For anyone interested (I think Blackjack mentioned an interest) I am done with my paper in which I assert that the essential nature of Mormonism and the American Holiness Movement is essentially gnostic. Just drop me a line and I will mail you a copy.

over and out...

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, November 02, 2001 - 12:25 pm: Edit

As a book of the New Testament its even more out of place. Its a bit strange sitting alongside Matthew's Gospel etc.

Anyway it makes for good Rasta quotations in Reggae songs. Where would Reggae be without Revelation, Babylon and the Seven Seals?

Hobgoblin

By _Blackjack on Friday, November 02, 2001 - 11:24 am: Edit

Justin--

I'd be interested to see the paper when it is done. I think Mormonism, specifically, falls very distinctly within the gnostic tradition.

By Chrysippvs on Thursday, November 01, 2001 - 07:20 pm: Edit

I have never liked the Apoc. of John. It seemed to be a lesser of similar literature being produced by Gnostics at the same time. The authorship is totally unknown. It is though it was composed while John was on Patmos but it could be anyone with a similar name including Gnostics (take for instance the Apocryphon of John found in the Nag Hammadi library). It going into the cannon almost totally rested with the weight of St. Athanasius during the Arrian controversy. As a matter of fact more early church fathers and early churches fell the Shepherd of Hermias (sp?) in significatly higher regard than the Apoc. of John.

The book, IMHO, was actually composed by a member of the Ebonite sect, commonly referred to as the Judaizers. The book seems to talk at length about very Jewish notion of the messiah and the war to come (compare the Sons of light vs the sons of belial in the Dead Sea Texts). I am doing a paper know on the role that the Gnostics played in the development of western thought and I am arguing that all evangelical (southern Baptists, Pentecostals, etc...) and American religions (Mormons, Adventists, watchtower, etc..) are essentially Gnostics. This should raise some eye brows. One of my points is the heavy use of apocalyptic literature in the formation of these sects and the use of the "Holy Spirit" which is another form of apocalyptic thought....

I totally love seeing the diagrams mapping out the path of the end of the world. Boy are they going to be shocked. I can see it now:

Feb. 10 2034, the end of the world

Pastor: "Hey God, you were supposed to send down the bowls of your wrath before sending the angel Apollyon."

God: "Whoops...sorry about that. I guess I am going to just have to start over..."


- J

By Etienne on Thursday, November 01, 2001 - 06:49 pm: Edit

I think it was the last book to be accepted into the canon, wasn't it? I've been told that the authorship was questioned, but I wonder if it wasn't something deeper. Try to describe something which cannot be visualized. Any thoughts Justin?

By _Blackjack on Thursday, November 01, 2001 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Revelation is in the New Testement, is heavily derived from the OT book of Isaiah, and is totally consistant with the previous two centuries of apocalyptic literature. It is just the apocalypse which made it into the canon. There are several, much weirder apocalyptes (like Buffy says, it's not a good sign when you have to know the plural of "apcalypse") in the Qumran library.

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, November 01, 2001 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Revelations is by far the most interesting book of the Bible.

It's so 'far-out' and interesting it just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the Old Testament, either in character or sequentially. It's as if someone came across it and said "this is weird stuff, it's nothing like the rest of the Old Testament books at all and it doesn't fit in with the flow of the other Old Testament books, but it's just far too cool to miss out so we should stick it in anyway".

The author of Revelation must have been on something when it was written, maybe he was a dark age Rasta smoking really top quality Herb.

Hobgoblin

By Perruche_Verte on Thursday, November 01, 2001 - 05:31 am: Edit

Thanks for your generous assessment of my country's educational standards, Heiko.

Many people read that in American Lit classes - it's a classic Puritan text - but I doubt 1 in 10 could identify it.

By Bjacques on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 - 06:55 pm: Edit

I might have recognized it if you'd quoted a different bit, like the part about "bow of God's wrath." I had to read it for English class ages ago. And to think this was 50 years *after* the Salem witch trials (qualifying heat).

It's almost as good as the part in Revelation where John describes God as being as of jasper, having no face, around whose throne sit four beings with eyes in front and back. In the Eighties, Jerry Falwell and others were big on the Book of Revelation, but never seemed to mention this part. They urged the Israelis to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, which meant paving over the spot where Muhammad ascended to Paradise, which would lead to a pan-Arab final strike and toe-to-toe with the Rooskies in nuclear combat. In short, Armageddon. The people who believed this crap were no friends of the jews, since the Final Conflicty would have left only 144,000 of them alive, making Jesus II worse than Hitler. Who knows whether this was the idea all along, but then again, most such attempts for fulfill Millerite Biblical prophecy was on a level of "let's see what this red button does."

Even Reagan wasn't that crazy.

By Heiko on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 - 02:59 am: Edit

Sorry, forgot to mention the author for us Europeans - I guess all Americans knew where it was from ;-) (sorry for this stereotypical assumption...)

Jonathan Edwards, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, 1741
(full text)

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 - 02:10 am: Edit

Where is that quote from?

By Heiko on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 03:41 pm: Edit

...and always remember before you are bad boys and girls:

"(...) He will crush you under his feet without mercy; He will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on His garments, so as to stain all His raiment. He will not only hate you, but He will have you, in the utmost contempt: no place shall be thought fit for you, but under His feet to be trodden down as the mire of the streets."

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 03:19 pm: Edit

I wasn't going to get in the middle of this, however...

You are all good people too.

But sometimes I would like to knock all your heads together.

Stay safe and Have a Nice Day.

By Geoffk on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Cat on a keyboard is one analogy. My analogy would be this. You're in a coffeeshop having an intelligent discussion with a friend about politics/religion/culture etc. A gal you know, who's usully pretty friendly wanders in and decides to break up your conversation, just for the hell of it. She sits at your table, spills your drinks, sticks her fingers in her ears and shouts "I can't HEAR you!!" and generally acts like an asshole. Eventually, you and your friend get up and leave, since it's too much trouble to try and continue.

Is this trollish? Yes in the sense that it's trying to stop something constructive by obnoxious methods. Certainly, if she's not being a "troll" she's being a "boor", or to be a bit more Anglo-Saxon about it, an "asshole". Yes it's, just empty space, but it's annoying, empty space, that makes it difficult to follow the thread and respond. You can debate whether it was inserted "playfully" or "maliciously", but you can't debate that it was obnoxious.

So feel free to defend her. She's a nice person. But good behavior doesn't excuse bad behavior.

-- Geoff K.

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 01:36 pm: Edit

"It's the one's that aren't quite sold on the whole thing that are the most attractive."
-St. Peter

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 01:34 pm: Edit

I'd like to say a prayer for all of you, to the God who I occasionally doubt.

By Bjacques on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Whatever's bothering Vera (I hope it works out ok) sounds a lot worse than the annoyance of having yet another politics & religion thread briefly interrupted. If it helps, think of her as the cat who jumps on the desk while you're charting the course of Cold War Two and knocks your orange soda onto the keyboard, causing you to throw yourself backward to avoid further soiling your least filthy T-shirt. You look around an notice for the first time in awhile how messy your room or office is, and how nice a day it is. Take a break.

Anyway, I grew up in Texas, the buckle of the Bible Belt, and still remember Blue Laws. Some friends live in DFW, where you join the First Babtist Church, or leave town, or go nuts, or take the Fourth Option--Praise Fuggin' "Bob" and see you at Disturbathon.

In other words, yeah, 95% of Americans consider themselves religious, the air was choked with guardian angels in the '90s (and so were the airwaves) and the fundies have their own news, tv shows and movie industry and theme parks. So what? That doesn't make the U.S. the Republic of Gilead from "The Handmaid's Tale." Move to a big town (as long as it's not Indianapolis, Boise or Cincinnati) and you don't have to worry about it.

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Bob,

I admit I have never been to the USA and I guess it all depends on your definition of fanatically religious. But by Western European standards a country where practically everybody believes in God and where the vast majority attend a place of worship, is indeed a fanatically religious country. Over here hardly anybody gives a second thought to God, let alone believe in one. The most attended places of worship are Mosques (and Muslims are a minority group here). For the vast majority of people here religion does not enter their lives at all (even in a very small way).

On paper the largest religious group is the Anglican Church of England but in reality this means nothing. The Church of England is the English state religion with the Queen (our official Head of State) as its head. English people who never thinks about religion, never attends a church, and couldn't care less put this down as their religion because the Church of England does have some nice churches if they ever need to get married in one and let's face it a nice church makes a better backdrop to wedding photos than a drab registry office.

So in comparision to Western European countries the USA is fanatically religious. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, there is too much apathy over here.

And Geoff,

As for the Jewish thing on TV. I've no problem with Jews being succesful in the media. It's just that every third character on American TV programmes is Jewish. They have a great sense of humour for sure but over here from watching TV you'd think that the USA was a third Jewish. It's like thinking that a third of the population of the UK was Hindu.

Hobgoblin

By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 11:26 am: Edit

Gentlemen, Vera is not a troll. A troll is out there, but it ain't Vera. She may be wasting Kallisti's free electrons, but who among us is not guilty of that?

A troll has a very specific definition and acts in very specific ways and merely setting out to kill a thread and making it scroll way too long does not count.

By Heiko on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 09:51 am: Edit

Should we announce Vera troll of the month?

By Dr_Ordinaire on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 09:31 am: Edit

Chong, Vera, sorry for butting in a private argument.

I did too much "quality control" last night...

By Mr_Rabid on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 01:57 am: Edit

Vera, you cannot kill this thread. Nothing can, short of decapitation, fire, or sunlight.

"..."faith" is superior to reason--using your head just gets you in trouble..."

I forgot who said that on my way back up here past Blank Land. But anyhow- faith is not about believing something to be true with no evidence.

Faith is like love (true love, I'm talking about here.) It is a force, a power. Something that just IS.

If I say I can prove Jesus was really a robot sent back in time... that doesn't invalidate his message. If I can prove the Buddha was a wife beater, that doesn't mean he didn't speak wise words.

If one of those infinite monkeys with a typewriter wrote the meaning of life, it would be no less meaningful because it came from a random collection of keystrokes.

Faith is one step beyond that. A very crucial step, akin to a million miles. Faith is ineffable, it is a thing you cannot explain to someone who doesn't get it, just like true love. It asks no proof, and cares for none.

Faith is an act of magic.

It is a spiritual, not an intellectual or emotional thing. It involves those, but they can be called side effects.

I say this not because I have faith- I passed it on the way to where I am now, so to speak... but it is real.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 11:57 pm: Edit

Geoff, Chonger, it's only EMPTY space...

It's not really a big deal. Certainly not to call OUR Vera a cunt, is it?

I mean, if she goes away...do you want to get stuck with the boring Swiss doctors, the even-more-boring chemists, the even-more-more-boring-you-know-whos...?

C'mon...

By Geoffk on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 11:37 pm: Edit

Be that as it may, in this particular instance I think she was probably acting in a bitchy, provocative and trollish way--and trying to break up an active and (for me) interesting thread. The fact that 99% of the time she is a legitimate and interesting poster doesn't mean that everything she does must be excused. I mean, being a great husband 99.99% of the time doesn't excuse my beating my wife right now.

-- Geoff K.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 11:17 pm: Edit

Monsieur le Chongeur:

I don't want to start an argument, but, according to what I've seen so far, Verushka and Headmeister are, by far, the most creative entities in this Forum.

You fuck up with her, it is you who's going to receive her bloodied ear in the mail...

By Bob_Chong on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 11:07 pm: Edit

DocO:

Maybe you didn't scroll down far enough (i.e., because the Cunt cunted it up too much to make it worth trying), but in her own cunty words, she admitted:
"I'm on a mission. I want to kill this thread."

There's no joke. It's just her being a bored bitch. Or more accurately, a fucking troll. Trolling for a response, provoking legitimate posters. Move it along, Cunt.

BC

By Dr_Ordinaire on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Chong, there is a big difference between making a joke that most people don't get (me included) and being a cunt. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

By Bob_Chong on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 10:48 pm: Edit

A few things:

1. Vera, why are you such a cunt? You are no better than a whole flock of trolls. Trying to provoke someone? Mission accomplished: you win. Go shit on another thread.

2. Geoff K: regarding the Simpsons and religion, read the book, The Gospel According to the Simpsons. You'll see that Blackjack knows what the hell he's talking about.

3. "Separation of church and state" are words which appear nowhere in the Consitution...

4. As for the relative fanaticism of this country, stereotypes notwithstanding, I could see how BJ would think this place is a hotbed of fanatics. But to me, it's a hotbed of apathy. The way I see it, this is a worldly country full of people who have no business with God. (The diff. between what BJ says and what I say? Think of Annie Hall's view of how much sex she is having vs. Alvy's view. Same amount, different lens.)

5. RE: Hanukah stuff in school. I wasn't debating the importance of Hanukah or Kwaanza. All I meant was there are hardly any Jews in this country, percentage-wise (there are probably more Lesbian Eskimo Transvestite Quakers than there are Jews). I didn't have any Jewish friends until I was 9 or 10: there were no Jews in my town. But there sure were a shitload of Stars of David in my public school come every December. Growing up, I would have thought the US were *half* Jewish, not the 2% it really was.

BC

By Perruche_Verte on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Just begging for a crude response, aren't you, Vera?

By _Blackjack on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:57 pm: Edit

I know, Vera. I'm just hankerin' for a spankerin'.

By Verawench on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Oh, you!!! Can't you see I'm trying to rebuild the Towers???

By Geoffk on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:40 pm: Edit

BJ,

I see what you're saying, but I still can't see the Simpsons as being positive on religion, any more than they are positive on Nuclear power (and how many other shows have nuclear power plants in them either)? Of ourse, as a satire, it's fine.

I understand the seperation of Church and state idea. I do feel that it's overextended sometimes nowadays, to the extent that a purely voluntary religious group (for example a student club) may be prohibited from using public (i.e. school) facilities. While I'm not a fan of religion, I don't think the constitution calls for it to be actiely suppressed. And to allow a gay/lesbian group to meet and prohibit a bible study group from doing so for "Constitutional" reasons, seems a little counterintuitive.

Finally, you're right, there's a lot of "throwaway" religious elements in TV/movies that people often don't notice. Still, this as much cultural or artistic as religious (a church wedding is much more "cinematic" than a Justice of the Peace's office). When Hollywood really calls attention to religion, it's as often negative as positive. And highly religious people tend to be portrayed in a negative way.

-- Geoff K.

By Verawench on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Teehee.

Naughty Naughty.

By Verawench on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:36 pm: Edit

By Geoffk on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:33 pm: Edit

Hey Vera, Whatever you're trying to do, it doesnt seem to be working. Unless, you trying to insert annoying blank spaces, in which case, it's working just fine.

-- Geoff K.

By Verawench on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:25 pm: Edit

MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! ONE MORE

By Verawench on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:23 pm: Edit

By _Blackjack on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:21 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

It's not so odd when you consider that Flanders and just about every other explicitly religious person, Christian, Jew and Hindu, (including God and Jesus) are pretty much held up as objects of ridicule.

---

---

Quote:

If they were respectful about it, it would be out of character, but, as it stands, it's just one more thing that they make fun of.

---

---

Quote:

I certainly wouldn't imagine anyone becoming more religious after watching the show.

---

---

Quote:

One reason American media is so secular is because of the separation of Church and State in the US Constitution. Originally, this just banned an "Official National Religion",

---

---

Quote:

but now it's widely used to prohibit most kinds of religious organizations or practices in any kind of public sphere (Bible clubs in public schools, Town Christmas displays etc.).

---

---

Quote:

The liberal Hollywood establishment doesn't want to be accused of promoting any one kind of religion (in preference to some other one), so they just avoid the issue by eliminating references to religion altogether.

---

By Verawench on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:17 pm: Edit

By Geoffk on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:14 pm: Edit

It's also worth keeping in mind that America is not monolithic. Most of the Midwest (and South) is religious to an extent that would make cynical New Yorkers or LA residents laugh and cringe. Outside of big cities like Detroit And Chicago, the Midwest is also has many fewer minorities than other parts of the country.

Coincidently, it's the most boring part of the country, bar none.

-- Geoff K.

By Verawench on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:09 pm: Edit

I'm on a mission.

I want to kill this thread.

By _Blackjack on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:06 pm: Edit

America is fanatically religious relative to a lot of North-Western Europe, where Christianity has become rather blase. There are more practicing Muslims in England than there are practicing Anglicans. And America is also fanatically PROTESTANT, which is fairly unusual. Most of the highly-religious Christian nations are Catholic or Orthodox. This accounts in no small part for our prudish hangups about sex.

It's all a sliding scale. For a highly educated, wealthy, industrialized nation, we are unusually religious, but we are certainly a bunch of heathans compared to much of the developing world.

As far as the presence of Jews in entertainment goes, keep in mind that a great deal of our TV shows and movies are set in urban areas, where Jews are a much stronger presence. Every fifth person you meet in New York IS Jewish, and LA, Chicago, Philadelphia and much of Florida are similar. They're where the action is, so to speak.

What _I_ don't understand is how the people on Friends can live in NYC without ever running into a black or Latino person, since whites aren't even the plurality anymore...

By Verawench on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Sandals...
Consumerism...
Things you see during a bad trip...

By Geoffk on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:04 pm: Edit

BC,

Hannukah is not traditionally a big holiday for Jews. It celebrates a rather minor miracle that didnt make much impact in the long term. However, it happens to fall right around Christmas, which is when Christian kids (in the US anyway) get loads of toys and stuff (as well as trees, cool house decorations etc.) In order to "compete" and so Jewish kids don't feel punished for not being Christian, American Jews made a much bigger deal out of Hannukah.

As for Kwaanza, this was the explicit invention of a Black university professor, fabricated entirely out of whole cloth so American black kids could have a "holiday of their own" around Christmas. It has even less historical and cultural foundation than the big Hannukah celebrations (none whatsoever, in fact) and it's amazing that anybody takes it seriously at all. This is doubly true since many Kwaanza celebrants don't have any problem with celebrating Christmas.

As for the disproportionate representation of Jews in American media and culture, the fact is that Jews have been very successful, in spite of discrimination against them. Media, medicine, finance, law and University faculty are all overrepresented with Jews--Blue collar and unskilled professions are underrepresented. Since these people tend to be more influential and get more exposure, the overall number of Jews is probably overestimated. For what it's worth, the same thing happens to Asians nowadays. In some fields (science, engineering) Asian-Americans are already the dominant figures and in others (law, medicine) they are coming up fast. I think most people would also overestimate the number/percentage of Asian-americans.

-- Geoff K.

By Verawench on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 09:02 pm: Edit

I can't help myself, it's just that this picture works so well in so many different contexts.

Baseball, Christianity, art, pedophelia, inappropriate sports attire...

By Geoffk on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 08:52 pm: Edit

> It's very odd to think that the Simpsons is one
> of the few American TV programs where the
> family regularly attends church...

It's not so odd when you consider that Flanders and just about every other explicitly religious person, Christian, Jew and Hindu, (including God and Jesus) are pretty much held up as objects of ridicule. If they were respectful about it, it would be out of character, but, as it stands, it's just one more thing that they make fun of. I certainly wouldn't imagine anyone becoming more religious after watching the show. (Mind you, I don't think Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell would inspire me to become more religious either).

One reason American media is so secular is because of the separation of Church and State in the US Constitution. Originally, this just banned an "Official National Religion", but now it's widely used to prohibit most kinds of religious organizations or practices in any kind of public sphere (Bible clubs in public schools, Town Christmas displays etc.). The liberal Hollywood establishment doesn't want to be accused of promoting any one kind of religion (in preference to some other one), so they just avoid the issue by eliminating references to religion altogether. When they don't, other religions besides Christianity are often are portrayed for "equal time" type reasons (like the token white on a "Black show"). Even the Simpsons does this (with Abu the Hindu, etc.).

I can't decide which I prefer, phony Hollywood reverence (e.g. The Ten Commandments, The Robe, Touched by an Angel), or phony Hollywood religious cynicism (e.g. Priest, Godfather 3, Leap of Faith). Maybe the last word can come from "Bull Durham":

"I believe in the Church of Baseball. I've tried all the major religions, and most of the minor ones. I've worshipped Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan. I know things. For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I heard that, I gave Jesus a chance. But it just didn't work out between us. The Lord laid too much guilt on me. I prefer metaphysics to theology. You see, there's no guilt in baseball, and it's never boring...

which makes it like sex."


-- Geoff K.

By Bob_Chong on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Lord H:

I disagree that the US is "fanatically religious." Have you ever been here, and for how long at a stretch? We're not fanatically anything, as a whole. Well, I suppose we fanatically ended the world wars twice in the 20th C., but hey...

Regarding the whole Jew thing, I agree that it is far overrepresented in the US culture in relation to the Jewish population (which has been a stable 2% for the past 100 years). Growing up, we'd see so many Stars of David and so much stuff about Channukah in school that you'd have thought that the country was teeming with Jews. Man, was I surprised to find out the truth, many years later. I would guess that more people in the US celebrate Kwaanza, in earnest, than Channukah.

BC

By _Blackjack on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 01:35 pm: Edit

It's very odd to think that the Simpsons is one of the few American TV programs where the family regularly attends church...

On the other hand, there are entire TV networks specifically devoted to religious programming. Remember, Pat Robertson has his own channel...

By Heiko on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 12:42 pm: Edit

I think American TV programs represent life in Hollywood much more than life in the USA.
In an area where the average woman weighs 80 pounds, where plastic surgery is a must, and where "the self" and "success" are the only things people believe in, what TV programs could we expect to be produced there?

What I find funny is the "quota minority" that appears in all shows. Take a black show and you have one white guy to play the funny idiot. Take a white show and you got the nice black neighbour who is the most friendly person in the world.

One more thing is weird about this: In Germany, people were very much influenced by what they were seeing on TV and in the movies. For a long time they were thinking that every American must be a long-haired biker or a freaky surfer. Somehow, this has changed Germans' acceptance to weird outfits and all that stuff more than it has changed most Americans' acceptance (they always knew it was only a movie or a show and not reality).

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 11:47 am: Edit

It amazes me how fanatically religious the USA is and how this is not at all relected in American TV programs.

From American TV programmes you'd think that the USA was just as dis-interested in religion and as atheistic/agnostic as Western Europe (where most people never set foot inside a place of worship). American TV programmes also give the impression that about 30% of the population of the USA is Jewish.

Hobgoblin

By Heiko on Sunday, October 28, 2001 - 03:45 pm: Edit

"For comparison, about 95% of Americans, in general, beleive in some kind of supreme being, with 67% believing in a personal god."

In Germany, about 95% of all people believe that they are themselves the most supreme being...

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, October 28, 2001 - 01:02 am: Edit

Tim,

"Its really about probablilty, its more probable that the Earth orbits the sun than that I will be reincarnated as a goat next time around."

Yes you are correct here. But this still doesn't mean you (if indeed you exist as you) still may not be reincarnated as a goat. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

There is no automatic conflict between religion and science. Is there an automatic conflict between science and philosophy? There is just as likely (in fact probably more so) to be conflict between differing scientific views and theories than between 'religious' and 'scientific' views.

We go round and round in circles but I guess your argument with religion is that you believe it expects people to 'believe' in 'holy' scriptures rigidly and accept that the 'law' has been laid down by a greater authority and is therefore indisputable.

I too share your critisism of this approach, but not all 'religions' take this approach. Some religions have no God, no creeds that should be accepted on blind faith and no required acts of worship. Some religions require their 'followers' to find their own path based on experience. Not all religions believe their own 'teachings' to be the only way, or even the 'best' way. Some religions actively encourage criticism.

Any person (or creed, secular or religious) that holds that their favoured method (and their's alone) of interpretating the world has all the answers is wrong. All methods and views (religious, scientific, philosophical and otherwise) should be assessed positively and critically. By binding ourselves to one method only (and also wasting valuable energy pontificating that our way is the only way) and outrightly rejecting (on a point of 'principle') other methods (without often even having a knowledge of the methods rejected) we will continue to fumble around in the darkness ocassionally tripping over a lump of truth. The use of many torches (rather than just one torch) will make it easier to find your way through a dark forest.

Hobgoblin

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, October 28, 2001 - 01:45 am: Edit

My neighbors, Ed Gein, John Wayne Gayce, Henry Lee Lucas( and Earl), Ted Bundy, John Norman Collins, Orenthal and Torquemada say that you all's neighbors are suck ass, posers...

Well? I think it's time for a Royal Rumble. Let's have my posse call your posse and do a drive by.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, October 28, 2001 - 01:29 am: Edit

Geoff,

I may well believe that my neighbour is wrong to believe that he is Napoleon but it is not my business to go around and convince him that I am right. It is up to him to find out the truth for himself. If he's doing you no harm then you should just leave him be. Unless of course you believe yourself to have a personal mission to spread what you believe is the 'truth'. I suspect you have a proselytising streak within you.

Hobgoblin

By Timk on Sunday, October 28, 2001 - 12:27 am: Edit

"Therefore nothing can be 'proven' to be a fact because in order to do so you would have to be able to 'prove' everything."

Its really about probablilty, its more probable that the Earth orbits the sun than that I will be reincarnated as a goat next time around.
When someone has to resort to trying to prove the sun orbits the earth, well...

By Verawench on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 06:24 pm: Edit

The God article, when I read it a few weeks ago, made me cry.

I was kind of shocked when the Onion put out its "Holy Fucking Shit" edition but one can't be mislead by their headlines - the articles are equally sincere in anger and sadness and great Onion satire.

By Petermarc on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 06:06 pm: Edit

http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/god_clarifies_dont_kill.html

By Petermarc on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 06:02 pm: Edit

http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/hijackers_surprised.html

By Verawench on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 11:46 am: Edit

Me, i have a fouchette fetish.

By Verawench on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 11:44 am: Edit

Pornography 101

By _Blackjack on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 09:46 am: Edit

I have to admit, I kinda find the "tenticles and testicles" genre of hentai kinda hot. I'm sure this is not a good sign...

By _Blackjack on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 09:43 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Look at how many scientists who deal with physics, astronomy and even genetic engineering say they are strong believers in one or the other religion (mostly christian) - it's, from what I've seen so far, a higher percentage of them than amongst other people.

---

---

Quote:

"Of those, 40% expressed belief in a deity, while nearly 45% did not. Larson's survey also discovered that physicists were less likely to have such faith, while mathematicians were significantly more likely to believe in a supreme being, as defined by Leuba...When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism."

---

By Bjacques on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 06:56 am: Edit

Eeewwwww! There's some pretty gross stuff from about 150 years ago, by an artist named Yoshitoshi, stuff like pretty girls being trussed up and sliced up by female ogres. In a society so closely ordered, I've always assumed such artwork was just how they let off steam. Still, Yoshitoshi would be hard pressed to beat the Legend of the Overfiend.

I wish I had a copy of the Disney orgy. Wally Wood did it in the 50s and for some reason, maybe parody, it was legal. Paul Krassner reprinted it in "The Best of the Realist." I even saw a few copies on the internet, a couple of years ago. Disney must have bypassed Fair Use by bigfooting ISPs, because I can't find them now.

By Don_Walsh on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 04:35 am: Edit

Verawench:

One has to take Japanese hentai-anime in context, it is a mistake to take these images for granted. Many of them are spoofs of very popular anime characters, with comic intent, much like that poster that used to go round in USA with Disney characters in a clusterfuck. These are professional and sometimes amateur anime artists letting off steam.

This kind of anime ranges from the merely erotic to the graphically sexual to the kinky and very kinky, to an entire subgenre of blood & guts stuff that can be quite gross. I suspect the cartoonists are trying to just gross each other out, it's competitive one-upsmanship.

There is a sub-sub genre of (cartoon) girls and sometimes ladyboys, with multiple amputations, that is what you are referring to. Often the fully shorn female is a lesbian captive and is being converted into a uniquely Japanese style of doll. Sometimes hard points are added for bondage/suspension purposes. So there are issues of control, absolute control, in the psychology of these cartoons.

Suffice it to say that the Japanese have a unique psychosexual profile.

By Heiko on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 04:29 am: Edit

"Our secular science does NOT have all the answers."

Look at how many scientists who deal with physics, astronomy and even genetic engineering say they are strong believers in one or the other religion (mostly christian) - it's, from what I've seen so far, a higher percentage of them than amongst other people.
One of the example was my physics teacher in school - he had a doctor's title in math (and of course a master in physics) but was very open to anything others would laugh about right away - like that some people might have telepathic abilities or that certain crystals might have certain powers. He used to say "the fact that we can't prove it today only means that we might prove it tomorrow - nothing can be considered impossible until we can definitely prove it to be impossible"

I mean, it's clear that if you find new surprising facts in nature every day, facts that are maybe against all the "laws" that seemed to be perfect until now, you'll probably start to believe that we know shit about what's happening in our universe.

By Geoffk on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 02:42 am: Edit

LH,

That's definitely a tolerent viewpoint. Still, if my neighbor thinks he's Napoleon, *I* believe that he's wrong. Refusing to acknowledge that he's wrong is just plain stubborn. Or else you're as crazy as he is.

And I do think that there are true facts, which have been verified beyond any reasonable doubt (example: the world is basically round). If someone has a competing point of view (i.e.: the Earth is flat) than he's wrong. Period. Yes, philisophically all reality is subjective. But my way lets me "subjectively" launch a satellite that stays in orbit.

By the way, did you ever hear this joke? A guy goes to a mental ward and asks an inmate "who are you?" The inmate says "I'm Napoleon." The guy asks "How do you know You're Napoleon?" and the inmate says "God told me."
The inmate in the next cell shouts "I DID not."

-- Geoff K.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 02:10 am: Edit

Tlautrec,

Anyone who ties his mind to any one particular viewpoint and sticks rigidly with it is a lazy man with an enslaved mind. The point is to attempt to find the truth of things not to simply just to identify yourself with one approach.

If I want to cross a river, there is always more than just one means of crossing it. If I built myself a raft and was crossing the river and a passing speed-boat stopped to give me a lift would I say "Go away I have my raft and my raft is the only and true way of crossing the river"?

Then on crossing the river would I walk around forever with my raft strapped to my back? No I'd probably break it up to make a fire to cook a meal. Then I'd look for another suitable item to help me continue on my journey.

If a particular doctrine or theory suits your purpose and helps you along a part of your journey then embrace it and use it. When it doesn't help you then use something else. The greater the diversity of vehicles available to you the better chance you have of completing your journey. What matters is where you are going and not how you get there.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 01:50 am: Edit

Geoff,

If one of my neighbour believes he's Napoleon and the other believes he's Hitler then so long as they didn't interfere with me getting on with my life then I'd have no problem with them and I'd make no attempts to try to convince them otherwise.

You say you want to encourage people to believe what's true. It is not possible to know what is true. Secular society taking the position that its 'scientific' view of the world is true (this outlook is not even scientific) and that others should be encouraged to think likewise is no better than one religion trying to spread its message to others.

None of us have the answers, live and let live.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 01:41 am: Edit

Tim

"I can prove to you that the Earth orbits the sun, can you prove to me that there is a god?"

Again you keep on making the same blanket assumptions about religion. Not all religions believe in the existence of a God.

But anyway can you even prove the existence of your own self? And can you personally really prove that the earth orbits the sun or have you just read books that tell you that others can do so?

It is impossible to prove anything absolutely and anyway scientific theory (despite common misconceptions) depends on the ability of a theory to be proven false. If a theory cannot be proven false it is not a scientific theory. If a scientific theory cannot be proven false then there could have been no scientific progress and we'd still be scraping around in the dirt believing the earth was flat.

It all depends on the assumptions you make and what you already accept as fact. If I start with the assumption (which seems obvious from my observations and experience) that the Earth is stationary (and I could provide evidence to support this assumption) then I could demonstrate and provide evidence that the Sun travels around and over the Earth in an arc from East to West.

Ultimately everything on the Earth and in the Universe is inter-related and inter-linked, there is no such thing as an independant anything. Therefore nothing can be 'proven' to be a fact because in order to do so you would have to be able to 'prove' everything. Science cannot 'prove' anything to be a fact indeed science relies on the 'fact' that nothing is an absolute 'fact'. All science can do is make its best attempt.

But science actually never claims to prove anything as an absolute fact (a common misconception), all it does is make its best attempt to try to make sense of the world around us.

Religion, philosophy and science are all just approaches and attempts by Man to try to make sense of the world in which he lives. It is self-induced blindness to take accept only one approach. You outrightly reject all 'religious' approaches without even having an understanding the viewpoint of that particular religious doctrine. That is as bad as some 'religious' people rejecting all science, saying "all religion is bullshit" is like saying "all science is bullshit". Each religious, philosophical and scientific viewpoint must be assessed on its own merit before you can choose to reject it and since there are uncountable religious viewpoints you cannot logically reject all of religion (unless you act from a position of ignorant prejudice).

Hobgoblin

By Verawench on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 09:15 pm: Edit

I was inquiring about girls without limbs in particular to find out if they are found in greater numbers in Japan.

I just think they're cool. I once wrote a short story about a boy who loses his mind after making love to a blind girl with no arms or legs.

By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 08:27 pm: Edit

The Japanese have a fetish for everything

By Verawench on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Do the Japanese really have a fetish for girls with no limbs?

By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 07:53 pm: Edit

They might not be religious (the Japanese) but they sure know how to party on New Years Eve...

With a Golden Pushbroom you'll be the Belle of the Ball.

By Geoffk on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 07:49 pm: Edit

I agree that acceptance of diversity is great. That was one of my biggest criticisms of Christianity and Islam. On the other hand, it would be nice if we encouraged people to believe what's true, or at least discourage belief in what seems to be false. If my neighbor believes he's Napoleon and my friend believes he's Hitler, I don't want to encourage the "diversity" of their beliefs.

Most religious beliefs have no discernable basis in reality. We accept that because we feel religion doesn't have to be "real" to be "true". I don't think religion should get such a big free pass.

-- Geoff K.

By Geoffk on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 07:43 pm: Edit

BC,

I know many, many Christians and quite a few Japanese as well. Every Japanese I've met isn't terribly religious and hasn't given it much thought. Religion is something that doesn't make a lot of sense, but is an accepted convention--kind of like a necktie on a suit.

The Christians had a much wider range of attitudes, but they tend to confuse Biblical scholorship with intellectual discourse. The fact that the Bible says it's true doesn't mean that it really is. Most Christians couldn't identify Mithras, the Essenes, the Gnostics, or any of the political and religious ideas that formed their religion. Likewise, most have a very hazy idea of religious philosophy and the various proofs and justifications there. Catholics tend to at least know of people like Augustine, but their attitude is usually "great, it's proven--I believed it anyway, but now I can relax." There are exceptions of course. Some of the great Tubungen theologens basically debunked most of the New Testament as mythology, but found that it didn't disturb their faith. But they're just that--exceptions.

My experience with Muslims is less involved, but what I've read tends to confirm that they mostly just study the Koran and associated writings rather than truly critical historical and philosophical scholership.

No religion encourages people to find the weaknesses and flaws in it's belief system or to examine the convoluted way in which those beliefs actually arose. Most of them actively discourage such inquiry and tell people that "faith" is superior to reason--using your head just gets you in trouble. Appealing to the heart instead of the head is a sound strategy and it has served religion well for millenia.

So I'll take my golden pushbroom and frame it. It's not the most insulting award I've received here.

-- Geoff K.

By Tlautrec on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 05:37 pm: Edit

"Diversity of belief is a very positive thing, it encourages us to question and re-assess our own beliefs."

Hob, I couldn't agree more. There are most certainly 80,000 doors to the Dharma. But how do we address/confront/rebut the arguments of the intolerant fundamentalists who vehemently deny this (to me, and obviously also to you) evident truth, and who claim that there is only ONE WAY (theirs, of course)? What can be done other than to shake one's head, Yoda-like, and to smile sadly at their unfortunate ignorance? And does it somehow make US intolerant and "prejudiced" to look at them in such a condescending, if also compassionate, way?

By Timk on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Also, prejudice with regards to voluntary actions or voluntarily held beliefs, is different from being prejudiced towards someone for something that is not voluntary, i.e. their skin colour, though it is arguable that they are also not responsible for their beliefs either.

By Timk on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 05:25 pm: Edit

I can prove to you that the Earth orbits the sun, can you prove to me that there is a god?

Though I disagree with most religious beliefs, disagreement is not the same as prejudice, to paraphrase a quote "I will disagree with your opinion until death, but I will defend with my life, your right to put forward your opinion"

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Tim,

"Additionally, believing in something either not known, or not known to be false, is not the same as believing in something known to be, or proveably false."

For a man who seems to dislike prejudice, you display very strong prejudice against religions. For someone who does not know the theological doctrines of all religions, you tar them all with the same brush and proclaim them all to be false.

Surely this is no different than tarring all people who have the same skin colour with the same brush? A bit like saying "I once knew this black guy and he was a right obnoxious, thick, lazy bastard, therefore all blacks must be just like him."

Proclaiming all religions to be based on falsehood (despite being unaware of their beliefs) is prejudice pure and simple. Prejudice is prejudice, whether its against race or Religion makes no difference.

Because you are a secular person does that give you the right to hold prejudices against those who do not hold your secular views? You're a bit of an extreme intolerant radical secular-fundamentalist I'd say. You probably think others should ditch their religious beliefs and become like you, beacuse after all secularism is the one true way of looking at things.

Hobgoblin
(Diversity of belief is a very positive thing, it encourages us to question and re-assess our own beliefs.)

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 11:25 am: Edit

TimK,

"Additionally, believing in something either not known, or not known to be false, is not the same as believing in something known to be, or proveably false."

Are you really suggesting that the beliefs of all religions are false and that you can prove so. Bullshit. There is more than 1 way to interpret the world.

Years ago people believed the Earth was flat because of course it appears so obviously so. People believed that the Sun travelled around the Earth because the evidence was there, the Sun rose in the East, travelled across the sky and set in the West. The evidence was there for all to see. And if someone suggested that the Earth was spinning around at a vast speed, they'd have been laughed at. Perhaps you believe that mankind is not as foolish now as it was then and that today, unlike back then, we KNOW that our way of interpreting the world IS correct. Scientists have always believed this and they have always been wrong.

There is more than one way to view the world around us and the predominant scientific view at present is not the only right way to view the world.

In India (at around the time of the Buddha) one religious thinker put forward a theory very similar to the current accepted atomic theory (I forget who he was, I'd have to look him up again). He approached this from a religious framework. There is not necesarily a conflict between 'religious' and 'scientific' thought, this conflict is only a recent development.

My experience with religious people of all faiths has been on the whole very positive. Unlike our liberal-secular society religion does not encourage selfish indvidualism. Without wanting to patronise you, I suspect you are a young man rebelling against religion. I too rebelled against religion (mainly because I didn't want to be told that screwing around was wrong, and I'd rather sleep off a hangover than go to Sunday morning Mass).

Why then is this 'Marxist' jumping to defend religions? Probably because I do not like the constant religion-bashing and ridiculing of groups of genuine, well-meaning groups of people. Our secular science does NOT have all the answers.

Also I feel I must declare an interest here. For the past 12 months I regularly frequent a Therevada Buddhist temple, meditate and attempt to observe 4 of the 5 precepts (the 5th precept I have given up even trying to observe). So sometimes I view myself a a Marxist-Buddhist and sometimes as a Buddhist-Marxist (which probably means I can't really be a true Marxist anyway, probably a 'quasi-Marxist-Buddhist-Atheist-Red')

Geoff made a good point. If you think that most religions try to convert others then you are wrong and you are not thinking beyond Christianity and Islam. Jews, Sikhs, Hindus (with the exception of The Hare Krishna sect) and Buddhists (seeking converts is not compatable with Buddhism) do not try to spread their religion by actively converting others. I also believe that Christianity and Islam seek to spread their message motivated by homourable intentions.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 10:52 am: Edit

"Buddism, in some of its forms, can be a relatively non-theistic religion."

This is not the case. Buddhism is entirely atheistic/non-theistic. There is no place for a God in Buddhism. God and Buddhism are not compatable. Buddhism holds that the concepts of God, the eternal Soul and also the Self are entirely man-made concepts. There is nothing at all about us or anything else that is eternal. There is no God, no Soul and no individual Self in Buddhism whatsoever.

Buddhism is not a 'religion' in the normal sense of the term, rather it is a system that attempts to explain the world around us.

Hoboblin

By Verawench on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 10:35 am: Edit

Uh... was that an insult?

By Bob_Chong on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 10:15 am: Edit

"It is rarely something chosen (or maintained) after any kind of reasoned discourse."

And the winner of the Golden Pushbroom Award is...GeoffK!!! Congratulations, your sweeping generality, disguised as fact, has won you all the acolades afforded a man of your ignorance. Kudos for seeing what you want to see and parading it around as the way, the truth, and the life!

BC

By Don_Walsh on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 09:56 am: Edit

Well, Buddhists can hardly be expected to get married in the temple, because basically funerals are the only repeat ONLY ceremonials involving the laity at a Buddhist temple. (There are some exceptions; I once was married at a Nichiren Shoshu temple in Silver Springs, Maryland...but Nichiren Shoshu (which was my ex-wife's idea of a religion NOT mine) is not exactly mainstream Buddhism even in Japan.

In Thailand Buddhists get married at home, in a ceremony where the monks are guests not officiators. It's basically a family feast. Thai Christians get married in churches. Wealthy Thais of any denomination/religion, often have elaborate Western style receptions repleat with wedding dress, tuxedo, cake, punch, hundreds of guests, all in an expensive hall at a major hotel. Outfitting and catering to these events is a big business. (Also true in Japan).

By Absinthedrinker on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 09:46 am: Edit

I had a similar experience in Kathmandu many years ago. I think the Nepalis must hold the record for the number of religious holidays, combining Hinduism and at least two varieties of Buddism. On one day I went out and all the dogs were wearing little strings of marigold flowers around their necks and had dye daubed on their heads. It was quite surreal, and no I had not been over enthusiastic on the temple balls the night before. When I asked why, I was told that it was the day for honouring dogs. Two days later it was the turn of the cows to get the flowers and paint, then brothers were being honoured by sisters, sisters by brothers and it just when on like this. Religion was really closely linked to everyday life and there was always some aspect of life to celebrate. The most awesome sight I have ever seen was the festival of light or Laxmi. I was staying in a house on a hill just outside Kathmandu and went up onto the roof after sundown. Every balcony, window ledge and roof terrace in Kathmandu was lined with candles and the electric lights had been turned off all over town. One of those moments that are simple unforgettable.

By Heiko on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 08:44 am: Edit

"Buddism, in some of its forms, can be a relatively non-theistic religion."

Nietzsche called Nihilism "Europäer-Buddhismus" - "European Buddhism" ;-)


My only real experience with an asiatic polytheistic religion was in Bali. I was amazed by the deep religiousness of people there, yet they were still very reality-oriented. We were invited to a religious event, the teeth-cutting (most important ceremony, you must do this as a Hindu) by a Balinese girl - and it really was not a tourist event. We were probably the only tourists who had ever found that village and we were kind of an attraction to the people there, so it was "the real thing". In the temple, everyone was smoking, drinking coffee, chatting, eating. The ceremony took very long, but it was worldly enough to be a real nice party.
Even those people took it very seriously (no one would want to die without their teeth being cut, you'd be reborn as an animal!) it wasn't bad to take photos, they actually encouraged us to come closer and take photos (they all would have done that excessively if they had had the money for a camera...) - a mix of religion and modern life that was very interesting.

Just like the rice and flowers they lay down everywhere for "the other people" ('ghosts' we cannot see but who live amongst us and like to play tricks on us) - if you step on these flowers because they lie in the middle of the road, it doesn't matter. What counts is the good will of the one who laid it there.

I consider this religion a very good thing - it is a strong belief, yet none that makes your life difficult in any way.

By Heiko on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 07:47 am: Edit

"One consequence of that is that people will
get married in a Christian church, bless their baby in a Shinto shrine and have a funeral in a Buddist temple."

Polytheistic religions have always been like that, I think. That's why the Romans never had a problem with religions other than their own - they just added gods they didn't have yet, or found that the others just had another name for the god of war and the two were combined. Then came the Jews and later the Christians who told the Romans that their gods were all fake and their one and only god who's not at all "a foreign instance of Jupiter" was the only right thing. That wasn't nice, so to speak, not at all...

If you look at it this way, the Romans and all the other folks were pretty open minded regarding religion - the only narrow minded idiots were the monotheists.

By Geoffk on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 07:18 am: Edit

Starting an atheism thread is a bit of a waste, given the vast quantity of excellent material available online. I would start with www.infidels.org and check out additional links there.

I was raised as a Christian (despite my now notorious support for Israel), and went to Catholic high school. I also have extensive experiance with Judaism, Buddism and Shinto (Japanese religion). I would agree that the more theology and Christian history you learn, the less likely you are to take Christianity seriously. As I've grown up, I increasingly feel that religion is used by people either as a good-luck charm, a cultural signifier/element or a means of elevating one's self above "non-believers". It is rarely something chosen (or maintained) after any kind of reasoned discourse. (One exception is Buddism. The philosophy of enforced pacifism and elimination of desire is somewhat misguided in my opinion, but it could reasonably be adopted on an intellectual basis. Buddism, in some of its forms, can be a relatively non-theistic religion.) The kind of fanaticism associated with religion is seen in very few other areas. National patriotism, familiy loyalty,sports teams and operating system choice are the only ones that spring to mind. Even here, I doubt many Windows-haters would fly a hijacked jet into Redmond WA. Do we really need this level of crazyness in the modern world?

As a side note, religion is used almost entirely in a cultural/good-luck kind of way in Japan, and is not taken very seriously. One consequence of that is that people will get married in a Christian church, bless their baby in a Shinto shrine and have a funeral in a Buddist temple. hey don't see any reason why there should be a conflict there. As usual, I'm very comfortable with their attitude here.

To my mind, the really objectionable element of both Christianity and Islam is that 1. Both religions compel followers to proslytize and actively recruit new members. At the same time, both religions disparage other, competing religions and tell followers that no other religion is acceptable. This combination of intolerence and greed has ensured that neither Christianity nor Islam can easily co-exist with each other (or with anyone else). Again, this isn't seen in Judaism, Hindu, Buddism, Shinto etc.

-- Geoff K.

By Heiko on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 05:56 am: Edit

"Any rligious text must surely be taken as a whole, thats the point of it, otherwise man creates the religion, and not God."

Absolutely! Of course I don't say I won't obey any of the things in the bible just because some other things are bad and contradictory. Not killing people has proven to be a very wise and helpful rule, for example.

But then, it's just a book of historic philosophy and not a religion.

That's the difference between followers of a philosophical school and believers of a religion. The philosophers don't even WANT anybody to obey and believe word by word - philosophic texts are supposed to be criticized and interpreted, re-thought, maybe. Religion has always been a set of absolute truths to be followed - if this changes and people start changing and interpreting it differently, it's not religion anymore, but philosophy. Therefore, you can't strictly believe in it anymore.

By Timk on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 03:11 am: Edit

Any rligious text must surely be taken as a whole, thats the point of it, otherwise man creates the religion, and not God. Yes the old and new testaments were written by many different people, but hthere are so many instances of God doing terrible unjust, spiteful theing that it cant just be a result of the age, the writers having different interpretations, etc. It was meant to be that way.

By Mr_Rabid on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 08:55 pm: Edit

Anyone who takes a 'take it or leave it' attitude to a body of wisdom, like the bible, just because of some contradictions is depriving themselves.

If you like 7 out of 10 songs on an album, do you refuse to listen because of the three?

What I mean is, if you read a book and there are good ideas there, take the good ones. Leave the rest. But don't avoid the whole set of ideas because a few aren't to your liking.

People who think a set of storys written over thousands of years must be non-contradictory... they paint themselves into corners.

I think it's pretty obvious that God did not dictate these passages to his prophets as if they were cosmic secretaries. If that were the case, there would be no apocrypha, no differing versions of the bible.

I saw this guy on the TV once, he said (and he was not joking) "If the King James version of the bible was good enough for Jesus Christ, then it's good enough for me!"

He was a preacher. Southern baptist. But something tells me, he was much closer, with all his ignorance, to the truth and beauty in his religion than all the guys who argue angel per head-of-pin ratios. He has the spirit of the thing- the words don't matter. This man doesn't give a fuck where Galilee is or whether Jesus was an Essene. And he shouldn't.

All that being said, I should also mention that I am not a christian (most of them would burn me at the stake, I think...)

Just playing devils... um, wait... God's advocate.

By Tlautrec on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 06:24 pm: Edit

"Today, people say they follow Jesus but behave like the original Philistines."

Amen, brother Heiko.

"A university education in theology plus a strong belief make you capable of explaining with many, important words how you must understand and interpret certain bible passages until everything fits together."

However, a university education in theology at an elite liberal university (Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Gottingen, etc.) plus a strong belief in an open, non-dogmatic, pluralistic version of the faith, might make you a progressive modern theologian who understands that the Old Testament was written by divers hands over many centuries, and that it is in no way the literal "Word of God", and even (horrors!!) that Jesus was a great teacher and rabbi, perhaps the greatest, but certainly NOT the biological "Son of God" begotten of the Virgin Mary, etc. etc.

Religion is the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 05:37 pm: Edit

By Heiko on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Right. How can I believe in christian religion when it has changed its face so often? It will change again and again, until at some point people will do totally different things in the name of the same religion and damn my generation for our misinterpretations.

How could I say "the bible is my holy book of rules but those passages here and there have to be ignored because they don't fit into modern society" or "I'm a believer, but premarital sex is ok because *insert some bla bla*" ??

Either follow the rules, or don't. I don't - I'm my own priest when I want to be spiritual.
I feel every set of strict rules cannot be the right thing. Religion is, indeed, opium for the masses (while all attempts of communism were heroin for the masses...)

By Timk on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 02:20 pm: Edit

The other thing that gets me is people doing in depth studies on passages from books like the bible, but not in the original language in which they were written, this leads to a lot of confusion and misinterpretation.

The bible is indeed contradictory, but i do not feel the need to study it in depth, I can get a general sense of what it is about, and to be honest, I dont really like what I read, there are many aparrent contradictions, many things I cannot believe, many things that do not apply to modern society, and many 'God sanctioned' things that make the Terrorist attacks on America look like a day at the park.

By Heiko on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 01:23 pm: Edit

A group of German neonazis recently said they would, under certain circumstances work together with islamic terrorist groups against the jewish/leftist americanization of our society. These circumstances would be that the islamists don't want to live in Germany but go back to their own countries. Frightening.
But what would they do with the nazis in America, then? Or the leftist Germans? Or the racist Turkish guys in Germany? (There are really Turkish muslim youth who call you a "nazi" if they don't like you, but would vote very rightwing parties to get rid of "leftist punks" and "lazy asylum seekers".
In the end, it all comes down to stupid vs. us ...


"Frequently I find that the bible is contrary to what is nowadays considered Christian behaviour"

The bible is often even in itself contradictory because what Jesus said was more or less revolution against the powerful priests. Today, people say they follow Jesus but behave like the original Philistines. A university education in theology plus a strong belief make you capable of explaining with many, important words how you must understand and interpret certain bible passages until everything fits together. amen.

By Perruche_Verte on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 01:01 pm: Edit

WRT Blackjack's black Nazi skinhead acquaintance:

One thing I've noticed a lot about people who are avowed, straight-up racists (as opposed to unconscious, outwardly "liberal" racists) is that their racism is often directed at groups, not individuals, with lots of individual exceptions. They will bitch your ear off about the goddamned blacks and Mexicans and then go have a beer with Ben Williams and Manny Ortega from work, who are OK because they know them.

Didn't the Klan even claim to have some black and Latino members at one point? They were trying to support the claim that they make to the public, which is that their ideology isn't about personal hatred but about what's "best for society".

You will also hear them argue that it's really about culture, not race. Since black skinhead lady seems to have pretty much adopted some real or imagined version of Germanic culture, there's no reason she'd be a threat to Nazis. She helps make their point.

By Timk on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Additionally, believing in something either not known, or not known to be false, is not the same as believing in something known to be, or proveably false.

By Timk on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 11:27 am: Edit

Lets rephrase it then.

It can be proven that racism is illogical.

Racism comes about from either direct negative experiences with individuals of another race / culture, or it comes about as a result of outside influences on the racist, from parents, piers, role models etc.
The same person raised in a different environment, or with a different set of experiences to draw on would likely not be racist.


Religious conviction comes about from either a direct experience which leads the follower to believe in god, i.e. a car accident, saved from death etc. Or, it comes about as a result of upbringing, parental influences, influences from piers etc. Or alternatively an individual attempting to explain his / her existance by finding a philosophy that appears to fit their current experiences, or the way they view the world.
Again, the same person with a different upbringing, different experiences etc. would likely have a different religion.

No one can logically be blamed for their religion, their beliefs, their outlook, as most of it is the direct result of outside influences on the person during their upbringing, either unintentional, intentinal, or based on the persons own experiences of the outside world

If you had been born in a predominantly Islamic country, you would most likely believe in Islam instead of Christianity. In this case, is this your fault?

According to your current religion, you would be damned:
"When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance of them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord"

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people . . . If thou shalt hear . . . Certain men . . . have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants ofthat city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword”

Therefore, in your opinion, it must be entirely reasonable to be prejudiced towards someone because of their beliefs, and not actions, your own God is.

Frequently I find that the bible is contrary to what is nowadays considered Christian behaviour.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 11:10 am: Edit

No, I mean "respect" as in they look up to her. Or at least fear her wrath. It is really really bizzare...

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 01:10 am: Edit

"What's really odd is that she is very well accepted by white supremacists"

They obviously think she 'knows her place' in their scheme of things.

Hobgoblin

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 05:52 pm: Edit

I cannot begin to speculate on that. The workings of that child's mind are the Lord's own private mystery.

By Mr_Carfax on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 05:48 pm: Edit

I'm confused, if she has strong views about race-mixing, are we talking culturally/socially or biologically?

As you describe it, it appears to be a bizarre melting pot of tolerance amongst a melting pot of intolerance....

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 04:26 pm: Edit

What's really odd is that she is very well accepted by white supremacists and does a good business doing rune carvings.

Of course, the Vikings were no more national socialists than Jesus was blonde-haired and blue-eyed, but these aren't people known for their acute critical thinking skills...

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Blackjack,

I suppose that just about sums her up.

No offence to any other devout Wotanists present, only that you're about 1100 years out of date and you can play the 'Ride of the Valkyries' as often as you like but the fact is that the Vikings were not National Socialists.

Hobgoblin

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 03:07 pm: Edit

The black Nazi skinhead girl I know? She's a devout Wotanist.

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Blackjack and Tim,

I'm with you Blackjack on judging people by there actions and not there beliefs.

Tim, as for racism and religion being so closely linked??

What are the religious affiliations of the BNP. Have you ever had a chat with a skinhead about religion? Does he give a shit about religion? Only insofar as it give him the excuse to bash some 'paki-raghead-muslim' or 'jew-boy'. Have you ever met a religious skinhead? What about Hitler? Did he persecute other races out of a religious conviction? What about Milosevic? Did he act out of religious conviction?

Religious groups are usually the victims of racism (not the perpetrators). Religious groups are usually the innocent party. Blaming religion for racism is like blaming the victim of a mugging for being mugged.

Sometimes it can appear that religion is involved but this is usually just a case of 'tribal identity' and it might just as well be the 'Chelsea Head-hunters' against the 'Millwall Bushwackers' (UK soccer thugs for those outside the UK).

There are for sure some racists who are 'religious' but there are more racists who are 'secular'. Secular political philosophies and their followers have been responsible for far more racism than religious philosophies have been.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Perruche,

I was not intending to cast a slur on that particular site. It's political leanings are not that unlike my own particular slant of 'leftism'. There are also good articles on this site from people such as Tariq Ali and Eamonn McCann whom I respect. Personally I think this is a very interesting and valuable site with a lot of good articles.

But I am by nature very sceptical about the motives of those with an interest in politics (including my own) (verging on paranoid it has been said by those who know me).

But all political sites have an agenda and an axe to grind so ultimately they're all propaganda (that doesn't mean they're not factual or honourable). Though with sites run by known groups it's easier to understand just what angle the site is coming from as opposed to sites of private individuals. With known groups you can understand where the prejudices (and we all have them) are coming from, with private individuals this is not the case.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Timk,

By your argument therefore any belief or thought pattern that is not based on concrete fact is similar to racism.

Do you believe in anything that cannot is not at this moment in time proven absolutely? I do not believe this, this is not possible.

If mankind only put value on ideas that are evidently factual then we'd still be scraping around in the dirt and being eaten by wild animals. All substantial progress requires ideas and hypotheses and a 'leap of faith'.

I suspect that you are an atheist who has an axe to grind against religion (as opposed to other belief systems, liberalism etc.). Therefore you choose to single out religion and link it to racism (which I presume you also object to). If you think racists are wrong to believe one race is superior to an other, then surely it is also wrong to believe that one race is not superior to another. Neither can be proven, both boil down to what you believe.

It is not possible to go through life believing in nothing unless it is proven at that particular moment in time. And anyway what is proof? Proof is relative. Many cite proof for reincarnation, the afterlife, angels, visions of God and saints etc. When it comes right down to it 'proof' of anything beyond that which is extremely mundane is all about belief. Prove the existence of right and wrong. I'll kill my neighbour to steal his wallet, try to give me absolute proof that that is wrong.

Hobgoblin

By Timk on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 11:51 am: Edit

"By beginning your statements with "I believe" you have taken them out of the realm of arguement. "I believe" is a statement of personal opinion. We all have a right to that. It's not as though someone were saying "we should do....". As BJ says opinion and action are two completely different things"

You miss the point, i was not commenting on whether judgement on the belief of personal belief was right or wrong, but merely on the parallels between religion and racism

"I believe" is a statement of personal opinion."
Both religion and racism are personal opinions

By Tlautrec on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 09:51 am: Edit

Today's news:

"BELFAST, Northern Ireland, Oct. 23 — In a dramatic break with its armed history, the Irish Republican Army declared today that it had started to dismantle the arsenal of weapons and bombs that sustained its decades-long war to try to evict the British from Northern Ireland.

"Some 24 hours after the leaders of the I.R.A.'s political party, Sinn Fein, publicly urged the move, the clandestine guerrilla force said it was acting to rescue the Northern Ireland peace agreement from imminent collapse."

If only Sharon and Arafat could now manifest a comparable degree of statesmanship!!!

By Perruche_Verte on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Don, condolences on your father's death. I hope it was not a bad one.

My mother died in 1999. We were not on speaking terms. I have since learned at my leisure that it's impossible to win arguments with dead people.

Lord H., I don't see how a website's being owned by a private individual rather than an organization casts any slur on its contents. In the case of small leftist groups, many of them get websites "donated" by volunteer site owners and webmasters.

By Verawench on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - 07:37 pm: Edit

Word count to date: 15,538

Congratulations!

By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - 07:05 pm: Edit

Tlautrec and Lord H:

I wasn't so much trying to open a thread, or tangent, on the history of Zionism and its schisms as I was just trying to get a handle on the degree of skepticism I need to read IRON WALL. Now that I have your comments, and have carefully read a few chapters it looks to me like the polemical and dialectic bits are pretty easy to spot (there are some real jewels there, e.g. "The real empowerment of the Sephardim working classes awaits the demise of Zionism." But unless one is so impressionable as to boggle the mind such snippets can be ignored, what I am after are the facts, as opposed to analysis, opinion, or propaganda. Brenner annotated his text, references his sources, and they are there to be examined and accepted or rejected as they can be verified or not. As such I accept this writing as only mildly polemicized history, and a valid starting point.

It is worth noting that Brenner appears to admire Prof.Y.Shahak's works as much as Gore Vidal does, and that's a good sign. When a Marxist agrees with a liberal-intelligentsia sort like Vidal, atch out.

Tlautrec, reportedly Ben Gurion's first deed upon becoming Israel's first PM was to hang a portrait of Jabotinsky on the wall behind his desk. So the progressive/Revisionist split seems less visceral than say the Revisionist/Irgun or the Irgun/Stern split, marginally. Anyway, all this is quite new to me. Previously my reading on the subject was limited to Leon Uris novels a long time ago, I always accepted the popular (incl Hollywood) treatment of the subject and saw the founders of Israel as victims turned soldier-saints, and never investigated their real backgrounds. This was of course naive, but only in say the last 20 years have I felt any need to question such (dare I say?) brainwashing, and only now have I applied my modest skills as a researcher and analyst to the task of deprogramming myself.

The progressive WZO and Jewish Agency evolved into what Brenner refers to (patronizingly) as the "Ashkenazi labour bureaucrats". He could have just as well capitalized Labour and meant the Alignment, the Labour Party dominated coalition. The Revisionists evolved into Herut and Likud and have mostly been led by the old Polish Betaris, like Begun, Shamir and Sharon, also Ashkenazis but mobilizing the Sephardic population for their support. (For the benefit of the rest of us, Betar was the Polish Exile Army, a Jewish paramilitary group that was for along while sponsored/financed/trained by Mussolini's Fascists, and was itself Fascist in the strict, technial sense, not the contemporary usage meaning as 'totalitarian reactionary' but strictly speaking, followers of Mussolini's ideology. To be fair, this was before Mussolini turned on the Jews but, still!!

(Nothing to do with Brenner's book: having been many years an advisor on various matters for a Thai law professor/Senator, a few years ago I was asked to study a classic volume on electoral engineering, as the Thais were drafting yet another Constitution and this time the academics were pushing for proportional representation and various other elements of such 'engineering'. Well, there are many flavors of such and usually, the details will disclose to the sharp-eyed and informed student, the political or social intentions of the advocates. And one of the classic, classic examples of less than fortunate implementations was the changes to the Israeli electoral system that brought about Netanyahu's victory -- I don't mean so much that Netanyahu himself was so bad, but just that the results of the constitutional tweakings were apparently so unexpected. They needn't have been.)

Anyway gentlemen, thanks for helping me set my feet in the correct direction. This is going to be an interesting intellectual journey.

By Etienne on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Tim;

By beginning your statements with "I believe" you have taken them out of the realm of arguement. "I believe" is a statement of personal opinion. We all have a right to that. It's not as though someone were saying "we should do....". As BJ says opinion and action are two completely different things.

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Yes, but the first two hae to do with real human beings, so the implicit actions one might take because of those beliefs are likely to have more direct efect on the lives of others.

Now, honestly, I do think that people should be judged on their actions, no their beliefs, even if those beliefs are distasteful to me. A person who has racist felings, but who realizes that these feelings are irational and does not act on them is not deserving of the same kind of mistrust as a person who performs racist acts. A person who thinks all non-Christian religions are from the devil, but does not prosthelytize or try to impose their beliefs on others, would probably not want to be my friend, but I would have no ill will towards them.

I know a girl who is a Nazi skinhead. And she's black. No, it doesn't make any sense to me either, but she's like 6' 4" and I'm not about to tell her otherwise. But the thing is, as much as she believes that race-mixing and homosexuality and such are wrong, she is a perfectly nice person to every kind of people and won't really bring the subject up unless pressed. Now, she is not someone with whom I will ever be very close, but she has no desire to force her opinions on the world or go out beating up people or anything like that, so I can't put her in the category of "bad person".

By Timk on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - 03:13 pm: Edit

A racist holds beliefs that are not based