Geez, another stereotype reinforced... RE: Rising Stars+religion
Greg Sirmon
positive spin organized religion got on B5. Most people who serve in
the capacity of telling folks about their views on all things
spiritual toil in obscurity and could certainly pick better paying
professions.
But in the comic world, the psychotic, win-at-any-cost, criminal,
money-grubbing, soul-sucking televangelist stereotype is getting a bit
old. I mean, 90% of the figures meant to represent organized religion
in the comic world seem to have this maniacal bent. It's just a
guess, but I'm betting that's not too close to the ratio of real-world
preachers/rabbis/etc who fit this mold.
I know it's not comics' or any writer's job to portray reality
exactly, but I often wonder why "religious" figures are so often
picked out by writers to serve as the heavy in these stories. And
they are almost always given personality traits that would be closer
to Jim Jones/David Koresh than to any spiritual leader I've ever met.
In Rising Stars, we see the unwilling son who has been forced into a
life as a sideshow freak to help fill the pockets of his evil preacher
Dad. And when it comes time to organize the conspiracy to kill as
many of the heroes as possible, who spearheads the effort?
There's even a moment where we're supposed to sympathize with the son
as he secretly weeps over his father's efforts to close an abortion
clinic. This, to me, is like having a sympathetic character/possible
protagonist weep over the closing of a Nazi crematoreum. Pardon me if
I'm not moved.
Joe has always totally pushed the envelope on convention and
non-stereotypical characters. He gave depth and believability to the
folks on B5 that I've never found anywhere else in entertainment. But
if this is going to be the son's-eventual-pang-of-conscience-
forces-him-to-put-an-end-to-his-evil-father's-plans plot device, then
color me bored.
And before you tell me to lighten up, I do think Preacher kicks ass.
But I was expecting a higher standard of characterization/plotline in
RS...And up until this point, it's been there in spades. I just hope
there's one of JMS's famous plot twists that I'm not expecting right
around the corner...
Jms at B5
>exactly, but I often wonder why "religious" figures are so often
>picked out by writers to serve as the heavy in these stories. And
>they are almost always given personality traits that would be closer
>to Jim Jones/David Koresh than to any spiritual leader I've ever met.
Even-handed means that one does not favor one side or the other.
It seems that your definition of even handed is to commend it when it agrees
with your side and to condemn it when it shows another side...if I show
religion in a positive way, then I'm even handed; if I show one person who is
not a nice person who is religious, then somehow that's wrong.
Sorry, that is the *definition* of even handed: showing the two sides, the good
and the bad.
You would apparantly like us to ignore the reality of the Jimmy Swaggarts and
the Jim Bakkers and the Jerry Fallwells out there, because if a character like
that gets mentioned, well doggone it, that's wrong, that's stereotypical. *We*
didn't create those people; those people created themselves in terms of their
actions.
I'm sorry you don't like it, but your statement that it isn't reality is itself
far out of tune with reality.
It isn't saying that ALL people are like this, only SOME people.
If you want people to be even handed in their treatment of various issues, then
you have to expect some that are favorable to your position, and some that are
not. To say you want evenhandedness, then complain when the other hand is
shown, then you're being unfair and, one might even suggest, hypocritcal.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Greg Sirmon
>you have to expect some that are favorable to your position, and some that are
>not. To say you want evenhandedness, then complain when the other hand is
>shown, then you're being unfair and, one might even suggest, hypocritcal.
All true. My only beef was that this (the negative) is by far the
most common representation...to the point of being a quite tired
cliche.
The Bakkers and Swaggerts DO exist. But they are such a small
minority that they are statistically insignificant among the entire
population of spiritual leaders. They achieve great notoriety
certainly, but they are very rare when you consider that the majority
are well meaning and toil in obscurity.
Yet these types of characters totally dominate in the comic world. As
you say, evenhandedness *does* demand that both sides are shown. But,
when one side is shown far more often and exists in reality as such a
minority, you begin to wonder if writers aren't ginding an axe.
Mr. Straczynski, you are not to blame for the entire pool of comic
writers who reinforce this one particular view with such tiring
regularity. I guess, after seeing this kind of portrayal so many
times, I was exasperated to see it yet again in the number one place I
expected innovation.
No matter, I will quit carping. Rising Stars has been excellent and I
will be with you til the end. After the beautiful tale in #4, well,
words fail.
See what you did? That last page with the cat got me choked up
again..............<sniff> ;->
Jonathan Biggar
>
> >I know it's not comics' or any writer's job to portray reality
> >exactly, but I often wonder why "religious" figures are so often
> >picked out by writers to serve as the heavy in these stories. And
> >they are almost always given personality traits that would be closer
> >to Jim Jones/David Koresh than to any spiritual leader I've ever met.
>
> Even-handed means that one does not favor one side or the other.
>
> It seems that your definition of even handed is to commend it when it agrees
> with your side and to condemn it when it shows another side...if I show
> religion in a positive way, then I'm even handed; if I show one person who is
> not a nice person who is religious, then somehow that's wrong.
>
> Sorry, that is the *definition* of even handed: showing the two sides, the
> good and the bad.
I don't think that Greg was necessarily complaining about you in
particular, but about the fact that fiction writers (for all media
types) certainly overuse the "corrupt religious leader" theme. On the
other hand, they overuse the "corrupt politician", "corrupt business
leader", and "corrupt police chief" themes, among others as well.
Given your very positive portrayal of religious leaders in B5, I'm more
than willing to give you a pass on this one, as far as even-handedness
goes, but I do agree with Greg that the particular characterization you
chose is rather tired, and the level of heavy-handed "preaching" that
writers tend to use with this theme can get offensive.
--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org
Jms at B5
>than willing to give you a pass on this one, as far as even-handedness
>goes, but I do agree with Greg that the particular characterization you
>chose is rather tired, and the level of heavy-handed "preaching" that
>writers tend to use with this theme can get offensive.
Kinda funny since I based about 90% of it on stuff I saw one night recently
watching Trinity Broadcasting....
Jonathan Biggar
>
> >Given your very positive portrayal of religious leaders in B5, I'm more
> >than willing to give you a pass on this one, as far as even-handedness
> >goes, but I do agree with Greg that the particular characterization you
> >chose is rather tired, and the level of heavy-handed "preaching" that
> >writers tend to use with this theme can get offensive.
>
> Kinda funny since I based about 90% of it on stuff I saw one night recently
> watching Trinity Broadcasting....
You are trying to convince me that you actually saw that level of
honesty about his real motives from a corrupt religious leader on
Trinity? I think April fools was a couple of days ago...
Jms at B5
>honesty about his real motives from a corrupt religious leader on
>Trinity? I think April fools was a couple of days ago...
No, I was addressing the preaching part of the question, the stuff in the
church.
WWS
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> >You are trying to convince me that you actually saw that level of
> >honesty about his real motives from a corrupt religious leader on
> >Trinity? I think April fools was a couple of days ago...
>
> No, I was addressing the preaching part of the question, the stuff in the
> church.
>
> jms
Jack van Impe is always good for a few laughs. And speaking
of sterotypes - Impe's blonde sidekick who reads news stories
is the worst female stereotype I've ever seen on the tube! I
think South Park must have modeled a character off of her.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
"All morons should develop an aversion to me. I have little patience
for the stupid, and you score the highest on any conceivable moron
scale I can imagine." - Todd McNeely, to KalElFan
Kay Shapero
JaB> Even-handed means that one does not favor one side or the other.
Quite right. Part of the problem is that when you're part of the spectrum of
opinion on a subject, where the actual neutral position is and where it
appears to be can be two different things. Horribly simplified, consider the
following positions on a topic ranging from extreme "pro" (A) to extreme
"con" (E):
A - B - C - D - E
Now from outside it's pretty simple - C is the central point. But to anybody
with an opinion on the subject, their place on the line will have an effect.
In general, any opinion that falls toward the opposite extreme is of the
opposition, and any that falls toward the same extreme is on the same side
but exaggerated. And the closest an opinion is to the one held by the
viewer, the more rational it will seem, right or wrong.
In spot C, there are neither same nor opposite extremes. B and D have the
more rational opinions, A and E the less so, but none are compelling. The
location of the center is still obvious.
Once we get out of dead center, though, B is going to see A as on the right
side but overdone, and C, D and E as varying degrees of the other side, with
C the most rational of the lot, but the perceived location of the true
neutral shifts slightly B-ward of C. A sees everybody else as varying
degrees of opposition, and may well identify B as the neutral since it seems
least extreme. C then appears to be partisan for E. And of course E will
see C as partisan for A, and even the more moderate B and D will see C as
leaning towards the other.
All of which goes to show that if you're catching it equally from both sides
for being partisan, you're probably on the right track. :->
Jms at B5
>for being partisan, you're probably on the right track. :->
>
Absolutely.
John W. Kennedy
> Kinda funny since I based about 90% of it on stuff I saw one night recently
> watching Trinity Broadcasting....
Actually, speaking as a Christian, I just wish I'd see some _other_
types getting skewered. Hollywood producers who can't tell an angel
from a fairy godmother... clergy (and laity) who condescend to believe
in God because they believe God is a Republican (or a Democrat -- this
is an equal-opportunity sin)... All those who can't tell the difference
between Faith, the Theological Virtue, and brand-name loyalty....
God knows the Swaggarts are with us, but there are plenty of _other_
ways to go to Hell in the name of "religion".
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Christianity has not been tried and found wanting;
it's been found difficult and not tried. -- G. K. Chesterton (?)
James Bell
> Jms at B5 wrote:
> >
> > >I know it's not comics' or any writer's job to portray reality
> > >exactly, but I often wonder why "religious" figures are so often
> > >picked out by writers to serve as the heavy in these stories. And
> > >they are almost always given personality traits that would be closer
> > >to Jim Jones/David Koresh than to any spiritual leader I've ever met.
> >
> > Even-handed means that one does not favor one side or the other.
> >
> > It seems that your definition of even handed is to commend it when it agrees
> > with your side and to condemn it when it shows another side...if I show
> > religion in a positive way, then I'm even handed; if I show one person who is
> > not a nice person who is religious, then somehow that's wrong.
> >
> > Sorry, that is the *definition* of even handed: showing the two sides, the
> > good and the bad.
>
> I don't think that Greg was necessarily complaining about you in
> particular, but about the fact that fiction writers (for all media
> types) certainly overuse the "corrupt religious leader" theme. On the
> other hand, they overuse the "corrupt politician", "corrupt business
> leader", and "corrupt police chief" themes, among others as well.
>
> Given your very positive portrayal of religious leaders in B5, I'm more
> than willing to give you a pass on this one, as far as even-handedness
> goes, but I do agree with Greg that the particular characterization you
> chose is rather tired, and the level of heavy-handed "preaching" that
> writers tend to use with this theme can get offensive.
Not to mention that the corrupt politicians must be conservative. No corrupt
liberals out there I guess
<cough>Clinton<cough>Gore.
Oh well. The story's still good, and unless this one annoying point is
consistently hammered home every issue, it likely won't be a serious detriment of
the story.
Jim
Greg Sirmon
>>All of which goes to show that if you're catching it equally from both sides
>>for being partisan, you're probably on the right track. :->
>>
>
>Absolutely.
>
> jms
>
All of which was utterly not my point. There is no question that most
religious leaders get paid little and are presumably well meaning in
their job. And there is no question that BY FAR the great majority of
religious figures shown in entertainment (and especially in comics)
are patently evil antagonists. Why the disparity?
I don't know, but it sure makes for one very tired, old, boring plot
device.
Iain Reid
"Greg Sirmon" <gboy...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38ea5ec...@news.aub.mindspring.com...
I think you may have answered your own point. TV Shows and comics etc.
about a nice little Priest who gets on with his life in his quiet little
Parish doing good and generally being nice is not very entertaining or
memeorable. Corrupt religious figure are just more interesting.
In fact, I would probably think that if you look back over the history of
comics, you would find that the disparity is not that much. It's more
likley that the "nice" religious figures are more easily forgotten because
it is hard to make a nice person the dramatic core of a story since nice
people are not very dramatic. People remeber "baddies" far more - since
they play such a pivitol role of stories - so you tend to think that there
are more of them.
A good example of this is how disproportionatley popular the character of
Bester is in relation to the amount of episodes he was actually in. In a
sense, Bester is a type of "Corrupt Religious Figure" for the telepaths. A
obvious counterpart would be Byron, with his nicley-nicely approach to
Telepath resistance - and to say he didn't turn out to be the most popular
or most memorable character would be an understatement.
I hate the way people tend to automatically assume that Entertainment should
always be about educating or representing society. Sometimes entertainment
is just there to entertain. If it says something about society, it says it -
but sometimes moralising can, and should, be sacrificed at the altar of plot
and drama.
Andrew M Swallow
>liberals out there I guess
><cough>Clinton<cough>Gore.
Possibly only conservative voters fire politicians for breaking 'Family
Values'?
Andrew Swallow
Steve Brinich
> I think you may have answered your own point. TV Shows and comics
> etc. about a nice little Priest who gets on with his life in his
> quiet little Parish doing good and generally being nice is not
> very entertaining or memeorable. Corrupt religious figure are
> just more interesting.
"Plane Lands Safely" is not much of a subject for either a news
report or a novel.
> A good example of this is how disproportionatley popular the
> character of Bester is in relation to the amount of episodes
> he was actually in.
Good analogy, though IMO one ought to count stories driven by
Bester's offscreen machinations ("Eyes" and much of Garibaldi's
fourth-season role) into that calculation.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Jms at B5
>religious leaders get paid little and are presumably well meaning in
>their job. And there is no question that BY FAR the great majority of
>religious figures shown in entertainment (and especially in comics)
>are patently evil antagonists. Why the disparity?
To quote (sort of) Mark Twain...that is a good and noble question. The only
thing wrong with it is that it ain't so."
You say above that THE GREAT MAJORITY of religious figures in entertainment are
patently evil antagonists.
Not true.
Especially not true in TV. This is one of those tropes that gets repeated by
people but which in fact doesn't have a shred of truth to it.
In TV series, there have been many religious characters all the way back to the
Flying Nun to the more contemporary Father Dowling Mysteries, that have been
strong, positive charcters. The networks are TERRIFIED of offending in this
area. Believe me, I've seen it first hand. On Murder, She Wrote all the
religious characters who appeared when I was involved were positive characters,
and I'm pretty sure that was the case throughout.
I'm only aware of the XFiles and Millennium where that diverged.
What you say simply isn't true. It's said and repeated because the Christian
right *must* believe that it is constantly being persecuted, even though they
hold the cards in most areas, so this kind of nonsense is drummed up.
If I'm wrong...show me your work. Give me specifics on the hordes of marauding
priests, nuns and ministers seen in network TV.
Iain Reid
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000405012129...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> If I'm wrong...show me your work. Give me specifics on the hordes of
marauding
> priests, nuns and ministers seen in network TV.
>
> jms
Thank you for that lovely mental image. It certainly made me
chuckle...especially the Nuns. If only Sister Wendy had made it onto
trans-atlantic TV so you could see exactly what I am imagining right
now...;)
Iain Reid
WWS
Oh, she made it onto quite a few PBS stations! I'm recalling her
indignation at Degas' treatment of women - I think she would
tell you that you have been a very Naughty Naughty Boy and must
be Caned.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
For lo; on that fateful day when black R'lyeh finally rises and Great
Cthulhu ravages his way across the width and the breath the land, the
final blood-red rays of the setting sun will reveal a single human
being still alive amidst the carnage and the flaming chaos: Dan Tropea.
And he will still be posting to rec.arts.sf.tv. - Geoduck
Kim A. Sommer
Greg Sirmon <gboy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
>>>All of which goes to show that if you're catching it equally from both sides
>>>for being partisan, you're probably on the right track. :->
>>>
>>
>>Absolutely.
>>
>> jms
>>
>
>religious leaders get paid little and are presumably well meaning in
>their job. And there is no question that BY FAR the great majority of
>religious figures shown in entertainment (and especially in comics)
>are patently evil antagonists. Why the disparity?
>
>device.
A respectfully disagree with that. Sure, the preacher in Rising Stars is
doing the stereotypical "give us your love donation" spiel but when the
metal starts hitting the fan (mixed meaphor - natch) it turns out he has a
deadly conviction, enough to leave everything he has to get ready to fight
this war. The man no matter how bad we think he is, has values he is by
which he lives and will probably cause others to die for. How many of the
TV preachers (politicians, news commentators, talk show hosts, indsustry
leaders, etc.) we have today would walk in his shoes?
Yes, there are a lot of sincere people doing much good work. The people
on the fringe are the ones who cause the friction. Without a personality
and a conflict there is no story. Who are they? What do they want? What
will they do to get it? Where are they going with it?
Joe has taken the stereotype TV preacher who, below the
veneer worn for public expectations, there is someone ready to
take a ride with destiny.
It's gonna be fun.
Kim
--
-------
Kim A. Sommer
Humans do it Better! The Open Directory Project - http://dmoz.org
Paul Harper
wrote:
>And there is no question that BY FAR the great majority of
>religious figures shown in entertainment (and especially in comics)
>are patently evil antagonists. Why the disparity?
Now that very much depends upon the intimate, first-person definition
of what constitutes a religious figure.
Go for this (taking B5, and *only* B5 as an example) - Sheridan,
Delenn, Sinclair, G'Kar, The David Warner character looking for the
grail (sorry, can't at this time of night remember the character's
name), his successor Jinxo, Ivanova's Russian mentor (ditto), and many
more.
All of them, by *my* definition, "religious figures", and all of them
treated with great understanding and sympathy.
There's nothing wrong with a little counterbalance, and having the odd
con-artist like the "TeeVee Evangelists" to show the equal and
diametrical opposite of these characters is not wrong either.
Balance is wonderful, achieving it is difficult.
Accepting it even more so.
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Paul Harper
>hordes of marauding
>priests, nuns and ministers
I'm sure I've seen some videos with these people in.
Last time I was in Berlin, I'm sure they were showing films of this in
the quieter bars...
<g>
Tom Holt
The message <ekenescfoiqh3t5c9...@4ax.com>
from Paul Harper <pa...@harper.net> contains these words:
> Go for this (taking B5, and *only* B5 as an example) - Sheridan,
> Delenn, Sinclair, G'Kar, The David Warner character looking for the
> grail (sorry, can't at this time of night remember the character's
> name), his successor Jinxo, Ivanova's Russian mentor (ditto), and many
> more.
> All of them, by *my* definition, "religious figures", and all of them
> treated with great understanding and sympathy.
Consider also the final scene of the first season episode whose name
escapes me for the moment, in which Sinclair escorts the alien
ambassadors along an apparently endless line of representatives of
Earth's religions; a lovely scene, beautifully understated.
The only example of offensively anti-religious propaganda in the
greater B5 opus that I can think of is 'Ruling From The Tomb'; which
was (a) Crusade rather than B5 proper, (b) written by Peter David,
from whom I expect little. JMS himself, IMHO, has always handled
religious issues with admirable balance and fair-mindedness in his
screenwriting; very much to his credit, particularly since in private
life he seems to subscribe to the somewhat bizarre
right-wing-funamentalists-hell-bent-on-world-domination conspiracy
theory that's so fashionable these days.
It's worth noting in passing that writers are under no moral
obligation to be balanced or fair-minded about religion or any other
issue; and some of the world's finest literature is polemical in tone
and content. If a writer's prepared to risk alienating a section of
his audience by expressing one-sided views because they're important
to him, that's a matter for him and his publishers/producers &c
Shaz
"Paul Harper" <pa...@harper.net> wrote in message
news:ekenescfoiqh3t5c9...@4ax.com...
> On 4 Apr 2000 17:21:28 -0600, gboy...@mindspring.com (Greg Sirmon)
> wrote:
>
> >And there is no question that BY FAR the great majority of
> >religious figures shown in entertainment (and especially in comics)
> >are patently evil antagonists. Why the disparity?
>
> Now that very much depends upon the intimate, first-person definition
> of what constitutes a religious figure.
>
> Delenn, Sinclair, G'Kar, The David Warner character looking for the
> grail (sorry, can't at this time of night remember the character's
> name), his successor Jinxo, Ivanova's Russian mentor (ditto), and many
> more.
Gajic is the name you forgot. Named after Mira's husband, Goran Gajic. Come
on, Paul! You're losing your touch!
<snip because I agree with it all>
Shaz
Steve Brinich
> There's even a moment where we're supposed to sympathize with the son
> as he secretly weeps over his father's efforts to close an abortion
> clinic. This, to me, is like having a sympathetic character/possible
> protagonist weep over the closing of a Nazi crematoreum. Pardon me if
> I'm not moved.
I rather doubt that Josh was moved to tears over a political issue
(or that he disagrees with his father about the issue in the first
place). My guess is that something bad happened at the event; of
course, we don't know the details and speculation might lead us into
story-idea territory.
> Joe has always totally pushed the envelope on convention and
> non-stereotypical characters. He gave depth and believability to the
> folks on B5 that I've never found anywhere else in entertainment. But
> if this is going to be the son's-eventual-pang-of-conscience-
> forces-him-to-put-an-end-to-his-evil-father's-plans plot device, then
> color me bored.
>
> And before you tell me to lighten up, I do think Preacher kicks ass.
> But I was expecting a higher standard of characterization/plotline in
> RS...And up until this point, it's been there in spades. I just hope
> there's one of JMS's famous plot twists that I'm not expecting right
> around the corner...
I'm not too worried, there are a few common plot elements such as --
to take a random example -- "noble hero duped into working for evil
conspiracy". It's what the writer does with them that matters, and
based on JMS's track record I think it's rather more likely than not to
be interesting.
Mark Maher
>>
>> Go for this (taking B5, and *only* B5 as an example) -
Sheridan,
>> Delenn, Sinclair, G'Kar, The David Warner character looking
for the
>> grail (sorry, can't at this time of night remember the
character's
>> name), his successor Jinxo, Ivanova's Russian mentor (ditto),
and many
>> more.
>
>Gajic is the name you forgot. Named after Mira's husband, Goran
Gajic. Come
>on, Paul! You're losing your touch!
>
><snip because I agree with it all>
>
>Shaz
Aldous Gajic, Thomas "Jinxo" Jordan, and Rabbi Koslov (or Uncle
Yossel to Susan)
Now if I could just remember the IMPORTANT stuff in my life...
__!_!__
Gizmo
Steve Brinich
> The only example of offensively anti-religious propaganda in the
> greater B5 opus that I can think of is 'Ruling From The Tomb'
Even there, Trace (a former Foundationist priest who appears to have
separated from the faith for deeply felt and considered reasons rather
than mere cynicism) presents a balance to the mad fanatic.
Greg Sirmon
>>There is no question that most
>>religious leaders get paid little and are presumably well meaning in
>>their job. And there is no question that BY FAR the great majority of
>>religious figures shown in entertainment (and especially in comics)
>>are patently evil antagonists. Why the disparity?
>
>To quote (sort of) Mark Twain...that is a good and noble question. The only
>thing wrong with it is that it ain't so."
>
>You say above that THE GREAT MAJORITY of religious figures in entertainment are
>patently evil antagonists.
>
>Not true.
Very true in movies I think. Religious figures are portrayed anywhere
from a humorously ineffective anachronism to the embodiment of evil.
Everything from Lawnmower Man (priest beats his mentally ill ward) to
Primal Fear (priest forces minors to perform sex acts) shows this.
Mostly the message we get in the theaters is that religion is the
refuge for the weak, clueless and deviant. Movies like Contact and
Exorcist bravely resist the urge to bash but even they don't say
"church" is necessarily a good thing. I'm not even going to touch
fringe movies like Priest, Agnes of God and Dogma because it is the
subtle hints in movies that really hurt. Like the nerdy character is
always the one with the bible (Steel Magnolias, Edward Scissorhands,
Amadeus) or the evangelist on the take, (Steve Martin, Robert Duvall
and (?) Fletch 2) or movies like Pleasantville that tell us that if
you free your mind and ignore objective moral judgments, you will be a
much happier person. The examples are legion so how can you just say,
"Not true?" I have given quite a few examples of one side of the
spectrum. Can you think of one movie to counter them? No, not the
Blues Brothers <grin>
>
>Especially not true in TV. This is one of those tropes that gets repeated by
>people but which in fact doesn't have a shred of truth to it.
I hadn't mentioned TV. I meant for this thread to address comics, but
I'd say, to be fair, even TV is about 50/50, still out of whack with
real life. But when even King of the Hill and The Simpsons make a
point of ragging on the ineffectualness of religion in our daily
lives, you have to wonder. How about Star Trek? (I know) Where we
have to assume that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are discredited in
the future? Millenium is an obvious offender (which I thought was a
great show) and X-Files has made its living in the past few years with
backward, dirty, redneck church folks doing everything from raising
the dead to handling/worshiping snakes. Why, I even saw this weekend
on Lifetime (I know) where the Evil Mom Who Covers Up For Her Murderer
Daughter character would always say "I'll pray for you," to the
protagonist as the camera lingers on her sneering face, emphasizing
her hypocrisy. This was, of course, before she called her rich,
corrupt, Republican congressman buddy to help get her Murderer
Daughter out of the jam. Sound familiar? That's because it's been
done a million times! And don't even get me started on HBO original
movies and the like (If these walls could talk, McMartin case,
Barbarians at the Gate, etc <retch>) Heavy handed, cliched
characters, poor writing, typical political rants. Maybe there was a
time long ago, when there were too many patriotic, squeaky clean,
choirboy characters on the tube, but in a zealot-like attempt to even
the scales a bit, and show some reality, we've gone way too far in the
other direction. This is why these angel shows get so much attention.
They look absolutely *revolutionary* against the backdrop of thirty
some-odd years of force-fed orthodox humanist counterculture.
>In TV series, there have been many religious characters all the way back to the
>Flying Nun to the more contemporary Father Dowling Mysteries, that have been
>strong, positive charcters. The networks are TERRIFIED of offending in this
>area. Believe me, I've seen it first hand. On Murder, She Wrote all the
>religious characters who appeared when I was involved were positive characters,
>and I'm pretty sure that was the case throughout.
Yep, the over seventy demographic won't take the constant negative
chracterization that viewers of the X-Files like me will take. They
would organize and destroy the sponsors, losing the network a bunch of
money. I'm proud of them for being so tough.
>What you say simply isn't true. It's said and repeated because the Christian
>right *must* believe that it is constantly being persecuted, even though they
>hold the cards in most areas, so this kind of nonsense is drummed up.
>
>If I'm wrong...show me your work. Give me specifics on the hordes of marauding
>priests, nuns and ministers seen in network TV.
Well, if you want to get into statistics and examples, I'm afraid I
can't help. I'm not connected with any sort of watchdog group and I
don't distribute leaflets on this sort of thing in front of TV
studios. But I think I have given some pretty strong, specific
anecdotal evidence in support of my point. I'd like to hear a
comparable body of evidence from the last thirty years from
you...especially from the movie and comic art forms, where writers are
more free to speak their minds....
(Don't jump on me for that last statement. I wish writers were MORE
free to come up with original ideas and to personalize their stories.
I only started this thread to express my exasperation at how *so* many
writers seem to rely on the same old negative religious stereotypes to
move their stories along instead of showing us something new. And I'm
sorry if this thread has become disagreeable, I had only intended to
log an observation, not start a debate.)
Mark Dowling
marauding
> priests, nuns and ministers seen in network TV.
>
Try "Father Ted" sometime... Jim Norton's in it... (as a tyrant bishop with
an illegitimate son)
It was produced by Channel 4 in the UK (another B5 connection)
Mark
--
______________________________________________
Mark Dowling, 2 Marlboro Mews, Wellington Road, Cork
+353-21-508865, +353-87-2260861, dowl...@iol.ie
FDC Business Systems, FDC House, Wellington Road, Cork
+353-21-509022, +353-21-509272, bus...@fdc.ie
These aren't FDC's opinions as they don't pay me royalties.
Greg Sirmon
>If I'm wrong...show me your work. Give me specifics on the hordes of marauding
>priests, nuns and ministers seen in network TV.
Well, if you want to get into statistics and examples, I'm afraid I
The Nuclear Marine
Mark Maher wrote:
>
> Aldous Gajic, Thomas "Jinxo" Jordan, and Rabbi Koslov (or Uncle
> Yossel to Susan)
>
> Now if I could just remember the IMPORTANT stuff in my life...
>
> __!_!__
> Gizmo
Wine, Women and Song. That's all the important stuff in life to
remember.
==========================
He was certain it hurt but the gag muffled her screams a bit.
Nuke
Ryan Nock
at the actual act. I imagine that there must have been some trouble at the
closing down. Aside from that, though, I share the same reservations you
do. I'm also wondering why Pyre and Josh aren't a bit more reserved about
taking sides on what seems to be a pretty clear-cut issue. Flagg. . .
sorry, "Patriot" is a murderer. I don't see how even Josh's father can
reconcile that. I wish I could post my own story ideas, but that would be
hypocritical. I'll just discuss it with my friends.
If you want a nice Christian, look for David Qin in Terry Moore's "Strangers
in Paradise" comic.
I do have to admit, "Flying Night-light" is not the power I would have
chosen. I wonder if Jason would have killed Joshua also if his daddy hadn't
gone along with it. "Keep back, or I'll have my son glow at you!"
I have a friend who claims that if she had the same colorists that Image
does, she could do much better penciling job than Christian Zanier. The
last page shot . . . well, suffice it to say, blue spandex with a gold medal
can't have been the best thing for him to wear.
By the way, there was an inking problem when his father slams him against
the wall. His father's hands are the same color as Josh's shirt.
"Greg Sirmon" <gboy...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38e7cb42...@news.aub.mindspring.com...
> I really really really appreciated the evenhanded and (at times) even
> positive spin organized religion got on B5. Most people who serve in
> the capacity of telling folks about their views on all things
> spiritual toil in obscurity and could certainly pick better paying
> professions.
>
> But in the comic world, the psychotic, win-at-any-cost, criminal,
> money-grubbing, soul-sucking televangelist stereotype is getting a bit
> old. I mean, 90% of the figures meant to represent organized religion
> in the comic world seem to have this maniacal bent. It's just a
> guess, but I'm betting that's not too close to the ratio of real-world
> preachers/rabbis/etc who fit this mold.
>
> I know it's not comics' or any writer's job to portray reality
> exactly, but I often wonder why "religious" figures are so often
> picked out by writers to serve as the heavy in these stories. And
> they are almost always given personality traits that would be closer
> to Jim Jones/David Koresh than to any spiritual leader I've ever met.
>
> In Rising Stars, we see the unwilling son who has been forced into a
> life as a sideshow freak to help fill the pockets of his evil preacher
> Dad. And when it comes time to organize the conspiracy to kill as
> many of the heroes as possible, who spearheads the effort?
>
> There's even a moment where we're supposed to sympathize with the son
> as he secretly weeps over his father's efforts to close an abortion
> clinic. This, to me, is like having a sympathetic character/possible
> protagonist weep over the closing of a Nazi crematoreum. Pardon me if
> I'm not moved.
>
> Joe has always totally pushed the envelope on convention and
> non-stereotypical characters. He gave depth and believability to the
> folks on B5 that I've never found anywhere else in entertainment. But
> if this is going to be the son's-eventual-pang-of-conscience-
> forces-him-to-put-an-end-to-his-evil-father's-plans plot device, then
> color me bored.
>
> And before you tell me to lighten up, I do think Preacher kicks ass.
> But I was expecting a higher standard of characterization/plotline in
> RS...And up until this point, it's been there in spades. I just hope
> there's one of JMS's famous plot twists that I'm not expecting right
> around the corner...
>
>
> Greg
> gboy...@mindspring.com
>
>
Ryan Nock
> minority that they are statistically insignificant among the entire
> population of spiritual leaders. They achieve great notoriety
> certainly, but they are very rare when you consider that the majority
> are well meaning and toil in obscurity.
I would hope to see some of the people toiling in the background. One thing
I noticed in S5 of B5 was the fading of the human element. It's much harder
to empathize with characters when they are kings and deities like Sheridan
and Sinclair. Or like superheroes. So far my favorite character in Rising
Stars has been Ravenshadow, since he seemed so casual, and . . . well, her,
the lady with no powers *ahem*. Poet is dull, so it's hard to feel for him.
He's not wacky enough to be on the level of Rorsharch (one of my friends has
a sketch she did of Rorsharch on the crapper while a nuke goes off outside
his apartment window).
Well, let us hope for some more characters we actually like. I *liked*
Marcus and Ivanova and Garibaldi and . . . well, how about this, I
occasionally disliked Talia, Lyta, Lennier, and Delenn when they got whiney.
That's about it. Rising Stars just doesn't have characters that are as
engaging. I'm looking forward to some more people, and less epic drama.
Ryan Nock
On the X-Files, last year, was an episode about Seraphim. Very nice.
X-Files and Millenium have shown villainous religious figures, but they've
also delved into the meaning and depth of religion. Few shows would do an
episode about a Jewish golem, or a group of demons in a coffee shop
discovering that indeed they can lose. Sure, you can look at King of the
Hill and The Simpsons and say they are against Christianity, but hey, The
Simpsons mocks everything. Every-thing. I think I've even seen one B5 joke
on there. Fox lives off its edgy, fringe-ish reputation, even though it's
too popular to really be risque.
You brought up Star Trek and its lack of religion. I'd prefer to see
religion in even a slightly positive light (one character holding out his
values against what he finds morally wrong) to seeing a story where religion
just doesn't exist (except for the Pa Wraiths and their crappy plotline on
DS9), or other alien religions. Humans got the shaft.
Well, we didn't get the shaft on B5. I don't care whether JMS has Joshua's
dad be as zealous as he wants, as long as it helps the story. Just as long
as the characters don't whine. I hate that. :) I hate it I hate it I hate
it!
"Greg Sirmon" <gboy...@mindspring.com> wrote a message
I'm replying.
ImRastro
>>You say above that THE GREAT MAJORITY of religious figures in entertainment
>are
>>patently evil antagonists.
>>
>>Not true.
>
I think Joe is right. In Sci Fi/horror the majority of organized religious
figures seem to be either evil, corrupt or ineffectual. But Sci Fi/horror
accounts for only a small percentage of the portrayals out there. And even in
Sci Fi/horor there are "good guy" religious figures. (Ie the preist in Salem's
Lot, the priest in The Reality Dysfunction, the priests in The
Exorcist....hmmm, a trend).
Just my 2 cents,
Amy
(and yeah, I was raised Catholic)
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
> I'm not even going to touch
> fringe movies like Priest, Agnes of God and Dogma
Did you even bother to *see* Dogma before you put your foot in your mouth for us?
It had about ten thousand times more authentic Christian sentiment than any given
24-hour segment of the PAX tv network.
> or the evangelist on the take, (Steve Martin, Robert Duvall
Did you even bother to see The Apostle? Probably one of the best pro-Christian
movies ever made, simply because it refused to pander to anyone's preconceptions.
Robert Duvall's character was not "on the take", he accidentally killed a man and
spent the rest of the movie trying to atone for it by repairing a small town's
run-down church. If that's an anti-Christian sentiment I suggest you drag out your
Bible and actually try reading part of it.
> And don't even get me started on HBO original
> movies and the like (If these walls could talk, McMartin case,
> Barbarians at the Gate, etc <retch>)
Too bad "Barbarians at the Gate" was based on the real-life shenanigans of the good
folks at RJR Nabisco. It sure sucks when reality intrudes, don't it?
> This is why these angel shows get so much attention.
No, these shows get attention for the same reason "angel sightings" get attention,
and that is--put simply--because stupid people like to think that if they want or
need something REAL BAD, like for $300 to make the mortgage on time, a pretty Irish
bimbo will magically appear and make it all better. Meanwhile, back in the real
world, hundreds of religious folks--Christians, Jews, and Moslems alike--are being
imprisoned and killed in the most hideous ways imaginable, and yet very few of them
seem to be getting any sort of divine aid, or Gaelic aid for that matter.
--
Reverend Jacob
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/shirley/272/
"People that are really weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous
impact on history." -- J. Danforth Quayle
Lisa Coulter
Greg Sirmon wrote:
I have to say that even "Contact" for me had a negative religious overtone. I know
many people disagree but I thought Jodi Foster's boyfriend (forget his name) was a
real jerk (epsecially the scene where he make it obvious she shouldn't go cause she
doesn't believe in God and also where he says "O sorry honey, I just couldn't stand
to lose you") Yeck! If it were me (and I happen to agree much more with him than her
on religion) it would be "bye bye baby"
Lisa Coulter
Lisa Coulter
(Delenn and even Ivanova come to mind on religion) Yeah, jms!
Lisa Coulter
Lisa Coulter
of the Stand (still one of my all time favorites).
And let's not even get into LEngle (A Wrinkle in Time, etc.) C.S. Lewis (Chronicles
of Narnia, Space Trilogy) Connie Willis (excelllent! excellent! The Doomsday Book,
her "Christmas" anthology). Just a few who come to mind. There is positive
material out there for those who look.
"Faith Manages" - Delenn
Lisa Coulter
ImRastro wrote:
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
> >>You say above that THE GREAT MAJORITY of religious figures in entertainment
> >are
> >>patently evil antagonists.
> >>
> >>Not true.
> >
>
WWS
Tom Holt wrote:
>
> JMS himself, IMHO, has always handled
> religious issues with admirable balance and fair-mindedness in his
> screenwriting; very much to his credit, particularly since in private
> life he seems to subscribe to the somewhat bizarre
> right-wing-funamentalists-hell-bent-on-world-domination conspiracy
> theory that's so fashionable these days.
Robert Heinlein did it first! I always wanted to say that.
>
> It's worth noting in passing that writers are under no moral
> obligation to be balanced or fair-minded about religion or any other
> issue; and some of the world's finest literature is polemical in tone
> and content. If a writer's prepared to risk alienating a section of
> his audience by expressing one-sided views because they're important
> to him, that's a matter for him and his publishers/producers &c
I myself am always fairminded and openly understanding about
every issue; it's those disgusting simpleminded morons and
hypocrites that disagree with me who aren't.
Patrick MARCEL
> Very true in movies I think. Religious figures are portrayed anywhere
> from a humorously ineffective anachronism to the embodiment of evil.
Well, not to troll or anything, but that of course would have no
relation to real life, where the Pope is benevolently condemning a huge
part of Africa to destruction and misery through AIDS, because he read
in his copy of the Bible it was wrong to use a condom for sex and
forbids eveybody to use one.
I'm afraid as far as visible religious figures, he's one of the hugest,
and he doesn't set much of a shining Christian example, if you ask me.
He may be the inspiration of all those movie and TV writers...
Patrick
PS: sorry to launch into that, but I get so annoyed at this kind of reproaches...
--
"We are all born as molecules in the heart of a billion stars; molecules
that do not understand politics or policies or differences. Over a
billion years, we foolish molecules forget who we are, and where we came
from. In desperate acts of ego we give ourselves names, fight over lines
on maps, and pretend our light is better than everyone else's. The flame
reminds us of the piece of those stars that lives on inside us, the
spark that tells us, 'you know better'." JMS
Patrick MARCEL
> I have to say that even "Contact" for me had a negative religious overtone. I know
> many people disagree but I thought Jodi Foster's boyfriend (forget his name) was a
> real jerk (epsecially the scene where he make it obvious she shouldn't go cause she
> doesn't believe in God and also where he says "O sorry honey, I just couldn't stand
> to lose you") Yeck! If it were me (and I happen to agree much more with him than her
> on religion) it would be "bye bye baby"
Which is all the more mysterious for being in there, as Carl Sagan's
book was firmly atheistic in his spirit. Why this nonsense about
religion got mixed up in the plot, and why the film ends with that
wishy-washy admission that, well, basically, science and religion are
the same thing, I don't know. But it betrayed the original novel.
Patrick
Greg Sirmon
>as the characters don't whine. I hate that. :) I hate it I hate it I hate
>it!
LOL. Touche' 8-) I take that in the lighthearted vein it was
intended.
On a slightly more serious note, the responses of everyone has made me
think about bigtotry in general and how I may have been insensitive to
others' feelings in my life. Think about the things people responded
to me with. I mean, how many times have I wanted to tell people
things like, "Really, you're discriminated against? Show me the
evidence! It's not so widespread! Or stop whining, or lighten up, or
you're only looking for the negative, get on with your life." How
many times have we all done this to some degree or another?
I've found it's hard to make the other party understand how these
things affect you unless they're coming from the same place you are.
Since many people who responded to this thread were very cold to the
idea that religious bigotry obviously runs rampant in the
entertainment world and just swept aside my direct observations, I was
tempted to feel wronged by their insensitivity. Instead, I decided to
understand that their point of reference is just different than
mine...and it's natural we'd see these things differently.
After this experience, I think the next time someone comes to me with
similar concerns (about how the deck seems stacked against them), I
will listen with a lot more tolerance, and not attempt to minimize
their concerns-not a popular idea on the net it seems.
M.E.Tonkin
cited the character of Dana Scully on _The X-Files_ in a positive way. Scully
is portrayed as a practicing Catholic and the character is certainly a good
role model: intelligent, strong, and competent.
MET
ImRastro wrote:
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
> >>You say above that THE GREAT MAJORITY of religious figures in entertainment
> >are
> >>patently evil antagonists.
> >>
> >>Not true.
> >
>
ImRastro
>Well, not to troll or anything, but that of course would have no
>relation to real life, where the Pope is benevolently condemning a huge
>part of Africa to destruction and misery through AIDS, because he read
>in his copy of the Bible it was wrong to use a condom for sex and
>forbids eveybody to use one.
>
>I'm afraid as far as visible religious figures, he's one of the hugest,
>and he doesn't set much of a shining Christian example, if you ask me.
>He may be the inspiration of all those movie and TV writers...
>
>Patrick
>
>PS: sorry to launch into that, but I get so annoyed at this kind of
>reproaches...
Well I'll bite.
Up until last month I could've outdone you on citations to evil acts committed
by The Catholic Church throughout history, but I think this one is a litle
misguided. The spread of AIDS throughout Africa has a lot more to do with lack
of education, a general cultural unwillingness to use condemns, unsanitary
conditions and the simultanious spread of other sexually transmitted diseases
resulting in open sores. The Catholics have never ahd that much influence over
African culture. So you can't lay that one on JPII.
But, hey, why bother when you have the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the
Jesuits and there world journey, the Pope's silence during WWII, teh refusal to
accept italian jewish children into the sanctuar of the Vatican, the whole
concept of indulgances....ah gee, i could go on and on.
Then again, why dump it all on the Catholics? Why not go strait to the source.
As far as I know, there is no act by God in the old testiment that is not also
an act of violence against somebody else. Is that evil? Hmm.....
Amy
(And you can all visit me in hell after I die since this e-mail alone is
probably enough to send me there)
Patrick MARCEL
> The spread of AIDS throughout Africa has a lot more to do with lack
> of education, a general cultural unwillingness to use condemns, unsanitary
> conditions and the simultanious spread of other sexually transmitted diseases
> resulting in open sores. The Catholics have never ahd that much influence over
> African culture. So you can't lay that one on JPII.
Possibly. But certainly, JPII's adamant blanket condemnation of condoms
is not helping, either!
> But, hey, why bother when you have the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the
> Jesuits and there world journey, the Pope's silence during WWII, teh refusal to
> accept italian jewish children into the sanctuar of the Vatican, the whole
> concept of indulgances....ah gee, i could go on and on.
Didn't you know? Haven't you heard? JPII recently and publicly repented
for all of this! So it's all right and so much water under the bridge, now!
I understand the condemnation of condoms during AIDS will be covered by
a blanket repentance somewhere around 2500 AD. :-))
> (And you can all visit me in hell after I die since this e-mail alone is
> probably enough to send me there)
It's OK: if the criteria for going to Hell are those I've heard bandied
about repeatedly by so many devout Christians, I'll probably be your
hellpit next door neighbour! :-))
Pelzo63
>Possibly. But certainly, JPII's adamant blanket >condemnation of condoms
>is not helping, either!
someone who i idn't give a <bleep> about once told me i could either jump off a
bridge unimpaired, or not jump off the bridge, but i could not use a bungee
cord, i told him to go away, then used a bungee cord. but then somone who
mattered to me told me the same thing, i decided i'd rather. i decided to not
jump, rather than risking my life for a quick high.
there shall not be any further postings by me on this thread. :-)
---chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
and no, i'm not catholic at all.
Jonathan Biggar
> Then again, why dump it all on the Catholics? Why not go strait to the source.
> As far as I know, there is no act by God in the old testiment that is not also
> an act of violence against somebody else. Is that evil? Hmm.....
If you don't know your source material, you shouldn't assume that you
can accurately describe it.
Try reading the story of Samuel's mother, or Elijah and the widow's son,
or the story of Job, etc, etc.
Sure many of the stories have to do with God's retribution against evil
acts and people, but there are plenty of stories of pure mercy as well.
--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org
LK
wrote:
>>ImRastro wrote:
>
>> But, hey, why bother when you have the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the
>> Jesuits and there world journey, the Pope's silence during WWII, teh refusal to
>> accept italian jewish children into the sanctuar of the Vatican, the whole
>> concept of indulgances....ah gee, i could go on and on.
>
>Didn't you know? Haven't you heard? JPII recently and publicly repented
>for all of this! So it's all right and so much water under the bridge, now!
>
>I understand the condemnation of condoms during AIDS will be covered by
>a blanket repentance somewhere around 2500 AD. :-))
>
Add that to the B5 Timeline webpage.
Getting toward The Great Burn, there.
LK
LK
>Then again, why dump it all on the Catholics? Why not go strait to the source.
> As far as I know, there is no act by God in the old testiment that is not also
>an act of violence against somebody else. Is that evil? Hmm.....
>
>Amy
>(And you can all visit me in hell after I die since this e-mail alone is
>probably enough to send me there)
Remember G.B. Shaw's "Man and Superman," only those who live without
asking questions go to heaven.
(According to my college prof way back when.)
LK
John W. Kennedy
> Which is all the more mysterious for being in there, as Carl Sagan's
> book was firmly atheistic in his spirit. Why this nonsense about
> religion got mixed up in the plot, and why the film ends with that
> wishy-washy admission that, well, basically, science and religion are
> the same thing, I don't know. But it betrayed the original novel.
Reread the novel, old man, you're quite wrong. In fact, the chief
memory I brought away from it was the massive ineptitude of its attempt
at religiosity. 'sfunny. Most atheists trying to deal with
Christianity (to take a specific example) tend to stumble on the fact
that real Xtian theologians are entirely serious when they say that God
is infinite and exists outside of space and time, but Sagan managed to
make the opposite mistake, and suggest that God is sovereign over
mathematics, which no educated Christian believes.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Terry Rubenstein
ImRastro wrote:
> Patrick MARCEL writes:
>
> >Well, not to troll or anything, but that of course would have no
> >relation to real life, where the Pope is benevolently condemning a huge
> >part of Africa to destruction and misery through AIDS, because he read
> >in his copy of the Bible it was wrong to use a condom for sex and
> >forbids eveybody to use one.
> >
> >I'm afraid as far as visible religious figures, he's one of the hugest,
> >and he doesn't set much of a shining Christian example, if you ask me.
> >He may be the inspiration of all those movie and TV writers...
> >
> >Patrick
> >
> >PS: sorry to launch into that, but I get so annoyed at this kind of
> >reproaches...
>
> Well I'll bite.
>
> Up until last month I could've outdone you on citations to evil acts committed
> by The Catholic Church throughout history, but I think this one is a litle
> misguided. The spread of AIDS throughout Africa has a lot more to do with lack
> of education, a general cultural unwillingness to use condemns, unsanitary
> conditions and the simultanious spread of other sexually transmitted diseases
> resulting in open sores. The Catholics have never ahd that much influence over
> African culture. So you can't lay that one on JPII.
>
> But, hey, why bother when you have the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the
> Jesuits and there world journey, the Pope's silence during WWII, teh refusal to
> accept italian jewish children into the sanctuar of the Vatican, the whole
> concept of indulgances....ah gee, i could go on and on.
>
All true...
>
> Then again, why dump it all on the Catholics? Why not go strait to the source.
> As far as I know, there is no act by God in the old testiment that is not also
> an act of violence against somebody else. Is that evil? Hmm.....
>
Creatation was violence against no one. Manna from heaven to feed the jews in the desert was without violence. God's angel granting a son to an old an barren women hurt no one. Even where violence on God's part existed, it was generally to right a wrong, like a police officer arresting (and if need be, shooting) a violent criminal. Just look at the removal of the slaves from Egypt. Surely ending the enslavement of an entire people is a good thing. Only after lots of non-violent signs were ignored did
God resort to violence.
If you don't know the book, don't comment on it.
Lisa Coulter
LK wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2000 13:32:32 -0600, imra...@aol.com (ImRastro) wrote:
>
> >Then again, why dump it all on the Catholics? Why not go strait to the source.
> > As far as I know, there is no act by God in the old testiment that is not also
> >an act of violence against somebody else. Is that evil? Hmm.....
> >
> >Amy
> >(And you can all visit me in hell after I die since this e-mail alone is
> >probably enough to send me there)
>
> Remember G.B. Shaw's "Man and Superman," only those who live without
> asking questions go to heaven.
>
> (According to my college prof way back when.)
>
> LK
And your college prof of course knew everything.....
Lisa Coulter
a Christian who questions .....
Patrick MARCEL
> Reread the novel, old man, you're quite wrong. In fact, the chief
> memory I brought away from it was the massive ineptitude of its attempt
> at religiosity.
Will do. It's been ages since I read it, but I had kept - I thought -
quite a strong memory of it.
Kathryn Shapero
The Reverend Jacob Corbin <webm...@afriendlysbooks.com> wrote in message
news:38EC5711...@afriendlysbooks.com...
> Greg Sirmon wrote:
>
>> > This is why these angel shows get so much attention.
>
> No, these shows get attention for the same reason "angel sightings" get
attention,
> and that is--put simply--because stupid people like to think that if they
want or
> need something REAL BAD, like for $300 to make the mortgage on time, a
pretty Irish
> bimbo will magically appear and make it all better
I've not seen enough episodes to speak for the whole show, but fwiw that
doesn't seem to describe "Touched by an Angel" - it seems to focus on
repairing relationships - the guy who's dying at the start of the show is
still dying at the end, but he's no longer estranged from his father, the
woman in jail for murder turns out to be guilty after all (she was
repressing the memory) and will presumably go back to jail, but achieves
some rapport with the victim's father (who no longer feels guilty himself
because he didn't get the chance to say goodbye) and so on.
ImRastro
>ImRastro wrote:
>> Then again, why dump it all on the Catholics? Why not go strait to the
>source.
>> As far as I know, there is no act by God in the old testiment that is not
>also
>> an act of violence against somebody else. Is that evil? Hmm.....
>
>If you don't know your source material, you shouldn't assume that you
>can accurately describe it.
>
I didn't realize you had posted this here as well. Might as well see what
others think.
>Try reading the story of Samuel's mother, or Elijah and the widow's son,
>or the story of Job, etc, etc.
Actually, I do my source material. I can't recall the story of Elijah off the
top of my head (there are a lot of Elijah stories). I'll look that up.
I know about Hannah though (Samuel's mother). In a nutshell: God had rendered
her "womb barren." Her husband said don't worry, you have me. His other wives
scoffed at her. She went to Temple (where women were generally not allowed by
the way) and prayed fervently to God for a son promising she would dedicate him
to the lord. God gave her a son and as soon as he was born he was whisked off
to temple, dedicated to the Lord, he never returned to mom, but grew up to be
the profet Samuel.
OK. On the old testiment scale of harm, this is arguably pretty low. However,
one wonders why God would render her barren in the first place and then grant
her a son only to lose the son at birth. I suppose someone will argue it was
al for the good since we got Samuel. To each his own. I fel for the Mom.
But Job! Oh come on. As i said in an e-mail to Jon, Job is the classic
example that proves me right. As a result of a wager between God and Satan,
Job losesd everything but his faith. This unfortunately includes losing his
children who are killed. Hmm. I suppose some would argue that Job is the star
of the story and he turns out more or less ok. To each his own. I wonder what
the kids did to deserve it.
>
>Sure many of the stories have to do with God's retribution against evil
>acts and people, but there are plenty of stories of pure mercy as well.
And this is where I am particularly confused. Were Job's children evil? I
don't think so. If someone else does, I'd love to hear the theory.
But Job is an obvious story. In the spirit of Passover, lets focus on Exodos.
Were all the egyptians who died of starvation and pestilance as a result of
God's plagues evil? Were all the first-born children including Pharoh's (who
was around 9 I think)? How about all the soldiers who drowned at the bottom of
the red sea?
I guess the response to this will be that they were evil for allowing Pharoh to
rule. (Especially his son who made a very choice of parents as did all those
other first-born kids). Even were that so, one wonders why an all powerful
God (who is allegedly also all-good) would have to convince Pharoh to free the
slaves in the first place. Why not just do it? Why wait thousands of years?
And what about the slaves from other nations that were left in Egypt? I guess
they're evil too by virtue of national origon.
Amy,
(who actually spends a lot of her time trying to understand these
contradictions).
ImRastro
>>Didn't you know? Haven't you heard? JPII recently and publicly repented
>>for all of this! So it's all right and so much water under the bridge, now!
>>
yeah, I know. And I do agree with you. But I confess, I am amazed and happy
that he had the .... (I feel uncomfortable using the word "balls" in relation
to the Pope somehow). Anyway, he did it. Better late than never. I'm pretty
pleased about it. Now if they can just get over that birth-controll problem I
might consider getting confirrmed.
Amy,
(just kidding. Can't get past that no-female priest problem and the whole
homophobic thing either)
ImRastro
>Creatation was violence against no one.
True, until that whole expulsion part.
Manna from heaven to feed the jews
>in the desert was without violence.
Except for those who had already died. And why would they be there anywhere?
God's angel granting a son to an old an
>barren women hurt no one.
Except that God rendered them barren. But really, I'm willing to grant this
one. Some old barren women did get to have children. I would note that almost
all of the barren women stories do have a darker side. (IE Samuel's mom cited
by anouther poster).
Even where violence on God's part existed, it was
>generally to right a wrong, like a police officer arresting (and if need be,
>shooting) a violent criminal. Just look at the removal of the slaves from
>Egypt. Surely ending the enslavement of an entire people is a good thing.
>Only after lots of non-violent signs were ignored did
>God resort to violence.
Happily, I just wrote about this one. So I'll stand on my previous post. In
addition, A LOT of people were unnecessarily killed in that one. You'll recall
that God forms a piller of fire and smoke to prevent Egypt's army from
following the Jews into the red sea. When they are nearly to the otherside,
God drops the pillar, Pharoh orders the soldiers to follow and they are
drowned. Sounds like a set-up to me. He is God afterall, why not keep the
pillar there until all the Jews are safe, crash in the waves, drop the fire.
Jews are safe, Pharoh is thwarted, no unecessary murder.
>
>If you don't know the book, don't comment on it.
Jon said the exact same thing. I gotta laugh. Why is it that those who fail
to question the Bible consistently accuse those who do of not knowing the book?
I do know the book. I remember the details, and they make me wonder.
Just as a side note: Credit to the Jewish faith which I understand encourages
such questions rather than condemning them. I think that's really cool.
Amy
WWS
Funny how those two always seemed to contradict each other.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
WWS
apologies in advance.)
ImRastro wrote:
>
> Jonathan Biggar writes:
> >
>
> I didn't realize you had posted this here as well. Might as well see what
> others think.
>
> >Try reading the story of Samuel's mother, or Elijah and the widow's son,
> >or the story of Job, etc, etc.
>
> Actually, I do my source material. I can't recall the story of Elijah off the
> top of my head (there are a lot of Elijah stories). I'll look that up.
>
> I know about Hannah though (Samuel's mother). In a nutshell: God had rendered
> her "womb barren." Her husband said don't worry, you have me. His other wives
> scoffed at her. She went to Temple (where women were generally not allowed by
> the way) and prayed fervently to God for a son promising she would dedicate him
> to the lord. God gave her a son and as soon as he was born he was whisked off
> to temple, dedicated to the Lord, he never returned to mom, but grew up to be
> the prophet Samuel.
There's a crucial distinction here - was Hannah really barren because God
decided to do that to her, or did she (as was common then and now) simply
blame God for a condition that occurs to many women? The real topic is
"why do bad things happen to good people?" Just pointing it out here,
more on it and Job below.
>
> OK. On the old testiment scale of harm, this is arguably pretty low. However,
> one wonders why God would render her barren in the first place and then grant
> her a son only to lose the son at birth. I suppose someone will argue it was
> al for the good since we got Samuel. To each his own. I felt for the Mom.
You wouldn't be human if you didn't. But you have to ask yourself (as we
all do) where do these harmful things come from? Is every bad thing a
malevolent act of some Power somewhere, with Good or Evil behind it, or
do some things happen just as a side effect of our living in this world?
>
> But Job! Oh come on. As i said in an e-mail to Jon, Job is the classic
> example that proves me right. As a result of a wager between God and Satan,
> Job loses everything but his faith. This unfortunately includes losing his
> children who are killed. Hmm. I suppose some would argue that Job is the star
> of the story and he turns out more or less ok. To each his own. I wonder
> what the kids did to deserve it.
They did absolutely nothing to deserve it, and that's part of the real
point of the book. Most Christians (except the fundamentalists) and
almost all Jewish believers I know don't believe that Job is meant to be
taken as literal truth, but rather as a classic middle eastern "wisdom"
story on the topic of Why Bad Things happen to Good People. Since none
of us have to look very far to see Bad Things happening all the time to
Good People we know, and lot's of times even to us, it's not surprising
that this topic has always been very important to everyone. It's one of
the hardest things to come to grips with, and yet also essential to deal
with if you want to try to make sense of life at all.
In the story, note that God does not "cause" any of the things to happen.
He allows them to happen. If you want to believe this literally, then you
believe that a Devil exists who takes pleasure from tormenting people and
he is allowed to have free reign, as this planet seems to be more under
his control than God's, anyway. If you look at it metaphorically,
surprisingly it works even better. The Devil becomes all the random,
impossible to understand happenings on this earth that continue to happen
no matter how much we pray and hope and fight to keep them from happening.
The Devil becomes cancer, and car crashes, and tornadoes, and all the
things that hurt us that God doesn't stop from happening. (If you believe
in a God, then you have to believe that he's decided not to interfere in
a day to day basis in our lives)
Job has everything, and then through no fault of his own loses everything.
He gets sick, and then his children die. (And they didn't do anything
to deserve it - read today's paper if you want to see how often this
happens) All of that happens to bring you to the real point of the
story - how does Job deal with all this? How can he possibly go on?
I for one feel that although there may have been a famous person at
the time that this story was based on, it really came from the mind of a
scribe who lived about 3,000 years ago who was grappling with this same
problem - how do you accept the things that you see happening every day?
Looked at that way, the "facts" as laid out become simply plot devices,
and the point isn't the story but the lesson.
And what is the answer? Human knowledge comes from his 3 friends, who
tell him first, that he must really have deserved it after all or it
wouldn't have happened (met anyone like that lately?) and who then
tell him that since everything's lost and gone down the tubes, he
might as well curse God and die.
But Job won't do it. He won't believe it's his fault, and he won't
curse God. He wants to fight to understand what happened to him.
He won't let go of this until he gets an answer - he demands an
answer! (Just like everyone who's ever had a terribly hard and
unfair thing happen to them has wanted to get)
And the answer he finally receives is hard, but one of the most
essential underpinnings of both Judaism and Christianity. And that
is, Faith is the only thing anyone can hang onto when these things
happen. Faith that there will be justice in the end, faith that
God does indeed care for you even when everything in the world is
being dumped on your head, and faith that you yourself are not big
enough to ever completely understand the "why's" of this world, but
that doesn't mean they're not there. Which is why, at the end, Job's
final response is "I know that my Redeemer Lives".
After that, the story gives Job a happy ending, but that's just window
dressing, and doesn't have much at all to do with the point of the book.
The point is that one can only survive the things that happen through
faith. And that no matter how good you are and how hard you try, there
is never any guarantee that very bad things that you never expected
won't happen to you tomorrow, so you best be ready - and don't blame
God for them happening, rather lean on God to help you survive.
>
> >
> >Sure many of the stories have to do with God's retribution against evil
> >acts and people, but there are plenty of stories of pure mercy as well.
>
> And this is where I am particularly confused. Were Job's children evil? I
> don't think so. If someone else does, I'd love to hear the theory.
Job's children (imho) were a metaphor for any child that any parent has
ever lost. It happens, and will happen. Does God make that happen each
time? If you believe that, you're going to be very angry at God, and
at everything else as well. I've known people like that, it's not a good
way to live.
>
> But Job is an obvious story. In the spirit of Passover, lets focus on Exodos.
> Were all the egyptians who died of starvation and pestilance as a result of
> God's plagues evil? Were all the first-born children including Pharoh's (who
> was around 9 I think)? How about all the soldiers who drowned at the bottom of
> the red sea?
When you delve into the first few books of the Bible, you have to realize that
you're dealing mainly with the tribal history of the Hebrew People. Although
we still read those stories and follow those forms, the religion practiced
there (and the God they worshipped) really has very little resemblance to
either Modern Judaism or Christianity. We pick and choose a few pieces,
but honestly, both faiths throw most of what those first few books teach
right out the window. Slaughter your enemies with no mercy? Sacrifice
your children when asked? Incredibly complex rules for animal sacrifices
and dietary restrictions? That God is a God of Vengeance and Blood. Not
one that many modern people of any faith can relate to, even if most
believers do tend to gloss over that. If you want the most common
rationalization (which you've probably heard) it's that it's the best
thing that you could expect a late stone age tribal culture to adopt as
it's customs. An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth was actually a
great improvement and far more merciful than what they had been doing,
which was kill all the men for an eye, and slaughter everything that moves
for a tooth. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" is a huge step up from
men saying "no, vengeance is ours, and we're going to spend all day each
and every day getting it!" It's a truism, but you really can't hold stone
age cultures up to the same standards you expect of modern ones.
You and me and most everyone except the few pure Jews left are all Gentiles
and thus cursed by those first few books anyway. Kind of odd to put so much
importance on them in light of that. (although not that many Christians
besides the fundamentalists do)
>
> I guess the response to this will be that they were evil for allowing Pharoh to
> rule. (Especially his son who made a very choice of parents as did all those
> other first-born kids). Even were that so, one wonders why an all powerful
> God (who is allegedly also all-good) would have to convince Pharoh to free the
> slaves in the first place. Why not just do it? Why wait thousands of years?
> And what about the slaves from other nations that were left in Egypt? I guess
> they're evil too by virtue of national origon.
>
> Amy,
> (who actually spends a lot of her time trying to understand these
> contradictions).
In that light, why was man kicked out of the garden at all? Why do men (and
women) have to work to make themselves better? How come there isn't some
God button to push whenever things go wrong and we're in trouble? What's
the point of all these things that happen, anyway?
That question is what religion, in all it's forms, is all about.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Patrick Marcel wrote:
> [T]he Pope is benevolently condemning a huge part of Africa to
> destruction and misery through AIDS, because he read in his copy of
> the Bible it was wrong to use a condom for sex and forbids eveybody
> to use one.
This argument doesn't make much sense to me. You seem to be arguing that
everybody in Africa listens to the Pope and doesn't use condoms, thus
causing misery through AIDS. But that can't be right.
The Pope does, as described, oppose the use of condoms. But he is also
against sexual activity except between married couples who are faithful
to each other, and against intravenous drug use. If everybody avoided
behaviour the Pope is against, many fewer people would have AIDS.
Your argument seems to require that two contradictory things be true:
a) everybody in Africa listens to the Pope and avoids condoms,
and
b) everybody in Africa ignores the Pope, engaging in sexual acts
he disapproves of.
Do you really believe both of these things simultaneously? If so, how?
Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Ever noticed how many people claim it's organized religion they object
to? Makes me wonder what's so great about incoherent religion."
-- Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Patrick MARCEL
> Your argument seems to require that two contradictory things be true:
>
> a) everybody in Africa listens to the Pope and avoids condoms,
> and
> b) everybody in Africa ignores the Pope, engaging in sexual acts
> he disapproves of.
>
> Do you really believe both of these things simultaneously? If so, how?
Well, life isn't as absolute, black and white, as you seem to believe.
It seems to me forbidding sex outside of marriage is irrealistic to
start with. Since sex outside marriage will exist anyway (it always has,
why should it stop now?), it might help alleviate the problems if
condoms were allowed to be used, considering the current crisis, as a
lesser evil (and don't get me started on why is sex outside of marriage
between two [or more!!!] consenting adults an evil?).
While I know everybody doesn't listen to the Pope, it would add among
those who still do some weight to the promotion of what is nowadays a
life-saving gesture. If it helps save only one person, it would be still
worth it. Christian charity, anyone?
But JPII places orthodoxy before saving lives.
Jeff Walther
kil...@elvis.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) wrote:
> Your argument seems to require that two contradictory things be true:
>
> a) everybody in Africa listens to the Pope and avoids condoms,
> and
> b) everybody in Africa ignores the Pope, engaging in sexual acts
> he disapproves of.
>
> Do you really believe both of these things simultaneously? If so, how?
>From experience?
Here's a little story. Many years ago I was at a friend's wedding. I
went to high school with this friend and I had a pretty tight nit group of
friends from high school. It was known that this friend was getting
married because she was pregnant.
So, I asked another friend, who being female was more likely to have the
answer to my question, "Rose, I don't understand. Eileen had the same
health classes in high school that we did. They covered all the methods
of birth control in detail. Why didn't she use some kind of protection?"
To which Rose replied, "Well, remember that Eileen is Catholic. They
don't believe in using birth control and Eileen is pretty observant."
I pondered this a moment, and then followed the logic through, "But Rose,
catholics don't believe in having sex outside of marriage either."
To which she could only shrug.
Logical? No. Human nature? Yes. And exactly what a reasonable person
should expect. It's easy to follow a rule against protection. There's no
basic human urge driving you to use it. It's ridiculous to expect people
to abstain from sex. It just isn't going to happen in any kind of
meaningful numbers.
Jms at B5
>kil...@elvis.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) wrote:
>
>
>> Your argument seems to require that two contradictory things be true:
>>
>> a) everybody in Africa listens to the Pope and avoids condoms,
>> and
>> b) everybody in Africa ignores the Pope, engaging in sexual acts
>> he disapproves of.
>>
>> Do you really believe both of these things simultaneously? If so, how?
>
So you're saying you always did EVERYTHING your father told you to do because
he disapproved? Or did you do some things and not others?
Because if the former, then I'm pretty sure you're the first person on the
planet in all of history who can make that claim.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Iain Reid
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000424161133...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
>
> So you're saying you always did EVERYTHING your father told you to do
because
> he disapproved? Or did you do some things and not others?
>
> Because if the former, then I'm pretty sure you're the first person on the
> planet in all of history who can make that claim.
>
> jms
>
Well...I've always did everything Napoleon tells me to do...he's telling me
to make this post now, he said to tell you that he and Elvis are planning a
comeback this year. Wibble.
Iain Reid
Iain Rae
> In article <DoOJ4.11329$jZ3.1...@nuq-read.news.verio.net>,
> kil...@elvis.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) wrote:
>
>
> Here's a little story. Many years ago I was at a friend's wedding. I
> went to high school with this friend and I had a pretty tight nit group of
> friends from high school. It was known that this friend was getting
> married because she was pregnant.
>
> So, I asked another friend, who being female was more likely to have the
> answer to my question, "Rose, I don't understand. Eileen had the same
> health classes in high school that we did. They covered all the methods
> of birth control in detail. Why didn't she use some kind of protection?"
>
> To which Rose replied, "Well, remember that Eileen is Catholic. They
> don't believe in using birth control and Eileen is pretty observant."
>
> I pondered this a moment, and then followed the logic through, "But Rose,
> catholics don't believe in having sex outside of marriage either."
>
> To which she could only shrug.
>
> Logical? No. Human nature? Yes. And exactly what a reasonable person
> should expect. It's easy to follow a rule against protection. There's no
> basic human urge driving you to use it. It's ridiculous to expect people
> to abstain from sex. It just isn't going to happen in any kind of
> meaningful numbers.
Actually it's worse than that, possible outcomes of the two "rules" she
broke were (apologies of I get this wrong, I'm not a Catholic and the local
Priest is very "modern"on such things) are:
1. Sex outside of Marriage:- Mortal sin you go to hell (but you've got that
chance to repent, really really mean it and get off)
2. No sex outside of marriage:- Increased stress levels and lots of cold
showers, ouside chance of getting Pneumonia but you're headed for heaven
3. Unprotected sex:- These days you run a fairly high chance of winning a
long (or short) stay in an intensive care ward, not in of itself a sin but
see 2 above
4. Protected sex:- increases your chances of having to take oodles of drugs
but mortal sin stand by to say hello to Big Lucy (but see 1 above)
Surely the safest course of action is to have protected sex, be wracked with
guilt, confess your sins and marry. About the worst thing you can do is hit
the double, mortal sin wise, get knocked, up have to marry anyway, increase
your chances of meeting St Peter prematurely and have a hell of a lot of
explaining to do when you get there.
--
Iain Rae
Computing Officer
Department of Civil & Offshore Engineering
Heriot-Watt University
Mike
and Aethiests - I'm not trying to make a fight, heh heh)
>So you're saying you always did EVERYTHING your father told you to do because
>he disapproved? Or did you do some things and not others?
>
>Because if the former, then I'm pretty sure you're the first person on the
>planet in all of history who can make that claim.
>
> jms
Mike
Humongous Babylon 5 Fan
(You can't have any of my postings
either SFX Magazine, heh heh)
LK
Sweetie) wrote:
>
>Patrick Marcel wrote:
>> [T]he Pope is benevolently condemning a huge part of Africa to
>> destruction and misery through AIDS, because he read in his copy of
>> the Bible it was wrong to use a condom for sex and forbids eveybody
>> to use one.
>
>This argument doesn't make much sense to me. You seem to be arguing that
>everybody in Africa listens to the Pope and doesn't use condoms, thus
>causing misery through AIDS. But that can't be right.
>
>The Pope does, as described, oppose the use of condoms. But he is also
>against sexual activity except between married couples who are faithful
>to each other, and against intravenous drug use. If everybody avoided
>behaviour the Pope is against, many fewer people would have AIDS.
>
>
>Your argument seems to require that two contradictory things be true:
>
> a) everybody in Africa listens to the Pope and avoids condoms,
>and
> b) everybody in Africa ignores the Pope, engaging in sexual acts
> he disapproves of.
You both are forgetting politcs. The Roman Catholic church and other
religions sponsor missions for food and medical care that reach more
than their own followers. If they don't beleive it, it ain't going to
be offered as medical treatment unless, say to protect one spouse from
another's disease and then again probably not because condoms are
contraceptives as a "side effect." Right to Life lobbies USA congress
to not provide foregin(sp) medical aid that would finance abortions
(for any reason) and certain types of contraceptives. Plus advocating
restrictions or banning certain drugs that _might_ be used for early
abortions or even as morning-after pills because the condom broke or
slipped afterward. And sometimes condoms break, especially if it
isn't put on right.
Those strageies put a chilling effect on contraceptive research and
delay FDA approval. So if there's no access to safe reliable methods
you're back to folk remedies, which need to better researched for
danger and effectiveness, and prayer; too many people either believe
or are taught that since babies are a gift from God or the gods, then
"please wait before blessing us" prayers are effective. Not alot of
evidence to support that consistent power of prayer.
LK
The Nuclear Marine
notions about what their god wanted from members of Judaic faith.
Jesus kept from sinning anyway by redefining (or refining) what is the
nature of sin.
As for my father, he was a bastard (not in the geneological sense) and
was murdered some time after his prison sentence so I wouldn't want to
do everything he wanted. But then isn't everyone's story a varient of
that?
speaking of bastards (SFX not Mike, just in case)
=================
UnltdLife
>or are taught that since babies are a gift from God or the gods, then
>"please wait before blessing us" prayers are effective. Not alot of
>evidence to support that consistent power of prayer.
>
>LK
If you mean that there's not a lot of evidence to support "answered prayer" in
this case -- "God, I know the Bible seems to indicate that the 'marriage bed is
to be keep pure', but please help us not make a baby while we go ahead and do
what we probably aren't supposed to anyway" -- then you're right. That would
be like praying, "God, I'm jumping off this 19 story building -- help me not
to fall and hurt myself."
But if you don't think that there is any evidence that prayer helps -- well,
you haven't read very many of the medical studies concerning people's health,
healing, recovery, and prayer. Completely unbiased, unreligious medical
studies. (Reader's Digest will often print articles concerning many of these
studies.)
Jason
Iain Clark
"UnltdLife" <unlt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000425122539...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
As with the many studies in which placebo drugs are found to have a positive
effect on health. There is some plausible evidence that strong belief on
the part of the patient (whether religious or secular) can influence the way
the body works to some extent, and help recovery.
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Dwight Williams
Which JMS has already noted as well(as I recall), conceding the positive
effects on individuals and society that such belief can have, while not
moving from his own established position.
Yours agnostically(as in "I remain unsure of everything save that I
expect to remain unsure"),
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Maintainer/Founder - DEOList for _Chase_ Fandom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iain Rae
> Iain Clark wrote:
>
> >
> > As with the many studies in which placebo drugs are found to have a positive
> > effect on health. There is some plausible evidence that strong belief on
> > the part of the patient (whether religious or secular) can influence the way
> > the body works to some extent, and help recovery.
>
> Which JMS has already noted as well(as I recall), conceding the positive
> effects on individuals and society that such belief can have, while not
> moving from his own established position.
>
> Yours agnostically(as in "I remain unsure of everything save that I
> expect to remain unsure"),
hmm I'm minded of Ian Gillan's "No laughing in Heaven" i.e. heaven for bible
bashers is likely to be hell for the rest of us.
...here we have prayer meetings on the hour, every hour.....
Mike
>notions about what their god wanted from members of Judaic faith.
>
Christ was the one that all of the Judaic faith was built up for. Christ had
the right to rule and not the Sanhedrin or any others. Christ did obey his
Father completely and without faltering.
>Jesus kept from sinning anyway by redefining (or refining) what is the
>nature of sin.
>
Christ was the fulfillment of the Judaic law. You can't say he is blasphemeing
God, by calling himself by his rightful name. Now because people at the time
may have thought that he was sinning, doesn't mean that he was. And Christ
isn't responsible for how the Jews of the time interpret the laws and
prophecies. And it had been established in the Old Testament that the Christ
would bring the new law to them. A greater law.
>As for my father, he was a bastard (not in the geneological sense) and
>was murdered some time after his prison sentence so I wouldn't want to
>do everything he wanted. But then isn't everyone's story a varient of
>that?
I personally believe that the only Father in this life that I really care to
please is God. Whether I please any mortal being is more or less irrelevant as
long as I am being true to myself, and my values, and that I don't blind or
fool myself about what those values really mean or entail. As Jms might say, it
is when our morals become inconvenient that we see how much we truly value and
believe in them.
Mike
>effect on health. There is some plausible evidence that strong belief on
>the part of the patient (whether religious or secular) can influence the way
>the body works to some extent, and help recovery.
>
So positive energy emanating from the patient and others around him can be
beneficial, but no one that goes by the name of "God" can every help to
influence people? Now I know that among people God means different things, and
I'm not going to easily convince them otherwise.
My basic point is that if normal beings can have a positive affect on us, then
how much more would a being with greater understanding/living would have on us.
Most people make a distinction between physical and spiritual, but I personally
believe that they are two sides of the same coin.
Iain Clark
"Mike" <and...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000425184739...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
> >As with the many studies in which placebo drugs are found to have a
positive
> >effect on health. There is some plausible evidence that strong belief on
> >the part of the patient (whether religious or secular) can influence the
way
> >the body works to some extent, and help recovery.
> >
> >Iain
>
> So positive energy emanating from the patient and others around him
Without wanting to get into a long debate, that honestly isn't what I was
trying to say.
My problem with this would be that the term "positive energy" has no
scientific definition, and that to my knowledge no experiment has implied an
effect from the beliefs of people "around" the patient - only from the
patient themself.
> can be
> beneficial, but no one that goes by the name of "God" can every help to
> influence people? Now I know that among people God means different things,
and
> I'm not going to easily convince them otherwise.
> My basic point is that if normal beings can have a positive affect on us,
then
> how much more would a being with greater understanding/living would have
on us.
*If* you assume that belief can have some kind of direct effect on others,
then I agree entirely that the strength of belief could be expected to
affect the benefits. But to my knowledge there's no evidence for this.
It's a belief.
What evidence exists implies that a strong expectation of recovery can alter
the rate at which certain things happen in the person's own body, and not in
others.
That expectation could be created by a belief in prayer, or in placebo
treatment, but it seems to be the state of mind which is having the effect,
not any external agency.
Obviously this in no way rules out the existence of God. All I'm saying is
that the recovery of people through prayer can be explained through known
mechanisms which affect secular people as well. It doesn't *require* the
intervention of God to obtain the observed results.
Ranger Zero
Garibaldi acting as head of Interstellar Security, comes to get him for
a meeting with Sheridan. This is after Londo had been emperor for a
while and the little girl had been living in the palace for seemingly
some time. Could someone tell me the time period here, because it seems
like Garibaldi should have quit to run Edgars Industries some time
before this?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The Nuclear Marine
Mike wrote:
>
> >Jesus went against the church fathers and a large amount of preconceived
> >notions about what their god wanted from members of Judaic faith.
> >
>
> Christ was the one that all of the Judaic faith was built up for. Christ had
> the right to rule and not the Sanhedrin or any others. Christ did obey his
> Father completely and without faltering.
>
Aye, but I was talking about Jesus who is sometimes referred to as the
Christ. It was the myth built around him that made him sinless in the
eyes of his followers. Much like how George Washington never told a
lie. I might add the myth does not detract from the truth of Jesus'
story but actually adds to it.
> >Jesus kept from sinning anyway by redefining (or refining) what is the
> >nature of sin.
> >
>
> Christ was the fulfillment of the Judaic law. You can't say he is blasphemeing
> God, by calling himself by his rightful name. Now because people at the time
> may have thought that he was sinning, doesn't mean that he was. And Christ
> isn't responsible for how the Jews of the time interpret the laws and
> prophecies. And it had been established in the Old Testament that the Christ
> would bring the new law to them. A greater law.
>
What Jesus brought was simply spiritual anarchy(tm) which is rejected
even more so than social anarchy. It is the rule and judgement of the
spirit by the individual. It is something no social law can govern
without being shown its own idiocy by reasonable persons (which Jesus
appeared to be). I will be fair and say unlike jms et al. (did I use
that right?) I have not read the Bible in its entirety nor the other
incarnations of it. This means whatever it means to you Mike.
> >As for my father, he was a bastard (not in the geneological sense) and
> >was murdered some time after his prison sentence so I wouldn't want to
> >do everything he wanted. But then isn't everyone's story a varient of
> >that?
>
> I personally believe that the only Father in this life that I really care to
> please is God. Whether I please any mortal being is more or less irrelevant as
> long as I am being true to myself, and my values, and that I don't blind or
> fool myself about what those values really mean or entail. As Jms might say, it
> is when our morals become inconvenient that we see how much we truly value and
> believe in them.
>
Yeah, but God, morality and sin are subjective. Pleasing God could be
seen as pleasing yourself in that non-sexual sort of way. Hate to be an
asshole to admit that is a jovial manner but humor has a way of making
people accept difficult ideas.
> Mike
> Humongous Babylon 5 Fan
> (You can't have any of my postings
> either SFX Magazine, heh heh)
speaking of assholes
===================================
nuke-...@home.com
Kurtz
"Iain Clark" <iain.c...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:YRjN4.3004$0d2....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
positive
> effect on health. There is some plausible evidence that strong belief on
> the part of the patient (whether religious or secular) can influence the
way
> the body works to some extent, and help recovery.
>
I seem to recall a news item unrelated to a religious program or religious
cable network,
where a patient is prayed for, but is unaware of it. They found a definite
albeit
modest improvement in the 'prayed for' patients. Now I don't believe in God,
and
I do recognize the power of a positive attitude in the healing process, but
it
doesn't account for a patient unaware of a bunch of strangers praying for
him.
Somehow, they were able to improve the recovery of total strangers who
didn't
know about their praying.
Terry Rubenstein
Kurtz wrote:
Of course that doesn't prove whether God is helping them or we all posses some kind of telepathic (and perhaps subconscious) ability to influence the well being of others.
- Terry
Iain Clark
"Terry Rubenstein" <terry.ru...@utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:3907106F...@utoronto.ca...
<snip>
> > I seem to recall a news item unrelated to a religious program or
religious
> > cable network,
> > where a patient is prayed for, but is unaware of it. They found a
definite
> > albeit
> > modest improvement in the 'prayed for' patients. Now I don't believe in
God,
> > and
> > I do recognize the power of a positive attitude in the healing process,
but
> > it
> > doesn't account for a patient unaware of a bunch of strangers praying
for
> > him.
> > Somehow, they were able to improve the recovery of total strangers who
> > didn't
> > know about their praying.
>
> Of course that doesn't prove whether God is helping them or we all posses
some kind of telepathic (and perhaps subconscious) ability to influence the
well being of others.
And it relies on all other factors being equal. However, this kind of test,
performed objectively, rigorously, and repeatedly under outside scrutiny,
with control subjects, is definitely something I'd like to see more of.
Personally I love reading and watching SF partly because of the inherent
appeal of concepts like telepathy and telekinesis. If someone could show me
convincingly that they work in real life I'd be delighted.
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
Mike wrote:
> Not to nitpick, but couldn't Christ make that claim :-) (Note to: Agnostics
> and Aethiests - I'm not trying to make a fight, heh heh)
Even Jesus pissed and moaned about it, though. Some things truly are universal.
--
Reverend Jacob
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/shirley/272/
"People that are really weird can get into sensitive positions and have a
tremendous impact on history." -- J. Danforth Quayle
Jonathan Biggar
>
> Mike wrote:
> >
> > >Jesus went against the church fathers and a large amount of preconceived
> > >notions about what their god wanted from members of Judaic faith.
> > >
> >
> > Christ was the one that all of the Judaic faith was built up for. Christ had
> > the right to rule and not the Sanhedrin or any others. Christ did obey his
> > Father completely and without faltering.
> >
> Aye, but I was talking about Jesus who is sometimes referred to as the
> Christ. It was the myth built around him that made him sinless in the
> eyes of his followers. Much like how George Washington never told a
> lie. I might add the myth does not detract from the truth of Jesus'
> story but actually adds to it.
Who made you the arbitrator that decides which parts of the New
Testament are literal truth and which parts aren't? I don't find it
very appealling to effectively say to a believer: "You don't know what
you are talking about, and your basis for belief is just a myth
anyway".
--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org
LK
<nuke-...@home.com> wrote:
>Yeah, but God, morality and sin are subjective. Pleasing God could be
>seen as pleasing yourself in that non-sexual sort of way. Hate to be an
>asshole to admit that is a jovial manner but humor has a way of making
>people accept difficult ideas.
A safer form of protest. Rebo and Zooty on Clark.
Any Russian comedians live after taking Stalin to task?
LK
LK
>> too many people either believe
>>or are taught that since babies are a gift from God or the gods, then
>>"please wait before blessing us" prayers are effective. Not alot of
>>evidence to support that consistent power of prayer.
>>
>>LK
>
>If you mean that there's not a lot of evidence to support "answered prayer" in
>this case -- "God, I know the Bible seems to indicate that the 'marriage bed is
>to be keep pure', but please help us not make a baby while we go ahead and do
>what we probably aren't supposed to anyway" -- then you're right. That would
>be like praying, "God, I'm jumping off this 19 story building -- help me not
>to fall and hurt myself."
>
>But if you don't think that there is any evidence that prayer helps -- well,
>you haven't read very many of the medical studies concerning people's health,
>healing, recovery, and prayer. Completely unbiased, unreligious medical
>studies. (Reader's Digest will often print articles concerning many of these
>studies.)
>
>Jason
Yes, that is what I meant. I didn't want to address mental power,
willpower, and faith in healing.
In a way, I believe it may be easier to pray against a destructive
force than against a lifegiving force. No sensible reason for this
and frankly, I feel a little uncomfortable, suggesting it. Put it
this way-- prayers against a disease is life affirming, a positive
energy, whereas prayers against lifeforce--I'm tempted to say to
against the will of "star stuff" to understand itself--is negative
energy.
Thinking about it that way, contraception seems less offensive to God
or Spirit(s) than praying against creation. If I were a god I think
I'd be offended by contraception prayers that ask my intervention for
something the prayermaker(s) could easily do for themselves. I'd also
like my creations to think ahead be responsible for the consquences of
their behavior. Living mindlessly on chance wouldn't flatter me as a
creator and I would wonder what went wrong with my design. I'd also
be ticked-off at those who preach "faith" as a substitute for thought.
LK
Penny Roberts
(Actually lots of people wrote lots of things but I've snipped them all)
> Surely the safest course of action is to have protected sex, be wracked with
> guilt, confess your sins and marry.
Another story:
A neighbour of my mother's decided, after having her third child, to use
a contraceptive device. She confessed this to her priest who told her
that she was committing a sin. Her husband was equally supportive!
The device (a coil) caused problems and she ended up with complications
that lead to her doctor advising her that she would have to have a
hysterectomy. Her priest announced that this was God's punishment for
her sin of using contraception. She came in to see my Mum in floods of
tears convinced that she must have been wicked to deserve such
punishment.
Can you all see the flaw in this logic? I did straight away and put
her mind at ease in an instant. I said "Funny way God has of punishing
you. He's given you *exactly* what you wanted in the first place. He
has ensured that you cannot have any more children. Seems to me that
God is telling you that you were right all along."
Penny
Patrick MARCEL
> A safer form of protest. Rebo and Zooty on Clark.
>
> Any Russian comedians live after taking Stalin to task?
I don't know about that, but there are some "Spitting Image"-like
puppets satirizing Poutine on Russian TV, and taking him to task for the
recent "unpleasantness. That's brave.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Patrick Marcel wrote that the Pope was condemning lots of people to die
of AIDS through his opposition to condoms. I asked for an explanation,
because the argument seemed to imply that people both listen to and ignore
the Pope at the same time.
Jms at B5 (jms...@aol.com) replied:
> So you're saying you always did EVERYTHING your father told you to do
> because he disapproved? Or did you do some things and not others?
(Replying with a question? Who do you think you are, a Vorlon? 8-)
No, sometimes I ignored my father's advice. But when I ignored his advice
and met with disaster, I didn't turn around and say it was his fault.
Mr Marcel's argument works out to this:
The Pope says "don't do A or B". Some people ignore him and
do A. Those people get sick. Thus it is the Pope's fault.
The people who get sick don't get sick because they aren't wearing condoms.
There's a reason sexually-transmitted diseases are not called "lack of
condom transmitted diseases".
It makes no sense at all to say "I ignored the Pope's advice and got sick.
Thus it is the Pope's fault I am sick." If you ignore someone's advice,
then the results aren't his responsibility.
Saying "They listened to the Pope on one point and that's why they're hurt"
just doesn't make any sense. If "don't wear condoms" was the only advice
he'd ever given, then it would a reasonable complaint. But if someone
gives you a set of instructions that are supposed to be followed as a
group, and you ignore some of the instructions in the group, you're taking
on the responsibility for the results.
This is true in pretty much every context: if you follow only half a
recipe, and the food makes somebody sick, it's not the fault of the
cookbook. It's the fault of the cook.
*
In another post, Mr Marcel wrote:
> It seems to me forbidding sex outside of marriage is irrealistic to start
> with. Since sex outside marriage will exist anyway (it always has, why
> should it stop now?).
Pretty much everything that the Pope disapproves of has always existed
and always will. Hatred, racism, murder, rape, gluttony, drunkenness,
and many others are long-standing objections. Do you suggest that the
Pope should stop objecting to those things just because they've always
been around and always will?
As an argument, what you have offered is no good. If a probition is to be
abandoned, it will have to be for a reason other than "What you prohibit
has always existed and always will."
> [I]t might help alleviate the problems if condoms were allowed to be
> used, considering the current crisis, as a lesser evil (and don't get
> me started on why is sex outside of marriage between two [or more!!!]
> consenting adults an evil?).
In general, religious leaders believe things are evil because those things
hurt people. The Pope believes, rightly or wrongly, that extra- and pre-
marital sex are bad for you -- both for spiritual/psychological reasons and
for the obvious dangers to physical health that have been mentioned in this
thread. He also believes that using contraceptive technology is bad for
you, and thus immoral.
Your position appears to be "If the Pope believes something is wrong, he
should shut up about it." Is that really what you want to argue for?
*
Many posts in this thread seem to be wandering from my original objection,
so I haven't replied to them.
For the record, I'm not Roman Catholic, and I don't see anything wrong with
contraceptive technology. I believe the Vatican's arguments are logically
valid but unsound (that is, their reasoning appears flawless but I do not
accept their assumptions). But if someone believes something is immoral, I
don't see any problem with him saying so.
And if someone gives advice which is ignored, I don't see how it can be
his fault when things go wrong.
Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"No responsible person attempts to absolve himself of the bad effects of
his actions by blaming the actions of others. Irresponsible people, of
course, do it all the time." -- Chip Salzenberg
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
Kurtz wrote:
>
> I seem to recall a news item unrelated to a religious program or religious
> cable network, where a patient is prayed for, but is unaware of it. They found
> a definite
> albeit modest improvement in the 'prayed for' patients. Now I don't believe in
> God,
> and I do recognize the power of a positive attitude in the healing process,
> but
> it doesn't account for a patient unaware of a bunch of strangers praying for
> him. Somehow, they were able to improve the recovery of total strangers who
> didn't know about their praying.
My question to the experimenters: could the people who recovered be considered,
on the whole, to be good people? Or were there some adulterers, thieves, or
drug dealers in the sample group? What was their religious affiliation? Did a
Satanist who was prayed for display more recovery than an Episcopalian who
wasn't?
The Nuclear Marine
Jonathan Biggar wrote:
>
> Who made you the arbitrator that decides which parts of the New
> Testament are literal truth and which parts aren't? I don't find it
> very appealling to effectively say to a believer: "You don't know what
> you are talking about, and your basis for belief is just a myth
> anyway".
>
Truth is maleable in concept so I am the arbiter of truth as it applies
to me. The facts are not malleable and my statements of such stand.
Because I stated the facts in an open ended fasion when you feel closure
is needed such as if Jesus was the Christ then that is you.
Myth is truth told in a fictional form. It is very powerful and denied
only by the dim amoung us.
> --
> Jon Biggar
nuke, also known as Charles
Kay Shapero
>>> Your argument seems to require that two contradictory things be
>>> true:
>>>
>>> a) everybody in Africa listens to the Pope and avoids condoms,
>>> and
>>> b) everybody in Africa ignores the Pope, engaging in sexual
>>> acts he disapproves of.
>>>
>>> Do you really believe both of these things simultaneously? If so,
>>> how?
>>
JaB> So you're saying you always did EVERYTHING your father told you
JaB> to do because he disapproved? Or did you do some things and not
JaB> others?
More importantly, if this IS the case is there any way to get people to
switch which statement they listened to and which statement they ignored?
Sigh... what this planet needs is a cure for AIDS that is spread the same way
as the disease but works immediately...
Shaz
"The Nuclear Marine" <nuke-...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3907E77D...@home.com...
>
> Myth is truth told in a fictional form. It is very powerful and denied
So Athena really did spring fully formed from the head of Zeus? And Zeus and
the rest of the mythic Greek Pantheon really existed in some way, shape or
form? As did Osiris and Mars and Loki and every other god and hero of the
ancient world (in SOME form at least)?
Gosh, my ancient history studies just got a lot more fascinating!
Frankly I think some myths are based on truths that have been lost (in which
cases 'myth' is a misappellation), but a LOT are just stories created to try
and explain what, to ancient man, was a strange and apparently arbitrary
world. They wanted to make sense of the natural events that surrounded them.
We explain a lot using science (we don't need a god to explain a volcanic
eruption, just an awareness of geology), they had gods and heroes.
<shrug> If it works....
Shaz
Iain Rae
Or something which is non-fatal, fast acting and obvious to everyone.
hmmm a genetically engineered virus which is only sexually transmitted and turns
you blue.......any geneticists in the audience want to take a shot at it?
Patrick MARCEL
> Patrick Marcel wrote that the Pope was condemning lots of people to die
> of AIDS through his opposition to condoms. I asked for an explanation,
> because the argument seemed to imply that people both listen to and ignore
> the Pope at the same time.
It did and does.
> Mr Marcel's argument works out to this:
> The Pope says "don't do A or B". Some people ignore him and
> do A. Those people get sick. Thus it is the Pope's fault.
No, my argument doesn't work out to this. Your strange shortcut does.
They ignore A *and don't do B*. Huge difference. And I didn't say it was
the Pope's fault. More on it later.
> The people who get sick don't get sick because they aren't wearing condoms.
> There's a reason sexually-transmitted diseases are not called "lack of
> condom transmitted diseases".
They got sick because they weren't wearing condoms while having sex, of
course (condoms are currently the only way to avoid catching AIDS thru
sex). If they don't have sex, they can wear condoms by packs of twelve
on every imaginable extremity, it won't do anything, pro or against. We
agree on that.
The thing is, as you may have heard, that sex is one of mankind's (and
most living beings) primal urges. And people don't always remember the
Pope when overcome by in lust (I'll grant you that it does seem strange,
but here you are). I agree that nobody will get AIDS if they listen to
the Pope and don't have sex, but I also think it may be a lot more
reasonable to expect them to wear a condom than to stop having sex.
Silly me, I know.
Africa is currently in the grip of a devastating epidemic, some
scientist's projections on the future of Africa are grim indeed - a
country changed into a desert, crumbling under the weight of diseased
and dying people, crippled by the complete obliteration of at least one generation.
And your (and the pope's) advice is: "Well, of course. I *told them* not
to have sex".
In addition to being an admirable Christian statement (charity and
compassion, anyone?), it just dwells in the past. The epidemic is now.
If you can't do anything to help - and the Pope certainly can't - at
least he shouldn't hinder. Not speaking against condoms won't be the
miracle cure, but it may **help**. And every bit helps. The big flaw in
your argument seems to me that something either is or isn't, in one
massive, solid block.
I just say we're in a situation where every little bit helps, and the
Pope is refusing even that "little" bit, for stubbornly dogmatic reasons.
> It makes no sense at all to say "I ignored the Pope's advice and got sick.
> Thus it is the Pope's fault I am sick." If you ignore someone's advice,
> then the results aren't his responsibility.
You again mix freely both A and B, here.
Besides, you keep accusing me of blaming the Pope for AIDS. Wrong. AIDS
is a fact, and the Pope isn't responsible for it. I do say he certainly
isn't helping in any way to contain it.
> In another post, Mr Marcel wrote:
> > It seems to me forbidding sex outside of marriage is irrealistic to start
> > with. Since sex outside marriage will exist anyway (it always has, why
> > should it stop now?).
> Pretty much everything that the Pope disapproves of has always existed
> and always will. Hatred, racism, murder, rape, gluttony, drunkenness,
> and many others are long-standing objections. Do you suggest that the
> Pope should stop objecting to those things just because they've always
> been around and always will?
And so, you suggest sex outside of marriage is the same thing as hatred,
racism, murder and rape??? Wow. It's an interesting statement, but I
can't quite agree, sorry. I will go as far as to grant you gluttony and
drunkenness can, up to a point, be comparable. For the rest of that
list, you're on your own. :-)))
You have an habit to mix and match my arguments with a great sense of
creativity, to prove your point.
> > [I]t might help alleviate the problems if condoms were allowed to be
> > used, considering the current crisis, as a lesser evil (and don't get
> > me started on why is sex outside of marriage between two [or more!!!]
> > consenting adults an evil?).
> In general, religious leaders believe things are evil because those things
> hurt people.
Well, to be blunt, most of the time, religious leaders point out as
evil, things which might lead people to escape from their rule.
> The Pope believes, rightly or wrongly, that extra- and pre-
> marital sex are bad for you -- both for spiritual/psychological reasons and
> for the obvious dangers to physical health that have been mentioned in this
> thread.
I can go as far as to agree with you on the theoretical pitfalls of
extramarital sex. Still, sex *is* one of mankind's basic urges, and JPII
doesn't rail against it because it leads to any physical danger, but
just because it is dangerous **for the soul**. Which might not be for
people a decisive deterrent or a convincing argument, nowadays.
> He also believes that using contraceptive technology is bad for
> you, and thus immoral.
I'm sure he does. That's because of the famous order of God: "Go forth
and multiply". In a world where overpopulation is a genuine concern,
this kind of edict, which was vital for the Jewish people at the time in
order to build up a more numerous population and be able to stand
against their enemies, is hopelessly outdated - and even dangerous. JPII
stubbornly clings to a tradition, not because it makes sense, but just
because it's a tradition.
It took the Church a handful of centuries before admitting that they
might have been slightly less than right about many things, such as
Earth not being flat. I don't expect them to reconsider their position
on condoms before at least half a century (and then, probably as a
desperate bid to seem aware of the times). By that time, Africa's fate
will have been decided one way or another. Probably for the worst.
> Your position appears to be "If the Pope believes something is wrong, he
> should shut up about it." Is that really what you want to argue for?
"Appears to be" is right. I didn't say that, it's just how your garbled
*and* simplified account of what I said, once again sums it up. Besides,
History has taught us that popes are not always in that much of a hurry
to speak loudly against evil. Pope Pius was remarkably silent during
World War Two, which would strike me as a time where an evil a tad more
serious than the threat of condoms was at large. Pope JPII recently
admitted the behaviour of the Church in that occasion might have been
rather unfortunate.
> And if someone gives advice which is ignored, I don't see how it can be
> his fault when things go wrong.
The main gist of my argument wasn't that his advice was ignored, but
that his *interdictions* were. Popes don't give counsel. They issue
edicts. If they don't have arguments more sound than "If you do this and
don't obey me, your soul will go to hell", it may not be surprising that
most people don't pay much attention to it. Even to the people's lasting
regret. But that's human nature, and you don't seem to take it much into account.
AndroidCat XENU
news:3908A620...@wanadoo.fr...
> Dr Nancy's Sweetie (really?) wrote:
>
> > Patrick Marcel wrote that the Pope was condemning lots of people to die
> > of AIDS through his opposition to condoms. I asked for an explanation,
> > because the argument seemed to imply that people both listen to and
ignore
> > the Pope at the same time.
>
> It did and does.
I wonder how much people listen to the Pope in B5 day. I'm think she might
possibly have a different opinion than the current one. :^)
It's too bad Brother Theo never said anything about the changes over the
last 250 years, but there would have been no good way to work it into the
story without it being an expository lump. That throw-away line in Racing
Mars was *perfect*!
You know, while the big stories like the PSI Corp, Londo, and the
Techno-Mages are great, I think I might pay money for a book about Brother
Theo and his order. I'm sure they got up to something interesting
off-camera. (And did they have anything to do with the Ranger-Priests at
+1000?)
Ron of that ilk.
Catherine Anne Foulston
LK <founta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>or Spirit(s) than praying against creation. If I were a god I think
>I'd be offended by contraception prayers that ask my intervention for
>something the prayermaker(s) could easily do for themselves. I'd also
>like my creations to think ahead be responsible for the consquences of
>their behavior. Living mindlessly on chance wouldn't flatter me as a
>creator and I would wonder what went wrong with my design. I'd also
I think I must now tell my favorite joke ever. You have drawn me out
of my usual state of lurking. I don't remember where this came from --
there may have been a version of it in rec.humor.funny once.
Ok, so one day it starts raining. And raining. And raining.
The floodwaters are rising, and here's a man standing at his door
watching the water lap over the doorstep. His friends come by in
a pickup and call to him, "Hey, come with us, you're going to be
trapped pretty soon and the water's still rising!" He replies,
"Nope, I don't need to leave, because I have faith. I know that
God will watch over me and take care of me."
Later on... the water is covering the first floor and this guy is
hanging out his second story windows watching, when a rescue boat
comes along. The sherriff's deputies in the boat try to get him
to come with them, but once again he refuses. "I have faith in
God and he'll take care of me."
Now the end is near... he's clinging to his chimney and the house
is starting to lift from its foundations. A helicopter comes over,
and they start to send down the rescue team, but he waves them off,
shouting, "I have faith in God! He will look out for me! God will
see me through this time of trial!" They try to convince him, but
he still won't come with them. Finally, as they watch, the house
collapses, and the man is swept away, and drowns.
He arrives in Heaven, and immediately goes to see God. "Hey, God,
what's the deal?" he asks. "I've tried to live a good life, went
to church every Sunday and prayed to you every night. I had more
faith than most people, and still you let me be drowned! What did
I do wrong, that you'd let me down like that?"
And God looks at him sadly, and says, "My son, I sent you a
truck, a boat, and a helicopter. What more did you want???"
I guess you could sum up this joke with the old saying, "The Lord
helps them that help themselves."
I'm not even going to get into how this applies to contraception,
except to say that if one's religious beliefs DON'T prohibit it, then
I think one ought to try it before asking God to get involved directly.
But that's not really what this discussion was about.
--
Cathy
Keith Wood
Patrick MARCEL wrote:
>
> Dr Nancy's Sweetie (really?) wrote:
> > The people who get sick don't get sick because they aren't wearing condoms.
> > There's a reason sexually-transmitted diseases are not called "lack of
> > condom transmitted diseases".
>
> They got sick because they weren't wearing condoms while having sex, of
> course (condoms are currently the only way to avoid catching AIDS thru
> sex).
Uh, no . . .abstinence works much better, as does monogamy with a
monogamous partner.
AIDS is transmitted as a result of high-risk sex with multiple
partners. As they say, when you have sex with one person, you have sex
with ALL of THEIR partners.
Condoms decrease the chance of getting AIDS, but doesn't eliminate it.
Condoms also do NOTHING for some OTHER STDs, which are small enough to
cha-cha through the membrane.
LK
wrote:
The logic is great, but it's an awful lot of wear and tear on one
person to get there. She wanted to have childbearing as an option,
not have the option taken away from her.
And given her priest's and her husband's attitude her hell may only be
begining.
LK
LK
wrote:
>More importantly, if this IS the case is there any way to get people to
>switch which statement they listened to and which statement they ignored?
>Sigh... what this planet needs is a cure for AIDS that is spread the same way
>as the disease but works immediately...
Love to hear stances about that:
But the side effects are dangerous! Possibly transmitting other
incurable STDs like herpes II and certain forms hepetitis, pregnancy,
dangerous complications of pregnacy, immoral behavior, people using
sex as disease prevention--how many acts of kindness before the cure
takes effect?
Serio-comic potential, definately.
LK
The Nuclear Marine
Shaz wrote:
>
> "The Nuclear Marine" <nuke-...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3907E77D...@home.com...
> >
> > Myth is truth told in a fictional form. It is very powerful and denied
> > only by the dim among us.
>
> So Athena really did spring fully formed from the head of Zeus? And Zeus and
> the rest of the mythic Greek Pantheon really existed in some way, shape or
> form? As did Osiris and Mars and Loki and every other god and hero of the
> ancient world (in SOME form at least)?
>
> Gosh, my ancient history studies just got a lot more fascinating!
>
There is a great difference between facts and truth. Greek Myth told
the truth about human nature, no? As for the existance of gods, well
that is perception so call it as you see it. My feelings of gods is
none are worthy of my worship or others as we have the potential to be
just as great.
So the Vorlons and Shadows would be gods, albeit fictional ones. But
then how is that different from Zeus or Jahweh or God?
> Frankly I think some myths are based on truths that have been lost (in which
> cases 'myth' is a misappellation), but a LOT are just stories created to try
> and explain what, to ancient man, was a strange and apparently arbitrary
> world. They wanted to make sense of the natural events that surrounded them.
> We explain a lot using science (we don't need a god to explain a volcanic
> eruption, just an awareness of geology), they had gods and heroes.
>
> <shrug> If it works....
>
Once again, truth told in a fictional form. As for science, well it is
limited by the creatures applying it. Makes you think we a denying more
than is necessary by expecting science to pick up the burden. This
leaves room for fundies (fundementalist) to deny all of the inconvenient
science explanations since it cannot provide all the answers we put to
question.
> Shaz
Nuke