The Bible is the most widely purchased, extensively read, and deeply revered book in the history of Western Civilization. Arguably it is also the most thoroughly misunderstood, especially by the lay reading public.
- Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, Ch 1, p. 1
As a Muslim, I’m sick of people asking me how I feel about 9/11. What do you want me to say, seriously?
Do you want me to say, “It was a great plan, mwahahaha!” before I fly off on a magic carpet?
I was born and raised in this country and was just as shocked as everyone else to learn there were people on this earth so vile as to commit such a horrific attack - or to even think about doing it.
But I didn’t do it. Neither did 99.999999999 percent of the roughly 1.5 billion people in the world who also call themselves Muslims. So why should I or any other Muslim apologize for what happened?
Nickleback is planning on releasing another album. Should I ask white people to apologize for that?
-
Aman Ali (via lousah)
#I wish people would understand that those of us who are either Muslim or non-Muslims from Muslim families (like me) were just as horrified and saddened by 9/11 as everyone else. #I mean, this is my country, too. It’s my home. #So, of course, I felt like people were attacking my home and was very angry about that.
#I don’t agree with everything Aman Ali says in the article. (I think that the Qur’an, like other holy books, has quite a bit of bad stuff in it.) However, the point is that most people ignore that bad stuff.
#And people should definitely not be asking all Muslims to apologize for 9/11; it makes no sense. If you want to have a discussion about the good and bad stuff in the Qur’an, Bible, etc. and the legitimate problem of religious hatred in our world, those are fascinating and important topics, but it’s not right to assume that all people of one religion are guilty by default.
#And when people ask what they think is some strategic question, it’s really transparent that they’re suspicious of you and trying to figure out your motives. #I mean, if you want to know what I believe, just ask me, and we can talk. #And you’ll learn about me and I’ll learn about you. #But don’t act like an investigator trying to figure out if everyone with a foreign sounding name is really a terrorist.
(Source: CNN)
what if church was called jesuscon
#That would require more people to be familiar with what Jesus said, and familiar with the rest of the “good book”, so there could be interesting debates and discussions.
#Because sometimes I feel like many debates on Christianity consist of people quoting approximately 5 to 10 verses out of the entire Bible.
To be a knight, you must stand your vigil in a sept, and be anointed with the seven oils to consecrate your vow. In the north, only a few of the great houses worship the Seven. The rest honor the old gods, and name no knights … but those lords and their sons and sworn swords are no less fierce or loyal or honorable. A man’s worth is not marked by a ser before his name. As I have told you a hundred times before.
-
Maester Luwin, George R. R. Martin, A Game of Thrones, p. 570
# “A man’s worth is not marked by a ser before his name.”
#In which Maester Luwin is right.
#Also, The Seven Kingdoms need a religious freedom amendment.
#I mean, not that I agree with the whole knight business anyway, as many of them seem a bunch of frauds (which is a point the story’s trying to make) … but still. #In addition to all the other stuff they have to fix, I’d just like to add the religious freedom thing to the list.
PSA: Roman Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. I’m not even Christian, and have many disagreements with the religion, but it always bothers me when people are taking about religions, and in their list is “Christians and Roman Catholics”, in which they are often using “Christian” as a synonym for “Protestant”. I mean, seriously, as wrong as the Roman Catholic Church is on lots of stuff … you can’t really honestly say they’re not Christian.
A while ago, I read John Granger’s Harry Potter’s Bookshelf: The Great Books Behind the Hogwarts Adventures. I enjoyed many things about it, but there was some things I did not like.
As I was looking at the book again and contemplating writing a review, I found something I just wanted to comment on here. (Maybe I’ll turn it into a more organized and detailed essay at some point.)
In chapter five, Granger quotes the following passage from a Time article about J. K. Rowling as a Runner-Up for Person of the Year (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/personoftheyear/article/0,28804,1690753_1695388_1695436,00.html).
“[Y]ou can tell how much this all matters to her, if it weren’t already clear from her 4,100-page treatise on tolerance. ‘I’m opposed to fundamentalism in any form,’ she says. ‘And that includes in my own religion.’”
In response to this, Granger writes —- among other things —- the following:
“Like most of us, Ms. Rowling’s religion, qua postmodernism is being ‘opposed to fundamentalism in any form.’ She misuses the word ‘fundamentalism,’ which refer to a set of beliefs held by a specific, historic sect of Protestant Christians, the way most everyone else does, that is, a synonym for ignorant, prejudiced people who are intolerant of any beliefs their than their own. She, of course, overlooks the irony that she is talking about these evil fundamentalist folk the way Death Eaters talk about Muggles.” (John Granger, Harry Potter’s Bookshelf, Ch 5, p. 88)
~~~~~
#NO. Just NO. #JKR criticizing fundameantalism is NOT the same as what Death Eaters say about Muggles.
#There’s a reason why ‘fundamentalism’ has taken on a broader meaning than the original —- because there are people in other religions with similar beliefs (who also treat their holy books as being perfect, for example). #And the reason the word has taken on a negative connotation is because of common negative beliefs among fundamentalist Christians and among fundamentalists of other religions. #I mean, if you think a book is perfect, and that book says horrible things about people of other religions, you can’t really be surprised if the end result is negative. #Also, often, part of the belief is that only members of their own religion (or maybe only members of their religion and a few select others who are given special exceptions) will be able to go to Heaven.
#And this type of religion, including the Christian form, has done (and is continuing to do) a great deal of harm to many people —- including people of other religions, women, and LGBTQIA people.
#So, no, saying you are ‘against fundamentalism’ isn’t ‘talking about these evil fundamentalist folk the way Death Eaters talk about Muggles’.
#Being a Muggle is not harming anyone else. #Too often, people’s fundamentalist beliefs are inspiring them to harm other people.
#This was one of my big complaints about the book. In the chapter that is supposed to be about the message of tolerance in the story, Granger totally does not give it the same fair analysis like he does with other aspects of the series in some of the other chapters. He doesn’t go into detail analyzing other books with similar themes, like he does in some of the earlier chapters of his book.
#He’s dismissive of the message of tolerance and its importance. He makes it seem like part of the reason JKR uses tolerance in her story is because believing in tolerance is considered really important in our “postmodern” society and we get anti-discrimination messages everywhere. This ignores problems of prejudice that still exist, which could also inspire someone to write such a story. It also ignores the fact that part of the reason so many people like the books is because we are discriminated against in the real world and like a story with a message against that. (So, no, it’s not that we get that anti-discrimination message everywhere; it’s that we’re glad to find the books which have that message because prejudice still exists in the real world.)
#And he then uses the rest of the chapter to preach.
A popular passage from Galatians 3:28: ‘there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus,’ is often mistaken for an egalitarian avowal. It signifies quite the opposite. Paul is simply dismissing wordly inequalities as being of no great moment, urging his followers to focus on the higher, ethereal equality we presumably enjoy in God’s eyes. One’s station in life matters not, for God loves all equally as one—-but with a love that leaves earthly hierarchies intact, no matter how unjust they be.
-
Michael Parenti, God and His Demons, Part I, Ch 4, p. 47 (e-book)
#This is what I was thinking when I read Galatians, and while reading Parenti’s book, I was glad to see that he points it out.
There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Illúvatar ; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made.
-
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, Ainulindalë, p. 15
#In which The Silmarillion reminds me of the Bible
About Hermione's Bookshelf
