[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Religious Chaos' LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Monday, October 1st, 2007|
oh for the love of the gods
11:13 PM 9/30/07 ·
I was rather saddened that I couldn't goto the Folsom Street Fair but other pressing matters concerned me. Okay, not really, but still...
...all this hoopla about a certain poster and some advertising for the event has got me more than a little pissy. The specific poster you've probably seen if you've been following the news (Clicky!
) a depiction of the Last Supper followed extremely loosely with fetish gear and costuming a number of sex toys in the mix. I've actually only seen it on the news, with the understandable items being fuzzed over by television censors but even then...what's the harm?( the poster for the event is nowhere near as offensive as this...Collapse )
The painting everyone is familiar with that displays the Last Supper was painted by Leonardo da Vinci quite a chunk of time after the actual meal happened. Can't quote you the actual timeline but I think there were a couple centuries inbetween there. Realistically the painting doesn't seem likely, according to numerous religious debates I've seen, that everyone was sitting at such a table and even if they were...not all on just the one side.
Leo chose to represent it this way in order to best represent all the people present and important to the piece. It's not like they all posed that way so someone could run around and get a quick shot on their digicam.
I don't see the sacrilige, which I'm likely mispelling, as while it is a representation of Jesus & Co. having something to eat before that fateful day...that doesn't make it a holy work. A religious depiction sure but so what? If a bunch of kids re·did the depiction with World of Warcraft characters I doubt much of anyone would so much as raise an eyebrow.
It's not like they re·wrote the Bible in Crayola! Current Mood: aggravated
|Wednesday, September 12th, 2007|
Confused of London
First post from a new member; I think the easiest way to explain my position is to repost something I posted in my own LJ. Apologies if some of this gets a bit rambling; I'm still trying to get a lot of stuff clear in my own head.( A bit of background and my problem.Collapse )
Any words of advice or suggestions? I think at heart,I still believe in God, but after 20 years of this I'm just going in circles. I know I just can't commit to Catholicism, and paganism just feels too empty - like I'm just pretending, or trying to fool myself. But the "standard" C of E church is just too wishy-washy for me.
I just want to find somewhere I belong, where it feels right
|Friday, August 10th, 2007|
The consensus belief is that if you accept Jesus into your life then you're pretty much guaranteed to get into Heaven. At one time or another I've heard someone or other say the following stuff:
- If you don't accept Jesus as your lord & savior you're going to Hell.
- The Jews rejected Jesus and they will all burn in Hell.
- Everyone that died before Jesus was born is in Hell.
- Everyone that died before Jesus was born were granted amnesty and are in Heaven.
- People that practice magic are trying to steal the power of God and will burn in Hell.
Do you agree with any of this stuff? Current Mood: exhausted
|Wednesday, July 25th, 2007|
the name's the thing
The chief problem with being a polytheist, for me anyway, is the swearing. General profanity I get by with okay but the more interesting stuff when religious names are intermingled get to be a bit tricky. Take For the love of the Gods
for example. That works fine. However, Gods dammit
just doesn't quite roll off the tongue so evenly.
This is of course the variant of God dammit
, which technbically should be damn it
but no one tends to really spell it that way.
I know, I know; there's probably at least one of you going "You can't say that. That's taking the Lord's name in vain!" It's a common faux pas but the truth of the matter is I'm not. While the Big Guy does have many names handy for general use God
isn't one of them. God
is a title, a status position, that little thing you see on the nametag of the Heaveny Cubicle just before the actual name. You can't be taking the Lord's name in vain if you're not actually using any of the names It has assigned to it.
Funny thing about names. Jesus isn't actually Jesus, he's Yeshua. I know I've been down this road before,m will probably be down it again as soon as another alternate strikes me, but I've never gotten why we call him Jesus. This is really all King James' fault seeing as he had the guy's name changed to Jesus for reasons even the scholars still debate to this day. I mean, several months back when they supposedly found his tomb I was all big with the smiles and joy...up until they translated the labelling above and it read, something to the effect of Here lies Jesus...
after which I lost interest because I knew it wasn't him then.
They might change his name for the official documentation but when his mortal form up and died you know his loved ones would put him to rest under his actual birth name.
You know most of the disciples names probably got changed too. With the possible exception of Judas, a name you very rarely hear in passing, the host of the disciples seem to have names you'd hear on just about any New England street. Peter, Paul, Ringo (kidding)...but they just all have perfectly normal names. Granted, you don't hear a lot of folks running around named Jesus either, even if pronounced using Spanish phrasing, but you hear someone go Yeshua and suddenly it kinda works. It would seem to me that most of the discliples names are not as we know them to be...or at the very least not pronounced the way we're pronouncing them. Seeing as we're all using, relative regional accents not withstanding, American Enlgish pronounciations for these people.
...or am I totally off my rocker?? Current Mood: crazy
|Monday, July 16th, 2007|
|Friday, July 6th, 2007|
|Thursday, May 3rd, 2007|
Have you ever had any silly/bizarre/wonky/crazy notions regarding your religious background? Nothing etched in stone, not even something you believe seriously, but just a lil' something that makes you smile?( my quirky little notionCollapse ) Current Mood: Uh oh! God sense tingling.
|Tuesday, April 24th, 2007|
|Tuesday, April 10th, 2007|
something wonky this way comes
Has anything in the media or movies or some work of fiction you read ever impacted your faith in a truly wonky (odd word for crazy) way? Not shaken it or anything so drastic...just kinda nagged at you...( For exampleCollapse ) Current Mood: weird
|Wednesday, April 4th, 2007|
Let's have some fun!
About a year or so back I did a post asking who people thought was the best portrayal of the Devil on the big screen, or little one if you rent more than you goto the movies. I chose Al Pacino for his work in The Devil's Advocate
& Gabriel Byrne from End of Days
because it couldn't possibly get anymore accurate than that.
Just my opinion.
So, this time let's take a shot for the other team. Who do you think did the best job portraying God & Jesus on the big or little screen? While I realize (Holy Trinity and all) that most folks are big with the Jesus & God are the same entity...you gotta admit that not many actors can pull that kinda thing off. So, try and pick for each role.My answers:
Actually haven't seen a lot of Jesus onscreen that I can clearly recall, most of it's stuff I saw as a much smaller me; vaguely recall Jesus Christ Superstar
but not enough to say anything about it and I mainly just remember I didn't like it much.
As to God, that's beyond easy. For the Oh God
series (saw the 1st & 3rd) I'd say George Burns is possibly the best God I've ever seen. Add to that a dash of Alannis Morrisette from Dogma
and that's the best I've seen for portraying the Big Guy.
I'd like to think that the actual Truth can be gleaned from a hybridization of the two.
So, who do you like for these roles? Current Mood: geeky
|Monday, April 2nd, 2007|
possibly the most ridiculous religious question ever
10:14 AM 3/11/07 ·
When you think about it, there's kind of a disturbing similarity. I refer to the circumstances upon which Jesus' mother got (how to put this delicately?) knocked up. She's lying there in bed one night when she finds herself very aware of a presence, enveloped in an all encompassing bright light, and after an indeterminable amount of time she wakes to find she'd been left with a (if you will) implant.
This resulted in a very healthy child with a number of unusual abilities who we all know and love. Well, all of us know and some of us love...those rather tight in their masculinity just like him bunches and give him proper respect.
However, let us take the circumstances of the impregnation that brought Jesus about.
Is it just me or does this seem remotely similar to any number of alien abduction scenarios?
Then there's all the mythos/conspiracy theories regarding a human/alien hybrid.
So, would you say this is the most ridiculous religious notion you've ever heard? Current Mood: weird
|Monday, March 19th, 2007|
Here's the keys, I'm going fishing
10:58 AM 3/18/07 ·
One of my favorite shows of all time has been Inside the Actor's Studio
. As I love to be asked questions it's probably not surprising that I really enjoy viewing a good interview. At the end of the show there's this much more succinct round of questions that everyone interviewed is asked. Personally, I love all of them, they're brilliant questions, but it's the very last one I wanna focus on here...
...and of course, have you answer:
- If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say to you when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?
If you haven't seen the show but would like to, it comes on multiple times a week so check your local listings. I catch it Sunday mornings at 10am on Bravo. Current Mood: touched
|Monday, March 12th, 2007|
footsteps on the path
Whatever your spiritual/religious belief system is, when the time comes that you pass from this Existance and go into the Next, how do you think you'll feel when you discover whatever it is you think you know as the Truth turns out not to be? Current Mood: awake
|Tuesday, February 27th, 2007|
There's much of the Torah in the Bible...
...but I think they left some stuff out.8:13 PM 2/26/07 ·
Those more learned than I can probably reflect on this and bring it into clearer focus. Then again, one such type person actually got me onto this line of thought about 5 months back when he revealed to me that something a lot of Christians are aware of isn't actually mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Keeping in mind that not all of the faith actually believe in a Devil or Hell for that matter, this still seems kinda odd for me.
Actually, I'm a bit confused how the faith can exist without a bad place really. Isn't that the dividing line? Lead what is deemed the ideal life and go onto Heaven but if you're bad you're gonna burn...
The story that many know goes that the Devil was once an angel by the name of Lucifer and was among God's favorites. There was some disagreement, I've heard various versions of what it may've been about, and it was of such magnitude that Lucifer was booted out of Heaven and locked in the basement; a cute colorful reference I've heard used for Hell sometimes. Other angels were likewise knocked down there, guess Lucifer had a gang, and that was about that.
This story is not in the Bible in any variation that I am aware of...yet many of the faithful know it. After I learned it wasn't in the Bible I chatted with what few friends I have that like that sort of thing, even those that just label it as Christian mythology. All were as surprised as me that it's not in there.
The thought occurs to me that a lot of what is in the Bible is drawn from the Torah, as Christianity was literally spawned from Judaism. As much as the really religious like to slam Dan Brown there are things he's gone on about that tracks with other religious history I've heard; and by heard
I mean from you guys. When the Bible was first being put into print, or I suppose inscribed might be more accurate, there was a great council/committee assembled to undergo the task. There was much debating among them about what should go into the Bible and what should not. Stuff like the Gospel of Judas Escariot was definitely out for understanable reasons...
...although how a guy can be deemed a traitor before he even had the thought of betraying anyone escapes me...
...so what I'm wondering is if the story regarding the fall of Lucifer and his rebirth as the Devil might've been in the Torah and just not made the cut for getting into the Bible. Makes me wonder what other things weren't included.
There's another tale I'm familiar with, of so called Christian mythology, that I'm fairly positive isn't in the Bible...but I could be wrong; let me know. It goes along the lines that Adam & Eve were not the first two humans...or more precisely Eve wasn't the first woman. God created a man and a woman and dubbed them Adam & Lilith and they were equal. Apparently upon their first coupling Adam had a major problem with the fact that Lilith wished to be on top, complained to God...and thus Eve was created from a part of Adam.
I've always had a problem with this story, not the least of which is I'm not sure of its authenticity. I know it's a truly ancient tale, and it would go a long way to fitting the timeframe's belief in woman are meant to be inferior to men as was the custom at the time. Not the least of which that I didn't think any coupling was going on in the Garden of Eden, thought that didn't come up as the fun activity we all know and love until much after the expulsion from paradise...
...and not to get too personal, possibly worthy of a different type of community, that's actually a favorite position of mine. Adam clearly had issues!
Regardless, I don't recall any mention of Lilith in the Bible, as the first woman or otherwise. Although history has seen fit to make most mentionings of her as some form of demon.
My question is are these tales, and others I'm not aware of, accurate? Were they originally in the Torah and not included in the Bible for some reason? Is it possible they were just of the oral tradition and deemed unnecessary to be included in the Bible?
Better still, do you know either of these two stories and where do you know them from? Current Mood: enthralled
|Monday, February 26th, 2007|
Oh you just know this is gonna cause a commotion
10:56 AM 2/26/2007 ·
When I was but a wee lad, older than 5 but not quite 10, I knew for a fact that Jesus had been married and had children. I would like to point out this was about 3 decades before I'd even heard the name Dan Brown (who is not the only person that's put the idea forth) and I actually had no evidence to support the belief.
Chalk it up to a matter of faith.
I've held to this belief pretty much the whole time since then and there's been a number of things along the way that have actually made me feel more assured in it. One of my incessant rants in some religious comm actually produced one such tidbit that struck home fairly solid and I like it. It involved two things I'd already known but never put together until someone, who shared my view, put them together for me. Back in the day, when women were considered (which is sadly not that great an exaggerration) little more than talking cattle by the masses, it was custom that women were not permitted to see a man unclothed unless they were of his family. Yet, when taken down from his crucifixtion and the body prepared for what comes next...Mary Magdalene (however you spell it) was among those that bathed his body and helped make the preparations.
Basically, that's a stoning and put you to death kinda thing and while Mary was no stranger to attempts at being stoned...it never came up. I think it unlikely this was because Jesus was who he was so much as it never was deemed significant as she was his wife. Given that big families are also part of their tradition...
...lots of little things. It's what I believe and so far the only arguyments I get against it have been that Jesus would not have married her cuz she was a whore (like that'd matter to him as he saw the beauty in all of God's children) or because he wouldn't have been able to to raise a family as he was always on the move and on the road (the Jews wandered around for ages and seemed to have no trouble having and raising children en route to wherever they were going) and that it's not in the Bible (there's a whole mess of reasons I have issue with that one but suffice to say not everything in the world is in that book)...
...and so it goes.
I suppose you're wondering what this had to do with anything? While it is certainly not uncommon for me to put forth one of these rants, I need little incentive to write anything, there was this interesting little thing on the news that caught my eye before I left my home this morning. T'was about 5:45am·ish, was just reaching to turn the television off, when I saw the name "Jesus" in big white letters across the screen and paused.
So glad I waited a bit; bus is usually a little late anyway.
Just outside of Jerusalem, under an apartment complex of all things, archeologists are claiming they've discovered Jesus' tomb. I got the news in brief, was kinda on the go and it was a breaking story so information was a bit sketchy, but artifacts and writing within seem to bear this supposition out but moreso...there are writings that discuss the children Jesus had. There seems to be only two views on this so far, that it is his tomb and that it isn't his tomb...but more are believing it is than those that don't. It's basically being cited, on world news stations, as final exacting proof that Jesus was an actual person.
For those that are Christian and already thought so...you do know there were a number of folks that didn't believe it outside the faith, right?
As you might suspect, I'm all tingly.
This should be an interesting week. All the evidence gathered so far, I heard no mention of a body or bodies along with, and what more is learned on this through the week will be presented on the Discovery channel come Sunday. I don't have a timeslot to give you on this so check your local listings.11:33 AM ·
Curiosity got the best of me, looked online for the news about this and the so called "breaking story" is about a discovery that was made in 1980. Still tingling though. Current Mood: rejuvenated
|Friday, February 16th, 2007|
it's all kinda basic really
Maybe it's my whole acknowledging more than one God thing but when you come right down to it there's a little something funny in the water here. I mean the Greeks had the god Zeus and his extended family to worshipm the Norse had Odin and his extended family to worship, the Wiccans have Gaea, the Egyptians...you get the idea. It's pretty much a deity and his or her bretheren guarding over a specific group of people.
When Moses popped up with his whole "Let my people go!" riff he was a representative of their god (who is generally just known as 'God'; it;'s all about the capital G wth this one). The Egyptians did not discredit the existance of this deity but simply labelled It has was appropriate from their point of view; God of the Jews.
Time goes on, things change, a nice wholesome virgin girl gives birth to Jesus/Yeshua/whatever name you choose to refer to him by; the son of God (big G). For the longest time I didn't wholly buy that the Christians, as a whole, believed Jesus was actually God given flesh and not just the son of...but a post I made to that effect a couple weeks back has shown otherwise. However, this does represent a mildly odd problem when you think about it...
...least when I do.
The Jews worship God.
The Christians worship Jesus.
While it can be argued, and it is by many of them, that the Christians acknowledge that Jesus is in fact God (little g)...the Jews do not share this opinion. Seeing as it was their God (big G) first then it stands to reason they should be the authority on this.
So which way do we look here?
Jesus and God are different beings, said so by the different people that worship them. The Chrisitians can toss up that "Holy Trinity" bit as much as they like but without the faith that God originated from backing the concept (an oddly polytheistic "3 as 1" concept no matter how you slice it) then it can not be used as an irrefutable fact.
Thoughts? Current Mood: productive
|Sunday, January 28th, 2007|
Ridiculous Religious Question of the Week
8:57 AM 1/28/07 ·
It kind of started with I am woman, hear me roar
but I can never remember what the sound that came after that was. I mean, if it were I am man, hear me roar
I'd expect it to be followed by a massive belch. From the 2nd Batman movie it was I am Catwoman, hear me roar
and I'm pretty sure that was followed by a "Meow".
It's an empowerment thing.
Bet you're wondering what the Hell does this have to do with religion.
The way I see it Jesus was a pretty empowered guy: son of God, walked on water, raised the dead, great at party tricks; the guy had it going on. So naturally, goofy freak that I am, I had to ask myself...
...what would Jesus say in this kinda circumstance.
Sadly, I'm drawing a blank.
Fortunately I have all of you!
Please fill in the blank:
I am Jesus, hear me roar ________
How would Jesus roar? Current Mood: silly
|Sunday, January 21st, 2007|
Funny Ha Ha
I suspect there are a lot of them out there but I only know a couple. With all the humor that seems to surround Jesus, in the form of standup comedy and stuyff we pick up in school, you'd think there'd be a lot of them. Short of cracking open a joke book and going to the religious humor I can't name that many...
...but as I said, I know two.( Warning: contents may be sacriligiousCollapse )
Do you know any Jesus jokes? Current Mood: giggly
|Saturday, January 20th, 2007|
This questions gonna make the rounds...
...just so I can link stuff to here to get the widest range of answers to someone I've been arguing with for about the last 11 hours·ish.
Yesterday I asked a question that had nothing to do with whether or not Jesus literally was God made flesh, though I included it in a preamble to better define the question I actually was asking, when this particular person decided to bypass the question and concentrate on the preamble. There's been a lot of going back and forth on this one issue but the biggest problem I'm having with him is that he insists that anyone who claims to be Christian but does not believe that Jesus was God made flesh, not just the son of, is actually not a Christian.
So, here's the three levelled question for you:
- Do you believe Jesus was God or not?
- If you don't believe Jesus was God do you think this automatically means you're not Christian?
- Why is it you feel you are Christian even though you don't believe this supposedly undeniable fact?
Have fun with it, the connecting post, with all the linkage from the answering places, will be in my journal but not immediately. I know there's those of you that feel as I do, that Jesus/Yeshua wasn't literally God. I'm just trying to show this to de guy in question while showing that holding this opinion doesn't automatically get you booted out of the Church. Current Mood: peaceful
|Friday, January 19th, 2007|
this kinda stuff comes to me when I'm on the toilet
So far as I remember God never appeared in human form to anybody. I'm not one that believes Jesus was God in human form but even if that were the case that would be God as Jesus
but not God as God
. God appeared to people as a burning bush and a ray of light and possibly some animal representation in one form or another. I'm sure there were many others...but God as God
never appears to people as a person.Question:
If God never appeared to people as a person then why is it that it was so long the viewpoint of many to picture God as a very old man with a long flowing beard? Current Mood: I'm a little acidic