You Whispered In My Ear, By Brian37

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You Whispered In My Ear, By Brian37
You Whispered In My Ear, By Brian37

You whispered in my ear
In plush crimson red
Arn't you proud of me
I killed "evil" dead

You whispered in my ear
Giving me the tools
To flatten those buildings
Or to mute Court rulings

I have to save those babies
Or else they will die
You gave me permission
To make my weapons fly

You whispered in my ear
To make them cover up
Shot them on the soccer field
Because they didn't submit

You whispered in my ear
Giving me a nation
So proud to kill
In hopes of salvation

You whispered in my ear
I proudly shout your name
For everyone to hear

Oh violent whisper
Whom calls for the pyer
Narcissistic tyrant
Asking for my blood

It's just a wide forehead
With cord uncut
Looking for that nipple
Crying when rebuffed

Polly used to whisper
To those of the past
She told tall tales
Of Apollo's ever last

Their swords were just as sharp
Their fervor just as strong
Impaling reason with fiction
Changed not, they were wrong

Oh defining whisper
Stop making my ears bleed
With your shouts for that nipple
It is an infantile scream

(THE END)

This poem is a criticism of people who kill in the name of their god(s) whom think they are special and that their god gave them permission to do horrible things to others.

"Flatten those buildings" obvious.

"Or to mute Court rulings" Refers to the Christians movement to make abortion impossible, even though legal, through fear, intimidation and terrorism.

" I have to save those babies" again pro lifers

"You gave me permission
to make my weapons fly" Planes on 9/11

"Shot them on the soccer field" Refers to the Taliban executing a woman, without a trial, for alleged adultery.

"Polly" meaning polytheism. Call it poetic license.

The last few stanzas point out that our "god" belief is nothing more than our ego(infantile) side wanting to be the center of attention, and that we as a species have been no different throughout our history. The ancients believed as zealously in their gods as people do today.
 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
What happened to the ability

What happened to the ability to edit one's own ORIGINAL STARTING POST IN A THREAD ONE CREATES?

I want to edit this poem but I cant find, or dont have the edit option in the OP.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Polly used to

Brian37 wrote:

Polly used to whisper
To those of the past
She told tall tales
Of Apollo's ever last
Their swords were just as sharp
Their fervor just as strong
Impaling reason with fiction
Changed not, they were wrong

 
 

not to criticize your poem, but one of the things i always admired about the ancient polytheistic religions is that they were very syncretistic and, to my knowledge (and i was a classical studies major), almost never made any kind of holy war on each other.  they usually had no problem accepting and appropriating each other's gods, which they reasoned were just different names for the same things. 

they did often become violent went threatened by the rise of monotheism, as in the case of the egyptian priesthood against akhenaten, the israelite monarchs against the prophets, or the meccans against muhammad, but even cursory research will usually reveal the violence was chiefly motivated by politics and/or economics, since monotheism claimed exclusivity and that meant no more temple revenues if it should take hold.  apollo felt much more threatened by socrates than by horus.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Polly used to whisper
To those of the past
She told tall tales
Of Apollo's ever last
Their swords were just as sharp
Their fervor just as strong
Impaling reason with fiction
Changed not, they were wrong

 
 

not to criticize your poem, but one of the things i always admired about the ancient polytheistic religions is that they were very syncretistic and, to my knowledge (and i was a classical studies major), almost never made any kind of holy war on each other.  they usually had no problem accepting and appropriating each other's gods, which they reasoned were just different names for the same things. 

they did often become violent went threatened by the rise of monotheism, as in the case of the egyptian priesthood against akhenaten, the israelite monarchs against the prophets, or the meccans against muhammad, but even cursory research will usually reveal the violence was chiefly motivated by politics and/or economics, since monotheism claimed exclusivity and that meant no more temple revenues if it should take hold.  apollo felt much more threatened by socrates than by horus.

Your post proves my point. Being progressive, does  not mean that you are willing to give up your alpha male status.

The ancients tolerated others like Christians tolerated atheists in America. They are fine with us as long as we don't try to compete with them, especially in politics.  They don't see us as a threat right now.

It is an dictment also on humanitie's failure to see that focusing on labels misses the point, that we, as a species, are capable of the same behaivor when put in similar situtations.

Humans, like any other species, once the alpha male, may tolerate subordinates, but will become violent when a subordinate challenges them.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course Socrates was more

Of course Socrates was more of a threat because he was one of their own and therefore the public was more likely to listen to him.

Having said that, the ancients of any culture, be it Egyptians, or Greeks or Romans, they believed in their gods, as zealously as modern humans do today.

Do not equate the ancient's "progressiveness" as being the same as our modern pluralistic secularism in the west today. "Outsiders" in any ancient culture, polytheist, or monotheist, were tolerated at best, as long as they "knew their place", and dissent was just as squashed.

They were much more barbaric to minorities than the west is today and every culture was like that.

The ancient attitude of "progressiveness" was, "We will let you live, as long as you don't rock the boat".

Our secular governments today protect rocking the boat.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Our secular

Brian37 wrote:

Our secular governments today protect rocking the boat.

Than you know little about history, both modern and present. If you rock the boat in a way the powers that be perceive as a viable threat to their order and dominance, you're probably not going to make it too far. Our secular governments intervention in much of the world, such as the support of Gorillas in Latin American countries in the murdering of priest and nuns of liberation theology, which the US government labeled a "subversive threat", thought largely a non-violent movement of ideas, reveals how much secular governments protect "rocking the boat". 

Just because a few funny, and pointless liberals in America get to have their meaningless war rally's, the meaningless pursuits to get Bush, and his buddy's labeled as war criminals, doesn't mean secular governments protect "rocking the boat", just that they don't really care about a few funny liberals who jumped on a boat, but fail to make it sway. If the boat was actually being rocked, you'd probably end up dead, so has been history both past and present of western intervention in much of the world. 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
manofmanynames wrote:Brian37

manofmanynames wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Our secular governments today protect rocking the boat.

Than you know little about history, both modern and present. If you rock the boat in a way the powers that be perceive as a viable threat to their order and dominance, you're probably not going to make it too far. Our secular governments intervention in much of the world, such as the support of Gorillas in Latin American countries in the murdering of priest and nuns of liberation theology, which the US government labeled a "subversive threat", thought largely a non-violent movement of ideas, reveals how much secular governments protect "rocking the boat". 

Just because a few funny, and pointless liberals in America get to have their meaningless war rally's, the meaningless pursuits to get Bush, and his buddy's labeled as war criminals, doesn't mean secular governments protect "rocking the boat", just that they don't really care about a few funny liberals who jumped on a boat, but fail to make it sway. If the boat was actually being rocked, you'd probably end up dead, so has been history both past and present of western intervention in much of the world. 

 

 

"Secular" doesn't mean "godless", and Christianity did not promote pluralism, the secular "age of enlightenment" bucked the theocratic rule of Europe of the time. The idea that your mind, and what you believed, was up to you, not to be favored by, or discriminated by the government.

Our government has gotten involved in things it shouldn't have. But, that has happend far more under right wingers, than the pluralist "left". Puritans on the right are the ones are far too ready to "save" the world.

You   need to stop watching FAUX and O'Crappy's talking points.

Do you think Thomas Jefferson was a conservative? Economic? I cant argue that, never studied his money policies. BUT, socially, if he were alive today, he would be for gay marriage and atheists running for office.

1."Question with boldness even the existence of a god, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear".

2."Because religious belief, or NON-BELIEF, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights."

3."If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists."

4."Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."

5. "The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live."

 

6. "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

 

7. "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

 

TO NAME A FEW.

 

Now, if you ask me why I did not quote sources, is because I ALREADY HAVE DONE MY HOMEWORK!

I did not take the initial sources or websites I found these at, at their word. All these quotes are widely available and cross referenced.

END................

You do not have to believe me, just do your own homework.

Would you call him a "liberal"? He only wrote the prototype in the "Virgina religious freedom act", that was the prototype for the First Amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And another thing, the

And another thing, the ancient Greek and Roman governmental systems were puppits. The senates could do what they wanted, ASK LONG AS THE Caesars  (DICTATOR) approved. They were still dictatorships ruled by a king.

In America, we can over ride the president with things like a second vote, which overides the first veto. The Supreme Court CAN deem a law or executive order unconstitutional. We can also impeach the President. The ancient Greeks and Romans ultimately were only allowed to get away with what the king allowed them to. If it got that bad, they assassinated the Ceasars.

There system of representation was merely a way for the dictator to keep them occupied so they would not turn on him.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And another

Brian37 wrote:

And another thing, the ancient Greek and Roman governmental systems were puppits. The senates could do what they wanted, ASK LONG AS THE Caesars  (DICTATOR) approved. They were still dictatorships ruled by a king.

whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

whoa.

hold on there, hoss.  it wasn't as monolithic as that, not by a looooong shot.

first of all, i take issue with your lumping together "greeks and romans," as if you were talking about red and green apples.  that's a common convention, but an ignorant one.  italians and greeks were about as different back then as they are today, if not more so because of the isolation.

of course, in those days there was neither a united greece nor a united italy.  the hellenic people lived in independent poli, each with its own form of government.  the most common form was oligarchy, in which a council of elders ruled (not exactly an elected senate--usually members of elite families).  there are examples of strong individual leaders coming to the fore, like pericles in athens, but this was not the rule.  there was no great unifying hellenistic monarch until the alexandrian empire.

as for rome, your terminology is all messed up.  you lump together three entirely different ideas as though they were similes: caesar, dictator, and king.  let's start with king.

the last roman king was tarquinius superbus, an etruscan, who was overthrown by lucius junius brutus in 509 b.c.e.  the roman revolt established the roman republic, and for at least the next two or three hundred years, we have no evidence that shows us it was anything other than that: a republic, with a senate, two consuls, and various other elected officials.  of course it was hardly a liberal democracy in the modern sense: the patrician elite held most of the power until a series of plebeian revolts around the second century b.c.e. established the very powerful office of tribunes of the people, who held veto power in the government and represented the interests of the plebs.  this unrest culminated in the revolt of the gracchi, who were two such tribunes, and the attempt to establish land reform.

now for dictator.  rome had many dictators.  the idea of dictator was enshrined in the constitution.  a dictatorship could be established in times of national emergency, usually war, similar to martial law.  after the emergency had passed, the dictator was to relinquish his power, which is exactly what happened with dictators like sulla, for example.  in the first century, however, as the republic approached an unbearable level of decadence and political corruption, julius caesar refused to give up his dictatorial powers and seized the city of rome by force.

caesar was not a king.  he never referred to himself as such.  he was not a member of a dynasty, nor did he establish a dynasty.  in fact, even in the highest stages of imperial roman autocracy, dynasties never lasted long.  and, contrary to popular belief, he was never emperor either.  nor did he hold power in any totalitarian sense, though he was certainly very powerful.  nor was the name "caesar" at this point anything more than a name.

the first emperor was his nephew and adopted son, gaius julius caesar octavianus, who came to be known as augustus.  augustus was a very shrewd politician.  he became the first imperator, which was a designation granted him by the senate, as someone with extraordinary executive power.  he also never referred to himself as a king, nor was he a king in any proper sense, but he was the primus inter pares, the "first among equals."  he held almost all the political offices at one time or another: senator, consul, tribune, etc., but for much of his reign he was officially nothing more than a private citizen.

decades and fleeting dynasties went by: the original caesars, the flavians, the antonines, etc., until the office of emperor was constantly changing hands from one general to another in a dizzying series of revolts.  then, in the third century c.e., from dalmatia, came another genius, diocletian.  diocletian united the empire under two emperors, both called "augustus," and two sub-emperors, both called "caesar."  this is when the name caesar officially became a political office, and it did not denote a king or even an emperor, but rather his deputy.  diocletian established his capital in byzantium and was the first roman ruler in at least 700 years to take on the trappings of a monarchy.  he proclaimed himself basileus, the greek word for king, as well as dominus et deus.

so, as you can see, one can't distill the ancient world into one big "puppet" regime from start to finish.

as for your assertion that the ancients believed in their polytheistic gods as fervently as modern monotheists believe in jesus or allah, well, i just think that's nonsense.  after four years of studying the original sources in college, i can safely say that the anthropomorphic gods of homer and hesiod were generally ridiculed and often criticized by the time of plato and almost all the roman literature i've read, from the late republic to constantine, is very cynical where the gods are concerned.  the only thing approaching devotional literature from the classical world is usually neoplatonic, e.g., plotinus, who could hardly be accused of believing in any sort of personal god.  even the exclusivist yahweh of deutero-isaiah looks like zeus next to plotinus and the neoplatonists.

but, hey, even a degree doesn't guarantee one has been exposed to everything.  if you can show me evidence that the average roman or dalmatian or illyrican believed in apollo as wholeheartedly as the average shiite believes in allah and the mahdi, i'll certainly take it into account. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Oh boy.......Where do I

Oh boy.......Where do I start.

FIRST off, I am not equating Greece and Rome as being the same. I am saying that their respective, all be it defferent,  elements of "democracy" that the modern world draws from, is not the same are anywhere near as pluralistic as the modern west.

You still had to be in either the warrior class, or ruling class, and outsiders were forbiden to take place in either of these relms.

Quote:
of course it was hardly a liberal democracy in the modern sense:

Why build in either of those countries back then, temples to the gods and have oracles(PRIESTS) preside over them and their political leaders and military protect them if these people didn't believe?

You think all those religious idols to all their respective gods, in either country were mere cartoons they didn't believe in?

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
In all seriousness, I did

In all seriousness, I did fall for some of the myths. Thanks for clearing up some of those for me. BUT, without a doubt they were not anywhere close to the same level of pluralism or tollerence the way the west has today.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Oh

Brian37 wrote:

Oh boy.......Where do I start.

i don't know.  i'm still waiting.

Brian37 wrote:

FIRST off, I am not equating Greece and Rome as being the same. I am saying that their respective, all be it defferent,  elements of "democracy" that the modern world draws from, is not the same are anywhere near as pluralistic as the modern west

you're addressing assertions i never made.  i said nothing about the degree of "democracy" in the ancient world.  in fact, i'm pretty sure i never used that word in my initial post at all.  i merely made the assertion that, according to all the historical evidence we can gather, polytheists were much less likely to make excliusive claims to truth than monotheists, and thus less likely to make any kind of "holy war."  i await evidence to the contrary.  if you cannot furnish it, be a sport and cede the point.

Brian37 wrote:

You still had to be in either the warrior class, or ruling class, and outsiders were forbiden to take place in either of these relms.

which is exactly what i just said.  nobody's arguing with that.

Brian37 wrote:

Why build in either of those countries back then, temples to the gods and have oracles(PRIESTS) preside over them and their political leaders and military protect them if these people didn't believe?

because temples were almost always treasuries--for the egyptians, for the minoans, for the babylonians, for the greeks, for the etruscans, for the romans, etc., etc.  especially spoils of foreign wars were deposited in temples.

Brian37 wrote:

You think all those religious idols to all their respective gods, in either country were mere cartoons they didn't believe in?

well, by the time of plato, it was headed heavily in that direction, yes.  at least, as near as we can tell from contemporary literary evidence.

and even if they did believe, not all beliefs are the same.  a devotee of jupiter capitolinus was not going to run into the temple of isis and massacre everyone there.  as i said before, ra and helios were perfectly satisfied to be identified with each other.  one could burn insense for the magna mater on tuesday and drop a coin in the collection box of the vestal virgins on wednesday and nobody would think it odd.  this has nothing to do with being "progressive" or "democratic": it just means that ancient polytheism did not demand any kind of orthodoxy, and without orthodoxy there is neither heresy or heathenism, which means no religious wars. 

if it was just a question of helios being the "alpha male," why were there no violent wars when in the public mind his powers were gradually appropriated by apollo?  why was baal so threatened by yahweh, yet had no problem with astarte?  because it was the fanatical monotheism of the underdog yahwist prophets which demanded to be "top dog," refused to share with any other gods, so of course the "boat was rocked" and the priests and prophets of baal put on a defensive front to protect their livelihoods, but in the end who got slaughtered?  not the troublesome rebels, if we take the hebrew bible at face value.  and there is no evidence that there was any popular outcry against yahwism.  one god or another--to the typical ancient it wasn't much more important than changing shirts.  after all, they all stood for the same thing in his mind.  yet try to turn a few churches into mosques or vice-versa and see what happens.

my point is, religious belief is not all of one stripe, and the ancient polytheists were much more benign and much less violent in matters of religion

anyway, it all comes down to this: historical discussion cannot be definitive when it moves into the realm of speculation.  of course, we cannot know the thoughts of each person in a span of 10,000 years or so.  all we can do is argue from the evidence, both literary and archeological, and the evidence seems to assert that most violent conflicts in the ancient polytheistic world were motivated politically.  kings and emperors and pharaohs conquered out of desire for wealth and land, and the gods were things to come back to at the end of the campaign and say thanks.  they did not typically motivate wars or repressions.  they were not typically invoked to justify wars or repressions.  thucydides and lucretius both describe the horrible plague that beset athens during the peloponessian war, yet neither seems to emphasize that it was due to unfaithfulness to the gods.  the gods did what they wanted, without rhyme or reason, and since humans couldn't influence them with any consistency, why care?  the gods were elemental forces, not daddies that we should obey.

if you wish to convince me i am mistaken, please direct me to the evidence, since i've obviously overlooked it in my studies.  if you desire evidence, i can only point you to almost the whole loeb library.  michael grant and robert graves are two classic historians who can set you on your way too.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen