I looked up apophatic. For apophatic prayer it said ” “Apophatic” prayer has no content. It means emptying the mind of words and ideas…” Seems to me by believing in a sky fairy, religious people have already emptied their minds.
Negative theology is, politically, a good step (I mean for the unbelievers). I doubt if anyone got burned at the stake because they criticised a god who can’t be defined. I could be wrong. If anyone has any examples–lets have a look at them.
I looked up apophatic theology. Seems it restricts itself to saying what they consider god is not. So instead of saying “god is infinite”, they say “god is not finite”.
Silence doesn’t seem to be required or encouraged in apophatic theology.
This is over-simplified, I’m sure – maybe someone can correct me?
One thing I’ve noticed is that when someone claims to know what the unknowable, ineffable god is thinking that their god’s opinions and prejudices mirror those of his mouthpiece. Do you think this is a coincidence?
Lyrics from Monty Python.
Doesn’t it all come down to this abject fear?
O Lord, please don’t burn us,
Don’t grill or toast your flock,
Don’t put us on a barbecue,
Or simmer us in stock,
Don’t braise or bake or boil us,
Or stir-fry us in a wok.
Oh please don’t lightly poach us,
Or baste us with hot fat,
Don’t fricassee or roast us,
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don’t stick your followers, Lord,
In a Rotissomat.
When I looked it up, “apophatic” seemed to be a term that was defined by not explaining what it meant. “Ineffable”, though, makes sense to me. Modern religions seem to prefer a deity that isn’t like a comic book superhero, an ordinary guy with extraordinary powers but who is always having trouble with his girlfriend, but rather something truly on another level – a level that we can’t reach, so the less said about it, the better. Yet it’s hard to sell that package, we can’t pretend to understand it well enough to give you any assurances about it or reasons to buy our religious products, so there’s the mystic bypass: we can tell you that the deity does drop by once in a while and treat you to some divine communication, the nature of which we’re unable to express, because, you know.
Donn. You’ve just described the church of England. The CofE was the sort of religion we could all live with (a typical English politcal fudge, in other words, like Constitutional monarchy or regional parliaments–things that would unravel if you pursued them logically, so for gawds sake don’t do that).
We thought we’d got rid of all the nutters. “Bye bye nutters!” we said as we waved them goodbye at Plymouth,”Go and be America! Have fun now, or rather–don’t”
Then the nutters came back.
There seem to be an endless supply.
HH, unfortunately, not all of the nutters are returnees or newcomers. Some nutters are born into non-nutter families. The cause of their nuttiness is unclear (spontaneous generation? genetic mutation? something else?), and there may be multiple causes, even for a given case. Like the poor, it seems that nutters will always be with us.
Seriously, given human nature, it’s impressive that there are people who aren’t nutters. Apparently, the human brain is are wired so that the emotional side is more powerful than the rational side. (See http://sourcesofinsight.com/the-elephant-and-the-rider/ .) It seems to me that education is one of the forces that determines whether someone is a nutter or not, but culture and/or a desire to fit into a particular group may be an even bigger force. (Which brings us back to the question of why someone from a non-nutter family would desire to fit into a group of nutters. I could go on and on… )
2 cents worth. I couldnt agree more. I used to believe that religion was all top-down nuttiness. Roughly, Richard Dawkins’ view that this would all go away if we stopped being so silly.
I have had reason to revise this rosy view. For instance, 20000 women a year in the UK convert to Islam.
No-one is making them do it. They don’t live in a caliphate. They aren’t being kidnapped by Isis. They aren’t even being converted by the ineffable beauty of the Q’ran. At least–none of those I have spoken to (and boy have I spoken to some) have been (that comes later–if it comes at all).
No: They have looked at all of it–the belief in a vengeful patriarch who orders death and multilation, demands that they (the women) behave like sex objects in a world full of sexual incontinents (or “men” as they prefer to be called), the rejection of science and liberal values and they’ve gone: “Yep: I’ll have a big order of that please. With fries. Preferably fried kafirs”.
Fascinating
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
February 8, 2007
I looked up apophatic. For apophatic prayer it said ” “Apophatic” prayer has no content. It means emptying the mind of words and ideas…” Seems to me by believing in a sky fairy, religious people have already emptied their minds.
Is this another religious gimmick to make the dogshit thick mullahs seem less stupid? You can’t polish a turd…
Negative theology is, politically, a good step (I mean for the unbelievers). I doubt if anyone got burned at the stake because they criticised a god who can’t be defined. I could be wrong. If anyone has any examples–lets have a look at them.
Strangely, those who argue that their god is unknowable seem to have no problem knowing what their god is not.
Good one!
I tried to read an official Roman Catholic position on the Trinity. I got as far as “ineffable” and quit.
Defining your imaginary supreme being always seems to devolve to a Superman vs Batman kind of argument.
I looked up apophatic theology. Seems it restricts itself to saying what they consider god is not. So instead of saying “god is infinite”, they say “god is not finite”.
Silence doesn’t seem to be required or encouraged in apophatic theology.
This is over-simplified, I’m sure – maybe someone can correct me?
One thing I’ve noticed is that when someone claims to know what the unknowable, ineffable god is thinking that their god’s opinions and prejudices mirror those of his mouthpiece. Do you think this is a coincidence?
Lyrics from Monty Python.
Doesn’t it all come down to this abject fear?
O Lord, please don’t burn us,
Don’t grill or toast your flock,
Don’t put us on a barbecue,
Or simmer us in stock,
Don’t braise or bake or boil us,
Or stir-fry us in a wok.
Oh please don’t lightly poach us,
Or baste us with hot fat,
Don’t fricassee or roast us,
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don’t stick your followers, Lord,
In a Rotissomat.
We don’t want no effing ineffable gods round ‘ere!
Interesting twist on “Do as I say, not as I do.”
.
Trying to criticize-proof theology is is as hopeless as trying to pick up a turd by the clean end!
When I looked it up, “apophatic” seemed to be a term that was defined by not explaining what it meant. “Ineffable”, though, makes sense to me. Modern religions seem to prefer a deity that isn’t like a comic book superhero, an ordinary guy with extraordinary powers but who is always having trouble with his girlfriend, but rather something truly on another level – a level that we can’t reach, so the less said about it, the better. Yet it’s hard to sell that package, we can’t pretend to understand it well enough to give you any assurances about it or reasons to buy our religious products, so there’s the mystic bypass: we can tell you that the deity does drop by once in a while and treat you to some divine communication, the nature of which we’re unable to express, because, you know.
Donn. You’ve just described the church of England. The CofE was the sort of religion we could all live with (a typical English politcal fudge, in other words, like Constitutional monarchy or regional parliaments–things that would unravel if you pursued them logically, so for gawds sake don’t do that).
We thought we’d got rid of all the nutters. “Bye bye nutters!” we said as we waved them goodbye at Plymouth,”Go and be America! Have fun now, or rather–don’t”
Then the nutters came back.
There seem to be an endless supply.
HH, unfortunately, not all of the nutters are returnees or newcomers. Some nutters are born into non-nutter families. The cause of their nuttiness is unclear (spontaneous generation? genetic mutation? something else?), and there may be multiple causes, even for a given case. Like the poor, it seems that nutters will always be with us.
Seriously, given human nature, it’s impressive that there are people who aren’t nutters. Apparently, the human brain is are wired so that the emotional side is more powerful than the rational side. (See http://sourcesofinsight.com/the-elephant-and-the-rider/ .) It seems to me that education is one of the forces that determines whether someone is a nutter or not, but culture and/or a desire to fit into a particular group may be an even bigger force. (Which brings us back to the question of why someone from a non-nutter family would desire to fit into a group of nutters. I could go on and on… )
2 cents worth. I couldnt agree more. I used to believe that religion was all top-down nuttiness. Roughly, Richard Dawkins’ view that this would all go away if we stopped being so silly.
I have had reason to revise this rosy view. For instance, 20000 women a year in the UK convert to Islam.
No-one is making them do it. They don’t live in a caliphate. They aren’t being kidnapped by Isis. They aren’t even being converted by the ineffable beauty of the Q’ran. At least–none of those I have spoken to (and boy have I spoken to some) have been (that comes later–if it comes at all).
No: They have looked at all of it–the belief in a vengeful patriarch who orders death and multilation, demands that they (the women) behave like sex objects in a world full of sexual incontinents (or “men” as they prefer to be called), the rejection of science and liberal values and they’ve gone: “Yep: I’ll have a big order of that please. With fries. Preferably fried kafirs”.
Fascinating
Deimos – LOL