Is all orthodoxy dishonest? - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SeattleUte · 10-02-2007, 03:50 AM

In Dostoyevsky's parable of the Grand Inquisitor Christ pays a visit to Seville, Spain, during the height of the Inquisition (I can't vouch for the historicity of this one, but I do like it better than the Nephi-Laban one; just my personal taste). The Grand Inquisitor instantly recognizes Christ, and is disoncerted that the people fell down and worshipped Christ and wept. So the Grand Inquisitor imprisons Christ, and that night visits him in his cell, bearing a lantern. The Grand Inquisitor says, essentially, "We'll burn you tomorrow. You shouldn't have come. Don't you see we've got things under control here?" The Grand Inquisitor then goes on to taunt Christ, telling him that the Grand Inquisitor and his henchmen, not Christ, dispense what the people desparately want: tales about miracles and such, and being told how to believe and what to do. The people don't want liberty, nor true spirituality. He tells Christ that he should have accepted the earthly dominions that Satan offered, and now the Grand Inquisitor and his followers will claim from Satan what Christ rejected.

In the climax of the Grand Inquisitor's oration he tells Christ:

"Men rejoice at being led like cattle again, with the terrible gift of freedom that brought them so much suffering removed from them . . . . We will convince them that they will only be free when they have surrendered their freedom and submitted to us . . . . Freedom, free thought, and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: 'Yes, you were right, you alone possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!'"

I think the point of the Grand Inquisitor is a condemnation of orthodoxy. Truth is never as neat and absolute as the fundamentalists pretend. They know it, too, because they don't comprise a disporportionate share of stupid people, as you've seen here. Orthodoxy is about an agenda, about control, about preserving the institution at ALL costs. Mullahs are liars.

MikeWaters · 10-02-2007, 03:54 AM

Students, this is what we call "projection".

YOhio · 10-02-2007, 04:17 AM

At BYU I had a microeconomics course where the professor would introduce a new rule or theory and preface it by saying that it was a close approximation to truth. He did this because he realized that the more you learn about the subject, the more you hone your tools of analysis, the more you see the glaring exceptions that seem to shatter the rule you previously thought to be established.

I see orthodoxy in a similar vein. A mullah is like the politician who chastizes a political opponent for ignoring basic principles of economics. The basic principles are the easiest to communicate, but they're not always the most appropriate measuring stick to analyze particular areas of public policy. It doesn't necessarily mean that the politician is lying or being disingenuous, but he is just using the simplest set of tools to communicate his position. The politician isn't speaking to himself when he accuses his opponent, but he is speaking the language of those he is trying to persuade.

So on one hand I agree with you. The mullah may attempt to control through use of language and all of it's associated undertones. But I disagree with you that the mullah is necessarily an intentional liar. I see them as a communicator, somebody who is crafting their message so it will resonate with the intended audience. Especially when the audience doesn't have the ability to fully understand the truth. In essence, the mullah is giving what they believe to be a close approximation to the truth.

creekster · 10-02-2007, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YOhio

At BYU I had a microeconomics course where the professor would introduce a new rule or theory and preface it by saying that it was a close approximation to truth. He did this because he realized that the more you learn about the subject, the more you hone your tools of analysis, the more you see the glaring exceptions that seem to shatter the rule you previously thought to be established.

I see orthodoxy in a similar vein. A mullah is like the politician who chastizes a political opponent for ignoring basic principles of economics. The basic principles are the easiest to communicate, but they're not always the most appropriate measuring stick to analyze particular areas of public policy. It doesn't necessarily mean that the politician is lying or being disingenuous, but he is just using the simplest set of tools to communicate his position. The politician isn't speaking to himself when he accuses his opponent, but he is speaking the language of those he is trying to persuade.

So on one hand I agree with you. The mullah may attempt to control through use of language and all of it's associated undertones. But I disagree with you that the mullah is necessarily an intentional liar. I see them as a communicator, somebody who is crafting their message so it will resonate with the intended audience. Especially when the audience doesn't have the ability to fully understand the truth. In essence, the mullah is giving what they believe to be a close approximation to the truth.

SO I waded through three paragraphs waiting for the Y-ohi punch line, sardonic comment or quip and all I get is seriousness? Blechh.

Archaea · 10-02-2007, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

SO I waded through three paragrapoh waiting for the Y-ohi punch line, sardonic comment or quip and all I get is seriousness? Blechh.

A serious post by YOhio should be outlawed henceforth. He must only have wise ass remarks or quips undercutting the lead poster, or in creekster's case, the lead sinker.

YOhio · 10-02-2007, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

SO I waded through three paragrapoh waiting for the Y-ohi punch line, sardonic comment or quip and all I get is seriousness? Blechh.

Yeah, it was pretty uncomfortable for me too. Sorry about that.

half cougar half ute · 10-02-2007, 06:18 AM

Try reading Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov. The devil goes to Moscow in the 1920s to debate with critics about the existence of Christ and himself. He makes some of the same points, such as corruption in absolute belief.

JohnnyLingo · 10-02-2007, 07:27 AM

If you live in America, no religion is forcing you to do anything. If you feel that you best live according to your faith in Christ by communing with nature every Sunday instead of being in a church, good for you. Go for it. No one will lock you up or whip you or burn you at the stake.

So many people freak out about religion for no reason.

SeattleUte · 10-02-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

If you live in America, no religion is forcing you to do anything. If you feel that you best live according to your faith in Christ by communing with nature every Sunday instead of being in a church, good for you. Go for it. No one will lock you up or whip you or burn you at the stake.

So many people freak out about religion for no reason.

Amen, here you can always just opt out of the whole business. Maybe that's the answer for non-mullahs, what in the end will make them happiest.

SeattleUte · 10-02-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by half cougar half ute

Try reading Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov. The devil goes to Moscow in the 1920s to debate with critics about the existence of Christ and himself. He makes some of the same points, such as corruption in absolute belief.

Thanks for the referral. It looks like an interesting book. I think I've heard of it.

Boy, your avatar is revolting.

10-02-2007, 03:50 AM	#1
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	Is all orthodoxy dishonest? In Dostoyevsky's parable of the Grand Inquisitor Christ pays a visit to Seville, Spain, during the height of the Inquisition (I can't vouch for the historicity of this one, but I do like it better than the Nephi-Laban one; just my personal taste). The Grand Inquisitor instantly recognizes Christ, and is disoncerted that the people fell down and worshipped Christ and wept. So the Grand Inquisitor imprisons Christ, and that night visits him in his cell, bearing a lantern. The Grand Inquisitor says, essentially, "We'll burn you tomorrow. You shouldn't have come. Don't you see we've got things under control here?" The Grand Inquisitor then goes on to taunt Christ, telling him that the Grand Inquisitor and his henchmen, not Christ, dispense what the people desparately want: tales about miracles and such, and being told how to believe and what to do. The people don't want liberty, nor true spirituality. He tells Christ that he should have accepted the earthly dominions that Satan offered, and now the Grand Inquisitor and his followers will claim from Satan what Christ rejected. In the climax of the Grand Inquisitor's oration he tells Christ: "Men rejoice at being led like cattle again, with the terrible gift of freedom that brought them so much suffering removed from them . . . . We will convince them that they will only be free when they have surrendered their freedom and submitted to us . . . . Freedom, free thought, and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: 'Yes, you were right, you alone possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!'" I think the point of the Grand Inquisitor is a condemnation of orthodoxy. Truth is never as neat and absolute as the fundamentalists pretend. They know it, too, because they don't comprise a disporportionate share of stupid people, as you've seen here. Orthodoxy is about an agenda, about control, about preserving the institution at ALL costs. Mullahs are liars. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

10-02-2007, 03:54 AM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Students, this is what we call "projection".

10-02-2007, 04:17 AM	#3
YOhio AKA SeattleNewt Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,055	At BYU I had a microeconomics course where the professor would introduce a new rule or theory and preface it by saying that it was a close approximation to truth. He did this because he realized that the more you learn about the subject, the more you hone your tools of analysis, the more you see the glaring exceptions that seem to shatter the rule you previously thought to be established. I see orthodoxy in a similar vein. A mullah is like the politician who chastizes a political opponent for ignoring basic principles of economics. The basic principles are the easiest to communicate, but they're not always the most appropriate measuring stick to analyze particular areas of public policy. It doesn't necessarily mean that the politician is lying or being disingenuous, but he is just using the simplest set of tools to communicate his position. The politician isn't speaking to himself when he accuses his opponent, but he is speaking the language of those he is trying to persuade. So on one hand I agree with you. The mullah may attempt to control through use of language and all of it's associated undertones. But I disagree with you that the mullah is necessarily an intentional liar. I see them as a communicator, somebody who is crafting their message so it will resonate with the intended audience. Especially when the audience doesn't have the ability to fully understand the truth. In essence, the mullah is giving what they believe to be a close approximation to the truth.

10-02-2007, 06:18 AM	#7
half cougar half ute Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valencia, Ca Posts: 7	Try reading Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov. The devil goes to Moscow in the 1920s to debate with critics about the existence of Christ and himself. He makes some of the same points, such as corruption in absolute belief.

10-02-2007, 07:27 AM	#8
JohnnyLingo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,175	If you live in America, no religion is forcing you to do anything. If you feel that you best live according to your faith in Christ by communing with nature every Sunday instead of being in a church, good for you. Go for it. No one will lock you up or whip you or burn you at the stake. So many people freak out about religion for no reason.