about the people who are currently lifting all of the heavy objects that i know or don't know about. and that made me think of Back to the Future, when christopher lloyd confronts mj fox about his use of the word heavy to describe situations. and all that thinking and realizing yesterday morning before my coffee had settled. taboo posted by: PastorDave (reply) post date: 01.09.07 (8:23 am) With your analogy, perhaps you could replace the "priest" with the "intellectual". Since the beginning, ordinary folks have been trying to lift the heaviest of objects, called God. It's a confusing and mangled task. And admittedly, we make a mess of things in the process. But at least we see the task as being most noble, and we persist. Here comes the self-entitled intellectual, who looks at the centuries of efort by the millions, and dismisses such with the wave of a hand. "I have it all figured out", he may say. Or, "It's not worth figuring out" he would say with a chuckle. Such condescension. It seems to me the subject/concept of God is so very important, deserving of a focused effort of life instead of summary dismissal. posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 01.09.07 (6:54 pm) Reply to: PastorDave yes, that's what intellectuals do: they take all the wisdom gained by hard working and thinking folk, give the wisdom manuscript a couple of quick edits, and take credit for the whole shmeer. when i wrote this, i guess i was thinking about the way institutions develop in society. all institutions. institutions of state, of religion, of education, even marriage. dave, do you think there is a difference between the christian religion and christianity itself? taboo posted by: surrogate (reply) post date: 01.11.07 (3:44 pm) Reply to: tabootenente There is. Christ, who, first, would have disdained the use of the term "Christian" altogether, would also disavow himself of all Christian Religions and much of what is done, and/or justifued in HIS name. Oh how I wish he WOULD return. Alas, since he was a man, and we men die, he can't return, whether to scold or scorn or praise or lament. I am quite sure he'd have a lot so say about claiming that mass killing for any reason could be characterized as noble, especially by those who claim to be HIS followers. That? That's a no-brainer. posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 01.13.07 (7:17 am) Reply to: surrogate so, do you ever wonder how "christian religion" came from the life and death of jesus? let's suppose there were plenty of people throughout the 500 years after his death who respected the way jesus lived and the way he died but don't believe in the spiritual resurrection; and suppose that there were many people who believed that his life, death and teaching transcended that of a purely mortal man; then how did a group of people begin to form a following, a social identity, and then an institution? i guess what i want to know is this: does the organization of a RELIGION (not a spiritual perspective or belief) such as christianity come from the top, the middle or the bottom? perhaps if you have Faith, then you believe it comes from the top, from god. or, perhaps you believe it comes from the middle, from human beings who "understand." again, perhaps you believe it comes from the people. in any case, in spiritual matters, human beings seem to look to human representatives: priests, speakers, shepherds--a person or persons capable of leading the people. one could say the people search for a leader to guide them toward the light; one could say instead the leader finds a congregation and tries to lead them on a noble spiritual path. and why does it seem that there are very few who are willing to follow the teachings of god themselves--either without guidance from the shepherd or without sharing their own guidance with others? that's my question: what's the difference between "christian" belief and the need to organize a church or a religion? of course, it's not just the christian religion--it's not just western monotheist religions. and maybe it's not just religions, but instead a period in human history where hierarchies are required to legitimize meaning. binary pairings: this is good, that is evil; this person is an intellectual, that person is not; this person is a natural-born artist, that person is not; this is freedom, that is not; this is us, that is them. social classes: tax brackets; education degrees; literary canons; scientific endeavors. is it because human beings only find meaning in the social setting? are we nothing until society assigns us a name? taboo |
|
What's the deal with heavy objects? What is it about heavy objects that makes human beings want them lifted?