My Fallible Lord

Re: Maureen

Depending on how tolerant your evaluator is you could explore the play in light of the `Pygmalion` phenomena in psychology. You can find at least one book on the subject through Amazon. Specifically, the theme could be the human (perhaps more male than female) need to mould the people they love. Why did Pygmalion become inspired to do so? What personal needs triggered the desire?

Re: Ashar Nisar

Perhaps the argument is being taken out of context. A personal metaphysic construct may have a deity with numerous appealing attributes. The idea of original sin however, is present in some form in all the major monotheistic religeons. We can all say ``well this isn`t part of my belief system`` and wind up arguing semantics. IMHO the author was examining the role of dogma in defining cultural identity. In this context a personal deity becomes irrelevant. If you are arguing that dogma does not affect the individual, and that the major theologies don’t utilise a classical reward-punishment model we can take this further, but a more detailed exposition would arguable be in order.

I found the criticism of dogma and theology both novel and intriguing. It may raise a few eyebrows but is certainly a good question. Why should we conform to the unconsidered demands of theology any more than we would if they derived from someone we knew. What cannot survive the crucible of our intellects should be dispensed with.

A few of us have been discussing this off Chowk, and found that a number of intriguing questions were raised. In the primary subtext we ran into:

1. Is it possible to relate without attempting to re-model ones counterpart. How.
2. How does one define the essence of an individual.
3. How are we affected by our attempts to shape the individuals around us.
4. Is the act of creation inherently flawed. Do we constrain possibilities by imposing our view on our creations.
5. Is the growth of society predicated on a social ``mean reversion``. Will a society of individualists degenerate into anarchy.

At a more profound level there is the question of what constitutes an appropriate level of freedom. Where do we set the point of compromise between the needs of society and those of the individual.

All this does not suggest naivete and certainly does not seem absolute. Since we are quoting though, ``This is a naive attempt to shove hardened assumptions down the throats of the reader. The conclusion is presented with such authority that leaves not room for any further discussion or possibilities`` does not seem to leave much room for discussion. I agree with Saima, intolerance is certainly unworthy of respect. Especially when reasoned debate would probably have made the point better.

Having said that, the initial post certainly got the discussion moving on this. Just a final query.. how does one deafen a deaf person? Sounds like a neat trick.

I guess the moot point is respect. We have to respect those we love to keep the love alive.
We have to earn Gods respect to be able to keep His love _ so religion teaches us. Do we even have to earn our own self-respect in order to love ourselves and be happy and at peace? Seems likely.