Is it OK to make fun of religions?

[ChristineES]

The Bond stories are fiction but the Bond character, apparently, is actually based on a card playing spy that lived the high life, the latest Bond movies try to reflect that character. The Jesus character may be based on a preacher type Jesus but the gospel story is fiction, so Bond and Jesus might be real life people placed into fictitious stories. They both have something in common as well as fan clubs.

There's no one worshiping the person James Bond was actually based on. It is similar to Robin Hood: A legend. So there really is no comparison.

 

[sojourner]

Sometimes it can't be helped. People often feel demeaned when they hear a truth which discomfits them. Creationists may feel demeaned to hear that humans share lineage with apes, but I think NatGeo does right to ignore Creationist sensitivities when presenting nature programs on TV.

For me, it is a Great and Necessary Truth that people should discard the notion of scripture. At least in any sense that even hints of word worship. So I feel like I have to say that. Same with prophets. I think it's unhealthy (wrong) to believe that another human has a closer connection to God than each one of us has. So I say that.

I don't think the pain of contrary truths can be helped, really. Not for those who hang their whole lives on a particular truth... which generally means 'the religious'.

Well, OK. But, as I stated, there's a big difference between stating your truth respectfully and saying things just in order to demean people. I share your view that we need not iconize the texts. That was never the intent. Prophets were never seen as being "closer" to God. They were simply called to a specific ministry. That some (or many) people iconize them as "closer" to God is inconsistent with tradition and theology.

Far as I'm concerned, truth isn't "particular." It's relative.

 

[sojourner]

So is the Christian also part of Mary?

No. Not in the same way. Only within the theological understanding that "we are all one body." But it's specifically Jesus -- not Mary -- whom we (including Mary) embody. I hope that's clearer for you?

If you take Jesus out of the equation, then there is no Christianity, because it is Jesus whom believers embody.

 

[sojourner]

I wouldn't entirely reduce it to just bullying. Significantly misrepresenting someone's views is not always considered bullying, for instance. But it's still unacceptable when it's done willfully.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[steeltoes]

There's no one worshiping the person James Bond was actually based on. It is similar to Robin Hood: A legend. So there really is no comparison.

No one knows the person Jesus was based on so what is the difference?

 

[sojourner]

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, it would work just as well if James Bond was replaced with Ronald Reagan or some other real person who isn't a religious figure but is held in high regard by people.

I think the issue I have with it is (as I've been saying all along -- and I hope you'e willing to go there with me for a moment) that this isn't about adoration. We can adore Reagan or James Bond. And we can adore Jesus. But this is far, far more personal than hero-worship. We don't embody Reagan or Bond. We do embody Jesus, so it's a whole lot more personal for us. I wish you could (or would) understand the depth of the theology that informs people of faith. It goes so much deeper than simply espousing a set of "truth statements" that are exterior to ourselves.

 

[steeltoes]

I think the issue I have with it is (as I've been saying all along -- and I hope you'e willing to go there with me for a moment) that this isn't about adoration. We can adore Reagan or James Bond. And we can adore Jesus. But this is far, far more personal than hero-worship. We don't embody Reagan or Bond. We do embody Jesus, so it's a whole lot more personal for us. I wish you could (or would) understand the depth of the theology that informs people of faith. It goes so much deeper than simply espousing a set of "truth statements" that are exterior to ourselves.

Everyone could use a hobby, but let's face it, Christianity is an art form, and people are passionate about their art. It doesn't get any "deeper" than that as far as I can tell.

 

[sojourner]

Everyone could use a hobby, but let's face it, Christianity is an art form, and people are passionate about their art. It doesn't get any "deeper" than that as far as I can tell.

Operative term here: "As far as I can tell."

Xy is an art form, but it's far, far more than that. It's both a deeply personal and deeply communal endeavor, and highly relational.

 

[sojourner]

No one knows the person Jesus was based on so what is the difference?

Theologically unsupportable.

 

[McBell]

Nope. It has nothing whatsoever to do with adoration. It has everything to do with deep self-awareness.

Please be so kind as to let me know when you are done beating up your "Adoration" strawman.

 

[steeltoes]

Operative term here: "As far as I can tell."

Xy is an art form, but it's far, far more than that. It's both a deeply personal and deeply communal endeavor, and highly relational.

So are many forms of art to many people of differing religions and to the non religious as well. Christianity holds no monopolies.

 

[sojourner]

So are many forms of art to many people of differing religions and to the non religious as well. Christianity holds no monopolies.

the final purpose of art is aesthetic. The final purpose of Xy is wholeness.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

the final purpose of art is aesthetic. The final purpose of Xy is wholeness.

Not my art. I seek complete connection when I create, present, receive feedback, and interpret, and then respond again (and on and on forever). Aesthetics is only a part of the entire equation.

 

[sojourner]

Not my art. I seek complete connection when I create, present, receive feedback, and interpret, and then respond again (and on and on forever). Aesthetics is only a part of the entire equation.

There's no doubt that art has a spiritual dimension to it -- which explains why art usually accompanies spiritual endeavor; it opens creativity and intuition. But its raison d'etre is the expression of a sense of beauty and form -- or perhaps better: expression through a sense of beauty and form. I have no doubt that you derive a great deal of spiritual benefit from your art.

 

[steeltoes]

There's no doubt that art has a spiritual dimension to it -- which explains why art usually accompanies spiritual endeavor; it opens creativity and intuition. But its raison d'etre is the expression of a sense of beauty and form -- or perhaps better: expression through a sense of beauty and form. I have no doubt that you derive a great deal of spiritual benefit from your art.

The best way to understand religions is to realize that they are works of art, human creations, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Sunstone]

But its raison d'etre is the expression of a sense of beauty and form -- or perhaps better: expression through a sense of beauty and form.

It's news to me that there is any definitive raison d'etre for art. Rather, art seems to be something inherent in human behavior. There is, for instance, no known culture or society that does not indulge in some form of art, and the impulse to create art probably predates anyone coming up with an excuse for it.

 

[Sunstone]

When I started this thread, I thought it would go 25 posts and die.

 

[sojourner]

The best way to understand religions is to realize that they are works of art, human creations, nothing more and nothing less.

Well of course they're human creations, and no one's denying that they have artistic dimensions, but they are not, themselves, works of art.

 

[sojourner]

When I started this thread, I thought it would go 25 posts and die.

...and I'll bet you're wishing it would hurry up and die...

 

[Sunstone]

...and I'll bet you're wishing it would hurry up and die...

That wish has made a praying man out of me.