George Orwell's 1984 as an analogy for Christianity

[HoserHellspawn]

Alright... this stems from the basic thought that God is a metaphor for all dictators (probably Satori's) and all of this comes as a result. For those of you who have read 1984, you'll know what I'm talking about, for those that haven't, I give kinda a plot summary for you to more or less get the idea. Yes, I do apparently have much time on my hands to sit around and think this stuff up, but I do ramble as a hobby, so... (if you think this is boring or are unhappy that it's off-topic on an Opeth forum, please move along)

In Orwell's world, society is ruled by a governing oligarchy called "The Party" (The Church) who use a non-existent figurehead in Big Brother (God) as a tool to help control the masses. Cameras everywhere capture the daily activities of the citizens and they are reminded of this everyday with large banners proclaiming "Big Brother is watching you" (God's all-seeing, all-knowing omnipotence) and the citizens are fully aware that if they perform activities that are against the will of Big Brother (sins) they will be captured by the Thought Police and taken to the Ministry of Love, and it's Room 101 (The Inquisition) for conditioning to be made to love Big Brother, then executed (repenting sins, etc. before death). The masses are conditioned to accept whatever they are told by Big Brother, including new facts that constantly contradict the old ones, and even in the presence direct contradictory physical evidence, in a process called "doublethink" (faith).

The Party is constantly at war with the other two dominant world powes (other Religions), yet is actually in league with them, as their lead members commonly, as the wealthy and powerful (politicians -- ed. note: Republicans -- and the clergy), wish to keep their proletariats (the religious middle class - "the herd") repressed under war so they can be exploited for the benefit of themselves, the upper 1%. In addition to using a constant state of war to subdue the masses, the Party attempts to subdue their sexuality and see to it as only being used for procreation (sin to have sex out of wedlock, obvious repression of sexuality by the church, opposition to homosexuality by the church, vows of celibacy by priests and nuns) and not for any form of physical gratification, going as far as attempting to "eliminate the orgasm" in order to convert that energy into other directions (Religion, Nationalism prior to the seperation of Church and State).

The Protagonist (heretic), Winston Smith, is one of the few individuals left who are intellectually free enough to wish the downfall of Big Brother and the party and secretly wishes to join an underground movement, "The Brotherhood", that wishes to free the world from Big Brother's tyranny and follows the writing of a man named Emmanuel Goldstein (Satan), once a close colleague of Big Brother's. Through a series of tightly planned covert activities, he comes to meet Julia, who expresses her own form of opposition to the party by indulgences of the flesh (indulgence over abstinence being a prime principle of Satanism). Winston knows that his plight is hopeless and in the end, he will be captured and eliminated because of the dominance of the Party. As it turns out, the Brotherhood and Emmanuel Goldstien (Devil Worshippers, Satan) also do not exist but were created by the party as well.

 

[Russell]

Wow, I really should read that book again What ur saying seems 2 make sense tho

 

[Villain]

Am I allowed to quote that writing of yours?

-Villain (np: Paradise Lost - Draconian Times - "Once Solemn")

 

[Silhouette]

Originally posted by HoserHellspawn


... non-existent figurehead in Big Brother (God) as a tool to help control the masses. Cameras everywhere capture the daily activities of the citizens and they are reminded of this everyday with large banners proclaiming "Big Brother is watching you"

That'd be a good idea for a TV show.

Seriously though, you're post seems interesting. I've not read that book but will make an effort ASAP. Sounds like a very fitting analogy to me.

 

[Lina]

Originally posted by Xtokalon
Are cults analogous to dictatorships and the world that is portrayed in "1984"? Absolutely.

Is Christianity like such a "cult"? Absolutely not.

I think christians will tell you that the relationship that characterizes their involvment in Christianity is not dictatorship, it's *friendship.*

Hmmm...and here we are back to an age old argument on this board.

I'm sure no one in a cult thinks THEIRS is a cult. Just because you're in a big cult that's widely accepted doesn't make it any less of a cult.

 

[Traveler]

I was thinking about reading 1984 as part of my quest for reading most of the modern classics. So far I've read Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World nad found both of them very creative and intelligent. Any other modern classics you can recommend?

 

[HoserHellspawn]

Glad to see this went somewhere...

Johan, please, by all means. I posted this here to spread and get feedback on this idea.

Traveler, well the only one I'm afraid I can really recommend is "Animal Farm", also by Orwell. I am myself trying to track down a copy of "Brave New World", which I've wanted to read for a LONG time. One that comes highly recommended is Albert Camus's "The Outsider", which I found interesting (reviews on this book seem to vary greatly). Also, "Catcher in the Rye" seems to come highly recommended, although that's another one I have yet to read myself.

How are ya, Xtokalon?

Orwell finished "1984" in 1948 (inverting the current year not a coincidence) and it was mostly taken at the time as a criticism of Stalinism, much like his previous more obviously anti-Stalinist book, "Animal Farm" (which is a very obvious metaphor of the Russian Revolution), but in the format of a futuristic dystopia. Orwell always maintained that his book was really about the present, not the future.

I agree with you that Christians believe that God loves them as they love him, and aren't "forced" into their loyalty - it's not the relationship of a dictator and the oppressed from their perspective. However, I feel on this count my analogy stands because the citizens of Oceania also loved their "comrade" Big Brother... the only ones who needed fear the Thought Police were those that did not. They saw Big Brother as a symbol of comfort... represented by the almost orgasmic release felt at the end of the "two minutes hate" which showed images of Emmanuel Goldstien and Oceania's military adversaries, only to be replaced at the end by the face of Big Brother and some triumphant music and associated fanfare. That perspective has never been in doubt... it's the perspective of analyzing and comparing from without that is, and I'd say it hopefully allows us to be a little more objective. (Yes, I know it's a little contrived I use the word "objective" on such a topic, but...)

"people USE Christianity. Dictatorships use people." An easy reply to this would be simply "And people use dictatorships, and Christianity uses people." because that's all relative to a certain degree, and there's supportive historical perspectives on all sides. However, since you wish not to persue this debate...

Finally, "I think anything can be contextualized and made analogous with anything". Yup. I'm pretty sure it can if you're witty enough, but in many cases these ideas are interesting to explore nonetheless and some parallels can be startling, hoping the one I've provided is an example thereof.

Take it easy!

 

[Silhouette]

Originally posted by Xtokalon


let's make it: "As a sociologist, I can tell you that the relationship that characterizes a christian's involvement in Christianity is not dictatorship, it's *friendship*"

This is not a truth that is set in concrete. To christians this is the truth. But for me, I see it completely the reverse. To me I see them as being dictated to. I couldn't live under the oppresion of the bible or christianity. It's all subjective.

 

[justus x]

I would say that the teachings of a cult are generally a blatant fiction, as opposed to the premise of Christianity, which while quite highly unlikely, really can't be proven or disproven.

 

[Traveler]

I've read "The Stranger" in German ( "Der Fremde") with the encouragment of our german teacher and found it very deep and interesting. We didn't have enough discussions about the book to understand every single detail but I got the general idea. The concept of an "absurd life" and that the life is meaningless is very interesting. I recommend that book.

 

[Russell]

Surely for some people, mainly children religion can be forced upon them, and then I doubt very much it's a freindship. Admittedly religions suits some children, but I know of many, including anton lavey who had religous upbringings adn I wouldn't describe their views on religion as "friendship". I agree that christianity in this case is not like a dictatorship as long as you stress that this is only when people have CHOSEN it as their religion. Also to many people many of the stories in the bible are blantantly fiction, but really does that matter, the bible can still be VERY usefull even if you don't believe many of the stories

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Xtokalon
note to self: why are we defending Christianity when we usually agress against it? .......ah yesss, we are defenders of Truth, and recognize the unwarranted hostility and motions of eliminitavist atheists/anti-christians who misunderstand what they criticize.

I see you are currently be held captive by your own inherent subjectivity. Not to worry, most people are, I just felt the need to point it out in this particular case.

Your assertion that we misunderstand what we criticize is unfounded. I feel I have a much greater grasp of christianity than you because I can look at it from an anthropological, historical, philosophical, and political perspective which is not in ANY way contorted by the (admittedly) ancient jumbled rhetoric contained within it. You claiming to know all about christianity while being caged within it is a lot like studying a drug while you're really stoned on the drug, you must be impartial to what you are studying to be at all objective and you are simply not at all impartial. You feel you know the "Truth" (I can't believe you would use such a subjective term to describe your viewpoint) already so you're mind is NOT open to new discovery/evolution. Your fear/worship/friendship with invisible entities is absolutly NO different than ancient voodoo or primitive humans worshipping the sun or whatever. Also, as you probably know, I was once viewing this stuff from the inside as you are now, so I see it from both angles, I can understand exactly what you say and yet I can see through to the folly of logic/subjectivity that lead you to this point, which I can totally explain with real examples.

Your contention that atheists are "hostile" and that our actions are "unwarranted" again reveals just how wrapped up in your own egocentric subjectivity you actually are. This atheist inparticular feels you've been victimized and wants to help you past this idea you have that spirituality and moral compliance are one and the same. Of course, you would disregard me as hostile while you would probably label the more visible of the christian groups (the crooked evangelists who economically rape the stupid and young adults that solicit people for money, one of which guilt-tripped about 8 grand from my gf's dying gramma recently) as "friendly". Who would you trust?

Some of us atheists are among the most compassionat and ethical people you'll ever meet, and the most genuine too cuz we are simply ourselves and not who we think we should be.

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by justus x
I would say that the teachings of a cult are generally a blatant fiction, as opposed to the premise of Christianity, which while quite highly unlikely, really can't be proven or disproven.

It should be noted: No fictional story can be disproven if the story is long and rhetorical enough.

I watched a show last week which showed that the whole noah's ark thing simply didn't happen. Of course, we know that already, but it's a shame that some people still think it did, even though it's so incredibly outlandish.

It amazes me how believers of the bible will pick and choose for themselves what is "truth" and what is "fiction" and they claim to be able to differentiate the truth from the fiction with amazing accuracy. Funny funny stuff. I feel sorry for them, I really really do.

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by godisanathiest
Surely for some people, mainly children religion can be forced upon them, and then I doubt very much it's a freindship.

I totally agree. When I was a kid they tried to make god into a friend but we didn't buy it cuz god is so unimaginabley cruel and unfair and oppressive. In my catholic school system the message was one of fear and subserviance, not friendship.

I agree that christianity in this case is not like a dictatorship as long as you stress that this is only when people have CHOSEN it as their religion. Also to many people many of the stories in the bible are blantantly fiction, but really does that matter, the bible can still be VERY usefull even if you don't believe many of the stories

I feel the bible is much more useful as fictional because then we can take the good and leave the bad (and there is just so much crap in there that is so psychologically oppressive, and that stuff about hitting your kids, give me a break. The old testament also condones slavery, but we don't do that).

Unfortunately, most victims are born into the dogma and for them (like me) it was a total dictatorship where personal freedoms simply didn't exist. Very sad. I think it's a form of child abuse personally, no kid should have to be terrorized with this revised jewish propoganda, we've evolved beyond this now, we have better ways of structuring our societies and of teaching our children. We are simply more evolved now and we deserve better. My children will know what it's like to grow up without fear or guilt. I wish I was so lucky..

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Xtokalon
let's make it: "As a sociologist, I can tell you that the relationship that characterizes a christian's involvement in Christianity is not dictatorship, it's *friendship*"

Happy?

It's great that you see it that way and I hope you aren't suffering too much due to your "faith".

The best dictatorship is one where the supplicants worship their rulers like god's and are motivated by punishment AND reward.

People of old openly loved their kings and queens while they were also afraid of them if they broke the laws. Often, a dictatorship is also a friendship, they are the most effective kind. Why forcibly rule someone when you can easily get them to do your bidding willfully and happily?

you catch more flies with vinegar...

Satori

 

[Russell]

Thats the problem with people who believe their religion is ultimately the only "correct" one which I think is stupid, they often don't let their children (especially) choose.

I think the bible is a VERY good guide to life, often how to treat people and what it's like to be mistreated. The only problem is it's riddled with inconcistencies, and I don't see how fundamentalists can believe it by word.

I think often people see chrstianity especially as opressive because I find many christians believe theirs is the only "correct" religion (as I said above) which leads to it being forced on others, especially children and atheists, which is why many people who are not see it in that way, and I think among the less tolerant branches of the church it is like a dictatorship.
I think children should be allowe dto choose at reasonable age the religion they think suites them best and is the most believable or makes most sense 2 them.

I don't think we will ever evolve beyond religion as it is so important to so many people. No matter how much we learn about the human mind and how far sciance advances there will still be people who need explanations for what science can't shed light on. Even if we could there would still be people who needed to believe that they will be rewarded for their deeds on this earth and death isn't the end. Or thats how I see it neway, and I think religion can be very good in many ways...

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Xtokalon
There are a number of problems and confusions in your post Satori that I should point fyi.
..etc..
posting whilst high is bad

who's high?

I'm happy to hear you aren't bound by ancient dogma, but your posts seem to indicate that you are. I guess it's all in the *interpretation*, heheh.

I see you see deeper into the root of subjectivity than I thought when you were going off about that "truth" nonsense. This is a good thing. You made a good point which is pretty cool, that since I say everything in inherently subjective then that in fact invalidates what I say as well.

Yeaaww! Someone understands!

Your understanding of the inherently subjective nature of human reasoning must have shown you that there is no such thing as "Truth", only interpretation. Therefore, before you make the claim to know "truth", think of your reply to me and how subjectivity means that all points of view are inherently flawed. Then your assertion of "truth" is only one of opinion, and not nearly so speculative, which was the point of my post, which you completely understood and then re-interated back to me as if I hadn't thought of it/said it already (heheh, very cool).

I find it odd how you at once defend the insanity of religious rhetoric and suggest it is "truth" and yet claim to be an atheist who understands that reality is subjective. You speak like someone imprisoned by faith, which is why I assumed you were bound by the rhetoric you seem to defend. How is this possible? Please clarify.

By the way, I am a living, breathing contradiction, as I've outlined before in great detail on this board, as is the universe itself. This is not something to be ashamed of, it's something to be savoured (IMO, of course). I understand that my opinion is just an interpretation, like yours, and I would never claim that I know "truth". I know nothing, I'm a subjective human and nothing more. The real difference is that I am open to anything and everything and I am not bound by faith or belief in this or that. That's true spiritual/intellectual freedom (unlike the twisted politically inspired rhetoric you are defending).

The difference of opinion that I have from yours is that I feel that religion is not good for individuals or society, for reasons which I've outlined in great detail before. I've found that many people suffer needlessly as a direct result of christianity, either directly by being trapped inside it or indirectly by religious wars or whatever. While I'm sure some people do get something positive from it I feel most do not, or at least that has been my experience with others. I've also found that those who claim to be the most happy and fulfilled by their faith are usually those who are the most duped and deeply injured by it. It's just not a very "fun" story by any stretch, and even less so for those trapped by it.

To me, the only "truth" is that there is no such thing as truth, there is only interpretation. You will (hopefully) notice that this is also a self-defeating statement, and see exactly where I'm coming from (as I now believe you do).

Let's be careful not to mistake our opinions for "truth" again.

Reality is still subjective.

Satori

 

[Russell]

I think that many athiests aren't nice people, as many (probably including myself) try and force their views on others, making us just as bad as the people we claim are being judgmental (tho i hope I only go in2 it when people try and force their religion on me or we're discussing it). Don't know about ne other athiests but I'm constantly trying to be in some way different (for example nicer to people), and not just myself.

Also shouldn't that be "inherent in the nature of subjectivity" u sure you're not just being tautological??

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by godisanathiest
I think that many athiests aren't nice people, as many (probably including myself) try and force their views on others, making us just as bad as the people we claim are being judgmental..

I think it's all about intent. Some atheists are heavy in philosophy and like to debate cuz it's fun. Some actually believe they can help members of our society and liberate them from "themselves" (if you catch my drift). As someone who has helped quite a few people out of their pit if religious self-sodomy to lead a life free from constant fear and guilt - it's a very beautiful thing.

If the intent of discussion is to intellectually dominate then it's probably not a good thing. If it is to help relieve some of the self-imposed suffering that people endure as a result of the rhetorical scary crap they were force-fed since birth then there isn't a more noble gesture, I think. The intent is everything.

Satori

 

[Lina]

Originally posted by Satori

To me, the only "truth" is that there is no such thing as truth, there is only interpretation. You will (hopefully) notice that this is also a self-defeating statement, and see exactly where I'm coming from (as I now believe you do).

Let's be careful not to mistake our opinions for "truth" again.

Reality is still subjective.

Satori

Ok, Satori, you know my feelings on religion -- that religion and the idea of god is so laughable and impossible that it's really just a litmus test for people's intelligence. So we're basically on the same side.

But you keep saying quotes like the one above that really contradict what you seem to otherwise mean. athiests by and large DON'T believe that truth and reality are subjective. if truth is subjective, then there is no argument against the (supposed) logic of religion -- basically what everyone wants to believe is fact as long as they believe it. This kind of thinking is what athiests despise (at least this athiest). athiests seem to have characteristics that match "left-brain" personalities -- very fact-driven, believe there is an absolute truth for nearly everything. By saying that truth is subjective, you're shooting yourself in the foot -- the obvious rebuttal is, then why do you think you're right? I'm an athiest because facts, proof, and logic back me up, not just because it's what i WANT to believe.