The idea of various religions to forbid the depiction of their god/prophet etc. is that people should not confuse the abstraction (living a moral life - the highest value possible) with the concrete (worshipping a concrete representation). But arguing that you will live a moral life if you start destroying the concrete depiction is like starting a diet by burning down a pastry shop: It misses the point. In that regard, I dont see religion itself as the main problem. Its a problem when people are taught only half the story and take the parable literally. Into the mix comes social proof - the idea that something is more significant or true when many people apparently agree with it. If you follow a certain teaching - and it doesnt matter which one - it is your duty to be a teacher. Because there will be someone else who will use you as the passive proof that their own teachings are correct - even if their teachings are not like yours at all. What do we make of this? If you are part of a group, become a teacher of its values or leave the group. If you dont, someone will hijack your movement. The alternative is to not be part of a label or political movement and instead be on your own. It comes down to the statement that the opposite of a hero is not the villain because the villain has no power. The opposite of a hero are the passive bystanders who empower the villain by letting the villain draw power from them.
Posted on: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:59:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015