LoveIan

Angels in Christian mythology: Because just one imaginary friend isn't enough.

I accidently stumbled across this book after doing some googles:

"Angels (and demons): what do we really know about them" (by Peter Kreeft). I read a bit, for a laugh because the title caught my interest. But I had trouble understanding how some people actually believe this - and by the circular logic and ridiculous conclusions that are drawn. I've been reading alot of academic journals and research papers lately (honours research project - funtimes) and after reading parts of this book I found it laughable.

The guy asserts the study of angels (aptly named angelology) is a science like any other, but that it's a science that also requires faith. So you have to BELIEVE. Maybe if I clap my hands and truly believe I can grow up to study faeries - or heffalumps and woozles.

Kreeft suggests that people are more suspicious of angelology than natural sciences are because it deals with the supernatural. Um, yes. The claim is that these are beings of god (completely invisible obviously - like all imaginary friends) and that every human that is alive or has ever lived has his own angel. And here is an example of what he calls deduction [which anyone who has any knowledge of the scientific method can get a good laugh about this]:

"If any one of the points of this theory were false, the data would be different. For instance, if angels could not assume bodies, they could not eat. However in Scripture they do on occasion eat (see Gen 19:3); therefore they can assume bodies."

AHA! Genius. See how convincing his logic is. The bible said A; B requires A; and B should mean C. Therefore C is unquestionably true.

Oh and by the way, there are angels everywhere. Always - there is an angel with you right now apparently. Basically the monotheistic Stasi. Imaginary, but just as intrusive - they even get involved in politics!

The book answers all the questions you could possible have about angels - seriously one heading is, "Are angels involved in politics?" The answer is a resounding yes, by the way.

Another question/heading: "What do angels do all day? Don't they get bored?

I love the implications of this! 

Why talk about religion

I've become more and more interested in religion lately (I always have been quite interested in it).

I really like to argue about it. I have no desire to argue with the religious right now, anymore than I would wish to go to elementary schools and argue about the existence of Santa Clause. I actually enjoy religion because I find so many of the claims made by the religious so ridiculous. When I imagine some of the claims, they just play out in my head so nicely.

For example, from a Mesopotamian myth (I'll use this term to protect myself from Google-savvy fanatics) suggests that a particular prophet (he-who-must-not-be-named for teddy bears) took a flying horse from Jerusalem to Mecca (round trip, I think it was). I like to think of that, but in the world today. Since that would not be a very high traveled route, I can almost imagine Flying Horse Airlines canceling the trip (after repeated cutbacks), and a solemn press release. Perhaps some editorial.

I love modernized versions of religion. One of my favourite 'translations' of the Bible is the 'lolcat Bible'. Here's a quote I love:

"13 Den Jebus caem from Gallalee, to has baptizm from John14 But John was all "Ur doin it rong, j00 needz to baptize me"

15 And Jebus answered sayin "STFU and baptize me n00b" and John did. (Mat 3:13-15)

One of the reasons I like it so much is because continual translations from Aramaic and ancient Greek and back again and back and forth between other language, settling on mangled revisions and modernized interpretations, that's probably about the condition the Bible that most of the Christians worship is in.

A mess

UN Anti-blasphemy bill - international limitations on free speech. Great.

I hate to be too serious in public.

But the UN has just passed a 'binding' resolution to try to stop people from criticising religion.

I've never really been a champion of religious beliefs, but for most of my life I've always felt "well, people should be able to believe whatever they want."

I still think that to a certain extent, but I think as long as it's a personal thing. But when it goes into the UN, and these countries,

{Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and South Africa.}

the champions of human rights get a resolution passed to tell the world that religion shouldn't be criticized it just does my head in.

I don't like the term 'religious tolerance' because I think tolerance implies a hidden resentment. To me religious tolerance implies an grudging acceptance. I've always thought of religion of being an important metaphor a lot of people use in their lives to understand the world. 

It bothers me that organized religion sells itself as a sort of balance between threat of violence, aggression, and misery contrasted with the delusion that  rituals {hacking off bits of your penis; getting on your knees; reciting phrases; eating biscuits} will let you conquer death and live forever happily. Bothersome to me.

But I like religion. I think the best story ever written is probably the Mahabharata. Like you wouldn't believe.

I think that the UN passing a resolution that says criticising religion leads to unpleasant things and therefore criticism should be illegal is absolutely ridiculous. The UN has phrased it in a way that is ambiguous enough that any government who chooses who adopt this "binding" resolution can make criticisms of religion into a human right issue.

The UN has set many important guidelines for respecting human rights. But RELIGION is not a human, religion is not a person, and a person's rights are important, but an international body should not be giving rights and passing resolutions to protect organizational bodies.

I'd like to say that I have the utmost respect for each and every individual. I don't want this to be an attack on any person, because it is not. 

But this resolution is terrible. It's buried within a title that refers to 'racial intolerance and xenophobia' which obviously seems hard to oppose without sounding racially intolerant or xenophobic. So I bet most people won't touch it. But I don't care - I've prefaced this with enough to try and help, because I think it is important that people understand some of my attitudes as I criticism this. I'm definitely not a supported of religion, but I DO support free speech. I think the combination of religious fundamentalism and fundamentally reactionary governments have limited people enough. Somehow religion has gotten caught up with ethnic and personal identities when it really shouldn't be.

People have taken to being 'offended' if their religion is criticized. Don't be offended just because I don't believe in your god exists, I still believe you exist, I might even concede that your god exists in your own head.

But in any argument about god, "The model works without that assumption."

I made a couple videos that address this, with the three main commandments of my own 'personal religion' in mind. Though shalt be irreverent; thou shalt be cheeky; though shalt be subversive:

and

Honestly, the world just terrifies me sometimes. I don't even know how to describe it, I have a friend who always used to respond to questions/comments/criticisms in a customer services job saying, "I just work here."

I just live here.

This is why my general approach to life is: have fun, laugh, and make other people smile, and enjoy it.