12 posts tagged “religion”
Image of a church in downtown La Junta, CO. The windows have been walled in, and it has been converted to a video store. I'm not a fan of religion, but that seems creepy to me, anyhow.
Amen.
Chances are pretty good you didn't hear this story. No one cares. It's not news. That, more than anything else, is what is saddest about it.
In Kandahar, Afhanistan last week a group of 10 Taliban extremists rode up on motorcycles, passing a group of school girls, and threw battery acid in their faces. They didn't know the girls, and just chose them because they were easy, and they readily admitted to committing the assault. They did it, they say, because it's immoral for girls to be educated. Six girls were badly burned and at least two have lost their sight.
Of course girls can't be educated. In a country with a literacy rate of about 15%, if we start letting girls go to school before you know it they'll be more educated than the boys! I mean, the boys apparently aren't going to school - they're driving around collecting battery acid to splash on strangers.
Oh, but no, it gets worse. The "men" said they were going to be paid by a top Taliban leader based on the number of girls disfigured. That's right. Whoever set this idiots on their path toward cruelty was too much of a coward to do his dirty work himself, so he set a bounty on schoolgirls.
I don't believe in eye for eye justice in the civilized world, but clearly we're not talking about the civilized world. Just another reason this humanist has little faith in humanity.
Case #1: In 1616, Galileo Galilei was ordered by the Catholic Church to no longer defend the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around. This is because, regardless of what we can see with our own eyes or through telescopes, the Bible clearly states that the Earth doesn't move. A new Pope came to office in 1623, and although the Pope is supposed to be infallible, apparently this isn't always the case. The new Pope, Urban VIII (no relation to Rural XXII), allowed Galileo to publish the theory, so long as he also published arguments against it in the same document. If this sounds familiar, it's because of the arguments in favor of including "intelligent design" theories in textbooks that mention biological evolution.
Urban VIII didn't like the result, though, in which Galileo published his own argument for heliocentrism in his own words, and wrote the opposition in such a way that it made the Pope's argument against heliocentrism look foolish. As the consequence, Galileo stood trial for heresy in 1633, and was found guilty. He was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope), in 1990, in a speech at Sapienza University in Rome, quoted a philosopher as stating that the decision against Galileo was based on political considerations, and that it was the right thing to do at the time. Ratzinger then said, "It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views." [my emphasis]. You see, in the Catholic Church, admitting you're wrong after 357 years is considered "impulsive."
And yet, only two years later the the Church exonnerated Galileo of his heresy conviction, when in 1992 Pope John Paul II admitted that the Earth does, in fact, revolve around the sun.
Time to admit their mistake for case #1: 359 years.
Case #2: Charles Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859. While still called blasphemy by many today, the Church did finally come around. It was, again, Pope John Paul the II, in 1996, who admitted that evolution was "more than a hypothesis" and that the theory "proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified."
Time to admit their mistake for case #2: 137 years.
Case #3: In 1966, musician, poet, and philosopher John Lennon said of his group, The Beatles, "We're more popular than Jesus now." This statement turned out to be very, very controversial, resulting in boycotts and bonfires made from Beatles records. But, last week the official Vatican newspaper declared that the statement made by Lennon in 1966 was just the "boasting of an English working-class lad struggling to cope with unexpected success."
Time to admit their mistake for case #3: 42 years.
The Trend: So, graphed over time, the Church's learning curve looks like this:
This is indeed a trend worth celebrating! In fact, if the Church were to make a mistake today that caused hatred and dissent and caused human civilization to slow its progress to the detriment of millions, it would likely correct its error in, let's say, 10 years, instead of hundreds like it did for poor Galileo.
Bravo, Church! Bravo!
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
Yes, I've been out for a few days, and I blew my Blog365 in the first month. It was a combination of winter depression, a new computer game to play, and a complete lack of anything interesting to say. You can only do so many VoxHunt's and QotD's in a row before they all start to sound the same... or just as lame as they really are. Anyway, back into it.
This is the second book in the "His Dark Materials" trilogy by Philip Pullman, the first of which is The Golden Compass. It's in this book that we start to undertand the theme of the series, which is why if I had to guess the first book is the only one that will be made into a movie anytime soon. But, I don't have to guess... according to IMDB, The Subtle Knife is being made into a movie. It will be interesting to see how much they dumb down the anti-religious themes to actually get it into the theaters.
The Subtle Knife takes place in three separate realities, now intertwined by the hole opened between the worlds by Lyra's father, Lord Asriel. A new character named Will, a little boy from our own reality, plays a major role, becoming the wielder of a knife so sharp that it actually has the ability to cut through the fabric of space and create openings between the parallel universes.
While ostensibly a book for the YA market, this book has some dark, brutal scenes in it. It's much more of the fantasy genre than the children's genre, though it happens to star children as the main characters.
This book would be enjoyed by anyone who likes reading fantasy and isn't offended by anti-religious themes.
I was tagged by 8gurl.
Here are the rules:
1. Grab your nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the next 3 sentences on your blog along with these instructions.
5. Tag 5 different people.
Okay, this is a freakin' bizarre meme, and my answer is going to be even more bizarre. The nearest book I had was the New King James Version of the Bible. Why? I had it out for reference to a post I was writing a couple of days ago (which as of today will be Neighborhood Only). But, rules are rules.
Page 123 puts me in Leviticus 21. The sixth thorugh ninth sentences would be verses 21-23.
"No man of the descendents of Aaron the priest, who has a defect, shall come near to offer the offerings made by fire to the Lord. He has a defect; he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. He may eat the bread of his God, both the most holy and the holy; only he shall not go near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a defect, lest he profane My sanctuaries; for I the Lord sanctify them."
So there you have it. Deformed people give God the willies.
I tag: Strixaluco, Aput, EvilWombatQueen, Jade, and Queen of Fractal Beauty.
So... tired... must... blog...
Strix saw the Golden Compass earlier this week with her little sister (BBBS), but I hadn't seen it yet, and she said I would definitely want to see it on the big screen. At any rate, I had to see it to exercise my First Amendment rights, as I know a few people who would just as soon ban the thing because of it's supposed anti-religious themes.
That's not to say it was a chore to watch. I found it highly enjoyable, and am looking forward to the adaptation of the rest of the His Dark Materials series by Philip Pullman. There was far too much storyline packed into the feature run-time of the movie, but I felt that it flowed well enough considering the richness of the story.
And, although I know what Pullman's comments are regarding religion and how his books relate to them, I can't help but think that religious leaders are being stupid for becoming defensive and offended by these stories. The books could only be offensive to people of the religious persuasion if you feel the description of the religious authority in the fantasy world of the book, The Magisterium, accurately describes your religion. If it does, then you have a problem; if it doesn't, smile at the talking bear and shut up.
And, at any rate, if your faith can be shaken by a movie with a talking bear in it, it probably wasn't that strong to begin with.
And, besides, replace the Magisterium with the Catholic Church and Dust with Scientific Advancement, and you have a pretty accurate portrayal of the relationship between the two in our world. So there.
On a down note, Strix and I ate at Fuddruckers before the movie, since it was right across the corridor from the theater in the mall. The food was good, once we finally got it, but I waited half an hour for my little restaurant pager/coaster to vibrate before going up to the counter to see what the hold-up was. It turns out they lost my order. Strix's salad was sitting there under the heat lamp, wilting, but they never got my sandwich. The manager made a point of getting it prepared immediately and bringing it to my table, but didn't offer any refund, coupons, a swift kick in the pants, nothing. It was my first time eating there, and I probably won't eat there again.
I've decided this is one of my favorite songs:
This is the second post in a series analyzing the claims made in the film/documentary/video Zeitgeist, which can be viewed in its entirity here
. Follow this link to see all of my posts about this movie. Zeitgeist is a film in three parts that presents conspiracy theories about the origins of Christianity, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the Federal Reserve Bank. I have decided to analyze the claims of the movie because some of them I know to be true, and some seem highly unlikely or based on inadequate information. I am an amateur doing amateur research. If you wish to criticize, do so, but be nice; don't hold me to the same academic standards you would a PhD writing his thesis.
Boiler plate out of the way? Check.
Claim 2: Horus' life mirrors the life described for Jesus. He was born on Dec. 25th, was born of a virgin (Isis-Mary), was accompanied by a star in the east. 3 kings adored him. became a teacher at 12, and was baptized by atep, had 12 disciples and fellow travelers, performed miracles, was known by similar names (the light, lamb of god), crucified, buried for 3 days, then resurrected.
So am I going to become an Egyptologist to analyze this claim? No, but there are some issues on the face of the claim that can be examined.
First, that Horus, like Jesus, is said to be born on December 25th. First of all, this claim sounds more ridiculous than it is. December 25th on which calendar? But in fact, the birth of dieties from a number of different religions is said to be in late December. This is not a mistake, since that is when winter solstice is, a time of great importance for ancient cultures, be they nomadic, agricultural, or hunter-gatherer. It marked the time that days stopped getting shorter and started getting longer. It's not surprising at all that many cultures celebrated this period.
But, most importantly, it is widely acknowledged even by those who have no doubt of the historicity of Jesus that his exact birthdate is unknown. It's not surprising, then, that the celebration of Jesus' birthday on December 25th was done because that is when pagan celebrations were already occurring, particularly the Roman festival of Sol Invictus, or Natalis Invicti, which was a celebration of the coming end of winter.
So, does the fact that at least according to some scholars Horus' birth was on December 25th prove a connection. Not really; again, it's fairly clear that the date chosen for the celebration of Jesus' birth was chosen because of Sol Invictus, which was celebrated when it was due to the winter solstice, which was a celestial event celebrated by cultures worldwide because of it's important significance in regards to the seasons. Is it possible that Sol Invictus was, in turn, influenced by Egyptian sun-worship? Possibly, yes, but again I don't find the fact significant.
The next claim is that Horus, like Jesus, was born of a virgin (Isis in the case of Horus). I wasn't able to find references stating that Isis was a "virgin," unless necrophilia doesn't count toward losing your virginity. She impregnated herself with the reconstructed body of her dead husband, Osiris, and thus begat Horus. This doesn't sound much like the Nativity story. And this is ignoring the fact taht Isis in some Egyptian traditions wasn't Horus's mother, but his sister, sometimes she is not Osiris's wife, but his sister, as well, or possibly the wife of Ra, who sometimes is considered synonymous with Horus. All this interchangability of roles can be attributed to the fact that the Egyptian religion lasted about 10,000 years, allowing for many variations of the pantheon to form and be espoused by many different sects and cults.
The next claim is that Horus, like Jesus, had a birth that was accompanied by a star in the east, three kings adored him, and he became a teacher at 12. Yeah. Where did you read that? The only descriptions I could find of Horus' birth story had no resemblance to the Nativity story and had no star in the east and no three kings. I could also find nothing about Horus becoming a teacher at the age of 12. That is to say, I could only find references to these similarities on sites that were making a case for Egyptian-Christian syncretism, and not simply as a reference to Horus and not with anything resembling references.
Next claim: Horus was baptized by Atep, as Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Again, I can find no good reference for this, or even who Atep supposedly was. Atep is not a name of any of the Egyptian gods or mythical beings that I could find references for.
And all the rest of it: Horus had 12 disciples and fellow travelers, performed miracles, was known by similar names (the light, lamb of god), crucified, buried for 3 days, then resurrected. Where are they finding this stuff? I can't find anything about Horus having 12 disciples, fellow travelers, or even people who carried his luggage.
He performed miracles, but that's sort of what gods do. It's sort of their raison detre.
He was known by similar names. I was unable to find any references to Horus as the Lamb of God, which would have been an odd thing to call an Egyptian diety, anyway, since theirs was a polytheistic religion. I wouldn't doubt that Horus was sometimes called "the light," since he was a sun god at all, and wouldn't find that fact to be significant.
Was Horus crucified? No, he was stung to death by a scorpion. He was resurrected, but there is no reference to it having happened three days after his death, and the method of his resurrection was a magic incantation spoken by Isis. It's also notable that resurrection wasn't an uncommon theme in Egyptian religion, since Osiris, Horus' father, was also resurrected after being reassembled by Isis to become the ruler of the underworld.
I'm sorry, but the more I read about the Egyptian religion(s), the less I can believe this argument that the myth of Jesus is based on the myth of Horus. The stories of their respective lives bare little resemblence, and the fact that some of the similarities cited seem to be simply made up doesn't bode well for the rest of the film. However, I have begun this journey, and I shall carry on.
This is the first post in a series analyzing the claims made in the film/documentary/video Zeitgeist, which can be viewed in its entirity here. Follow this link to see all of my posts about this movie. Zeitgeist is a film in three parts that presents conspiracy theories about the origins of Christianity, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the Federal Reserve Bank. I have decided to analyze the claims of the movie because some of them I know to be true, and some seem highly unlikely or based on inadequate information. An analysis of the movie should make for an interesting exercise in critical thinking. While I will be reviewing a large number of the claims made, this should not be considered an exhaustive analysis or "debunking" of the film. And finally - this is a blog, not a scholarly text. I am an amateur doing amateur research. If you wish to criticize, do so, but be nice; don't hold me to the same academic standards you would a PhD writing his thesis.
Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told
In this section, Zeitgeist examines the origins of Christianity. The overall argument of this part of the movie is that Christianity is ultimately based on astrology and has been molded into a tool for political control by individuals in power over the centuries.
The film starts with a basic description of astrology, the facts of which are well known and fit my basic understanding of the concept, so I won't bother with analyzing them. We all know that there are twelve astrological symbols, that each one corresponds to a constellation of the night sky, and so on.
One criticism I have seen in other blog comment threads about the movie is the fact that the film, early on, makes a connection between the term "God's Sun" and "God's Son." The criticism is that this correspondence in the words "sun" and "son" only works in English, and thus doesn't support the argument of the film. While this is a valid criticism, in that someone could take the film to mean that the similarity in "God's Sun" and "God's Son" is meaningful, the film never states this. It's arguable that the similarity is only pointed out for effect, not as support for the filmmaker's argument.
Claim 1: Horus was the Egyptian god representing the sun. Set was the god of darkness. Light versus dark or good versus evil is a duality that is common in many religions.
While it does appear to be true that Horus was a sun god of Egypt, it seems neither true that he was the only sun god in the Egyptian pantheon, nor was sun god his primary occupation. Horus was the god of the sky, kingship, and later in the Egyptian religion, the sun and the moon. Ra was also a sun god, and while in some traditions they were considered to be one in the same, they were sometimes depicted as father and son and sometimes as two completely separate entities. If one of the two had to be idenitified as the sun god of Egyptian mythology, it would probably be Ra, since the association was much more common.
Horus seems to have been a name given to a wide range of dieties, all fitting the same general concept of a god of royalty. He was the son of Osiris, one of the oldest gods of the Eyptian pantheon and in some traditions the creator, though most commonly the god of the underworld or afterlife. Horus being the son of the creator does seem to fit the film's claim that Horus is a model of Jesus, but Horus being the son of the god of the underworld does not, especially since Osiris is killed by his brother Set, an occurrence that has no corresponding action in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Set is a very bad god, as gods go. He was the god of chaos, hostility, evil, war, deserts, storms, and foreign lands. Oh, yeah, and people with red hair. And homosexuals. Despite him basically being "the devil" of the Egyptian gods, there were worshippers, since being in good with a god who had power over the desert and sandstorms could be pretty handy, and he was considered the patron god of desert caravans. It does appear that some traditions see Horus as being the god of the day while Set is the god of the night.
As far as light versus dark or good versus evil being a common theme in the world religions, numerous examples can be found. The concept of Yin and Yang in Asian philosophies is an obvious one. Others would include Zoroastrianism, another monotheistic religion. However, it may be just as valid to say that while the concept of evil or at least malevolence exists in polytheistic religions, the concept of a clear duality between good and evil is not a readily apparent. Even in the ancient Egyptian religion, Set was evil, but not without his uses or worshippers.
An analog of Set in most other polytheistic religions can be found, often with just as ambiguous a role. In the way that Set is the god of confusion and chaos, in Navajo mythology, Coyote could be seen has carrying on a similar part in the cosmic play, and yet Coyote is useful because through his foolish trouble-making he teaches valuable lessons in the traditional stories. The Norse god Loki, likewise, is not so much evil as mischievious and troublesome. The Hindu god Shiva is described as being a destroyer, the opposite of Vishnu, the protector, and yet Shiva is alternately described as a terrible and delightful, and has worshippers today, and within the Smartist denomination of Hinduism is considered one of five aspects of the same supreme being. [Note: And Christianity thought it was being daring in putting three gods in one? Amateurs.]
My conclusions for Claim 1 are as follows:
While it is true that Horus was a sun god of ancient Egyptian mythology and that Set was sometimes viewed as the god of night or darkness, to state that as an essential duality within the Egyptian religion is an incredible simplification of Egyptian mythology. While it is also true that the concept of dualities between light-and-dark and good-and-evil can be found in other religions, it is also not as clear or universal as the film implies.
And right about now I'm thinking that if I spend this much time on every claim in the movie, this is going to take years. But at least it will be interesting! For me, that is; I don't know about you, dear reader.
Originally posted on my old blog on February 23rd, 2006:
After lunch, our goal was to go to Mexico. Stina had never been to Mexico, and I had never been out of the country, so this was one of those trips you make just to say that you've been there. We could have gone south from Las Cruces to El Paso, Texas, and gone from there to Ciudad Juarez across the border. As it happens, Ciudad Juarez is notorious for its crime, so we decided to cross at another location, so we headed west from Las Cruces on I-10 to Deming, New Mexico, then south on Highway 11 to the border.
We parked on the U.S. side of the border and crossed into Palomas, Mexico. We had expected poverty, but we did not really expect to feel so completely out of place just across the border from the U.S. It was obvious that the people of Palomas were not used to seeing caucasians. Other than the children begging us for change and one guy that tried to sell us something, no one bothered us, but neither of us wanted to stay very long.
We did take a couple of pictures while we were there. Palomas has a church that is somewhat famous for photographers, so we stopped there and took a couple of shots.
A statue in front of a government building.
After about half an hour in Palomas, we walked back across the border, showing our ID to the border guard. I'm hoping to have a more positive experience in Mexico in the future. If I do, it won't be in Palomas.
After being back in the good old U.S. of A., we made our way back to Alamogordo and called it a night.
My vision is blurring now, so I guess I'll write about what we did today tomorrow!
