View Single Post
Old 12-29-2005, 06:00 AM   #133
Charie
Rookie
 
Charie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 130
VampireNaomi
Quote:
I know this was directed at El Virus, but a lot of atheists I know don't like the church because it tries to control people's lives and is eager to judge those who don't live by the moral rules they've set. Also, lots of inhuman actions have taken place because of church.
Ya, that's what I was asking about: whether that 'grudge' involves something more personal or is it only overall sense of righteousness. The notion of 'having a grudge against something' includes some degree of personal involvment, I would think.

I certainly agree that various religeous institutions throughout the world, when controlled by greedy cool-hearted bastards of people, use faith as an exuse and a tool to coerce human masses to whatever is advantageous to solely them. This has always been like this and unfortunately still is. You know, I just don't get it: just why would people want to commit murders, wage wars and, on the whole, cause so much suffering to each other?
I don't know History at all, but somehow examples of crimes commited under the pretence of religeous doctrines jump into head on their own accord.

However, it still has nothing to do with religeon itself. Religeon is about the way to make yourslf a better person, to live peacefully under some or other common human rules, and seek knowledge/enlightment. Do you remember any sacred rule which would tell, 'go and kill each other, my beloved children; steal and cause harm, neglect and abuse'? Pf. If there is, it's some too smart editor's remark, I'm certain. Like those Gospels by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, each of them adding something of his own creation (not bad things, of course, mainly). John especially. (Mark has my respect in this matter, though). And then copysts continuing broadening the tale.
And religeon is personal. You don't have to answer to anybody except yourself and the God. And common sense wasn't canceled either.

Quote:
I preferred the first four books because they were the only ones that surprised me in the end. <...>, they're definitely worth reading and shouldn't be overlooked just because they're popular.
For you Kreacher was obvious? For me not in the world. And I'm ashamed to admit I haven't read the sixth book; only a third part of it, the night it appeared for the public, in the wave of everyone's around me enthusiasm. Not that I don't want to, it's just that I still... plan to. Mhm. All my HP-friends have read it a long time ago, certainly, my father included. We even had a row once on the sore subject of Snape's loyalties.

I love the way later books open your eyes on the events in the previous ones. Every line somehow significant, and smallest details from the past playing a big part in the future events. And vice-versa. And, of course, the complicated inter-character relationships, starting with the first books - it's just not obvious there, until you stop taking them as fairy-tales but a whole same reality.

'My views' on Harry Potter are combined views of fandom, with a great influence of my favoutire 'Big Game' fan-research.

------------------------------------------------------
Lenin must be bald. Couldn't be him.
Charie is offline   you may: quote & reply,