Quote:
Originally Posted by thestalkinghead
can you imagine going to church every week and living your life by a certain set of rules that may be all made up (its like subscription mmo's) you invest so much in something that the idea of loosing it is worse than doing it(even if it kinda sucks), and seeing other people not having to live by an unclear and contradictory set of rules is just annoying (like if WoW had a free version that was exactly the same as the paid version but in the paid one you have to log on and enter a worship hall for at least an hour each week and live by a different set of rules to keep your paid subscription) so they want you to join them so they don't feel like an idiot plus the chance it's true and they would have saved you from hell(this one can actually be hard to argue with) so in conclusion its about wanting other people to live by the rules they live by and (if they genuinely believe) also some soul saving.
|
The only thing that I would add to this is that people are afraid of death and disorder. Pretty much every religion has something to say on those subjects. The idea that death isn't the end is incredibly appealing, as well as the idea of some sort of structure to the universe. When people don't believe in a religion and say so openly, it sows the seed of doubt into a religious person's mind and for an instant, they see the universe as a big, unforgiving, chaotic, disordered place... and it's terrifying.
It's like that thing in Hitchhiker's Guide that shows how important you are in proportion to the Universe and drives everyone insane because they're so insignificant. With God, nobody's insignificant, a person can face the void because they've got a special all-powerful being looking over their shoulder every day.
Then again, I'm finding myself to be something of a utilitarian nihilist, so my viewpoint may be slightly too depressing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vainamoinen
Solid historiolinguistic answer, YES! YES!! Marry me!!
Errr, I mean,
For if a preest be foul, on whom we truste,
No wonder is a lewed man to ruste;
And shame it is, if a prest take keep,
A shiten shepherde and a clene sheep.
Chaucer still seemed to use the word quite freely at the end of the fourteenth century. But then again, the Canterbury Tales' aim at high literature is sometimes wonder- and purposefully off.
|
You have no idea how much I was stressing over that post. Linguistics isn't really my field, but I find it fascinating and do spend a lot of time learning about the origin of words in a historical context (since I like history).
And Chaucer... well, he was trying to write something that people who weren't monks would be able to read, I believe. So it stands to reason that he'd use the colloquial language. I sometimes wonder if the super educated people of the time thought of his work the same way people think of Twilight and the like today...