nancylebov: (green leaves)
When I started getting reactions to the effect that people had never heard Christians claim that they have a God of Love who's an improvement on the earlier version, I wondered if I'd been hallucinating-- quite an unnerving thought, since I know I forget a fair amount, but I don't think of myself as especially much making things up.

However, I mentioned this discussion to another friend, who came close to wondering what was wrong with you guys that you hadn't noticed something so obvious. Some questioning established that he's heard it a lot from bible belt Protestants, and he thinks it's been fading in the past decade.
nancylebov: (green leaves)
In my previous entry, I raised a question, and it hasn't been answered by my usually alert and intelligent commentariat, though various interesting comments have been posted.

[livejournal.com profile] dcseain pointed out that I'd raised a bunch of other issues after I'd asked my question, and that made it harder to focus on the question.

What I'm trying to find out what the Jewish answers are to the Christian claim that Christians have a God of Love which is better than the Jewish God of War.

I have some further thoughts on the subject, but I'll put them in a separate post.
nancylebov: (green leaves)
Yet again, I came across more talk about how bad the God of the Old Testament is, and I've wondered what standard Jewish answers to the claim might be. I've tried googling, but haven't found the right search terms.

For the record, I can see issues with Noah's flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham being told to kill Isaac, and with the conquest of Canaan, but if you compare damage done by Jews to damage done by Christians, it seems that the content of scriptures matters rather little. And possibly that amount of damage is more related to the amount of power available than anything else.

I used to think that pacifist religions led to less violent behavior, and this may be true on the average, but Buddhists are murdering Muslims in Burma, so it's not an absolute truth. (There's a book about how governments with pacifist religions handled (talked about?) their wars, but I didn't note the title-- anyone know of it?)
nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
Link found at Slactivist.

Slacktivist has also been running a page-by-page analysis of what's wrong with _Left Behind_--it's been weekly for the past while. Here's the most recent installment.

And in the course of checking out the comments, I noticed A Secular Soltice Song, which should bring good cheer to atheists and snarky people everywhere.
nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
If anyone hasn't seen the movie yet, I add to the chorus of recommendations. It's an excellent movie--both for the special effects and the people--and I'm only sketchily aware of the comics. And it's definitely worth seeing on the big screen.

I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but there may be a few small ones.

Has anyone tracked in detail just how Catholic it is? It's not just Peter Parker looking crucified on the front of a train (followed by Pieta images)--imho, the "I'm doing everything right, but the whole world is spitting on me" is a Catholic saint story. (Let me know if I'm wrong about this, or if it's also a Protestant thing.) And I don't think it's a coincidence that when Oc's tentacles are tempting him, they look like snakes.

As for business, I think the pizza parlor owner has it wrong. I'm betting that your average customer will be pleased enough to get a trivially late pizza for free (and evidence of a promise kept) that they'll stay as a customer. On the other hand, it's certainly plausible enough for an business owner to get things wrong, or possibly to amp up fears when the real issue is not getting paid for the pizza.

On the other hand, the landlord is plausible enough. He just wants the rent.

Jameson is a weird case. He harks back to the time when newspapers were run by individuals, and sometimes arbitrarily. (When was the movie set, anyway? These days, I don't think Peter Parker would have been allowed to run into a burning building.) Still, I would think he'd be getting more flack--most people seem to think Spiderman is a hero, not a menace. In fact, by the second movie, I don't think there's anyone but Jameson who believes the Bugle's line.

For lots more discussion of Spiderman (including links), see Unqualified Observer. It's mostly about how the choice between virtue and happiness is played out.
nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
If anyone hasn't seen the movie yet, I add to the chorus of recommendations. It's an excellent movie--both for the special effects and the people--and I'm only sketchily aware of the comics. And it's definitely worth seeing on the big screen.

I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but there may be a few small ones.

Has anyone tracked in detail just how Catholic it is? It's not just Peter Parker looking crucified on the front of a train (followed by Pieta images)--imho, the "I'm doing everything right, but the whole world is spitting on me" is a Catholic saint story. (Let me know if I'm wrong about this, or if it's also a Protestant thing.) And I don't think it's a coincidence that when Oc's tentacles are tempting him, they look like snakes.

As for business, I think the pizza parlor owner has it wrong. I'm betting that your average customer will be pleased enough to get a trivially late pizza for free (and evidence of a promise kept) that they'll stay as a customer. On the other hand, it's certainly plausible enough for an business owner to get things wrong, or possibly to amp up fears when the real issue is not getting paid for the pizza.

On the other hand, the landlord is plausible enough. He just wants the rent.

Jameson is a weird case. He harks back to the time when newspapers were run by individuals, and sometimes arbitrarily. (When was the movie set, anyway? These days, I don't think Peter Parker would have been allowed to run into a burning building.) Still, I would think he'd be getting more flack--most people seem to think Spiderman is a hero, not a menace. In fact, by the second movie, I don't think there's anyone but Jameson who believes the Bugle's line.

For lots more discussion of Spiderman (including links), see Unqualified Observer. It's mostly about how the choice between virtue and happiness is played out.
nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
A description of the decision is basically a swat at the Michael Newdow for trying to make the ultimate decision about his daughter's religious upbringing even though he's not the custodial parent.

While I'm also bemused at a society so wealthy that so much can be spent on the relatively minor decision of whether "under God" can be in the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm mostly pleased. I've heard him talk on NPR about how he's entitled to not have his religious views overriden in front of his daughter, and I'm distinctly not impressed. He also says that it's not his place to talk about his daughter's religious views in public--this is reasonable, but not good enough, imho, to make up for his arrogance in trying to make a no-official-religion bubble around her for the sake of his religious views.

As for why I think "under God" is a rather minor matter, I'm extrapolating my childhood reaction to the pledge, a purely emotional thing which roughly translates as "they're trying to bind me into a group I feel no connection to by making me say pointless words. I'm surrounded by idiots and there's no point in talking to them about it." I'm still not sure how much of that was depression and how much was good sense.
nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
A description of the decision is basically a swat at the Michael Newdow for trying to make the ultimate decision about his daughter's religious upbringing even though he's not the custodial parent.

While I'm also bemused at a society so wealthy that so much can be spent on the relatively minor decision of whether "under God" can be in the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm mostly pleased. I've heard him talk on NPR about how he's entitled to not have his religious views overriden in front of his daughter, and I'm distinctly not impressed. He also says that it's not his place to talk about his daughter's religious views in public--this is reasonable, but not good enough, imho, to make up for his arrogance in trying to make a no-official-religion bubble around her for the sake of his religious views.

As for why I think "under God" is a rather minor matter, I'm extrapolating my childhood reaction to the pledge, a purely emotional thing which roughly translates as "they're trying to bind me into a group I feel no connection to by making me say pointless words. I'm surrounded by idiots and there's no point in talking to them about it." I'm still not sure how much of that was depression and how much was good sense.

August 2017

S M T W T F S
  12345
6 789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 09:20 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios