NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the statements I really hate to hear from Patriarchal Religionists is how "man is weak and you need God's help to do great things."

Wrong wrong WRONG!

Patriarchals make this gross underestimation of human ability. Not out of humility, I daresay. But due to their failure to appreciate how small changes amplify over time and circumstance to become immense effects.

They ask questions like - "oh, how does changing a few DNA base pairs make a fish out of a mosquito? Or a human beings out of a fish? Nothing is reducible, everything has to be BIG, like God BIG."

Because institutional Patriarchal religion like BIG. They start with massive suppositions of Universal proportions. Like Infinite Gods for example. Only BIG things can do BIG things right?

Clearly not. They forget that just 2000 years ago none of their OWN religions even exist. The Big Three all started as small religious groups. There wasn't a Divinely Guided expansion of believers, POOF! from 20 to 2 billion in an instant. Instead the Big Three made inclemental gains, through a long process of cultural selection, painfully growing over millenia until now, where they reign over thousands of competing religions.

They reign so confidently that they try to extrapolate their own existence to the beginning of time. Like the destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. Or the insistence that the whole Universe is only 6000 years old. They have such social clout, they can make believers think that their believe system has always been there. Or has never changed through the times. Or anything at all!

The Big Three all have individuals at their centre. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed. But instead of learning how these individuals can inspire and mobilize thousands and later millions to their way of life, they elevate these people to the status of deities. Divinely Inspired, Son of God, Prophet of God.

Because BIG can only come from BIG.

This is a mistake. They are underestimating the very mechanism behind their own success. Small changes can result in large effects over time. Now, zealously guarding their castles in the sky, instantly built by God and completely perfect in everyway, Patriarchals laugh at the tiny craggy skyscrapers that People of Reason built on the ground, brick-by-brick, wall-by-wall. Idea-by-idea, method-by-method.

They laugh "look at your pitiful little building, constantly remodeled. Gaining height so painfully slowly. So much thought, so much work. Yet always imperfect. Unlike my glorious sky castle, perfect in every possible way. Possible only by God! I can't see it now, but when I see it, it will be magnificent!"

But I say there is no greater disillusionment than for a person to believe with all his heart that he can leap into Heaven in a single bound. Not with anyone's help. Not even with "God's" help.

Man is not weak. You are not weak. You can make a difference.

One of the statements I really hate to hear from Patriarchal Religionists is how "man is weak and you need God's help to do great things."

One of the terms I really hate to hear from folks is "Patriarchal Religionists." Or any variation, really. Its just not a term we use in religious studies. Ironically enough, its used generally to refer to three specific religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

The former two, Islam and Christianity, are not patriarchal. Only Judaism is a patriarchal tradition. Yet, the former two get grouped in with the latter due to their link with it.

Then, we have a whole host of indigenous patriarchal religions in places like Africa. Yet, when the term is used in pop culture, most people don't even think of those. They also tend to be quite different from Western monotheism.

One of the terms I really hate to hear from folks is "Patriarchal Religionists." Or any variation, really. Its just not a term we use in religious studies. Ironically enough, its used generally to refer to three specific religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

The former two, Islam and Christianity, are not patriarchal. Only Judaism is a patriarchal tradition. Yet, the former two get grouped in with the latter due to their link with it.

Then, we have a whole host of indigenous patriarchal religions in places like Africa. Yet, when the term is used in pop culture, most people don't even think of those. They also tend to be quite different from Western monotheism.

I use Patriarchal to mean Father Gods. But point taken.

An interesting insight, Xisla. Not one I've heard before. I feel somewhat less jaded now. :)

Though I think your attribution of the Christian belief in a BIG deity to a failure to understand that big things can start with small things is nonsensical (it seems to me that there are much better explanations for that particular feature of Christianity and other religions), you point out an interesting failure on some folk's part to notice one of the basic features of the universe, which is that things grow and die. They start small, collecting energy to grow, and eventually can't support themselves any longer and they fade out of existence, their substance reuniting, reintegrating with the universe. It happens to objects, flora, fauna, planets, and stars. It happens to cultures and religions, governments and economies. It's what happens to you and I. It's our lives. We start small, then get bigger, then die.

The Big Three all have individuals at their centre. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed.

The big three? You mean Christianity, Islam and Judaism? Based on number of followers, Judaism is a small religion with only 15 million followers. The third biggest religion is Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) with 900 million believers.

An interesting insight, though a tad juvenile in the approach, I will assume this is because of the age of the writer and -if so- then it is an amazing thought, of course if not, don't give the day job!

I have to say that's quite impressive. I may have to steal it... >>

An interesting insight, Xisla. Not one I've heard before. I feel somewhat less jaded now. :)

Thank you sir. It is difficult to come up new ideas, so much has been said on so many topics. I may fail often but I do try.

Though I think your attribution of the Christian belief in a BIG deity to a failure to understand that big things can start with small things is nonsensical (it seems to me that there are much better explanations for that particular feature of Christianity and other religions), you point out an interesting failure on some folk's part to notice one of the basic features of the universe, which is that things grow and die. They start small, collecting energy to grow, and eventually can't support themselves any longer and they fade out of existence, their substance reuniting, reintegrating with the universe. It happens to objects, flora, fauna, planets, and stars. It happens to cultures and religions, governments and economies. It's what happens to you and I. It's our lives. We start small, then get bigger, then die.

I think it is fairly obvious to consider that things start small, get larger and then break down. That's not my point. I hope I have communicated my idea that very small changes, if applied at the right circumstance, can yield a massive output. Not just effects, but truely large effects. Maybe even emergent effects, if changes were made to a complex system, for example.

I am emphasizing this signal amplification. A loss of a little rest mass. A few resistant bacteria. A few base pairs in the cis regulatory sequence. I think that people in the Christianity, Islam and Judaism, by the central aspect of Bigness in the faith, may underestimate this, therefore using absurdly large explanations of the Universe that doesn't really explain anything. This is the main thrust of my view.

The big three? You mean Christianity, Islam and Judaism? Based on number of followers, Judaism is a small religion with only 15 million followers. The third biggest religion is Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) with 900 million believers.

Point taken. However I wish you would comment on my main idea, which is small change --> amplify by circumstance --> large effects.

An interesting insight, though a tad juvenile in the approach, I will assume this is because of the age of the writer and -if so- then it is an amazing thought, of course if not, don't give the day job!

Thank you sir. :) I definitely agree the approach is childish, I did it deliberately in a "stand up comic" style for wider readability, to benefit the numerous teenage readers at NSG.

I can write more formally, but I have to admit, I may never approach the level of sophistication of posters like Straughn, or the pure cogent impact of Bottle. As implied in this thread, perhaps I won't get that far, but every inch counts.

I have to say that's quite impressive. I may have to steal it... >>

Thank you. :D

*bows*

I think it is fairly obvious to consider that things start small, get larger and then break down. That's not my point.

You may not have intended that to be your point, but it is.

I hope I have communicated my idea that very small changes, if applied at the right circumstance, can yield a massive output. Not just effects, but truely large effects. Maybe even emergent effects, if changes were made to a complex system, for example.

I am emphasizing this signal amplification. A loss of a little rest mass. A few resistant bacteria. A few base pairs in the cis regulatory sequence.

Precisely. The "signal" grows, amplifies, and then dies.

I think that people in the Christianity, Islam and Judaism, by the central aspect of Bigness in the faith, may underestimate this, therefore using absurdly large explanations of the Universe that doesn't really explain anything. This is the main thrust of my view.

And this is where I disagree. I find it unlikely that absurdly large explanations of the universe are caused by the pervasive "bigness" of the religion. Rather, it seems much more likely that the adherents of the religions you're referring to prefer large explanations because...surprise, surprise, that's how they were indoctrinated. And it seems much more likely that having an all-powerful sky-God to begin with was a result of a very common psychological tendency to express dominance over others.