Thursday, April 12, 2007

300 - The Other Side?

The idea for this post is completely stolen from Dave Away From Home. He suggested that the movie could be seen as a triumph of reason and logic (Sparta) against Fundamentalism and the supernatural (Persia). It's an interesting point, especially if we add in that Leonidas was in the position of fighting the entire Persian army with a small force of 300 men because the priests in Sparta had been paid off to tell him that to go to war was against the will of the Gods. God, apparently, wasn't a huge fan of liberty. Both the Persians and the Greeks were slaves to their religion. The Greeks served old, outdated Oracles who were really just drug-induced playthings. The Persians served a man-god who believed he was immortal but was really only a man. Still, all involved believed that their god was the real god, the one who would allow them to triumph.

How is religion today any different? How is this war any different from that war? People blindly follow religious leaders without question, even when they build huge temples with a fast food place in the back and a Starbucks by the altar (didn't Jesus warn about that?). The Muslims follow their clerics into a war they could probably win due to sheer numbers, destroying everything and everyone they love in the process. The Christians follow their leader into a war they cannot win without reinforcements that will not come until the first wave has been slaughtered completely.

3,292 US soldiers killed in Iraq (the living ones have had their tours extended by 3 months)
24,645 US soldiers wounded in Iraq

21 comments:

daveawayfromhome said...

That's what I'm talking' about!

United We Lay said...

Thanks!

undergroundlogician said...

Oh, Puuuuleeeeeeeeease! Are you on this topic yet once again? LOL!

Your world is way too small. You think megachurches in evangelicaldom is the sumtotal of Christianity? Wow. I must say, you are consistent.

Cranky Yankee said...

I'm throwing the hypocrisy flag!

UL - I supposed this is the point in the discussion at which I should point out all your anti-muslim rethoric here and on your blog.

Based on your recent blog entries I would say, Your world is way too small. You think madrassas in Talibandom are the sumtotal of Islam? Wow. I must say, you are consistent.

Ouch...

exMI said...

Attack from Ul, parry riposte from Crazy Yankee. Point left.
This view of the film (leaving out he generic religion bashing that follows)is probably more accurate than the propaganda view of the last post.

undergroundlogician said...

CY:

Now Mr. Contrarian, you exaggerate my position because you love controversy and the feeling of throwing that flag! Fun, ain' it?

You simply can't enter the comment field on it's own merits, can you? I am very clear about Islamo-fascism and its danger to us and the distinction between it and moderate Islam. Are you able to make that distinction? I'm sure you can. More moralistic bloviating from New Hampshire...

As to the comment from UWL, it's more of the same, which can be substantiated.

Cranky Yankee said...

Well I haven't seen the movie, which you would lnow if you read the previous post to nwhich this one was an addendum. So no I can't comment as to whether or not UWL's point is valid. But then again you don't appear to be commenting on the substance of her post either...

The hypocrisy flag remains thrown.
Point Left indeed!

undergroundlogician said...

Flag schmag.

The substance of UWL's post is the point, or better, the lack of substance in the blanket statement of religion in the last paragraph. I see in all religions the possibility for extreme elements; you can always find bad examples; you can find indoctrination as the modus operandi of training and education. This is a BIG world with a lot of people, and a lot of religious people. So if you're agnostic or atheistic, and predisposed to justify your unbelief with fallacious reasoning, using nonsequitor examples of human behavior, there are plenty of bad apples to choose from.

It's your decision. You get to choose whether to believe or not the false premise that the existence of imperfect religious people imply God is either imperfect or doesn't exist.

United We Lay said...

Exmi,
I think this post should have been first. The film was definitely propaganda, and obviously some of it was intended. I don't think bashing is a correct word for what I'm doing with religion. Exposing the flaws and explaining why religon words socially and psychologically is not so much bashing as it is outing.

UL,
Do you mean the post, because I haven't actually commneted until now? Religion is contrary to reason. You can't claim to be logical and reasonable and believe in an invisible man or that a man-god was born to a virgin. That's just plain illogical.

Cranky,
I enjoy watching you fight this battle. I'll take a backseat for now andcome in when I think you need reinforcements. Referring to the movie, I think it's interesting that those who believe in reason and logic in the US are so outnumbered by the religious.

undergroundlogician said...

UWL:

Sometimes I get the sense that you equate logic with science. The two are hardly the same, though logic forms the basis of it. The existence of God is very logical,given the five ways of Thomas Aquinas. Also, the possibility of a virgin birth is not illogical, for supernatural possibilities don't fall under logic. They are possible and they are beyond our capacity to understand, so it is beyond logic's capacity to prove true or untrue. We just don't have the mental machinery to comprehend God. It doesn't mean, therefore, God doesnt' exist. If you make knowledge the basis of existence, one could conclude that all existence exists because we know it. That is absolutely absurd.

You also make a conclusion about the nature of God in your statement as an invisible man. Why? Why would God need to have some bodily shape? Do you know something of God that would necessitate such an existence?

You assert, "The Greeks served old, outdated Oracles who were really just drug-induced playthings. The Persians served a man-god who believed he was immortal but was really only a man. Still, all involved believed that their god was the real god, the one who would allow them to triumph...How is religion today any different?"

It is this type of thinking that tells me how little you have thought about the existence of God. You make negative conclusions about God based on the negative actions of some people, and you fight tooth and nail to justify your conclusions. This thinking leaks into many of your blogs, to which I comment.

You can completely dismiss my statements, or turn them to personal attacks against you, which I do not. I make comment on the conclusions. My motivation is to show that bad thinking or erroneous conclusions make for bad decisions.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

The Spartans were brutal, nasty ass people.

But they had good abs.

Cranky Yankee said...

DHG - Proof positive that they weren't religious wackos. Most religious zealots have a disgusting flab pack, except Jesus of course. He had a wicked six pack to go with his dreamy blue eyes and beautiful blond hair. But then again Jesus wasn't religious at all, a zealot maybe, but definitely not religious. That was his whole gig.

I wonder how many crunches he did every day? One way to follow Jesus' example would be to start each day with 100 push-ups and 1000 crunches. This gives your metabolism a jump start for the day. You really should do it before you eat too. In the morning your stored glycogen is low and is consumed by the muscles relatively quickly. Once the glycogen is gone your muscles begin burning ketones very quickly. Ketones are the byproduct of your body breaking down stored fat for fuel. Burning ketones is the key to being more like Jesus. That is what he meant when he said, "I am the way."

Disclaimer - I am in the initial stages of production of the "I Am The Way" Workout program that will be marketed on the "Family Values" networks.

Saur♥Kraut said...

This movie is generating this exact controversy elsewhere. But I take exception to your statement that "The Christians follow their leader..." Don't lump true Christians in with George Bush, please. How would you like it if WE made a blanket statement about teachers based on Debra LaFave, such as "those teachers are always waiting to grab a young piece of ass"...

I will also say dittos to Underground's following statements:

The substance of UWL's post is the point, or better, the lack of substance in the blanket statement of religion in the last paragraph. I see in all religions the possibility for extreme elements; you can always find bad examples; you can find indoctrination as the modus operandi of training and education. This is a BIG world with a lot of people, and a lot of religious people. So if you're agnostic or atheistic, and predisposed to justify your unbelief with fallacious reasoning, using nonsequitor examples of human behavior, there are plenty of bad apples to choose from.


and...

Sometimes I get the sense that you equate logic with science. The two are hardly the same, though logic forms the basis of it.

United We Lay said...

Bush wasn't the leader I was referring to.

Saur♥Kraut said...

UWL, which leader were you referring to?

United We Lay said...

It should have been plural. I was referring to leaders in general.

Saur♥Kraut said...

UWL, ahhh. But Christians aren't the only ones that follow leaders, and certain Christians feel that we should follow as few leaders as possible. We're called Constitutionalists... We're pretty close to Libertarians.

There are lots of stupid people out there, so you'll always find a group willing to follow another idiot. ;o)

United We Lay said...

Saur,
That's true. I think, though, that it's important to note which leaders are most dangerous in their thinking and action. A leader I have chosen to follow will be having a Women's rally against the war in DC on May 14th, the day after Mother's Day.

United We Lay said...

UL,
First, I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I read your comment the other day, but a family funeral and baby care has prevented me from answering until now. I hope you weren't feling ignored.

I understand the difference between logic and science, but I also know the two are often intertwined. I am familiar with Aquinus. I believe that the existance of the unknown is what drives peeople to believe in god, because that is much easier than accepting that we do not know. People who believe in god believe things that are completely illogical or just totally untrue. The world was created in 7 days. Women were made from the rib of a man. There was a virgin birth.

I use the term "invisible man" because we were supposed to have been created in god's image. Call it whatever you want.

You complain constantly that I make assumptions about what you think, yet here you are making an assumption about how little I have thought about the existance of god. My conclusions about god have little to do with the negative actions of others. My conclusions about Christians are based partially on those negative actions, but not god as a whole. Your god is not the only god. Your way of belief is not the only way. Just because I expose the hypocracy of the Christian church does not mean that it is the only curch I criticize, it is simply the one with which I am most familiar, and whether you believe it or not, I am VERY familiar with the beliefs and actions of Christianity.

undergroundlogician said...

Okay, I'll take you at your word. Perhaps your reaction against things like, creation in seven days or the virgin birth is because it is so unnatural. It is entirely implausible. I agree with you if that's what you think. However, that is what makes a miracle so miraculous.

As to the universe being created in seven days, it's entirely within Christian thinking that the Genesis narrative is figurative and not necessarily to be taken as a literal seven days. The Catholic Church has been very open to science to look deeply into nature and find the origin of life. True science can only be helpful here--it is NOT a detriment.

However, to say that seven day creation, or woman from the rib of a man or the virgin birth are not true are statements that cannot be substantiated. This is where I think you overstep what science can produce.

As to how much you know of Christianity, I will not argue with you there, since I have no means to know how much you know. And, as to the hypocrisy of the Church, I can't stand it as well. I hate it. It is repugnant. It is loathsome. Also, it's presence in the church does not nullify the truthfulness of the message of the Church. It just nullifies the claim of those who are hypocrites that they are Christians. You and I know better.

I'd like you to take a good look at the good that is being done. The stellar examples of love of neighbor in the lives of some Christians and why these people are the way they are. I think you'd benefit, for I'd like to see you live for something that gives a deep, deep joy that is more profound than words can tell. That is what I want for you.

undergroundlogician said...

By the way, I'm not impatient for your response. I know what it is like to have infants in the home. It changes schedules on a moments notice. Take care of your loved ones first! I have enough to do to keep me occupied!