When the final installment of the Star Wars series, Revenge of the Sith, brings us the pivotal moment of the entire saga—the change of the “good” Anakin Skywalker into the “bad” Darth Vader—it aims to draw parallels between our personal and political decisions. In a 2002 Time magazine interview, George Lucas explained the personal level through a type of pop-Buddhism:… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (42)Page 1 of 1 pagesWhen asked at a dinner party what was the most unopposable force in the universe - Einstein alledgedly quipped: “Compound Interest.”
The Constitution should be on the flagpole, but bars of blood are there next to the unified stars.
The American and Darwinian ‘right’ to freely acquire equity has no upper and lower boundaries. This may be true in nature, indeed entire religions exist to explain reality is true - but is it wise to let these opposite margins be the cause of suffering merely to prove what we already know about freedom?
How much (information, capital, technology) can a single mind control? Congress abdicated the power of war to the president claiming he knew more than they did. How is that possible?
Good and Evil are also natural, be aware of your periphery as much as your core and you will know harmony.
Posted by SHubert on May 21, 2005 at 10:01 AM Republican Vision for America and the World: “Property rights are more important than human rights.”
Is it any wonder that everyone in the world despises republicans?
Posted by Lefty on May 22, 2005 at 11:26 AM Zizek isn’t arguing for an unabated simple return to ‘christianity’. His take on the Christian legacy and radical thought needs to be explained. Anyone up to this task?
Sook
Posted by Sook Yin on May 22, 2005 at 3:11 PM “Since Star Wars’ ideological framework is the New Age pagan universe, it is quite appropriate that its central figure of Evil should echo Christ.”
This statement indicates to me that the author of the article knows next to nothing about either ideological view--New Age or pagan--which are two separate things, and neither of which generally considers Christ “evil”.
Posted by Barbara on May 22, 2005 at 5:10 PM Sook, I think Zizek is trying to say that Christians are evil and greedy (which history bears out as true) and that Buddists are kind, introspective, peaceful and . . . happy. TaDa!
How’s that?
Posted by Lefty on May 22, 2005 at 7:46 PM I think that anyone who has not read “The Fragile Absolute,” “On Belief” and “The Puppet and the Dwarf” need to do so to understand what Zizek is saying here. He is surely not saying that Buddhists are kind, introspective and peaceful and that Christians are evil, or the opposite. Rather, he is looking at how the Christological mythos, which predates Christ, that of the rupture of dualism into dialectics, will create a more proper understanding of how republics become empires, or Jedis become Siths
Posted by JLC on May 22, 2005 at 8:00 PM Slavoj-
I am so impressed that I don’t even know where to begin. Just the fact that I read the whole thing is absolutely remarkable.
You should do a bullet point present of this article. I don’t think I have ever seen something move from one totally disconnected thing to the next with such artistic presentation. Buddhism, Capitalism, and Star Wars (and so much more).
This is, without a doubt, the most whimsically fun, totally beautiful incoherency that I’ve read in long time.
Middle of Road
ps- can’t wait to read your 15 replies “margaret” and whatever else you call yourself.
Posted by Middle of Road on May 22, 2005 at 8:49 PM Lefty, I dont think Zizek is saying that christians are evil and bhuddists are good at all. What he has written is a fine piece of cultural criticism, which criticises the role of ‘post modern’ forms of ‘spirituality’, in particular the free and and one might say, rather promiscuous borrowings from eastern thought and religions, that is so much a mark of contemporary thought and practice. He has tried to demonstrate how what has been borrowed and presented as a suitable way to deal with late capitalism, or rather, hyper fiancial capitalism, is instead a post modern form of the ‘opiate of the people’ of the kind and performing the functions, that Marx observed were performed by christianity in the 19 th century. It is indeed a fine piece, but I am not a theologian, so I am unable to judge exactly what he is referring to by ‘christianity separating forms.’ Anyway, I liked it a lot. I hate crappy versions of other cultures and religions being imported and torn from their cultural contexts, to be repackaged as solace for rich, dumb people who wouldn’t know and care even less, that their appropriation of these forms is just another form of consumerism-. I am not enamoured however of Zizeks view (if I have understood it correctly), that the Vatican is an appropriate antidote to contemporary cultural decadence and general stupidity. I am an unreconstructed enthusiast for the use of reason and sympathy as a way of understanding and dealing with the dilemmas of human existence. And I am proud of it.
Posted by Jane Doe on May 23, 2005 at 12:36 AM So Jane, it sounds like you are blaming The Beatles for bastardizing Eastern religions? And all this time I thought The Beatles were the good guys. “Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna. . . .”
Posted by Lefty on May 23, 2005 at 5:01 AM My two cents:
If we can think of Zizek’s Greco-Roman paganism as a subjective worldview - that is, based on the relative whims of different energies of the cosmos, hence without conceptions of good and evil - opposed by Christianity’s Objectivity (though that ‘objectivity’ lies in the hands of Great Men and Great Books) - an insight into the dual nature of things, instructing one to lean towards the light, as it were - then we have a nice dialetic model with which to read the closing of his article.
Today’s subjectivity was in its embryonic stages during the scientific revolutions of the 16th century. The old objectivity lost its dominance as individuals looked for truth by themselves. It is fitting that some of the great thinkers of the Late Enlightenment embraced Eastern thought as it trickled West, just as it is fitting that, as Zizek already expounded upon, this messy hybrid form has become the dominant worldview today - a thinly veiled utilitarianism.
Therefore, it seems that Zizek’s position is once again to separate, make a choice, to look towards a new Objectivity lest we dispassionately watch ‘virtual capitalism’ destroy our world. What could that possibly be, one may consider, and how would we recognize it without a modern-day Christ figure (apologies to Lucas)?
I’ll leave this with some musings from the philosopher Paul Carus, who believed that science was the ultimate method for discerning truth:
“...[T]ruth is not a mere subjective conception; it must be seen that turth is a statement of facts, and, accordingly, that it contains an objective element, and that this objective element is the essential part of established truth...the most important laws of nature in the ethical domain are those which regulate all the various and sometimes very delicate relations of man to man...in a mutually helpful responsion. Good...is that which produces higher life, and bad is that which hinders, or perverts, or destroys it. Evolution is not mere adaptation to surroundings, but a more and more perfect incarnation of truth.”
Posted by Rocco on May 23, 2005 at 8:37 AM Sook, I think Zizek is trying to say that Christians are evil and greedy (which history bears out as true) and that Buddists are kind, introspective, peaceful and . . . happy. TaDa!
How’s that?
--------Well, for starters, it’s dead wrong.
True “Christians” are people who are Christ-like. Jesus loved everyone, judged no one (except RELIGIOUS people), healed everyone He touched, and showed nothing but love and compassion - even while dying the most cruel and painful death imaginable. A TRUE Christian would do what Jesus did. Anything else is false and shouldn’t even be considered Christianity.
And if the Buddhists are so “kind and peaceful...” why are they systematically beating, torturing and killing Christians throughout China, Myanmar and other countries where Buddhism is the national religion? That is a FACT btw. I personally know people who have been tortured and beaten for days simply because they announced faith in Jesus Christ. And it’s not isolated incidents - it’s policy.
Posted by Robbo on May 23, 2005 at 4:07 PM True Christians? Really? More people have been beaten, tortured and murdered in the name of Christ than for any other cause in human history. Those are true Christians. That is a fact, BTW. Christ is a 2,000 year old dead Jew, nothing more. That is a fact, BTW.
“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned . . . .” (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782 Oxford Dictionary of Quotations)
“. . . And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. . . . But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823)
Posted by Lefty on May 23, 2005 at 8:27 PM “True “Christians” are people who are Christ-like”
In my 57 years I have never met a “christ-like” individual who was a Christian. Most of them have been humanists, agnostics, pagans, pantheists etc etc.
I feel that I am a fairly spiritual sort of person, but the assertions of organised religion and, even more scarily, their acceptance by thousands of individuals has done nothing to disabuse me of my theory that religious faith is a symptom of mental illness!
Posted by Micky on May 24, 2005 at 8:15 AM Christ is far more than “a 2,000 year old dead Jew.” Read something other than Dan Brown’s non-sense and discover the truth. The FACT of Christ’s resurrection is undisputed by any real means of objective investigation. If you are truly interested, I could point you in the right direction. Many people have set out (as atheists and agnostics) to disprove the resurrection of Christ, and have instead converted to Christianity as true believers when confronted with the facts and enormous historical and empirical evidences. The writings of C.S. Lewis or Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” would be good places to start, but there are many others.
Lefty, I don’t dispute the historical facts of what ignorant people did “in the name of Christ.” People have free will and they do what they want to with it. It doesn’t mean they are truly who they claim to represent.
Christ taught two very basic messages, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart… and love your neighbor as yourself.” His whole ministry centered around those two principles. To be Christ-like (i.e. a TRUE Christian) is to exhibit those qualities. Christ was the very picture and personification of love. No other “prophet” can claim that. “By their fruits you shall know them.” Jesus demonstrated His love by His actions. Which, (as stated above) was unconditional love (even of His enemies), healing, mercy, grace, salvation, deliverance, freedom… Show me one “great prophet” who could even come close to demonstrating the depth of love and peace Jesus did. Even Buddha’s solution was to desire or love nothing, but rather to find the infinite peace of denying one’s self of everything. I’ll take love and all its benefits over achieving the divine nothingness offered by Buddha any day.
Posted by Robbo on May 24, 2005 at 10:34 AM I am truly sorry that neither Lefty nor Micky have ever met a “true Christian.” That is indeed a sad commentary on Christianity today. Although, I would question where you are going to meet such people, because in the 36 years of my life, I have never met a Christian who was a murderer, humanist, agnostic, pagan or pantheist. In fact, everyone I know are all against such things.
No. Indeed, the Christians I know and work with (I am a missionary) have forsaken all worldly pleasures and committed their life to serving God in filthy, dirty, oppressive, disease ridden third-world countries where they are able to bring help, hope and healing to the people who live there. These Christians are people that could be making good money, living comfortable lives in air-conditioned American offices, but who have chosen instead to live in rat, lice and disease infested, extremely hot (or cold) and brutal living conditions - often in fear of persecution from Buddhist monks, Communist governments and/or Muslim extremists. Why do they do it? Certainly not for fame, fortune, wealth or attention. They do it out of love for their God and out of love for their neighbor. They do it because, that’s what a TRUE Christian (Christ-like person) does.
In the past two years, I have been to Cuba, Albania, Spain and Morocco. I will be going to Greece, Moldova, Russia, Central Asia and Israel before the end of this year. Every where I go, I encounter people living the TRUE Christian life. I encounter people feeding the hungry, taking care of orphans and widows, bringing desperately needed supplies and medical assistance, and the message of forgiveness, peace, love and salvation to the hurting and oppressed.
A great deal of the Tsunami relief came from Christians. We had teams there almost immediately and we have teams there now (while the Hindus and Muslims who live there are actively trying to stop us from doing what we’re doing – helping, loving, healing the needy). The Hindus believe it was just bad Karma - that somehow the people deserve to suffer. The Muslims and the Buddhists? They are more against the Christians helping than they are in favor of helping themselves.
Micky, Lefty and anyone else out there who feels the same way, I pray that you come to know the Savior who loves you, and the people – the TRUE followers of Christ – who represent Jesus. It is not about religion. Jesus Himself condemned religion. Religion of all sorts are creations of man. God wants to have a relationship with you. Religion is bondage. Relationship with God is freedom, peace, and love. And it’s free for the asking.
Posted by Robbo on May 24, 2005 at 10:43 AM “And if the Buddhists are so “kind and peaceful...” why are they systematically beating, torturing and killing Christians throughout China, Myanmar and other countries where Buddhism is the national religion?”
Buddhism isn’t the official religion of China; the Chinese have been trying for decades to kill off the Buddhists.
All of this, of course, is beside the point as far as Zizek is concerned and I wonder if anyone actually read the piece all the way through--the last sentence (for the love of God) is: “It is against such a temptation that we should remain faithful to the Christian legacy of separation, of elevating some principles above others.”
Zizek is a playful fellow and it is unfortunate that too many readers here have tried to take all of the play out of his analysis and create something that is recognizable in the ideologically polarized conversation of the USA. --and typically so. By focusing on an inane debate about religion, sucking down the opiates that make bearable the material condition he is really highlighting, it is easier to ignore the larger point he is making about what is really causing our alienation.
Keep looking for nirvana or waiting for that kingdom in heaven; it will give you something to do during the nuclear winter that will arrive when the US tries to defend its crumbling economic hegemony against the dynamics of global capitalism that it helped set in motion. I imagine self righeousness makes radiation sickess the postmodern equivalent of snake handling and drinking poison: so long as you know you’re on the side of “Good,” the slow painful death will seem a blessing from God (or Buddha or George W. Bush or whom ever you worship in your household.)
Posted by cultstud on May 24, 2005 at 6:56 PM tune into Francisco Varela for an Autopoietic Social cognitive Taoist comment on what Zizek is gettin’ at>>
V. Virtual Self
Francisco Varela: In fact, it’s as I was trying to say a moment ago – why, you were asking, would that work? You cannot be a virtual self unless you have this constant creation of letting go. That is the nature of virtuality. What this is saying to me is if you really want to get closer to understanding what it means to be a subject, you’d better understand that this is the constant generator of what that subject is all about – since it is not a stable, solid entity, since it is not within the head, since it is not just in language. It’s in none of those dimensions, it’s somehow in a figure of multiple levels of emergence, but it is always fragile. Virtual is a more “engineering” way of speaking about fragility, which is more philosophical or ethical. But it has exactly the same connotation for me.
COS: So when you say virtual you mean it doesn’t have the center self, it doesn’t have substance, and yet it is real.
Francisco Varela: Right. It is real in the sense that it can effectively tackle the world with which it’s coping. But that coping is constantly updating itself or renewing itself, submitted to all kinds of changes, both endogenous and exogenous. So virtuality is not just this absence of a central self; it also has that kind of fragile flotation of coming and going, which is where the letting go is. Letting go is an interesting gesture, because in fact it’s almost like invoking the virtuality of the self, just putting it spontaneously on the table. Usually it’s life that makes you let go. You know what I mean, in the extreme cases of sickness or danger, or the disappointment of love, it just forces you into that gesture of letting it be, letting it go. It’s interesting that human beings do have the capacity to mobilize that capacity all the time. That, to me, points toward a more whole or good life. What is it to have a good life? A life of wisdom is to be constantly engaged in that letting go, and letting the virtuality or the fragility of the self manifest itself. When you are with somebody who really has that capacity to a full-blown level, it affects you. When we meet those kinds of people, it’s clear, because the whole process is not individual, it’s not private, and you enter into that kind of resonance. You relax – there’s something very enjoyable about that. There’s a joy in that kind of life; that’s the good life,…
http://www.dialogonleadership.org/varela-2000.html
Posted by moshido praxis on May 25, 2005 at 9:41 AM So Robbo, are you seriously equating murderers with people who are “humanist, atheist, pagan or pantheist”??
Now, as you might guess, I don’t distinguish between religious beliefs - they all seem equally lunatic to me, but if you had to give one of them the prize for producing the greatest number of murderers, it seems to me that Christianity would win hands down. Christianity has a long and inglorious history of killing for Christ. Blair and Bush are merely the latest in a long line of blessed murderers.
You say that your work, and that of other Christian missionaries includes: “feeding the hungry, taking care of orphans and widows, bringing desperately needed supplies and medical assistance, and the message of forgiveness, peace, love and salvation to the hurting and oppressed”
Why is it not enough to feed, care and assist without also pushing your particular form of spiritual oppression down their already suffering throats?Micky
Posted by Micky on May 25, 2005 at 10:17 AM Clerico-fascism is a real existing danger! One of the symptoms of the onset of fascism in a society is the extent to which people disengage from their normal cognitive sense and become alienated and paranoid, mistrusting and suspecting everyone around them out of irrational fear and anxiety. Next people become increasingly desensitized to violence and begin to adopt dehumanizing and bigoted attitudes toward societies outcasts and minorities. Evidence of this phenomenon is the loss of moral outrage by all but a few at the images from guantanamo and abu graib. Fascism increasingly subjects and accustoms civil society to violence in order to increase its acceptibility and thus have it as an available political option that is lacking in normal, healthy democratic and humane societies. People are tending toward the irrational as authority plays more on their fears and insecurity. 9/11 will eventually prove to have a very debilitating effect on the national psyche. I think it is obvious that we as a society are lurching towards a national pychosis or madness much like German society in the 1930s. This is no pop-sociological cliche but a real danger as people struggle to separate reality from fantasy in a world where the highly concentrated media no longer exercise professional journalistic standards but is hyper-sensationalist and fantasy oriented in order to disengage people from reality and send them into a never-never land of nonsense. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which are meant to be ongoing as an amorphous “war on terror” and the capture and deportation of hundreds of people to concentration camps far from their lands with no due process and in secret is illegal, brutal, and unprecedented since the Nazi German practice of occupation and internment. It seems as if Guantanamo is not a means to an end but an end in itself; a brutal metaphor for the political future that the far-right is openly trying to create! It is absolutely nauseating that Bush can make a sanctimonious speech about small clusters of unspecialized embryonic stem cells being sacred life after committing war crimes in Iraq where countless thousands have lost their lives in an illegal and pointless imperialist war. Over the last decade and a half close to 2 million Iraqis have lost their lives due to sanctions and war waged by US imperialism when regime change was at hand in March of 1991 in Iraq and the US pulled Saddam back from the brink in order to control the pace and path of political change in that country. This was done in the interest of controlling Iraq’s vast oil reserves and making the Iraqi economy a test case of corporate globalization on the basis of the CPA’s 100 Bremer Orders which will destroy the Iraqi middle-class and subject Iraq’s workers to dire poverty. The acceptance of war and imperialism as a way of life will soon give way to an unprecedented brutalization of society where persecution of minorities is concievable and the loss of rights previously taken for granted becomes accepted by a fearful and hysterical public. Bush is not engaged in a war on terror. Osama bin laden is not his enemy. He is a friend that went bad. He is a kindred spirit. A fellow clerico-fascist that bit the hand that fed him unlike the shiite leadership now being installed in Iraq by US imperialism. As corporate globalization skewes the national wealth more towards the rich and impoverishes society ever deeper, more religious hysteria and political manipulation will be used by Bush and his cronies in order to make people accept social conditions that in times past were unacceptible. The next major step for the US regime is to point the finger of blame and begin the scapegoating that fascist regimes all require in order to deflect popular anger at declining social conditions. Expect to see bashing against the usual suspects!
Posted by steve on May 25, 2005 at 6:51 PM > i found zizek’s musings interesting and thought
> provoking but ultimately rather jumbled and poorly
> thought out. there seems much credible in what he
> says
> of star wars although i haven’t seen the latest.
> when
> he moves to claiming western buddhism as the perfect
>
> ideological counterpart to global capitalism however
> he seems to be giving a “pop buddhist” reading
> similar
> to that he observes in Lukas. it seems if one were
> looking for a cultural opiate, buddhism or new
> ageism
> would fall pretty far down the list. i can certainly
> see how it serves as a convenient ideological foil
> for
> his argument but there are far more potent opiates
> in
> effect than meditation or new age thinking. tv,
> entertainment industry, video games, pornography,
> pharmaceuticals, cell phones, christianity, cars,
> oil… i would rank all these much higher if i were
> to
> go looking for opiates which distract from a thoughtful
> engagement with the implications of capitalistic
> hegemony. new ageism is incredibly broad and diverse
> and rather poorly represented by buddhism which i
> wouldn’t even put in the same category really. come
> on, buddhism is thousands of years old and
> incredibly
> complex even in the west. zizek barely scratches the
> surface, snatching up this or that bit to cobble
> together highly dubious and rather silly
> generalizations. his focus on a few doctrinal
> statements is hardly representative of this vast
> body
> of knowledge and the scope of its engagement with
> the
> world. i think it represents once again what happens
> when the focus is on statements taken out of a
> broader
> cultural/historical context and not backed up with
> experience. rinpoche was articulating an
> understanding
> specific to his cultural experience, attempting to
> communicate what may very well be his experience in
> terms of the illusory nature of reality. this is
> where
> i think the postmodern “all is surface” and there’s
> “nothing outside the text” (if i might generalize a
> bit) falls flat. i’m sure his training was every bit
> as rigorous as zizek’s and perhaps more
> comprehensive
> as it addresses a profound reflective engagement
> with the nature of
> mind itself via years of meditation which just might
> reveal a thing or two about “reality”. i agree the
> implications of westerners latching onto such
> statements as the means to liberation and freedom
> from
> suffering the hegemonic tendencies of global
> capitalism is a caution worth articulating, but the
> only example of a shallow reading of such statements
> i
> see here is his. meditation is a powerful tool one
> aspect of which might be an ability to render the
> suffering of millions illusory but this seems a
> stretch to me, more a pop ideological target than a
> tangible reality. what i actually see transpiring
> around me is buddhists, yogi’s, taoists, new agers
> of
> all sorts seem to be living lives of low impact,
> going without consumer goods and engaging in
> compassionate activism far more than their christian
> or atheist counterparts. this is a profound aspect
> of
> western asiatic practices he conveniently skips
> right
> over, having perhaps no personal experience to draw
> upon? people are profoundly changed by their
> encounters with these practices and far from
> resigning
> from the world, their marginalized position within
> it
> becomes painfully obvious and often intolerable. its
> like the red pill in that movie the matrix, many
> wish
> they’d stuck with the blue so they could continue to
> skate across the surface and pretend they understand
> the mystery because they read a lot.
>
>
Posted by yo yo on May 26, 2005 at 12:24 AM Lefty: I hate to post this in the forum, but I don’t know how to contact you privately (I beg members’ pardon). You wrote, “More people have been beaten, tortured and murdered in the name of Christ than for any other cause in human history.” I have been trying to track down the origin of this quote for some time. In Sam Peckinpah’s film, Straw Dogs, Dustin Hoffman’s character says something very similar—"No kingdom has been given to so much bloodshed as that of Christ"—and the vicar with whom Hoffman is jousting says “Montesquieu,” however I am at a loss to find in which book of Montesquieu wrote this. Can you help? Please reply to sanmasonic@gmail.com. Thanks.
Posted by zorromask on May 26, 2005 at 5:36 AM Robbo writes of the missionary effort “in filthy, dirty, oppressive, disease ridden third-world countries” as the only hope for the world, yet notice the empirical terms that Robbo uses to describe the places where missionaries work, and you will begin to see the sort of condescending mindset these people use. Missionaries have always been the front line of colonization--soldiers, guns, and police are needed only for the dissidents who resist conversion that establishes the new social order. I just spent a year in India in a small town where the mayor, who lived in a mansion on the lakeside--choicest real estate in town--is rumored to have received a few dollars for each conversion among his constituents, and where any Indian who wants to work for the private school, which dominates the town economy and which is a front for the missionaries who use it as their base, must first convert to Christianity. Moreover, among the Americans and Europeans at this school, those who were most judgmental in their attitudes and insensitive to the humanity of the Indians were the Christian missionaries. Yes, one can perceive India as “filthy, dirty,” etc., but one can also see anyplace outdoors--the park where you go to have a cookout on Sundays after church--in the same way, and to call it “third-world” simply means that it is on the fringes of the hegemony. Learn well from how Robbo writes because his choices of words says much. Before I visited India I thought of Christians as misguided but benign sorts; now I perceive them as the cutting edge of a great blood-thirsty, money-grubbing hegemony--right alongside the corporations and the CIA.
Posted by zorromask on May 26, 2005 at 5:57 AM The problem is with the reading of Revenge of the Sith. Far more sinister than a moment of change is the uncertain fall and decline, one that is inevitable, unavoidable, but that also can’t be designated. We don’t know when evil arrives. It already has by the time we notice. So, I think Lucas gets it right.
Posted by Jodi on May 26, 2005 at 7:21 AM Buddism’s call to renounce worldliness is itself a call for separation, akin to Christianity’s. All religions espouse some standard of behavior at variance with the norm. Mr. Zizek’s premise is thus unfounded.
All religions also see themselves as exceptionally pure, good or strong - Mr. Zizek’s Christianity is no exception.
Posted by Brian Cady on May 26, 2005 at 10:56 AM I love to argue with fanatical “Christians”, like Robbo (remove a B and add a T) but I have to admit, it is strictly for my own amusement. Making rational arguments with those folks is like hollering down a well. I once worked with a fellow who lived in a Christian commune. Every day I would slay his arguments, totally stump him. It’s easy to do if you know the Bible because it is incredibly contradictory. For instance, the two birth stories (Matthew and Luke) are so different they don’t seem to be talking about the same guy. My friend would go home at night, palaver with his housemates and come back the next day with their collected arguments. Often they had to fall back on a passage that goes something like, “Beware the man who speaks with reason for his is the tongue of the devil.” I changed no minds.
The devil has insidious ways of disguising evil as virtue, they will say, and I agree, especially the way he has influenced “Christians” to see blind belief as a virtue. If your parents and your community say it is so, then it is so, no matter what contrary evidence is presented. We must see these people, including GWB and the neocons in that light. They first believe and then they coat their beliefs with some flimsy facts which they don’t try to verify because they are only window dressing. In the political sphere, the neocons could invade a hundred countries which could all turn out as badly as Iraq, but they will never alter their belief that America can accomplish its goals through force. They will carry their beliefs, undiminished, to the grave.
This kind of non-critical acceptance of a belief system is especially a feature of the three monotheistic religions. They are currently holding the world hostage in the Middle East where God’s Elect are battling the Chosen People who are supported by the Only True Way. This mindset has been getting us into wars for millennia, but I believe the evolution of our understanding of who we are is actually diminishing its ability to do mischief. One day blind belief (but not spiritual seeking!) will cease to be.
Posted by James of DC on May 26, 2005 at 11:17 AM So Robbo, are you seriously equating murderers with people who are “humanist, atheist, pagan or pantheist”??
----------------
If you read what I wrote it is pretty obvious that I was addressing the comments you made as well as those made by Lefty. Stating that TRUE Christians are none of those things that both of you wrote about. Please try to keep up.
----------------
Now, as you might guess, I don’t distinguish between religious beliefs - they all seem equally lunatic to me, but if you had to give one of them the prize for producing the greatest number of murderers, it seems to me that Christianity would win hands down. Christianity has a long and inglorious history of killing for Christ. Blair and Bush are merely the latest in a long line of blessed murderers.
---------------
Read up on Muslim history before you declare the deplorable acts of people calling themselves Christians victors of inglorious killing. In fact, read up on the origin and reasons for the Crusades while you are at it. Thomas F. Madden’s “A Concise History of the Crusades” would be a good place to start:
“The event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Christian emperor in Constantinople, faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it. More than he wanted, in fact. Pope Urban II called the First Crusade in 1095. Despite modern laments about medieval colonialism, the crusade’s real purpose was to turn back Muslim conquests and restore formerly Christian lands to Christian control. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances. The crusades were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy. As it happened, the First Crusade was amazingly, almost miraculously, successful. The crusaders marched hundreds of miles deep into enemy territory and recaptured not only the lost cities of Nicaea and Antioch, but in 1099 Jerusalem itself.”
Posted by Robbo on May 26, 2005 at 11:24 AM You say that your work, and that of other Christian missionaries includes: “feeding the hungry, taking care of orphans and widows, bringing desperately needed supplies and medical assistance, and the message of forgiveness, peace, love and salvation to the hurting and oppressed”
Why is it not enough to feed, care and assist without also pushing your particular form of spiritual oppression down their already suffering throats?
-------------
Funny. When the people of Cuba heard the message of Christ, they wholeheartedly embraced it. An entire generation of people were taught that Castro was their God (they literally said that to us). They risk their very lives to try and learn more about this God who loves them and wants to have a personal relationship with them. Communism stripped them of hope. Christ gave it back. And we have seen the Lord do mighty miracles there. People who were enslaved under Communism, making less than $20/mo. are now being blessed over and above anything they have ever known before – in spite of government oppression.Funny. When the people of Myanmar hear about God’s love and the message of salvation through Christ, even the Buddhist monks have been converting, because in that message they found hope, where previously they had none. They have been told if they get caught with Bibles they will be shot on sight. They hand copy as many as they can, and read them as if they were starving for more, regardless of the governmental and religious threats that loom over their heads daily.
Funny. When the people of Albania (the first self avowed atheistic country in the world - circa 1967) are able to hear about Christ, they risk life and limb to hear more. I interviewed one 26 year old girl who literally climbed two snow covered (hip deep) mountains, and crossed freezing rivers, risking frost bite and illness just to make the four hour hike to a road that would take her into the town where a Bible study was taking place. She would do this many times. And she was just one example of many.
Funny. When the people of India saw what we were doing, they wanted to know what it was that set us apart from the Hindus, Muslims and Buddhist of their country and the surrounding nations - who were (for the most part) trying to hinder our philanthropic efforts there.
No. You are very, very, very wrong my friend. Love is not oppression. Healing is not oppression. And no one is “pushing” anything down anyone’s throats. They ask why we do what we do, and we tell them. When they see Christ working through people who live thousands of miles of way, who are risking much just to help them, they want to know more. And so we share the salvation that we have experienced with them.
It is about love and compassion put into action - not oppression.
I truly hope someday you will be able to see that.
Posted by Robbo on May 26, 2005 at 11:27 AM Robbo writes of the missionary effort “in filthy, dirty, oppressive, disease ridden third-world countries” as the only hope for the world, yet notice the empirical terms that Robbo uses to describe the places where missionaries work, and you will begin to see the sort of condescending mindset these people use.
----------------
By American standards, the places I referred to could be described no other way - merely an observation of the facts, not a condescending editorial. But then your choice of the word “empirical” was accurate (Webster: based on observation).It is unfortunate once again that people are using the name of Christ for selfish gain, manipulation and all the other things you observed in India. Once again, that is not what Christ would do, therefore those people should not be considered TRUE Christians (Christ-like individuals doing what Christ did).
Posted by Robbo on May 26, 2005 at 11:40 AM James of DC:
I love to argue with fanatical “Christians”, like Robbo (remove a B and add a T) but I have to admit, it is strictly for my own amusement. Making rational arguments with those folks is like hollering down a well. I once worked with a fellow who lived in a Christian commune. Every day I would slay his arguments, totally stump him. It’s easy to do if you know the Bible because it is incredibly contradictory. For instance, the two birth stories (Matthew and Luke) are so different they don’t seem to be talking about the same guy.
-------------
A true scholar would know that the Matthew lineage is that of Joseph and the Luke lineage is that of Mary. That is quite a juvenile argument really, one that a simple understanding of ancient literature devices (as well as the original text) would easily clear up. Certainly not in the time and space allotment of this forum though. Besides, you are probably too busy hollering down wells to want to know the truth anyway. It would seem your mind is made up, no matter what proof was laid before you.You accuse Christians, “GWB and the neocons” of blind belief and ignoring facts. I wonder if you are not the pot calling the kettle black? Just curious. Because if you were to be confronted with truth backed by empirical evidence, would you be willing to do away with preconceived notions and openly accept a new paradigm? If not, then you are just as guilty of the very thing you accuse others of.
Posted by Robbo on May 26, 2005 at 12:04 PM Robbo, I don’t claim to be a scholar, but I have read a few books on the subject and I am acquainted with the work of the Jesus Seminar. Where did you come up with that Joseph and Mary lineage stuff? If you have discovered empirical evidence the J.S. people don’t have I would love to know about it and so would they.
As I used to argue with my commune friend when he started deconstructing the Bible in his favor: Hold on there. You guys say every word of the Bible is 100% the revealed word of God until I point out inconsistencies. Then you start in on the “X passage should have been translated as Y” stuff. I guess God approved of the mistake?
And, Robbo, I am just about to dismiss you as a nut. Are you really defending the crusades? The sack of Constantinople? The rape and pillaging wherever the Crusaders conquered, culminating in the slaughter of just about everyone in Jerusalem?
The Christians were not the worst of the ancient world, but they were no better, either. Then as now, they were people who claimed to have some noble beliefs, but who forsook those beliefs when convenient. Unfortunately, then as now, the noble words of Jesus did not empower them to transcend the common mores of their times.
Posted by James of DC on May 26, 2005 at 2:22 PM One more thing. I was thinking, as much as I hated the re-election of St. George, I am beginning to think it will be a good thing in the long run. Before him there was no no discussion of religious philosophy in public forums like this one. But because of Bush injecting religion into everything, the more reticent among us have joined the argument. That can only be a good thing.
Posted by James of DC on May 26, 2005 at 2:30 PM Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t!
Please understand I am not defending the Crusades, nor am I denying the noble gestures the victorious Saladin made to his conquered foes as depicted in the movie “Kingdom of Heaven.” I actually found the film quite good, though I think it’s central message was missed by most. The “Kingdom of Heaven” is within us - as was repeated throughout the film. It is not a land to be conquered or a people to be destroyed.
There were good Christians who “got it” in those days and bad people calling themselves Christians who did not. Those evil men were the ones who were guilty of carnage (as was also depicted in the film). However, if you viewed a recent BBC/A&E;documentary on the Crusades you were informed that the “peaceful Muslim” world actually learned to be “warlike” from the “barbaric Christian crusaders.” (Apparently no one ran a “background check” on the Islamic founder, Muhammad. He was hardly a pacifist.)
Let me add to this point that although the Crusades ceased around 1291, it was not the end of the Islamic jihad. Islamic states continued to grow and expand through military conquest. In particular, the Ottoman Turks created an empire that by its peak in the 16th century included all of North Africa, the Near East, Arabia, Asia Minor, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, Croatia, and Serbia. They came within striking distance of Vienna, which would have made all of Germany vulnerable.
Let us remember in reading history that we must judge people in the light of the times in which they lived - not in ours. We are viewing their actions from a perspective that has the advantage of centuries of learning and experience. It was certainly a cruel and brutal time. By today’s standards, both Christians and Muslims were extremely vicious. But let’s face it, war sucks no matter when it’s waged. And people (on all sides) do horrible things in times of war. In that respect, nothing has changed in the history of mankind.
My point is not to defend the Crusades, but to point out the error in judging TRUE Christians by the acts of those calling themselves Christians. Indeed, Jesus Himself said that on the Day of Judgment, there will be those who will cry out to Him saying, “But Lord we did ... in Your name” claiming to be “Christians” and He we say to them, “Depart from me ye cursed, for I never knew you.” TRUE Christians will be known by God and by man by their fruits not their words.
And if you really want to equate Christians with bloodshed, do some research on the PERSECUTION of Christians. Talk about bloodshed. I dare say that there has probably never been any group in the history of the world as persecuted as Christians (I know I’ll take a beating for that one – but do the research). For historical persecutions read “Fox’s Book of Martyrs” or “The Trail of Blood” just to get your feet wet. Then, for contemporary news, go to www.persecution.com.
Posted by Robbo on May 27, 2005 at 9:14 AM James of DC… Far greater men than you or I have already had these debates and many books have been written on these subjects, so I am not going to waste my energy on the Jesus Seminar issue… however if you truly want to understand the issue you brought up about Christ’s lineage, here is a good place to start:
First, you must have at least some knowledge of ancient literature devices and an understanding of the culture of that literature in the time it was written. For example, it is rare (if indeed ever) that you would find women mentioned in reference to a lineage. You always find “the son of” or this man begat that man, etc.
Second, you say you know the Bible? Then, you know it is an extremely complex collection of 66 books written by more than 40 different authors (from different countries), over a period of about 1400 years. Those facts alone are amazing by any literary standard - that with all of the inherent differences in those variables alone, the Bible still has one central, coherent thread (that being the looking toward, to or at the Messiah and God’s redemptive plan of salvation for mankind). In addition, the books contained therein were written in three different languages: Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Those books were then translated into English (multiple times) and other languages over the centuries. So, in order to be sure you are getting the truly inspired Word of God (as contained in the original texts), you have to STUDY the Bible - not just read it, skim it, hear about it, or glean information from other sources regarding it. That is not an “excuse” this is called someone not being “ignorant or blindly believing something.”
So are you ready to play?
Posted by Robbo on May 27, 2005 at 10:11 AM On the lineage of Christ:
Matthew 1:1-16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was a descendant of King David. As Joseph’s adopted Son, Jesus became his legal heir - so far as His inheritance was concerned. Notice carefully the wording of v.16: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (NASB). This stands in contrast to the format followed in the preceding verses of the succession of Joseph’s ancestors: “Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc.” Joseph is not said to have “begotten” Jesus; rather he is referred to as the husband of Mary, of whom [feminine genitive] Jesus was born.” But his lineage shows Jesus in the lineage of King David (through Solomon) and is also the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham – all of which are prophecies from the Old Testament.
Luke 3:23-38, on the other hand, seems to record the lineage of Mary, carried all the way back to Adam. This is implied by the wording of v.23: “Jesus… being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph.” This “as was supposed” indicates that Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph, even though this was commonly assumed by the public. It further calls attention to the mother, Mary, who must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Here we must break and look at the original Greek text and compare to the English. Unlike Matthew, in Luke where ever you see the words “was the son” you will note that that phase was added by the translators for better readability in the English – those words are not in the actual Greek text. But in keeping with the literary device of the time, the lineage follows the fathers (as opposed to recording the women). Note that most English translations have “was the son” or just the word “son” in italics. That indicates the word was ADDED for clarity. A word for word translation would read, “…the son of Joseph, which was of Heli…” Mary’s lineage therefore starts with her father as related to Joseph (the male in the lineage). Joseph’s father-in-law was Heli. The Bible does not contradict itself, the reader simply must have an understanding of how to read ancient literature, context, culture, original language, etc. Luke simply shows yet another proof (from a different angle) that Christ was the Messiah – the fulfillment of prophecy. Mary’s line goes back to Nathan – also a son of David – but extends all the way back to Adam, fulfilling the oldest of prophesies given to Eve back in Genesis which states that her seed (offspring: Jesus) will crush the head of the serpent (Satan).
In Matthew, we see Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham. In Luke, we see the fulfillment of God’s promise to Eve – both fulfilled in the same man we know as Jesus of Nazareth.
Posted by Robbo on May 27, 2005 at 10:12 AM “In the past two years, I have been to Cuba, Albania, Spain and Morocco. I will be going to Greece, Moldova, Russia, Central Asia and Israel before the end of this year.”
WOW. WTF? Do you have any idea how much money you are wasting to travel to all these places? Have you heard of phones or books? Write letters.
What is that...at least $20-40k for travel alone?
You could build schools, farms, or factories that will provide for these people far into the future.
Your a tourist slash missionary. The deluded Eyes of Western capital drowning in projected self pity for the poor. FILTHY. Enjoy your global poverty tour!
Posted by lslelel on Jun 7, 2005 at 6:45 AM Wow Islelel… you really have it all figured out don’t you?
Actually, you have no clue what you are talking about. I’m a missionary/film maker – not a tourist (trust me, I could think of much nicer, more pleasant places to visit if I were). My job is to go where we have established missionary fields and document the work there as best as I can so that I can make videos that show our supporters and potential supporters (as well as people like you who really have no idea what they’re talking about) what we are doing in these countries.
How much money I am wasting?? That’s laughable at best. On the contrary. While my travel expenses may add up to $20-$40K a year, my work helps to RAISE money - to the tune of close to a half million dollars last year alone. A pretty good trade wouldn’t you say? Yes, and our stewardship of this money is not in question. We are registered with the ECFA and have one of the best records on file.
By creating awareness we are indeed able to raise the funds necessary to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, house the homeless, build schools, teach agriculture, clear land for farming, build hospitals, churches and orphanages, administer medical aide and much, much more.
Perhaps if you got off the phone, stopped watching TV and reading books about what others are doing you might have a different attitude? Enjoy your sofa! Or better yet, why don’t you come with us and see for yourself? Consider it a challenge.
Posted by Robbo on Jun 8, 2005 at 10:38 PM yeah but seriously what would have been so wrong with natalie portman getting naked in the movie huh?
Posted by reb on Jun 23, 2005 at 11:04 PM Robbo, I agree with you that James seem to be missing Zizek’s point. While Christianity may have its flaws, Zizek sees it as ultimately founded a kind of traumatic love, an acceptance of the other as the self. The universalizing tendency that, when taken to its extreme, results in violence to the other is directly in conflict with such a principle of acceptance, so I think Zizek would argue that the Crusaders were missing the point (the same way “fundamentalists” today often do).
Posted by Alex on Jun 24, 2005 at 1:36 PM Dear Message Board,
Thanks for completely missing the point. I truly enjoy pseudo-intellectual rambles that concern themselves far more with sounding smart (i.e. trying to put down the comments and thoughts of others) than actually taking seriously and exploring a particular position.Now, I do have a question: Did Dan Brown write the bible or a work of fiction? That was kind of a trick question; however, insofar as this “Dan Brown” character’s novel is, in fact, well, a NOVEL, of course it is, in a way, “non-sense” insofar as if you are planning on taking at as an event that actually happened and subsequently wish to incorporate it into your body of knowledge, you may have a problem. However, since things that appar on the New York Times bestsellers list should never be taking for Truth-With-A-Capital-T-The-Be-All-And-End-All-of-All-Questions-in-the-universe Truth, I think its not only superfluous but insulting to say, “Read something other than Dan Brown’s non-sense and discover the truth”.
Love,
Socrates.
Posted by Socrates on Jun 29, 2005 at 7:13 PM Someone below was puzzled about Zizek’s gestures towards Christianity. HOpefully this well help. The one thing to really keep in mind is that Zizek is an atheist just like 2 of his philosophic heroes: Marx and Freud. So his dealings with religions are philosophical in nature, primarily ethical, but also political. He is certainly not “spreading the word” about Christianity; he’s deconstructing, to put it simply. If he’s spreading the word about anything—and he is something of an evangelist—it’s about the critique of ideology, familiar to readers of marx, inflicted by freud and lacan. We should not forget, in this regard, that Marx and Freud were not ignorant of religious traditions nor of their philosophical teachings and implications. One of Marx’s famous revolutionary aphorisms in response to the rise of Louis Napoleon --- “let the dead bury the dead” --- is taken from Christ.
Zizek, then, primarily sees christ as a revolutionary and christianity as qualitatively new development in world history. His readings of Christ’s sacrifice are interesting, if a little short on scholarship (from what I’ve heard). For example, he likes to point out, in The Fragile Absolute and Did SOmebody Say Totalitarianism?, that in vulgar economic (or Marxist) terms Christ’s sacrifice appears to be paying a debt that humanity owed the awful, sublime God of Judaism on account of adam and eve, etc. Of course, this vulgar reading is fine by most rabid, contemporary, mid-western evangelicals’ standards --- as the bumper sticker reads “jesus died for our opportunity”; but, it has been a persistent problem for hermeneutics historically: Zizek cites Augustine among others on the matter. The result of this “transaction” --- Christ’s death as repayment for the Fall --- is the beginning of the community of believers as such. For Zizek this community of believers is synonymous with the notion of “the holy spirit.” In short, we somehow managed to extract a “surplus” from this transaction with God: namely, the early church.
Zizek is also a fan of pascal’s rather cynical version of establishing faith in the first place, whereby the skeptic must simply take part in some rituals rather mechanically, eventually you’ll be a believer. this is discussed in The Sublime Object of Ideology, probably his best book.
One comment I heard him make in a lecture a couple of years ago is also pretty useful in understanding his stance. In response to an elemental question about his interest in Christianity and Christ, he said, “I’m fascinated by Christians because they identify with their God at the moment when he has forsaken himself.”
Posted by matt lau on Jul 7, 2005 at 4:19 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Slavoj Zizek
- The Ambiguous Legacy of ‘68
Forty years ago, what was revolutionized -- the world or capitalism? - China’s Valley of Tears
Is authoritarian capitalism the future? - The Disturbing Sounds of the Turkish March
The true problem with "militaristic humanism" resides not in "militaristic," but in "humanism," in the way a military intervention is presented as humanitarian aid - The Dreams of Others
By tying the drama to a mere personal whim, The Lives of Others fails to capture the true horror of the GDR - In You More Than Yourself
The revolutionary potential of the Internet is far from self-evident - Lets be Realists, Let?s Demand the Impossible!
Why pragmatic politics are doomed to fail in the Middle East
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
