posted
I stumbled across this site yesterday and have spent a few hours looking around it. I find the site poorly organized and difficult to navigate, but I'm intrigued by the idea. When I read Butler's Parable series, I loved the fake religion in it. I thought that if it was real, that was something I think I could believe in. Well it appears people are trying to make it real. It's not identical to the books, but I dunno, it's caught my attention. At the same time, the whole idea of making a movement (note: they don't call it a religion) based on a fake religion is a bit silly.
Has anybody else happened upon this? What are people's thoughts?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They've done pretty much the same thing with the fictional religion from Stranger in a Strange Land.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They've done pretty much the same thing with the fictional religion from Stranger in a Strange Land.
That's interesting. I find that one harder to pull off though. Without a magic-powered, Mars man I'm not sure what would make up that religion. Orgies? Earthseed could exist without anything external.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They said it's not a religion. If they want to make a movement of it, why not? It has good values. I'd worry more about a cult of Hannibal Lector worshippers. Complete with cannibalism
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Because the person who created it didn't really believe it. I think that makes it lack authenticity.
Right. How many of the 'gurus' teaching people meditation in California really believe what they are doing, do you think? How many televangelists? Joe Smith, for that matter?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect the vast majority believe in what they are doing. I think the passion of these people is what attracts others to their belief structure.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: I cannot tell if you think those people DO believe or DO NOT believe in what they are peddling. Joseph Smith was abused and persecuted until he was murdered, IMO the evidence seems very much in favor of the conclusion that he did believe what he was saying.
As a personal courtesy and possibly even a courtesy to the man, could you refer to him as Joseph Smith instead of Joe Smith? Its 3 more key strokes but more importantly, he did not like being referred to as Joe, and the only people I have heard do it are people who are about to demean him, and insult his character.
-----
It would be funny if the movement did not work out because then the followers could say, "But it looked so good on paper!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, I'm thinking that KOM has a theory that explains all martyrdoms as being cynically exploitive emotional blackmail.
And heck, sometimes it is. We all have relatives who are like that. I also think that it's supposed to be a common factor of teenage angsty dramatics, the "they'll be sorry when I'm gone" mentality.
I can't understand that myself. Even if it were neurocybernetically possible for me to overtly terminate my own existance, I'd be horrified of having anyone find out. I'd "literally" be mortified...again
I think that view probably works for KOM as an explanation of Christ's motive for faking His resurrection, though. I'm glad that I have something in common with Christ...okay, that might be crossing an appropriateness line To make up for it, I hearby promise not to fake my own resurrection. Even if that makes KOM judge me to not be a "real" Christian.
More soberly, I have to agree that KOM's position lacks basic logical integrity. After all, if something is believable to masses of followers, why shouldn't it be believable to their leader? I see no necessary reason that there would be more difficulty in the leader believing something than in the followers believing it.
Even if you think that all religion is obvious hogwash on the face of it, humans are more easily decieved by themselves than by anyone else. If you believe that all religion is deceit, it only makes sense to believe that the leaders are likely (though of course not certain) to be the most sincere believers in it.
So, yes, I can see the insultingness of it. I just don't care.
After all, the question isn't whether anyone believes that Butler's book is a true record of some actual religion. The question is whether they believe that there is something inherently precious and special about Solar life. You can believe that, and believe that Butler first posited such a philosophy (such as it is) in a work of fiction. I see no contradiction here, since Butler is a Solar life-form and thus her writings are as much scripture as any other source, because it is writen by an actual avatar of the "God" (or other term for your chosen entity of absolute good) of the religion that the movement espouses.
That doesn't mean it isn't a dumb religion/movement/philosophy/whathaveyou, it just means that there isn't anything obviously inauthentic about that religion's chosen primary source.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |