[lit-ideas] Re: Shadows, Fog, and Money

From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:12:19 -0400
> [Original Message]
> From: John McCreery <mccreery@xxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 6/13/2005 8:06:37 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Shadows, Fog, and Money
>
>
> On 2005/06/13, at 14:19, Andy Amago wrote:
>
> > See above.  My definition of religious person is someone who can't
> > imagine life without a tooth fairy to guide them along, tell them  
> > right
> > from wrong, give them a reason to live.  Please, I'm making myself  
> > sick
> > thinking about this.  I'm going to bed.
>
>
> Andy,
>
> Max Weber once distinguished between those who are "religiously  
> musical" and those who are not. I would add that the music in  
> question may be as different as Heavy Metal and Mozart.
>
> Seriously, in much of the world, the discussion you are having with  
> Marlene and others does not arise. Why? The issue of whether or not  
> to accept the proposition that we should live our lives as the one  
> God commands does not arise. 


A.A. I appreciate that.  But I don't live in much of the world.  I live in
these here United States.  I think the real problem is that I'm reeling
that people can actually ask, in utter seriousness, why would someone want
to be alive if they don't believe in god.  While another tells me that
atheists are nihilists.  If I sounded a bit crass, it was because I was
stunned.  I don't talk about religion or politics with nonlist people,
ever.  I know they're religious, but I never dreamed that they were so
religious that they wondered why if one doesn't beleive in god they would
even want to live.  It's like saying, if you don't eat meat, why would you
want to live?  If people on this erudite list can think that way, what's
out there in the rest of the country?   Honestly, I need some time to
digest this.  I guess I beat up the messenger because the message was to me
so stupefying.  I apologize to Marlena for saying it was a retarded
question.  It was a stunning question that was a real eye opener.


Andy Amago




Gods and goddesses are plural and  
> themselves only a subset of spirits that include ghosts, demons,  
> ancestors, etc. In this context, the choices are neither complete  
> acceptance nor complete rejection of statements concerning spirits,  
> but rather how to deal with spirits, depending on whether you need a  
> favor, need to get them off your back, or, perhaps, simply to behave  
> as if they were present to perform a ritual properly.
>
> This last option is, by the way, the one recommended by Confucius,  
> who famously says, in the Analects, that a gentleman should perform  
> the rites as though the spirits were present but should avoid  
> discussions about them.  A Confucianist following the Master's advice  
> would have no trouble,
>
> (1) saying "one nation under God" (a perfectly acceptable pretense  
> for the sake of performing the ritual),
> (2) see uttering these words as socially useful (helping to maintain  
> a certain form of social order), and
> (3) being utterly unconcerned with whether God exists, the more  
> pressing issue being whether the rules articulated in his name define  
> the way a society ought properly to be run  (debates about the rules  
> are rationale, debating the existence of God is not).
>
> Interesting, what.
>
> John McCreery
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
[lit-ideas] Re: Shadows, Fog, and Money

Other related posts:
