yayyyyyy God

[phishtaper]

i gotta get me some of them bears ...

teach them brats to mess with my christmas lights! boooooooyaaaaaaaaaaH!

[Deeps]

Speaking of bears. Don't name one of them Mohamed.

Sudanese Islamist Awesome-ist - Link to full article.

Hundreds of Sudanese Muslims, waving green Islamic flags, took to the streets of Khartoum on Friday demanding death for the British teacher convicted of insulting Islam after her class named a teddy bear Mohammad.

"No one lives who insults the Prophet," the protesters chanted, a day after school teacher Gillian Gibbons, 54, was sentenced to 15 days in jail and deportation from Sudan.

[d_rawk]

I guess my question then is how are you being tolerant when you call to task people whose religion dictates intolerance

Shades of Ignatieff?

I don't think discussion of values or the rationale behind them are ever off limits. Certainly some people hold very fast to what they have been handed down from their religious authorities, and that ought to be taken into account, but equally some people hold fast to what they have been handed down from their political authorities, and I don't think we pretend that is off limits for discussion or debate.

I self-identify as a religious person .. sometimes maybe in the interest on provocation, sometimes maybe because I think that we are beginning to over-correct and the caution towards 'religion' is becoming something akin to a de-facto dismissal and .. well .. hatred of anything that can be conceived of as falling into that category. And that category has so much beauty and wisdom to offer, I want to be on the side of the pendulum that is swinging closer to the center rather than further from it.

But even having decided to position myself a 'religious person' (which has all the problems for all of the reasons that Allison mentioned, and also the ones that are a favourite of DEM in the way of the issues of identity politics) I don't think my beliefs/thoughts/actions are off limits from outside criticism. And in fact, could use that criticism, often. I don't get to say "Hey, I'm a social-democrat, you can't challenge my position on xyz matter!". Equally, I don't think I get to say "Hey, I'm a Christian, you can't challenge my position n xyz matter!".

I never expected you to be the one arguing for such moral relativism, given the crowd we are here. I think it is because you are fighting for the underdog, and can get that, and that is admirable. But like the Liberals, I think religion - in the west, at least - has been taking a much needed time out to rediscover its humbleness.

I *am* being tolerant when I call to task anti-homosexuality or perceived racial superiority, say, whatever the perceived religious dictates. Whether I am arguing with a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Wiccan, an Atheist (note the capitalization: Atheists, I've got your back), or whatever. This stuff needs to be fleshed out and I'm not in favour of 'no dialogue because someone told me I ought to interpret the texts this way and the texts are dead'.

Is that intolerance or dialogue? When I get confused about it, I always err on the side of conversation. I might be wrong, but it seems the safest place to lay my chips.

[Birdy]

I'm all for dialogue!

I don't think my posts in this thread really apply to the kind of civilized chats that i think you would sit down and have with people of differing opinions in an attempt to understand or even persuade. Moreso, they're directed (and i don't mean to sound stuffy or uptight) towards some of the seemingly crude posts in here.

I too self-identify as a religious person, not in a denominational sense, but in a 'i'm waay intrigued by what's going in your head and think it's pretty remarkable that you are able to hold such faith in something which all the science in the world can't prove' way and from that i find my own faith. I really do think the world has a lot to learn from such people and that in itself should be admired, rather than ridiculed and poked and prodded at. That to me would be tolerance. And while it's really easy and completely understandable to get frustrated and become protective of your right to thought, i don't think it provides for any kind of progressive growth by way of understanding and 'liberally minded' it certainly is not, regardless of what side of the spectrum you fall on.

We are all a product of our environments and i think a closer study of the physical, historical circumstances that create environments is needed in order to get past the stereotypes and become accepting, even if only to a varying degree, of why people act and believe in what they do.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Guest

[hamilton]

I too self-identify as a religious person, not in a denominational sense, but in a 'i'm waay intrigued by what's going in your head and think it's pretty remarkable that you are able to hold such faith in something which all the science in the world can't prove' way and from that i find my own faith. I really do think the world has a lot to learn from such people and that in itself should be admired, rather than ridiculed and poked and prodded at.

Why is that admirable, though? I mean, if the thing that someone believed so fervently in weren't religious in nature, we would find it nearly universally silly. If I told you that I believed that monsters came out from under my bed every night and roamed around my apartment and I insisted on believing in that no matter what evidence to the contrary I was presented with, people would think I was fucking nuts. Why does religion get a special "pass" when people with not dissimilar ideas get sent to mental institutions? And not only does religion get a pass, it even gets a special place in society.

[Kanada Kev]

I'm interested in catching this show later on in the week:

http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/paganchrist.html

THE PAGAN CHRIST

Thursday December 6, 2007 at 9pm on CBC-TV

repeating Saturday December 8, 2007 at 10pm ET on CBC Newsworld

nativityThere are 2.1 billion Christians on the planet – roughly one third of the entire human population. At the heart of their religion is the New Testament and the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. To Christianity, the written word is the glue that binds the faith of its followers.

So, what if it could be proven that Jesus never existed? What if there was evidence that every word of the New Testament – the cornerstone of Christianity – is based on myth and metaphor?

Based on Tom Harpur’s national bestseller, The Pagan Christ examines these very questions. During his research, Harpur discovered that the New Testament is wholly based on Egyptian mythology, that Jesus Christ never lived, and that – indeed – the text was always meant to be read allegorically. It was the founders of the Church who duped the world into taking a literal approach to the scriptures. And, according to Harpur, this was their fatal error – and the very reason Christianity is struggling today.

The mission of The Pagan Christ is not to accelerate Christianity’s slow demise, but to breath new life into its holy book and, in the process, bring the world a richer, more spiritual faith.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Guest

[Birdy]

Why is that admirable, though? I mean, if the thing that someone believed so fervently in weren't religious in nature, we would find it nearly universally silly. If I told you that I believed that monsters came out from under my bed every night and roamed around my apartment and I insisted on believing in that no matter what evidence to the contrary I was presented with, people would think I was fucking nuts. Why does religion get a special "pass" when people with not dissimilar ideas get sent to mental institutions? And not only does religion get a pass, it even gets a special place in society.

It's not so much about the actual religion, you know Garden of Eden, eating the apple stuff, but about the practice of it -- the want to do good and be good and a hope that because of their actions something will be rewarded to them in the end. That's the stuff that I admire and could benefit to learn from. But I do agree with you over this special pass business, but it's not something that i'd advocate taking away, any day of the week.

[phishtaper]

why do you need "religion" to do that stuff? being nice doesn't require an organized religion. i think the social practice of religion has brought about more harm than good.

people can be spiritual and nice to each other without being religious.

[Birdy]

I wouldn't say the social practice of religion brings harm at all. It's people's attitudes towards religion (or other religions) and lack of acceptance that causes problems.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Guest

[Kanada Kev]

I wouldn't say the social practice of religion brings harm at all. It's people's attitudes towards religion (or other religions) and lack of acceptance that causes problems.

You can also say that many "religious" people's attitudes towards other religions, atheism (or other "non-believer's") and lack of acceptance that causes problems too.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Guest

[phishtaper]

i sense we are on different pages here, Birdy ... by religion, i mean an institutional system of beliefs and practices.

i do not see religion as an individual thing. i see that level as either personal spirituality or personal adherence to the larger system of mores and habits.

if someone is "religious", they are defined as such only by their interaction with the system. and when people begin to adhere to a social system that is outside of them, they may do things that they would not otherwsie do ... i.e., kill in the name of their god. more people on this planet have unnecessarily died in the name of this or that god than for any other reason. that is why i say religion is destructive.

and as marx argued, religion is the opiate of the masses who are too stupid to think for themselves.

[Birdy]

don't get me started about Marx!

To me recognized religion is only organized personal spirituality... it all started somewhere with one to five people and then took on followers who bought the subscription. Therefore if someone is religious it can refer to them as Christians or Muslims or whatever, or it could refer to people like me who don't necessarily agree or believe in A god but who think there is some kind of a higher driving force out there. The only people i think are truly killing in the name of God are whacked out cultists who arrange meetings behind planets and stuff. A lot of groups who claim to be killing in the name of God, like Al Qaeda, aren't acting as Muslims should or as Mohammed would want but are operating as a political entity with a political goal. And while I agree with you that more people have died on this planet under the name of God, i stick to my guns and insist it's because people don't want to understand one another.

My plane's boarding.. back to the freezing cold! brut.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Guest

[allison]

Birdy , I have to say I have difficulty with your posts.I think I get hung up on the particular way you have chosen to hang your words, from which I infer a meaning I feel you didn't intend.

the want to do good and be good and a hope that because of their actions something will be rewarded to them in the end

I don't find this synopsis of the good in religion accurate at all...it's very self serving, and is an element I find despicable in a lot of religions...the tithing of your actions as afterlife investment.

What I do find appealing about religion..and why I consider myself a religious person...is the community built upon personal spiritual instinct coupled with a (in true faith) a humbleness before whatever greatness you feel lies behind the veil.

I agree with phishtaper that religion is a social mechanism, and as such can be built awry, stormed and defeated, built again....extremely subject to the vagaries of time, history and humanity.But at it's core, it is a way to build connection to others while circling what is a very solitary endeavour...communication with the sacred.

Birdy also said something about environment ...I really feel that religions, when started, were built upon a sense of place, a spiritual reaction to an actual landscape and a human experience of it.That the differences in religions arise form different landscapes and the encapsulation of those differences in deeper and deeper symbolism ,myths and rituals.

The disconnect between physical environment and cerebral environment becomes/became the tension in religion as it evolved..and that a reclamation of a spiritual experience of the physicality of land is necessary to stabilize the advances in cerebral landscapes.

We are a species tethered to here and swimming to there.

Where is DEM?He isn't registering on my radar the last couple of weeks...

[allison]

marx argued, religion is the opiate of the masses

I fervently hate that quote.

While I agree it often is and can be, I don't believe it can only or has to be.

[phishtaper]

marx argued' date=' religion is the opiate of the masses[/quote']

I fervently hate that quote.

i like it actually. and i figured it was politer than,

Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand

[ollie]

marx argued' date=' religion is the opiate of the masses[/quote']

I fervently hate that quote.

While I agree it often is and can be, I don't believe it can only or has to be.

That's the opiate talking.

[Birdy]

Birdy , I have to say I have difficulty with your posts.I think I get hung up on the particular way you have chosen to hang your words, from which I infer a meaning I feel you didn't intend.

the want to do good and be good and a hope that because of their actions something will be rewarded to them in the end

I don't find this synopsis of the good in religion accurate at all...it's very self serving, and is an element I find despicable in a lot of religions...the tithing of your actions as afterlife investment.

What I do find appealing about religion..and why I consider myself a religious person...is the community built upon personal spiritual instinct coupled with a (in true faith) a humbleness before whatever greatness you feel lies behind the veil.

I agree with phishtaper that religion is a social mechanism, and as such can be built awry, stormed and defeated, built again....extremely subject to the vagaries of time, history and humanity.But at it's core, it is a way to build connection to others while circling what is a very solitary endeavour...communication with the sacred.

Birdy also said something about environment ...I really feel that religions, when started, were built upon a sense of place, a spiritual reaction to an actual landscape and a human experience of it.That the differences in religions arise form different landscapes and the encapsulation of those differences in deeper and deeper symbolism ,myths and rituals.

The disconnect between physical environment and cerebral environment becomes/became the tension in religion as it evolved..and that a reclamation of a spiritual experience of the physicality of land is necessary to stabilize the advances in cerebral landscapes.

We are a species tethered to here and swimming to there.

Where is DEM?He isn't registering on my radar the last couple of weeks...

Where is DEM? I was thinking the same thing the other day...

I think humankind and pretty much all life in general ultimately very self-serving by nature stemming from the will to survive and the reliance on other forces whatever they may be - sun, water, food, shelter - and in thinking this and in believing of an after life, can't really find human action in this life as a determining factor of how you live on later to be despicable at all. We eat because we need sustenance, we drink because we need fluids, why then does it become despicable for one act a certain way to ensure their souls go on after their mortal bodies die?

[StaggerLee]

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

[d_rawk]

You can also say that many "religious" people's attitudes towards other religions, atheism (or other "non-believer's") and lack of acceptance that causes problems too.

So we all agree that intolerance is a problem. Good.

i do not see religion as an individual thing. i see that level as either personal spirituality or personal adherence to the larger system of mores and habits.

But the communal is not barren, nor is it a wasteland, nor is shared experience something that ought be written off without regard or at least exploration. What happens when many individuals adhere to that larger system of mores and habits? As humans, they likely have a desire to celebrate it amongst each other. Should we all retreat into our own personal spiritual vacuums?

i.e., kill in the name of their god. more people on this planet have unnecessarily died in the name of this or that god than for any other reason. that is why i say religion is destructive.

Chauvinism kills. Religion has been one emblem of that, along with nationalism, etc.. In that function, it is a tool perverted to the separate cause of power expansion, and it is the source of that perversion that ought to be condemned. There have been many horrifying acts in the name of secularism (communism as it has been expressed thus far) and it is hardly fair to say that secularism kills. The inquisition was not about religion, except insofar as religion was a cultural emblem to mark the difference between 'them' and 'us'. That distinction could be - and was - marked in a myriad of ways. People are killed en masse in the name of cultural superiority, not any God, though a God may be called into that service if it makes the distinction sufficiently marked. Idiots with narrow vision make war, they can be - and have been - just as easily 'religious' (the word is becoming increasingly problematic as the thread goes on, as we all bring our own baggage to it) as not.

I don't find this synopsis of the good in religion accurate at all...it's very self serving, and is an element I find despicable in a lot of religions...the tithing of your actions as afterlife investment.

I find the same, and when I'm adopting the Christian persona, am constantly decrying the contemporary idea that the Christian story and texts speak of an afterlife in any meaningful sense at all, other than vague allusions to the traditional Jewish notion of a general resurrection, which I'm just as happy to understand metaphorically as the world finally getting its head out of its ass.

Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand

Or a shared celebration of poetry and meaningful metaphor, and one hard, phallic thrust into the darkness of mystery.

[phorbesie]

Speaking of bears. Don't name one of them Mohamed.

Sudanese Islamist Awesome-ist - Link to full article.

Hundreds of Sudanese Muslims, waving green Islamic flags, took to the streets of Khartoum on Friday demanding death for the British teacher convicted of insulting Islam after her class named a teddy bear Mohammad.

"No one lives who insults the Prophet," the protesters chanted, a day after school teacher Gillian Gibbons, 54, was sentenced to 15 days in jail and deportation from Sudan.

the thing that got me here was that THOUSANDS of people were protesting and calling for her death. a few nut-jobs i can understand, but thousands!! it was the children who named the teddy bear, so shouldn't all the children be sentenced to death?

[phishtaper]

shouldn't all the children be sentenced to death?

yes. clearly. infidels in training.

[hamilton]

Fundamentalist Aesopians Interpret Fox-Grapes Parable Literally

MONTGOMERY, AL—A controversial new bill pending before the Alabama Legislature has deeply divided the state along theological lines, sending right-wing fundamentalist Aesopians into an uproar. HR 1604, if passed, would broaden nutritional guidelines used in the state's school-lunch program, permitting a wider variety of fruits and vegetables to be served, including grapes, the consumption of which is a sin according to Aesopian doctrine.

"The state of Alabama is trying to bully us into submission," said Herman Bray, Pastor of the First Universal Church Of Aesop in Huntsville. "They're trying to rob us of our most cherished beliefs and send our children the message that grapes are acceptable for eating."

Clutching a worn, leather-bound copy of Aesop's Parables, Bray explained his congregation's strict opposition to the law.

"The Holy Writ of Aesop makes it plain that the fox, in his anger at the unreachable grapes, cursed the offending fruit and made all grapes sour forever," Bray said. "It is common sense—and a core belief of the Church Of Aesop—that this is a directive from Aesop Himself against grape consumption. Grapes are plainly exposed as a foul, sour-tasting fruit which dirties both body and soul, and this is a strict tenet of our dietary code." Alabama Aesopians are threatening to take their children out of school if the bill becomes law.

"Our beliefs and history have been laughed off by the secular media as fiction, as 'fables,'" Bray continued. "But the fox-and-the-grapes incident is not just some fantasy concocted by the Aesopian Right. Our research has determined that it most likely occurred between 605 and 602 B.C.E. in the province of Phrygia, was witnessed by a young Aesop and ultimately recorded in what became the Holy Book of Aesopians. Our church's archaeological and historical data all confirm the details recorded in the Aesop account."

The Aesopians' claims have provoked strong reaction among academics. "They think what? That this is a directive not to eat grapes?" asked Darrin Schmidt, professor of folklore and mythology at NYU. "The whole point of the story is that the grapes aren't sour at all. I think that's pretty unambiguous." Bray dismissed Schmidt's comments as "heretical anti-Aesopian hate speech."

Curtis Milner, president of the Birmingham-based Aesopian Coalition, said his organization is prepared to go all the way to the Supreme Court if Alabama passes what he calls "an openly hostile, blatantly anti-Aesopian piece of legislation."

"These lawmakers are attacking our most closely held beliefs," Milner said. "Not only is it disrespectful; it is a clear violation of the Constitution of this land."

According to Milner, the beliefs of the Aesopians are simple and direct. "We honor the courage and the noble sacrifice of Aesop, who gave His life to educate the world, not backing down even to the day of His execution by the wicked Athenian despot Peisistratus," Milner said. "That event, though tragic on the surface, was actually a day of exhilarating triumph over evil, for as a result of it, the histories painstakingly recorded by Aesop gained immortality."

Link

[Kanada Kev]

Did anyone else watch this? It was really quite interesting and I thought really should have been twice the length to flesh out the ideas a little more. A 'town hall' kind of discussion after with members of different faiths would have been informative as well.

Blind Faith ... really at the root of so much.

I'm interested in catching this show later on in the week:

http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/paganchrist.html

THE PAGAN CHRIST

Thursday December 6, 2007 at 9pm on CBC-TV

repeating Saturday December 8, 2007 at 10pm ET on CBC Newsworld

nativityThere are 2.1 billion Christians on the planet – roughly one third of the entire human population. At the heart of their religion is the New Testament and the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. To Christianity, the written word is the glue that binds the faith of its followers.

So, what if it could be proven that Jesus never existed? What if there was evidence that every word of the New Testament – the cornerstone of Christianity – is based on myth and metaphor?

Based on Tom Harpur’s national bestseller, The Pagan Christ examines these very questions. During his research, Harpur discovered that the New Testament is wholly based on Egyptian mythology, that Jesus Christ never lived, and that – indeed – the text was always meant to be read allegorically. It was the founders of the Church who duped the world into taking a literal approach to the scriptures. And, according to Harpur, this was their fatal error – and the very reason Christianity is struggling today.

The mission of The Pagan Christ is not to accelerate Christianity’s slow demise, but to breath new life into its holy book and, in the process, bring the world a richer, more spiritual faith.

[Kanada Kev]

[d_rawk]

Did anyone else watch this? It was really quite interesting and I thought really should have been twice the length to flesh out the ideas a little more. A 'town hall' kind of discussion after with members of different faiths would have been informative as well.

Caught the tail-end, didn't see much new there, but thoroughly enjoyed what I saw. Can never be said enough. Can't speak to what preceded the point at which I tuned in, though, of course. A town hall would've been great .. anybody else ever catch that panel discussion between the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, and others (I regret not being familiar enough with the others to recall their names) the second-to-last time the Dalai Lama visited Canada? It was stellar. Pure fucking gold.