Posts Tagged ‘Jesus’
As conceptual art goes, if you want to get attention and for your work to go viral, do something controversial. There is no such thing as bad publicity when it comes to such things. Attention is the thing. So Christ the Redeemer, in bed with the Statute of Liberty, having a post coital cigarette would be the thing
Accept Mr. Bozhko who came up with the art work as a speculative effort for Ukraine International Airlines (which states it never commissioned) seems not to have wanted it out there on the internet. Others state the advert is a fake designed to win a competition at the Altai Fake Festival. However it happened, it is out there and naturally the blog world is alive with different points of view.
It is not up there with The Last Temptation of Christ or even of Mr Garrison and Richard Dawkins getting it on in South Park. The latter one creating an image that has warped my fragile little mind.
Perhaps with the sacrilegious art the least nagging thing is that the Statue of Liberty should be twice the size of Jesus. The image of Jesus crucified is being added to photos, whether on roller coasters or everyday scenes. That is too crude for my tastes. There are other more tasteful ways to do that as I will show in the next blog.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
On the Facebook feed for the Richard Dawkins Foundation (RDFRS), a post that was a copy of information from the Zeitgeist movie was sent to everyone that likes the RDFRS:
The information is inaccurate, and not helped by the fact that December 25th was not universally recognised in the Calender during the hey day of these deities.
It took me a few moments to realise that the above photo had inaccuracies – for a moment it looked like a great Christmas Card.
Misha Krul has painstakingly researched what is stated in the above photo. Their research is shown below:
I would hope that when debunking religion people do know their stuff. The excuse for this being posted to freethinkers who would know this was not entirely accurate was that it came from credible sites. That is rather a weak argument from a rational, free thinking organisation. Evidence is what we need, not assertions no matter how regarded the source might be.
However, people are still prepared to defend Zeitgeist and you can find their source book here.
There are enough myths that predate Christ to make the extraordinary claims of his life unoriginal. There is no need to embellish such details. Personally, I think taking the supernatural away from Jesus, and emphasising the human makes his ministry and ethics more interesting for the time he lived in.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Which may be easier said then done if we are hard wired to make distinctions between those that will cooperate (for our betterment) and those that would cheat (to our detriment) in a social contract. Some behavioural scientists looking in this area suggest that:
The results of these experiments suggest that cheaters might look different from
cooperators, possibly due to beliefs and personality traits that make them less ideal exchange partners, and the human mind might be capable of picking up on subtle visual cues that cheaters’ faces give off. [source]
Examples have been mock courts, with the same evidence and script, where the only variable has been the demeanour of the defendant. While we may want an impassioned jury to base the innocent or guilt on the evidence, but the dress or physical characteristics of the defendant did impact on how a mock jury made it’s decision. [source]
However, that module that helps us to rationalise trustworthiness in people can be hijacked by cultural traits. These can lend itself to making observations about people which may not be rational in nature, but use the same system of working out who to trust. Using that instinct, often when not all facts are in, may often serve us well on the whole in a fight or flight situation. Now and again though it would fly in the face of logic.
Take for example my blog being used on a christian forum board, where a poster is concerned about the Codex Sinaiticus, and how to respond. The person that responded to him decided that I was not a trustworthy person because on the cover they assume:
I am gay
I am anti-christian
Claiming that my blog supports the two propositions. Which is odd given that I am straight (as many gay friends will more than happily verify) and that I am against religion being enforced on infidels and none believers by the political and judicial system. If I could get hold of the “Atheists for Jesus” T shirt I would – nothing like trying to emphasises the humanity of Jesus rather than the divinity and hellfire afterlife awaiting non conformists.
Mind you if you just went by:
Perhaps the person may decide, based on their module for trustworthiness (where religion as a cultural fact is a high indicator that is against homosexuality) consider that:
As to the website you linked to it is typical leftist tripe. The owner is (as his other articles show) a practicing homosexual and an anti-Christian. [source]
The fact that I am for free markets, read economics (hence pseudo name), hetrosexual (practise makes perfect), and someone that thinks that the secular state defends the freedom of the religious and the none believer may counter that. It seems though that we are both inclined to use the same source (this blog) to appeal to our difference of opinion. Perhaps I can claim to have insider knowledge on these things denied to the casual reader. As some do to rendering holy sacred text.
Mind you at least no one on the basis of these words on the blog are going to start a religious creed, or make life and death decisions enshrined in law. These words are recognised as being the product of man – where evidence, logic and rationality can be tested and argued over. Just because I type these things it may not be true.
It helps when you can do this with all literature. Rather than just judging by the cover that the book was written by god. Or that you do not like the cover so disregard it- without examining it. As my comment at the christian cafe ended trying to answer the original post as the devil’s advocate:
As the owner of the blog in question, the pseudo name Homo economicus is an economic concept – and not a reference to my sexuality http://homoeconomicusnet…./01/being-born-a-lesbian/
Even if I was gay, that has nothing to do with the original poster’s question. It actually shows an intolerance that is disturbing.
My concern with religion is where it is forced upon people who do not acquiescence to that belief. Jesus as a human being I have a lot of time for
The point is that various editions of the bible, how scriptures were included to be in certain editions, and the many hands that wrote them is an indication of the works of man. The idea that the bible to every word and punctuation mark is ordained by a higher power seems rather unlikely given the history of how the bible we have today originated.
The strongest argument against that charge is that the gospel is something to be lived, and not a text to be burned into your heart in a fundamentalist way. The bible may have been written by men, but the life lived as a follower of Christ is one that gives grace and would make the world a better place.
I may not agree, but the argument is a stronger one than dismissing some one’s argument on the grounds of sexual orientation or voting intention. [source]
Down in London last Saturday I passed a rally in Trafalgar Square. Having just eaten at the Texas Embassy and had a Mexican beer (always liquid fuel for philosophical thought on past form) I was feeling pretty good. However the speaker was talking about happiness and the banner in front of his podium had the word Gospel.
Life cannot really be less without accepting that someone was tortured to death, and that their death on a wooden beam allows humans to be worthy. It makes me rather unhappy to think that an other’s death due to religious intolerance as the ultimate scapegoat is the basis on which the validity of the human race depends – our actions meaningless without accepting the dogma of the economy of salvation.
This dogma makes me sad. The idea that Jesus proved Satan wrong – that it was possible for a man to live in a way that Adam failed – seemed a better one when I studied the bible. But then, according to that study Jesus was born only of woman – and in a previous incarnation was the first of all creation. According to scripture this was man plus – one that has never walked the earth before or since with such timeless first hand knowledge and supernatural power. The Christian role model is a hard act to follow, and morally speaking sometimes questionable when it comes to family and the destruction of those that disagree with you.
In the Jose Mestre blog someone is offering to send me more Jehovah’s Witnesses literature – stressing the hope and comfort the teachings give. Yet the hope and comfort I get in life comes from something greater then the supposed authority of the Gospels. It comes from the fact that many people will speak out because of injustice, even if it means their death. That as a people, sometimes against insurmountable odds, we shall reach beyond what is deemed possible for the betterment of ourselves.
Life has it’s highs and lows. The good times and the bad – and we can be fixated on particular moments, chained to them as a prisoner or drunk on their memory like a maturing wine in the cellar that we keep getting drunk on – not moving out of the rut. Happiness is indeed a quality that makes the human condition bearable.
The happiness that day in London was being able to see people I disagree with being able to talk without fear of imprisonment; to be able to eat a good meal; to go to a book shop without fear of censorship. And joy for my friend and her husband who I found out in London are expecting their first child.