The funny things authors say

Shorter G.P. Taylor, English vicar and author of the Shadowmancer Quartet of fantasy novels:

"It worries me that children are becoming interested in Wiccan and neo-pagan ridiculousness. I hope that my books bring them back to proper Christian ridiculousness. My Muslim and Jewish readers agree with me."

My Saviour is so dreamy

I'm going to see a production of "Jesus Christ Superstar" tomorrow night with the original Jesus, Ted Neeley!

Jesus rocks!

And how do you prepare for such a divine occasion? With Looking Good for Jesus products, course:

Get tight with the Christ!

A Faith of Reason?

OK, I found this kind of creepy:

A few miles south of Lynchburg in Campbell County sits a large and attractive octagonal building which is home to one of most unique churches in the world. Founded in 1977, “The Spock,” as the church is called, is the world’s only church of Star Trek, a religion centered on the popular 1960’s television series featuring the adventures of a crew of interstellar explorers. “The Spock” promotes beliefs associated with one of the popular characters in the TV series, Mr. Spock, who was from a peace-loving race of aliens known as “Vulcans.”

The ideology of the church is centered on so-called Vulcan philosophy which includes the belief in pure “logic” and which emphasizes a lifestyle devoid of emotion. A huge stained-glass likeness of the church’s namesake is featured in the sanctuary, where churchgoers recite sequences of dialogue from the series and participate in what they call a “Holy Mind Meld.” Many church members wear stick-on pointed ears (mimicking those of the TV character) during services and at other church functions (in one case of excessive dedication to the “faith,” one member attempted to have his ears surgically altered but with disastrous results, requiring extensive corrective surgery).

Now, normally, I find myself of the same mind as Professor Steven Dutch on this subject:

Contrary to popular psychology, this is not a society where people are out of touch with their feelings. This society wallows in feelings. If anything, what most people in this society need is precisely to get out of touch with their feelings for a while. Beirut, Belfast and Belgrade were all creations of people who were entirely too much in touch with their feelings.

When film does show rational people, it is often as a caricature. The Vulcans in Star Trek are the type examples. They are regularly portrayed as secretly longing to have human emotions but unable to do so because of their conditioning. (The Vulcans nearly destroyed themselves before they learned to control their emotions. See Beirut, Belfast and Belgrade above.) Or when the characters simply proceed rationally (Star Wars: The Phantom Menace) critics lambaste them as stiff and wooden. Considering the number of people in the arts who have destroyed themselves through suicide, substance abuse or self-destructive lifestyles, I conclude that many media critics are simply unable to relate to characters who solve their problems rationally without going into depression or hysteria, that unless a character has some defect requiring deep therapy, they simply aren't interesting to the critics.

Clearly, though, these "Spockians" are not acting rationally at all, since a rational person would be the first to admit that one cannot be rational all the time. In fact, the effort to do so is extremely irrational.

Bill Hicks Friday

One of my favourite bits from the legendary Bill Hicks:



Bill, you died far too early.

From Science After Sunclipse.

Designer guys

Intelligent design:



Unintelligent design:



Just plain stupid:

Six of one; a 101 of another

Or, the False Prophet in Hell

To celebrate my 101st post here at False Prophecy, why not see just where in Hell I'll end up?

The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Sixth Level of Hell - The City of Dis!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

Level	Score
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)	Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)	Low
Level 2 (Lustful)	Very High
Level 3 (Gluttonous)	High
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)	Very Low
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)	Very High
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)	Very High
Level 7 (Violent)	High
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)	Moderate
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)	Moderate

Take the Dante's Inferno Test

An Easter Vigil

OK, this story from AlterNet reminded me why Trey Parker and Matt Stone are such comic geniuses. I don't really watch South Park religiously (ha!) anymore, but this reminded me that the show still has its bite (link includes three clips from the episode).

This comic makes me wonder about the episode's conclusion, though.

On a related note, I came across this posting via The News Blog:

Coming to the US my biggest shock was how seriously people took religion. It was a form of religious intensity that I had never encountered. In Saudi I had endured a totalitarian theocracy (is there another kind?) but I had never seen the man on the street be so wrapped up in their religion. I had never met people who defined themselves, first and foremost, on the basis of their religion.

Which is all the more interesting considering how ignorant many Americans are about their religion:

The United States is the most religious nation in the developed world, if religiosity is measured by belief in all things supernatural -- from God and the Virgin Birth to the humbler workings of angels and demons. Americans are also the most religiously ignorant people in the Western world. Fewer than half of us can identify Genesis as the first book of the Bible, and only one third know that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount...

...Approximately 75 percent of adults, according to polls cited by Prothero, mistakenly believe the Bible teaches that "God helps those who help themselves." More than 10 percent think that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc. Only half can name even one of the four Gospels, and -- a finding that will surprise many -- evangelical Christians are only slightly more knowledgeable than their non-evangelical counterparts.

I wish I could say I was surprised, but then I regularly have arguments with family members who know very little about what their Catholic faith is actually about.

Well, I for one will be spending Easter in my annual ritual of watching Jesus Christ Superstar (Norman Jewison version, of course).

"Heaven on Their Minds" (JUDAS)



The first song after the overture. Featuring a fantastic performance by Judas (Carl Anderson) and one awesome guitar riff! One of my favourite pieces. I wish Webber could have kept writing like this.

JUDAS
Listen Jesus I don't like what I see
All I ask is that you listen to me
And remember I've been your right-hand man all along

You have set them all on fire
They think they've found the new Messiah
And they'll hurt you when they find they're wrong

"This Jesus Must Die" (CAIAPHAS, ANNAS, SANHEDRIN)



High Priest Caiaphas and his brother-in-law Annas convince the Sanhedrin that Jesus is a threat to their power and must be eliminated. Excellent contrast between Caiaphas's (Bob Bingham) deep bass and Annas's (Kurt Yaghjian) falsetto.

ANNAS
What then to do about This Jesus-mania?
Now how do we deal with the Carpenter King?
Where do we start with a man who is bigger

SANHEDRIN MEMBER
Than John was when he did his baptism thing?

CAIAPHAS
Fools you have no perception!
The stakes we are gambling are frighteningly high
We must crush him completely
So like John before him, this Jesus must die

"The Last Supper" (JESUS, JUDAS, APOSTLES)



Jesus (Ted Neely) confronts Judas about his forthcoming betrayal. The confrontation scene is one of my favourites.

JESUS
Peter will deny me in just a few hours
Three times will deny me - and that's not all I see
One of you here dining, one of my twelve chosen
Will leave to betray me -

JUDAS
Cut out the dramatics! You know very well who -
Jesus
Why don't you go do it?
JUDAS
You want me to do it!
JESUS
Hurry they are waiting
JUDAS
If you knew why I do it . . .
JESUS
I don't care why you do it!
JUDAS
To think I admired you
For now I despise you
JESUS
You liar - you Judas
JUDAS
You wanted me to do it!
What if I just stayed here
And ruined your ambition?
Christ you deserve it!

JESUS
Hurry you fool, hurry and go,
Save me your speeches
I don't want to know - Go! Go!

"I Only Want to Say (Gethsemane)" (JESUS)



Jesus's solo piece where he pleads with God to spare him the coming pain and suffering. Neely's most passionate performance.

JESUS
Why, why should I die?
Oh, why should I die?
Can you show me now
That I would not be killed in vain?
Show me just a little
Of your omnipresent brain
Show me there's a reason
For your wanting me to die
You're far too keen on where and how
But not so hot on why

"Trial Before Pilate (including The 39 Lashes)" (JESUS, PILATE, CAIAPHAS, CROWD)



Pilate (Barry Dennen) is one of my favourite characters.

JESUS
You have nothing in your hands
Any power you have
Comes to you from far beyond
Everything is fixed
And you can't change it

PILATE
You're a fool, Jesus Christ
How can I help you?

CROWD
Crucify him! Crucify him!
Remember Caesar
You have a duty
To keep the peace
So crucify him!
You'll be demoted
You'll be deported
So crucify him!

"Superstar" (JUDAS, ANGELS)



Speaking from heaven, Judas questions the whole enterprise.

JUDAS
Every time I look at you
I don't understand
Why you let the things you did
Get so out of hand
You'd have managed better
If you'd had it planned
Now why'd you choose such a backward time
And such a strange land?

If you'd come today
You could have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication

Chinese Jesus



Tzu-kung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "Is not reciprocity the word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

--Confucius[Kongzi], Analects 15.23, (ca. 479 BCE - 221 BCE)

Then again...

A follow up to my previous post:

You achieved a score of 32%!

 

That could've gone significantly better, but let's face it, this was a difficult quiz. You probably haven't read the Bible in as much depth as such an important book deserves. Better luck next time.

The Bible Quiz of Greater Ultimacy
Quizzes for MySpace

Clearly I need to work on my mastery of Biblical minutia. Though to what end? I know The Odyssey pretty well too, but it hasn't made me a believer in Poseidon.

UPDATE: I challenge everyone to try the Gospel Story Quiz. You may be surprised at how ignorant you are!

Do you think this will keep the evangelicals off my back?

You know the Bible 98%!

 

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

I wonder which question I got wrong?

Stop dicking around

Via The News Blog comes this charming tale.

Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer had this to say on Skeptic magazine's podcast, Skepticality, regarding religion versus science:

A lot of people say things like, "scientists are always changing their minds"; "science keeps changing" like it's a weakness. But that's science's strength...the fact that religion doesn't change--that they pride themselves on not changing their dogma...if you don't bend, you're going to break.

Even on the subject of religious dogma, why are the religious so off-base? This article hits the target dead on (emphasis mine; scroll down to the heading entitled "Sex Talk"):

On the other hand, look at how much energy many religions put into discussing sex. Although there are a lot of Biblical condemnations of sexual sin, some simple word counts will show that there are at least as many condemnations of economic injustice. A search of the New International Version found 79 occurrences of “adultery” and its variants. “Prostitute” and its variants occurs 74 times, but the majority of those verses refer not to sexual sin but to religious apostasy. On the other hand we find 126 occurrences of “oppress.” “Steal” and its variants occur 50 times and “rob” 28 times. “Poor” occurs 178 times. So why don’t we hear a lot more sermons about, oh, cheating on taxes and expense accounts than cheating on spouses? Or more sermons about the evils of poverty than pornography? Why does homosexuality, mentioned directly only a couple of times in the Bible, merit so much more attention than cheating the poor, which is mentioned dozens of times?

Fun with Faith!

Two entertaining items from YouTube today.

First, an "Atheist Church" from MadTV:



Next, the "Dr. Seuss Bible" from Kids in the Hall:

Matthew 12:37

"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (King James Version)

A match made in Heaven--not the courtroom

I largely agree with Juan Cole on the issue of marriage (DailyKos argues in a similar vein). Basically, there is no such thing as a "traditional" definition of marriage. I mean, many cultures--some in antiquity, some in the present-day--permitted a man to have several wives. In many cultures, it was (or is) permissible for a man to physically beat his wife, which we rightfully consider inexcusable today. The etymology of the word "marriage" is difficult to trace, but some equate it to the Latin term for "married man" i.e., husband. If this is the case, then the "dictionary definition" of marriage does not exclude gay men from the institution. Arguing from a dictionary definition is asinine anyway. The dictionary editors don't dictate the meaning of words; they assign definitions based on how the word is actually used. As far as the state is concerned, the only definition that matters is the legal definition.

Putting aside the various cultural and historical definitions of marriage (many of which could be deemed "traditional"), let's work out the legal definition of marriage. Now, as Sir Edmund Burke noted, the law is common sense. The law seeks to define and codify what the society and the people in it are already doing. Gays and lesbians have had conjugal, cohabitating relationships for decades, and many of them have raised children as well. There is no empirical evidence that homosexual parents do worse than their heterosexual counterparts. Thus, "common sense" dictates that the state recognize gay and lesbian unions.

What is the purpose of recognizing marriage, from the point of view of the state?

Is it to provide a stable and secure social institution so that children can be brought up in a positive environment? Obviously, it is proper for the state to concern itself with the quality of its future citizens, and would like the majority of them to become stable and productive members of society. But if this is the purpose of marriage, should not marriage licenses and certificates only be issued to those couples who actually have children? Again, because the law is "common sense," it must recognize that couples can have children through means other than vaginal intercourse. Adoption, in vitro fertilization, and surrogate motherhood are some of these ways. These are, for the most part, not outlawed by the state and thus any couple, gay or straight, who has children by any method, should be recognized as "married" under this interpretation of the institution. Likewise, couples without children would not be considered married.

The other possible purpose of marriage from the state's point of view is recognition of the fact that intimate relationships--especially of the romantic and erotic kind--help to perpetuate a society of contented and balanced individuals. Civil order and contentment is largely in the state's self-interest--it means less crime, less apathy, and more productivity (read: better and more effective workers with higher wages spending more money = more taxes collected). "Common-law" marriage already reflects this to an extent--in Ontario, after a year of conjugal cohabitation (i.e., "shacking up") , the law considers a couple to be married in all legal and financial senses of the term.

Rather than engage in a pointless debate about the "definition" of marriage, the state should proceed thusly:

• No longer recognize the legal term "marriage".
• Recognize only "civil unions" or "civil contracts", which can be between any two consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation.
• Empower members of the clergy to recognize civil unions (much as they can perform marriages now).

Because the state enshrines the freedom of religion, clergy can refuse to perform marriages for whomever they choose. If rejected by their clergyperson, a couple can find a clergyperson more sympathetic to their union, be recognized by the state directly (e.g., getting "married" at City Hall), or just wait a year and the state will recognize their union anyway.

This way, gay and lesbian couples who wish to legitimize their union (for purposes of parental, spousal and survivor/next-of-kin benefits) can do so. Churches that oppose gay unions are not required to perform them, while churches accepting of gay unions are free to do so.