I'm currently reading Israel in Egypt, a review from the perspective of an Egyptologist on where the evidence sits for Israel's journey into and out of Egypt. It seems most of the in-vogue theories are from biblical scholars wit no knowledge of the Egyptian language or latest archeology. I think it's pretty good but not being fluent in Ancient Egyptian, it's hard to say if the author is right. Regardless, would recommend.

Labels: books, religion

Did not know there was an order of monks that kept a prayer going 24/7 in history, really cool. Let's bring it back!

Labels: catholic, religion

I just learned, at this amazingly late date, that there is a common Indo-European cosmogeny involving Manu and Yemo and a cow that tends to appear in all IE cultures - e.g. in India, they are known as Manu and Yama, in Rome, as Romulus and Remus (Yemus), along with a common motif of of a cow (wolf) and suckling. This is apparently more or less what is being depicted in the opening scene of the Alien universe movie Prometheus according to some accounts . . . wild stuff and a new area of historical religion and myth for me to delve into.

Labels: history, religion

It occurred to me that sphere of authority, just like moral wrong, is a concept which is sometimes crystal clear, sometimes dead confusing. When we are told that it is a federal offense to disobey a flight attendant, it is clear that our obligation is to obey the flight attendant when she gives commands about airplane safety. We are not required to obey if she tells us to stand on our heads, because her sphere of authority does not extend over such a matter. I asked myself, what was my superiors’ sphere of authority over me? What commands could they justly give, and what commands were inappropriate?

Labels: catholic, religion, religious life

Tekton was one of the first websites I started reading on the subject of religion, probaby even before this blog was started if I recall correctly. I wish them well in their semi-retirement and new ventures. (Blogspot link here).

Labels: religion

A very interesting look at how the attitude towards independence and security has changed over time.

And, above all, security has become a fetish among all classes of society, from the lowliest wage-earner to the president of the corporation. To be sure, security against the exigencies of life has always been a human aim. But, while in the last century man made provision against disaster, in insurance, in paying off the mortgage on the old homestead, in savings, the tendency during the latter half of the twentieth century is to put the burden of one's security on society. The young man entering the business world is not concerned with the chances of advancement that are open to industry and skill, but rather with the pension system provided by the company; and the candidate for president of the corporation is concerned with his retirement even as he takes on the duties of the presidency. This change of attitude from personal responsibility to collectivized security is probably the result of the income tax; it would be difficult to trace it to any alteration in human nature or any deterioration of character.

The author is of the opinon that the state has more or less taken the role of a Freudian religious hierarchy, in a society attempting to return to the nurturing environment of the womb. The transformation was made possible by the income tax, which made everyone much poorer and dependent on those returning that same money to those same people. And once you've paid 40% of your paycheck to the government, you're less likely to want to take any chances, and more likely to play it safe. Anywho, this is taken from a book "Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist".

Labels: economics, religion

As Nisbet argues in his book The Quest for Community, a social group cannot survive for long if its chief functional purpose is lost, and unless new institutional functions are adapted, the group’s “psychological influence will be minimal.” No doubt the state has succeeded in centralizing so much power due to its success in poaching the historical functions of the church and family.

An interesting read - basically, as anyone can see, the state has gradually been replacing families and religions functionally, and is now more aggressively replacing them.

Labels: politics, religion

This here article is something interesting, about how religious people experience less fear in general, and fear of dying in particular. I think that particular point explains a lot about why our politics have gotten so dysfunctional recently as atheism increases and calls for the nanny state increase. The below was also moving: "People in a house of worship tend to stare at the beautiful things around them because they are anchored in their pews and can do nothing else. People who rush about can take in many more sights per minute, but that is why their memories of what they see are often confused, and the images cemented in their minds have indistinct lines and shadows. " I think remembering that beauty and love are at the heart of religion is important. Today's Gospel is also the Parable of the Sower. Let us all be rich soil.

Labels: religion, religious life

From Reason

As a reminder, here was what de Blasio had to say to New Yorkers who had gathered to mourn a Hasidic rabbi last month: "My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period."
This is not just hypocritical—it's odious. Protesting against police violence is extremely important, and the unprecedented public outcry over Floyd's death is a critical opportunity to send a message that reforms are needed. But to say that this cause, and only this cause, should be exempt from the lockdown is, at the very least, remarkably callous. Mourning a deceased person is no less important to that person's loved ones than ending police brutality is for the thousands of people engaged in protest. (This should be doubly obvious, since in both cases we are talking about a person's death as the root issue.)

As usual, Mr. Mayor manages to find the most odious and nonsensical position in any situation.

Labels: New York, religion

Crux reports

In the letter rejecting asylum, the Home Office pulled several verses from the Bible which it said showed that Christianity wasn’t peaceful, including verses from Exodus, Leviticus, and the Book of Revelation.
“These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a ‘peaceful religion’ as opposed to Islam, which contained violence and rage,” the letter reads.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Labels: religion

Particularly enlightening:

Part of this stems from our tendency to think of certain foundational elements of our own belief systems as “common knowledge.” I recall, for example, a conversation in which I referred to Immanuel Kant as one of the philosophers that “everybody knows.” Someone quickly pointed out to me that this is absurd: large swathes of the human race could not tell you that Kant is a philosopher, much less identify any of his beliefs. But because I first read Kant in high-school, I naturally think of him as someone that any reasonably educated person knows.

I would say I have committed this particular sin many a time.

Labels: catholic, religion

So much.

Labels: humor, religion

This just follows the President’s trend in regards to any visible indicator of him being upset about these acts. Still really he is internally consistent. He says the Islamic state is not Islamic and terrorists who just happen to be Mohammedans are not practicing Islam.

In contrast he feels that the same treatment is not to be afforded to Christians. Apparently “people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ”, but people never committed terrible deeds in the name of Mohammad. Over and over again the President has praised Islam and apparently we have a debt to Islam, but not one to Christendom.

Simple, it's because Christians in Africa and Asia don't have oil.

Labels: politics, religion

To those who feel that Stephen Fry has delivered a devastating blow to religious belief, let me say simply this: this objection is nothing new to Christians. St. Paul, Origen, Augustine, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and many, many other Christian theologians up and down the centuries have dealt with it. In fact, one of the pithiest expressions of the problem was formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century.

And so on.

Labels: religion

Summary, like most articles on how to be a good religious person - Don't be a dick.

I love all members of the Church as best I can, seeing them as co-strugglers. I love them as brothers and sisters in the faith. However, I find it disconcerting when any group takes it upon themselves to proclaim moral superiority above the whole body of believers- as have certain politically ultra-conservative Orthodox Christians. We are all free to have opinions about any number of things, but we are commanded to firmly proclaim the truth in love and abide by the rules and traditions of our faith. We are all to encourage each other to fight the good fight, but to do so in love. I see very little of this happening when some take it upon themselves to be the absolute moral authority of the Church, disparaging those whom they see as lesser, and proclaiming they are not fully Orthodox. I have seen this first hand- when it comes to the issue of homosexuality and gay members in the Church. When these issues are discussed, some ultra-conservative Christians feel the need to reinforce the law to the T– sans grace, speaking only about what the canons say regarding these topics, and using the Church fathers as a backbone of their arguments.

Labels: religion, sex

No. But if you define intelligence narrowly enough, you might think so.

Labels: religion, trends

Especially in the culture wars.

There are only two apostles who follow Christ as far as the High Priest's courtyard, and only one who goes all the way to the foot of the cross. Keep in mind, these 12, they are Christ's hand-picked men. When the only Begotten Son of God, infinitely wise, reader of men's hearts, was able to choose the cream of the crop to be the original priests in his church, these are the men He chose. This was the night of their ordination, when Christ has prayed for them and interceded for them and sweated blood for them. This is as good as good as it gets. If you are ever alarmed by the state of the church, remember: this was how she was on the night of her birth.

Now, some of the people in the church today are heroically faithful, persevering in hope, willing to follow Christ to Calvary and to stand there, keeping vigil beside Him as He dies. I have nothing to say to those people, because they are better than me. I am a somewhat befuddled ex-Culture Warrior. I drew my sword. I lopped off some ears. I became angry and discouraged when I realized that this was not what Christ wanted of me, and I have certainly made my denials. I'm Peter. Anyone who is engaged in the Culture Wars is Peter.

Don't be Peter.

Labels: catholic, religion

Indiana’s argument is that its definition of marriage has a legitimate and important aim and is a means well-tailored to that aim, a means that involves no prohibition, and is simply not concerned with prohibitions. Nevertheless, Posner’s opinion says, dozens of times, that the states prohibit, ban, forbid same-sex marriage. Among people who can distinguish between not recognizing and forbidding, that’s an untruth.

The argument’s two key, interlocked elements are optimality (what sort of child-raising is best for children) and biological parenthood (which results from sexual intercourse—the only form of sexual activity capable of generating a child). Indiana claims again and again that the two elements fit reality, and fit each other, in the belief and intention of its legislature, and in “the entire experience of Western civilization.”

Posner takes exquisite care never to allow the two elements to appear together, even by implication. His judgment never once confronts, or even mentions or alludes to, Indiana’s central, reiterated claim.

For best results, never deal with your opponents' arguments.

Labels: marriage, politics, religion

Same-sex marriage, on this view, is utterly necessary for churches to affirm because it is a means for gay Christians to participate in Christ’s atoning self-gift. Or, as Eugene Rogers has put it, gay Christians’ renunciation (rather than consecration) of their desires “gives God nothing by which to redeem them, no hook in the flesh by which to capture them and pull them up.” What this means, as Douglas Farrow has pointed out, is that “Eros”—or the human pursuit and cultivation of it—“is the real mediator here, not Jesus Christ.”

But things aren’t always better in the traditionalist camp. Mirroring the rhetoric of some of their ideological opponents, conservatives, too, can fall into the moralizing, semi-Pelagian trap. We—I count myself among them—can speak of celibacy as a faithful path for gay Christians in such sunny, sanguine terms that one might think salvation comes by saying no to gay sex rather than by the mediation of Christ.

There's plenty of heresy to go around!

Labels: religion, sex

Mark Shea points out that it's difficult to call yourself pro-life while simultaneously calling for the extermination of the browner children of the earth, and not providing any support for mothers who find themselves without a support network.

Labels: prolife, religion