Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Christian Yoga. The thought processes behind the 'movement' are dubious to the point of ideology; even setting aside the vocal demonization provided by Christian detractors, the practitioners (and the teachers in particular) are engaged in consciously 'purifying' the practice of traditional chants and historical & philosophical context in order to make it more Christian-friendly. This, of course, presupposes that there is something inherently demonic about a meditative excercise developed by South Asian Hindus & Buddhists - particularly its mystical implications of positive action towards connection with anything divine or transcendant without paying homage to, or awaiting revelation from, the Logos in Christ...

And honestly, how much 'malarchy is in that tale of woe and redeemtion-in-Christ that's being spun by movement and business founder Laurette Willis? If I had a nickle for every time I heard someone trot out that story just before explaining how Christ, Allah, or St. Joseph revealed the precise scripture that lends merit to their schemes... Well, I could buy a mighty good glass of scotch with that money, no more 'nor less.


( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
Apr. 28th, 2006 12:42 am (UTC)
It's still better than what the mohammedans would do. Hindu Kush, anyone?

Right now, the people who most adamantly believe that they have a sacred duty to conquer the world are not the christians. I'm sorry, I haven't had any christians threaten me recently with death for my disbelief, but I do know a few mohammedans who most certainly would.

If you want, I could introduce you to them. And then you could stop lumping christianity with Islam and say "Okay, right now, Islam is a much bigger threat." Fanatical christians are pretty much restrained to the bible belt and remote areas, and few of them are advocating armed insurrection against the infidels.

Cut it out with the moral equivalence already.

Apr. 28th, 2006 12:43 am (UTC)
Re: eh.
p.s - i say that with a smile :)
Apr. 28th, 2006 02:50 am (UTC)
Re: eh.
'Consider the issue of Islam from this direction:

Islam, as commonly envisioned by contemporary Islamic scholars, is a deeply modernist ideology. These scholars percieve (and teach) Islam to be the Koran, the hadith, and the sharia - the immanent rationalisation of the transcendant, through which Paradise is achieved. In that central dogma, it is little different from traditional French rationalism, or Marxism, or behaviouralism - in all cases, the key to immanent utopia is found through the proper formula or ritual. I believe that part of your position is that a rationalist subscription to the Koran, the hadith, and the sharia is a Bad Idea; and I would agree with that.

However, you have also (maybe inadvertenly, or just ironically) sided with the Islamic scholars in accepting the modernist stance that the immanent Koran is Islam, in the same way that the Bible is Christianity, the Talmud is Judaism, or the Vedras are Hinduism. On that I disagree, on the basis that the ideal of a thing preceeds its expression.

Now, if one were to be a nominalist, one would have to say that the ideal is expressed out of the material and does not survive it. If that were the case, one would have to observe that the original ideal of any of the aforementioned religions was lost long ago through a process of continual reinvention across time, and natural drift in meaning as a function of an ideal mpt being fully expressable through material discourse.

If one were, on the other hand, a Platonic idealist, one would say that the ideal preceedes the material. In such a case, one would say that there is an ideal that preceeds material attempts at communication of that ideal, and that the ideal itself - in this case - is the divine or transcendant. In that event, one would naturally hold the viewpoint that the ideal of the thing can only be progressively approached, but never fully attained, and that the contention of having captured the ideal of the thing in the ossified form of an immanent object is mistaken.

In either case, one would be opposed to the modernist stance that the perfect form of a thing can be captured in the material world. Instead one would more likely hold the view that the moment one accepts the contention that the thing has been captured and ossified, one has lost sight of the ideal itself.

Thus (to follow the argument) Islam is (or was, and might be again, if one's a nominalist) the ideal of transcendant contact with the divine. The Koran, the hadith, and the sharia - on the other hand - are just the molted skins of the past, inspite of their claims to be otherwise. And shame on the modernist mullahs for believing them! :-)
Apr. 29th, 2006 08:03 pm (UTC)
Re: eh.
The problem with this interpretation, Colin...

... is that only a handful of people agree with it. I choose to follow the interpretation of Islam as it has commonly been interpreted by the largest segment of Muslim society over the ages, and by Mohammed.

I don't buy into your "Islam the ideal of transcendant contact with the divine" because Islam was invented by a megalomaniacal genocidal tyrant for the sole purpose of controlling his followers. The "transcendant contact with the divine" nonsense came after Mohammed, not from Mohammed. He had the philosophical subtlety of a lobotomized downsyndrome victim. His gift wasn't philosophical insight, it was insight into how best to manipulate and control people.

For Mohammed, Islam is whatever the fuck he said it was. I side with the Mullahs and Imams in their interpretation of Islam because that interpretation is the one that best reflects Mohammed, and hence, best reflects the man guilty for unleashing the abomination of Islam on to us.

And right now, thanks to Genocidal Mohammed, we have the assholes in Iran threatening to attack canada with germ warfare, chemical warfare, and nuclear dirty bombs.

I would rather lose that one nice idea by throwing out everything and anything that is remotely tied to Islam. We can find philosophical ideals outside of Islam, and we are better off doing so.

From an arab news site, re: Iran's threat to attack canada. (Like you'll ever hear about it in the canadian press... bunch of politically correct bastards would rather sacrifice our lives than offend muslims)

Iran's "Judgement Day" (http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=4722)

Apr. 30th, 2006 02:38 am (UTC)
Re: eh.
The argument that you've made thus far is a derivative of "the act is the essence" or "the essence is in the act" position that stems from materialist philosophy. While that might seem to be "realistic" in some ways (mainly in a material, empiricist sense), what I'm hoping to point out is that it is essentially a capitulation to the authority of the persons you're purporting to be *against*.

If you're attempting to fight an idea this argument will not work, because it begins by admitting that whatever the authorities dictate a religion to be is the truth - you've surrendered power to The Man by recognizing him as the legitamite source of truth on religion. Thus, when The Man says, "Christianity is the Bible", your argument supports him, and bosters his authority as the representative of God, because you are not pointing to an objective standard of what Christianity is.

That, in the conceptual sense, is the origin of true radical relativism - the argument that there are no objective standards, and that the "truth" of a subjective paradigm lies in the ability of its champions to impose it on others.

So, thus far, what you've essentially done is attack one post-modernist, self-verifying paradigm with another post-modernist paradigm, because the attack hasn't been on the truth on the claims made by The Man, it is on the actions of those he has assumed authority over. But, if you don't set an objective standard for *why* their actions or beliefs are wrong...........
Apr. 28th, 2006 03:03 am (UTC)
Re: eh.
BTW, only |003er3 don't have Livejournal accounts! ;-P
Apr. 29th, 2006 08:38 pm (UTC)
On July 15, MSNBC’s “Connected” program discussed the 7/7 London attacks. One of the guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the Intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas.

"People don’t understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem-showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has became their only certitude."

-- That's the Islam I know. That's real Islam. Not your minority held position of transcendant ideals, a position so sublime that a man as vulgar and base as Mohammed could *never* have dreamt it up. Your islam is imaginary Colin. It is an after-the-fact creation, the proverbial "flowers growing from bullshit" position. I don't care about the flowers, I care about the toxic bullshit that gave birth to them.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

February 2018

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Naoto Kishi