What happened to you, man?
Full Spectrum Disorder was the great wake up call, for me. I simply had no ability to turn back, after reading it. Already moving leftishly, it sealed the deal, so to speak.
Now you're reviewing movies for Christian content?
I'm not bagging on the Jesus thing. I get it, I guess. I get the full on deconstruction of patriarchy and gender, with the new Methodist twist.
But, man...
Crow's Eye: Maintaining a commitment to Pointless Acrimony™ and Hate Filled Invective™! Also available in corvid mischief and traditional sly dog's mistrust.
13 comments:
We all follow our own path. I'm sure he'd be honored by your acknowledgment.
Speaking of keeping an eye on the Christians, MRFF http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/ is one of my favorites. Talk to Action's Bruce Wilson has also done some good digging on the fundamentalist threat.
Spartacus,
Big fan of Public Eye, here.
Thanks for reminding me of Stan's book. You can watch him speak on the topic here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pRsGXbLGc4
Soft Skull does a nice review http://www.softskull.com/detailedbook.php?isbn=1-932360-12-3 of FSD.
To me, he's always been like that: he denounced public option health care in favor of "healing". Oh, and he allowed a radical feminist to espouse her hatred of transgendered people.
I think Stan still does a lot of great work. His Christianity, while not something I can follow, is at least radically interesting.
And, Jenny, I saw you on those threads and you, as ever, very clearly didn't understand what he was talking about.
Richard, Spartacus -
I agree with you both. It can be sad to watch, though.
I don't begrudge anyone his or her faith, but Stan just doesn't produce work on par with FSD anymore.
"but Stan just doesn't produce work on par with FSD anymore"
actually, I disagree with this; I think his recent work on food praxis and gender is quite excellent.
I have to admit that the gender discussions border on the pointillist, for me.
But, to each his own. If we all drew sustenance from the same sources, we'd have nothing to share, and they'd all be depleted in short order.
Richard, I'm talking about shit like this:
http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2006/06/20/t-is-for-trans-for-tangle-for-trojan-horse/
As for this:
http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2009/12/25/why-i-wont-call-myself-progressive/
Not everyone can be a "healer" especially the poor lower classes as Stan was hence medical institutions are necessary.
So what's your counter arugment?
I haven't read Stan Goff's "Full Spectrum Disorder"---although from just hearing how much of a wake-up call it was for you, it's now on my reading list.
And "reviewing movies for Christian content"---well, I'm not going to pass judgment on him if that's what he wants to do, but that seems to demand a level of personal moral fiber (read: knowledge of the self and the pitfalls of the human ego) that almost no one has.
"The Jesus thing"---obviously you are entitled to your own opinion there (and I say that with respect, and not with that ominous "...or else" that is so fashionable with most "Christians")---but this patriarchal gender construct of which you speak?
That's not the Jesus I know.
Sure, it's the Jesus that most people know, but to me Jesus was very progressive and wasn't really into the whole "male gender superiority" thing.
The people that edited the "official Bible," though, they seemingly couldn't get enough of that.
Good thing there's "heretical" books like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. A nice girl like me could never figure out where my place was between Mary Magdalene the so-called "prostitute" and Mary the virgin mother.
So you're either a whore, or a virgin mother? Right, that's a great standard to give little girls.
And what's that? A woman can never have a place in the church other than a lowly nun (in Catholicism) or a preacher's wife (in Protestant sects)? That's good for a little girl's self-esteem.
Good thing Jesus didn't think like that... I just had to go "outside the church" as an adult to realize that truth.
Andromeda,
I'm okay with agreeing to disagree. I don't think there was any actual person - Jesus - in the first place.
I think he's a literary character, only. An invention.
Which doesn't degrade the Mythos, at all. It just means I don't assign any historicity to gospel events.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, and I respect it completely. I disagree, but I think it's so critical to realize that when two people disagree, they can and should still respect each other if they have other common ground.
Often they can learn from each other, and still remain committed to their own beliefs. It is in differing from other people, and observing those differences, that we have the opportunity to grow.
I completely understand why you believe Jesus is an invention, a literary character. I really, really do. You are skeptical of institutional anything (state, religion, etc.), and so am I.
I was raised Methodist, then was an atheist for a while, and then for a long time I was agnostic. I now realize it was PEOPLE who made me confused, because they were misinterpreting what, to me, was a very clear message.
To me there is enough historical evidence to back up Jesus' existence, even though the evidence was recorded by imperfect beings and later altered to fit their agendas. I have done an extensive amount of reading and research on the topic over the years, so I do not say this ignorantly.
I recognize that there are limits to the human mind, and although I prize my mind (and the beautiful minds of scientists, philosophers, etc.) I feel that, in the end, the mind can never grasp what a human cannot perceive with their five senses, and so there is its limit. A human, as an animal with only senses it developed to perceive its native environment, cannot sense everything in existence in the scope of the Universe.
I have a very real sense of my "spirit," and always have, even as a child. For many years I was told this was "not real," or it was "imagined," or it was "fantasy," but no it is not, not for me. When I have said for long periods, "my spirit is an imagination," still the sense persisted, and I became suicidal as I denied what was fundamental to my nature.
It is in this way that I know, through my spirit, that Jesus existed. I do not think it's proper to rely on the spirit for everything---you must test it against reality with what you CAN observe with your five senses. I try to combine spirit and knowledge, but in the end, I suppose it comes down to: I have faith in Jesus through my spirit which feels his truth, combined with having studied historical record to verify his existence.
It does not feel like faith to me, because I sense in a way that is very real to me that everything in existence is connected (the land, plants, animals, humans, etc.) though the divine. It is not something I can prove with the scientific method, but I know what I feel.
And again, you are absolutely entitled to your own perception of reality, that is your right as an individual with a mind, and free will. I respect you, and so I respect your belief.
In the end I suppose I cannot convince you that the "spirit sense" exists any more than you can convince me it does not---and again, agree to disagree. :-)
I am a rational person. I think a person can be both rational and spiritual---although I see many irrational "spiritual" people. I know the odds are against my beliefs at the current moment in time, because I have no scientific proof to give you---and here I think that proof does exist, but science has not discovered it yet. :-)
Post a Comment