I wasn't looking for thoughts about the organization of heaven, but just to confirm if I'd understood the idea of efficacy correctly, that you were referring to a spiritual continuation (of whatever kind or organization) after this physical life is over. And that each religion in some way either facilitates a person's participation in that, or perhaps just defines the way in which they arrive at that point?Jnyusa wrote:Whether that adds up to different heavens for different people, Cerin, I really have no ideas to offer about this. Thoughts about the organization of heaven just didn't come with the set of luggage I was given.
Radical Muslims in rage over Pope's lecture
Umm ...Cerin wrote:... just to confirm if I'd understood the idea of efficacy correctly, that you were referring to a spiritual continuation ... after this physical life is over.
... for myself, no. But for purposes of this discussion, since so many of us do seem to view judgment as preceding personal continuation ...I do not personally believe in a personalized afterlife. Though I believe that what we do in the here and now matters, and matters profoundly. Which raises the question, "matters to what?"
To answer that I would have to propound my personal belief system, which is not really relevant to the thread.
But I think you are asking what the 'official' Jewish position would be. 'Officially,' the Law matters because the Law was given to us by God, and we believe in God and worship him/her. And we believe that God judges us (for his/her own purposes whatever they might be) on the basis of our adherence to the Law. What form the reward might take, if any, after we die, is not really addressed.
I do not believe that God would judge anyone on the basis of laws they either did not know about or did not believe to be right. It is the position of Judaism that only Jews would be judged by their adherence to Jewish Law. How God weighs everyone else is not our concern, but our assumption is that however that is done it would be on the basis of laws given to them and not laws given to us.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46248
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Returning to the subject of the thread (;)), I was pleased to learn that Pope Benedict has invited Muslim envoys to meet with him at his summer residence "for what the Holy See says is urgently needed dialogue". Representatives of Turkey and Iran have announced that they would attend, and the Indonesia government praised the gesture.
Pope invites Muslim envoys for meeting
If the end result of all this is that it promotes inter-faith dialogue and understanding, it could end up having a positive result in the long run.
Pope invites Muslim envoys for meeting
If the end result of all this is that it promotes inter-faith dialogue and understanding, it could end up having a positive result in the long run.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
It could very well, Voronwë, which was what the Pope was seeking all along. George Weigel, official biographer of Pope John Paul II, weighs in on Benedict's speech:
Money quote no. 1: "By quoting from a robust exchange between a medieval Byzantine emperor and a learned Islamic scholar, Benedict XVI was not making a cheap rhetorical point; he was trying to illustrate the possibility of a tough-minded but rational dialogue between Christians and Muslims. That dialogue can only take place, however, on the basis of a shared commitment to reason and a mutual rejection of irrational violence in the name of God. "
This reminds me of something Chesterton once wrote. I forget the exact quote, but it went something like one test of a true religion being that you can joke about it. Many muslims don't seem to be able to even take any mention of their religion, must less jokes or commentary. They reveal themselves as being not so much brutal, as brittle. And brittle means easilyu broken (and not by us).
Money quote no. 2: "The pope's third point — which has been almost entirely ignored — was directed to the West. If the West's high culture keeps playing in the sandbox of postmodern irrationalism — in which there is "your truth" and "my truth" but nothing such as "the truth" — the West will be unable to defend itself."
This is why, if Muslims actually read the Pope's speech, they might find to their surprise that they actually like it. It is a condemnation of the Great Satan, the Pope reiterating the same theme he raised in his homly preceeding the conclave that elevated Cardinal Ratzinger to the papacy: the tyranny of relativism. We don't know who we are any more or what we believe. We've completely severed ourselves from the Judeo-Christian foundation that made Western Civilization. Islam may be brittle, but we're soft, almost liquid. Who will win in that conflict?
Money quote no. 3: "These are the large questions that Pope Benedict XVI has put on the world's agenda. Men and women of reason and goodwill should be very glad that he has done so."
You can't have honest dialogue by being a milksop. The pope put some hard issues on the table. But the hard issues are the good ones. They force us to have some courage and, more important, humility. I bet this meeting is exactly what he was hoping for.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... -rightrailThe Pope Was Right
In his controversial speech last week, Benedict set forth a bold agenda for the civilized world.
By George Weigel
GEORGE WEIGEL, a senior fellow of Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center, is the author of "God's Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church."
September 20, 2006
IN A BRILLIANT lecture at the University of Regensburg last week, Pope Benedict XVI made three crucial points that are now in danger of being lost in the polemics about his supposedly offensive comments about Islam.
The pope's first point was that all the great questions of life, including social and political questions, are ultimately theological. How we think (or don't think) about God has much to do with how we judge what is good and what is wicked, and with how we think about the appropriate methods for advancing the truth in a world in which there are profound disagreements about the truth of things.
If, for example, we imagine that God is pure will, a remote majesty with whom our only possible relationship is one of unthinking submission, then we have imagined a God who can even command what seems to be irrational — like the murder of innocents. Pope Benedict reminds us, however, that mainstream Christian tradition, following its Jewish parent, has a different concept of God. The God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus is a God of reason, compassion and love, a God who comes searching for man in history, appeals to the human mind as well as the human heart and invites human beings into a dialogue of salvation.
This God cannot demand the unreasonable or the irrational. This God's revelation of himself, in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, does not cancel out or abrogate human reason. That is why mainstream Christianity has always taught that human beings can build decent societies by attending to reason.
The pope's second point, which flows from the first, was that irrational violence aimed at innocent men, women and children "is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the [human] soul." If adherents of certain currents of thought in contemporary Islam insist that the suicide bombing of innocents is an act pleasing to God, then they must be told that they are mistaken: about God, about God's purposes and about the nature of moral obligation.
Responsibility for challenging these distorted views of God and the distorted understanding of moral duty that flows from them rests, first, with Islamic leaders. But too few Islamic leaders, the pope seemed to suggest, have been willing to undertake a cleansing of Islam's conscience — as Pope John Paul II taught the Catholic Church to cleanse its historical conscience.
We know that, in the past, Christians used violence to advance Christian purposes. The Catholic Church has publicly repented of such distortions of the Gospel and has developed a deep theological critique of the misunderstandings that led to such episodes. Can the church, therefore, be of some help to those brave Islamic reformers who, at the risk of their own lives, are trying to develop a parallel Islamic critique of the distorted and lethal ideas of some of their co-religionists?
By quoting from a robust exchange between a medieval Byzantine emperor and a learned Islamic scholar, Benedict XVI was not making a cheap rhetorical point; he was trying to illustrate the possibility of a tough-minded but rational dialogue between Christians and Muslims. That dialogue can only take place, however, on the basis of a shared commitment to reason and a mutual rejection of irrational violence in the name of God.
The pope's third point — which has been almost entirely ignored — was directed to the West. If the West's high culture keeps playing in the sandbox of postmodern irrationalism — in which there is "your truth" and "my truth" but nothing such as "the truth" — the West will be unable to defend itself. Why? Because the West won't be able to give reasons why its commitments to civility, tolerance, human rights and the rule of law are worth defending. A Western world stripped of convictions about the truths that make Western civilization possible cannot make a useful contribution to a genuine dialogue of civilizations, for any such dialogue must be based on a shared understanding that human beings can, however imperfectly, come to know the truth of things.
CAN ISLAM BE self-critical? Can its leaders condemn and marginalize its extremists, or are Muslims condemned to be held hostage to the passions of those who consider the murder of innocents to be pleasing to God? Can the West recover its commitment to reason and thus help support Islamic reformers? These are the large questions that Pope Benedict XVI has put on the world's agenda. Men and women of reason and goodwill should be very glad that he has done so.
Money quote no. 1: "By quoting from a robust exchange between a medieval Byzantine emperor and a learned Islamic scholar, Benedict XVI was not making a cheap rhetorical point; he was trying to illustrate the possibility of a tough-minded but rational dialogue between Christians and Muslims. That dialogue can only take place, however, on the basis of a shared commitment to reason and a mutual rejection of irrational violence in the name of God. "
This reminds me of something Chesterton once wrote. I forget the exact quote, but it went something like one test of a true religion being that you can joke about it. Many muslims don't seem to be able to even take any mention of their religion, must less jokes or commentary. They reveal themselves as being not so much brutal, as brittle. And brittle means easilyu broken (and not by us).
Money quote no. 2: "The pope's third point — which has been almost entirely ignored — was directed to the West. If the West's high culture keeps playing in the sandbox of postmodern irrationalism — in which there is "your truth" and "my truth" but nothing such as "the truth" — the West will be unable to defend itself."
This is why, if Muslims actually read the Pope's speech, they might find to their surprise that they actually like it. It is a condemnation of the Great Satan, the Pope reiterating the same theme he raised in his homly preceeding the conclave that elevated Cardinal Ratzinger to the papacy: the tyranny of relativism. We don't know who we are any more or what we believe. We've completely severed ourselves from the Judeo-Christian foundation that made Western Civilization. Islam may be brittle, but we're soft, almost liquid. Who will win in that conflict?
Money quote no. 3: "These are the large questions that Pope Benedict XVI has put on the world's agenda. Men and women of reason and goodwill should be very glad that he has done so."
You can't have honest dialogue by being a milksop. The pope put some hard issues on the table. But the hard issues are the good ones. They force us to have some courage and, more important, humility. I bet this meeting is exactly what he was hoping for.
"Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all."
George Weigel is, among other things, a proponent of the Just War doctrine; he is not a pacifist. I just thought that remark may bring some clarity to his comments on violence. (And lest that be skewed, he [along with everyone else] commends non-violent resistence).
I don't think there is any reason to ridicule Muslims for taking their religion seriously. And what sort of "jokes" do you mean? The movie Dogma? Or artwork that depicts the Last Supper with all the apostles made out of rotting fruit? (I think I made that up, but I can find similar real examples, if needed). Chesterton took blasphemy very seriously, and did not see how a believer could wave something like that aside as meaningingless.
I also agree with Voronwë: if useful dialogue can come of this, then, in the end, it all works out (except for the nun who got shot). But I will not praise the results of an emergency meeting until, well, we know what they are! Since I am convinced that Benedict is sincere in his desire to dialogue with Islam, I'm confident this can work. The good will of the Muslim delegates is nearly guaranteed by their willingness to attend. So, I am certainly hoping for good results.
But that won't prevent me for asking for prayers, that God will bless this meeting.
I don't think there is any reason to ridicule Muslims for taking their religion seriously. And what sort of "jokes" do you mean? The movie Dogma? Or artwork that depicts the Last Supper with all the apostles made out of rotting fruit? (I think I made that up, but I can find similar real examples, if needed). Chesterton took blasphemy very seriously, and did not see how a believer could wave something like that aside as meaningingless.
I also agree with Voronwë: if useful dialogue can come of this, then, in the end, it all works out (except for the nun who got shot). But I will not praise the results of an emergency meeting until, well, we know what they are! Since I am convinced that Benedict is sincere in his desire to dialogue with Islam, I'm confident this can work. The good will of the Muslim delegates is nearly guaranteed by their willingness to attend. So, I am certainly hoping for good results.
But that won't prevent me for asking for prayers, that God will bless this meeting.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46248
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
I too am hopeful, but not counting the good will chickens before they hatch, so to speak. I have to say (with all due respect), if the Pope takes the tone that spd seems be suggesting, I will not be as hopeful. If he chooses to lecture the Muslim envoys rather then reach out to them, I doubt it will be a very successful meeting. But perhaps I misunderstand what spd is saying.MithLuin wrote:I also agree with Voronwë: if useful dialogue can come of this, then, in the end, it all works out (except for the nun who got shot). But I will not praise the results of an emergency meeting until, well, we know what they are! Since I am convinced that Benedict is sincere in his desire to dialogue with Islam, I'm confident this can work. The good will of the Muslim delegates is nearly guaranteed by their willingness to attend. So, I am certainly hoping for good results.
But that won't prevent me for asking for prayers, that God will bless this meeting.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I think spd has given a good, different point of view.... but I have problems with the "joke" part of it. I can understand its source, but I do find it impractical. Whenever a person feels very strongly about something, jokes are difficult to handle.
I can handle jokes about my caste (an Indian system), because I really don't care. But I am very bad at handling jokes about the Indian army and how they are just living off the nation.... because its something very close to me. I am *pathetic* at handling jokes about my parents, or my husband. Absolutely completely pathetic. Why? Because the relationship is very important to me.
If a person's relationship to his/her God is very important to them, I can understand why handling humor about it would be difficult.
I can handle jokes about my caste (an Indian system), because I really don't care. But I am very bad at handling jokes about the Indian army and how they are just living off the nation.... because its something very close to me. I am *pathetic* at handling jokes about my parents, or my husband. Absolutely completely pathetic. Why? Because the relationship is very important to me.
If a person's relationship to his/her God is very important to them, I can understand why handling humor about it would be difficult.
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
-
The Watcher
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:04 am
- Location: southeastern Wisconsin
Mithluin, in all seriousness, it is the very lack of ability of those of sincere faith to occasionally step back and laugh at themselves that is indeed the problem.MithLuin wrote:George Weigel is, among other things, a proponent of the Just War doctrine; he is not a pacifist. I just thought that remark may bring some clarity to his comments on violence. (And lest that be skewed, he [along with everyone else] commends non-violent resistence).
I don't think there is any reason to ridicule Muslims for taking their religion seriously. And what sort of "jokes" do you mean? The movie Dogma? Or artwork that depicts the Last Supper with all the apostles made out of rotting fruit? (I think I made that up, but I can find similar real examples, if needed). Chesterton took blasphemy very seriously, and did not see how a believer could wave something like that aside as meaningingless.
I also agree with Voronwë: if useful dialogue can come of this, then, in the end, it all works out (except for the nun who got shot). But I will not praise the results of an emergency meeting until, well, we know what they are! Since I am convinced that Benedict is sincere in his desire to dialogue with Islam, I'm confident this can work. The good will of the Muslim delegates is nearly guaranteed by their willingness to attend. So, I am certainly hoping for good results.
But that won't prevent me for asking for prayers, that God will bless this meeting.
For example, what is wrong with the movie "Dogma?" I find it hysterical, and all too true in many regards. I suppose you also detest observations made by ex-Catholics such as George Carlin. I am not picking on you, but do you not see by the very rigid stance that you are taking how inflexible and unbendable a world model you are creating?
In general, who here among us can claim exclusivity about true truth? Whatever that even means to all of us? Fine, if "you" think you have it all figured out yourself, that is great. But, and a BIG but here, it does not mean that "you" have it figured out for anyone else.
If all of the dogma for every religion was wiped out, seriously, what would "you" do with your life? Could "you" still carry on? Would "you" still know within your heart what were the correct types of actions and behaviours to engage in? Would what others believed really matter if the results ended up being towards the same goals?
So many people in this world get caught up within the "religion" thing and as I can tell here just from the posts, they do not have a clue what they are talking about.
In a nutshell, zealotry and intolerance and violence bring no good to the greater good of human society. Why is it so hard for each and every one of us to simply see that without all of the trappings of religion and faith?
Fer cryin out loud, if there IS a Heaven, do any of you really think that it is segregated by our earthly and entirely humanly fallable beliefs? How arrogant to even presume such a thing.
I Cross-posted with Watcher.
Watcher, I agree about the exclusivity of truth... that has always been my biggest problem with religion. In practise, whenever I have met someone deeply religious, the stand has always been "It is this way, this is the truth". Which is probably why I am so non-religious myself.
But being able to laugh at it.... does that really mean anything?
Watcher, I agree about the exclusivity of truth... that has always been my biggest problem with religion. In practise, whenever I have met someone deeply religious, the stand has always been "It is this way, this is the truth". Which is probably why I am so non-religious myself.
But being able to laugh at it.... does that really mean anything?
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
-
The Watcher
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:04 am
- Location: southeastern Wisconsin
I think so, it requires one to stand back a bit and see a POV that may not always be comfortable, but to then see the irony and prehaps prejudice that may surround supposedly "sacrosanct" views.Mahima wrote:I Cross-posted with Watcher.
Watcher, I agree about the exclusivity of truth... that has always been my biggest problem with religion. In practise, whenever I have met someone deeply religious, the stand has always been "It is this way, this is the truth". Which is probably why I am so non-religious myself.
But being able to laugh at it.... does that really mean anything?
I am certainly NOT suggesting that some topics are to be viewed this way - I would never suggest anyone to poke fun at true tragedies, for example, or practices that are socially and morally repugnant for most of the world, such as child porn or genocide. I do think it is all too healthy once in awhile to view the world from a different perspective, and to strive to learn from that perspective, and to also find joy and mirth in life, not laughing at something to put it down, but laughing at it to see how sometimes it really matters so very little except as to the importance we lay upon it out of our own fears and anxieties and desire to control the world.
Last edited by The Watcher on Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Um, the just war doctrine is a Catholic doctrine, and the Pope is not a pacifist either. In fact I'd go so far as to say that pacifism is contrary to Catholic teaching -- just as militarism is, for that matter (both teach essentially that the bully must not be resisted). You can find what the Catechism says about just war here. Anyway, it is disingenuous to dismiss Weigel because he believes in the just war doctrine. So does the Pope.MithLuin wrote:George Weigel is, among other things, a proponent of the Just War doctrine; he is not a pacifist. I just thought that remark may bring some clarity to his comments on violence. (And lest that be skewed, he [along with everyone else] commends non-violent resistence).
btw, if you look at the just war link I provided, you may notice that the Iraq war fails to satisfy even one of them. Just because Dubya and his crew mention "just war" doesn't mean they have the slightest clue what they're talking about. Yeah, I know Weigel supported the war at its beginning too. I wonder what he'd say now.
MithLuin wrote:I don't think there is any reason to ridicule Muslims for taking their religion seriously. And what sort of "jokes" do you mean?
I didn't mean ridicule, I meant joke. They're not the same. I wish I could remember the exact Chesterton quote. I'll have to find it. Meanwhile, here's something else he said: "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly," but "Satan fell by the force of his own gravity."Mahima wrote:Whenever a person feels very strongly about something, jokes are difficult to handle.
In other words, it comes down to humility, and just having a good sense of humor. Some things are beyond the pale, sure. I won't abide attacks on Our Lady's perpetual virginity, for instance. But I agree with what The Watcher said: " it is the very lack of ability of those of sincere faith to occasionally step back and laugh at themselves that is indeed the problem." Here is an example of what I mean by a good joke:
Well, obviously. The Pope does his bit. We do ours: Mary, Queen of Peace, pray for us.MithLuin wrote:I also agree with Voronwë: if useful dialogue can come of this, then, in the end, it all works out (except for the nun who got shot). But I will not praise the results of an emergency meeting until, well, we know what they are! Since I am convinced that Benedict is sincere in his desire to dialogue with Islam, I'm confident this can work. The good will of the Muslim delegates is nearly guaranteed by their willingness to attend. So, I am certainly hoping for good results.
But that won't prevent me for asking for prayers, that God will bless this meeting.
"Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all."
-
The Watcher
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:04 am
- Location: southeastern Wisconsin
I was not calling the movie Dogma blasphemous! I haven't even seen it, but have heard from Catholics, ex-Catholics and non-Catholics that it is very funny [and from the parts they repeated to me, I'd have to agree]. I was saying that there is poking fun, humor - which I take that movie to be a commonly accepted example of - and then there are actions that are seen as degrading (I dunno, Madonna strapping herself to a cross on stage as a stunt). There is humor that crosses the line to insult [which is what I was trying to convey with my "lousy" art concept]. Different people draw the line in different places, of course.
I don't have a problem with Muslims being upset when someone urinates on the Koran.
That kind of thing is not funny, and they shouldn't have to prove their good nature to the rest of the world by laughing at it.
Of course, if they torch the guy who did it, their righteous indignation looks a bit tarnished.... Zeal turned to zealotry tends to have an ugly face.
Yes, GKC said "angels can fly because they take themselves lightly." Themselves - not their beliefs. He was speaking (as you pointed out) of humility (and yes, the humor that goes with that).
He also wrote The Ball and the Cross, (which I am sure you are familiar with, spd), about a Catholic starting (but never finishing) a duel with an atheist - over a slight concerning Mary's virginity. The atheist was thrilled that someone finally took what he wrote seriously
. Like all Chesterton novels, it ends in apocolyptic madness, but the point is that the rest of society won't take them seriously (and thus dovetails nicely with the topic of the pope's lecture).
I know what just war doctrine is....and I know what JPII said about it, too: That you can't have one with modern weapons. I was suggesting that Weigel might not be on the exact same page as Benedict when it comes to discussing this. I was not dismissing his entire arguement.
I agree that one should take a step back, sometimes - and also that none of us should get so stuck up about things when we all make so many mistakes all the time. I know this. I hope...well, I hope that I don't come across as someone who thinks she's got the world figured out in her first quarter century . I think that truth is real, but that doesn't mean it can't be viewed from many angles, and seen only partially by many people. I do not, personally, know the truth...though I do believe that Jesus does. If I weren't so stubborn, he could teach me more of it so much more easily .
As for my idea of heaven - there is no way the concept of "segregation" is compatible with "heaven." (at least to me) I don't know what heaven's like - I can't describe the floor plan. But, the only thing I do know about heaven...is that it is about union. In particular, union with God, but also union with everyone else who's there. There is no way you can have seperate little heavens for all the different people. But God can do what he wants. If part of heaven looks like a happy hunting ground, and another part looks like a golden palace, I won't complain 
. (I do hope it has a garden, though.) Just so long as I get to see Him. 
Edit: And this is why I am familiar with the word "übel"
I don't have a problem with Muslims being upset when someone urinates on the Koran.
That kind of thing is not funny, and they shouldn't have to prove their good nature to the rest of the world by laughing at it. Of course, if they torch the guy who did it, their righteous indignation looks a bit tarnished.... Zeal turned to zealotry tends to have an ugly face.
Yes, GKC said "angels can fly because they take themselves lightly." Themselves - not their beliefs. He was speaking (as you pointed out) of humility (and yes, the humor that goes with that).
He also wrote The Ball and the Cross, (which I am sure you are familiar with, spd), about a Catholic starting (but never finishing) a duel with an atheist - over a slight concerning Mary's virginity. The atheist was thrilled that someone finally took what he wrote seriously
. Like all Chesterton novels, it ends in apocolyptic madness, but the point is that the rest of society won't take them seriously (and thus dovetails nicely with the topic of the pope's lecture). I know what just war doctrine is....and I know what JPII said about it, too: That you can't have one with modern weapons. I was suggesting that Weigel might not be on the exact same page as Benedict when it comes to discussing this. I was not dismissing his entire arguement.
I agree that one should take a step back, sometimes - and also that none of us should get so stuck up about things when we all make so many mistakes all the time. I know this. I hope...well, I hope that I don't come across as someone who thinks she's got the world figured out in her first quarter century
. I think that truth is real, but that doesn't mean it can't be viewed from many angles, and seen only partially by many people. I do not, personally, know the truth...though I do believe that Jesus does. If I weren't so stubborn, he could teach me more of it so much more easily . As for my idea of heaven - there is no way the concept of "segregation" is compatible with "heaven." (at least to me) I don't know what heaven's like - I can't describe the floor plan
. But, the only thing I do know about heaven...is that it is about union. In particular, union with God, but also union with everyone else who's there. There is no way you can have seperate little heavens for all the different people. But God can do what he wants. If part of heaven looks like a happy hunting ground, and another part looks like a golden palace, I won't complain . (I do hope it has a garden, though.) Just so long as I get to see Him. Edit: And this is why I am familiar with the word "übel"
Courtesy of my high school boyfriendAlle Mädchen, sind sie übel
Alle Mädchen, sind sie übel,
Ursachen, da sind zu viel.
Sie kaufen Pommes-Frittes gestern
Und dann macht kaputes Herzen.
Verstehen sie kann ich nicht.
-
JewelSong
- Just Keep Singin'
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
I love this, too. Truer words were never spoken.Anthriel wrote:Jn wrote:I guess my starting assumption is that human understanding of God is so limited and imperfect that any differences in the degree of imperfection among different religions would be as nothing from God's point of view.
I. Love. This.
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6157
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Depends. Fundamentalist Muslims will often believe that non-Muslims (or even non-fundamentalist Muslims) will go to hell. Where this belief derives from I'm not exactly sure, but I believe that it is based in the idea that salvation requires total submission to the will of God (isn't 'submission to God' what 'Islam' actually means)? Non-fundamentalists Muslims would believe that other people of the book, or even non-people of the book, could be found righteous and go to heaven. The Islamic notion of salvation is based in deeds - it's a matter of degree.Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:My understanding (which is admittedly not that well-informed) is that Muslims believe that other "People of the Book" (as they refer to Jews and Christians) go to a different part of heaven then do Muslims.Cerin wrote:So those radicals believe 'the infidels' will be in heaven with them? Moslems believe that Christians and Jews will be in heaven with them?
spd!!!
Okay, I get it! humor does not have to be ridicule.
But I always assumed that my capacity to take jokes about any of the multiple Hindu gods is because I don't particularly care too much.
On the same lines if someone cracked a joke about your Lady's perpetual virginity, how would you react? Depends on the joke, I guess... but still.
You know.. Hinduism don't have a heaven or a hell. I wonder where we go?
Okay, I get it! humor does not have to be ridicule.
But I always assumed that my capacity to take jokes about any of the multiple Hindu gods is because I don't particularly care too much.
On the same lines if someone cracked a joke about your Lady's perpetual virginity, how would you react? Depends on the joke, I guess... but still.
You know.. Hinduism don't have a heaven or a hell. I wonder where we go?
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
As I said above, Mahima, I wouldn't abide jokes about that. But then again I might relish the chance to draw my sword in her defense.
Which brings me to...
Barnes & Noble is publishing a new paperback edition of The Ball and the Cross this fall, with the introduction written by...me. My editor at B&N tells me they hope to release it in a month or so.
Among that delightful novel's other fine qualities, it is a perfect example of the role of humor in religion. Chesterton has great fun with both his protagonists, the Catholic and the atheist. He was an Anglican when he wrote the book, but he had been an atheist, or at least a severe sceptic, about 15 years before writing it, and became a Catholic about 15 years after writing it. So Chesterton was familiar with the arguments both for and against faith, and knows exactly how to draw humor out of the debates between McIan (the Catholic) and Turnbull (the atheist). It is some of his funniest writing, and you can almost hear him chuckling as you read.
Which brings me to...
Whoa! Thanks for the opportunity for Shameless Self Promotion!MithLuin wrote:Yes, GKC said "angels can fly because they take themselves lightly." Themselves - not their beliefs. He was speaking (as you pointed out) of humility (and yes, the humor that goes with that).
He also wrote The Ball and the Cross, (which I am sure you are familiar with, spd), about a Catholic starting (but never finishing) a duel with an atheist - over a slight concerning Mary's virginity. The atheist was thrilled that someone finally took what he wrote seriously
Barnes & Noble is publishing a new paperback edition of The Ball and the Cross this fall, with the introduction written by...me.
My editor at B&N tells me they hope to release it in a month or so. Among that delightful novel's other fine qualities, it is a perfect example of the role of humor in religion. Chesterton has great fun with both his protagonists, the Catholic and the atheist. He was an Anglican when he wrote the book, but he had been an atheist, or at least a severe sceptic, about 15 years before writing it, and became a Catholic about 15 years after writing it. So Chesterton was familiar with the arguments both for and against faith, and knows exactly how to draw humor out of the debates between McIan (the Catholic) and Turnbull (the atheist). It is some of his funniest writing, and you can almost hear him chuckling as you read.
"Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all."