I’ve often felt like people are discriminated against for even having doubts as to the existence of God. Everything is based around belief - in the US anyway. I’ve come to terms with my own beliefs, but it’s nice to see groups like this, groups that let people know it’s OK not to believe or to have doubts.
I’ve recently (re-?) realized that there’s something quite calming about a game like Diablo or Crackdown (don’t laugh) - where you can be swarmed over by enemies (chaos) and then slowly whittle them all away (order).
I felt like playing a game the other night but I wasn’t sure what to play. I popped Burnout into the 360 but it frustrated me pretty quickly. There’s just something irritating about a one-on-one race where you force the other driver to crash five or six times and yet he’s still right on your tail. Then you make one bad decision (i.e. deciding to drive into a pillar) and you’ve lost the race. To be fair, Candice and I had a few marathon sessions with the game some many months back and progressed quite far into the game. Trying to play a more difficult race when I haven’t played in so long was kind of unrealistic, but it still bothered me the way I lost. I hate such blatant catch-up AI.
Anyway. For some reason, I decided to play Crackdown. I think, on a conscious level, it was because I still wanted to play a driving game - I just didn’t want to have to race someone. I’m not sure why I didn’t put GTA in. Maybe I knew I wanted something more mindless?
I pop the game in. I start up a new career. I run out to the street. There are car engines racing loudly all around me. Cars blaring music. People yelling in the streets. Cops standing off against gang members. My mini-map was littered with red dots (highlighting the position of hostiles). Bullets were flying through the air at me, and near me. It was all entirely too much overload. It made me mad (haha - and OCD).
So I beat the snot out of every criminal (and, by accident, the occasional non-criminal - oops), effectively stopping the blaring music, the fighting, removing the red dots and so forth. I created order out of chaos. It felt good. I felt good. I had forgotten what a fun game Crackdown is. I hadn’t played it since I beat it - which was right around the time my Xbox died (October-ish). Now I’m back into it and loving it.
***
We (me, Lisa, and Candice) were out the other day and talking about days off and overtime pay or something, as a result of the upcoming (errr, already here) holiday weekend.
The topic of “Good Friday” came up and Candice asked why it’s called “Good”. “Yeah, it was a sacrifice, but wasn’t it also the day he was tortured, put up on the cross, and killed? So why do they call it *good*?” Good question. In fact, some people even call it “Great Friday” or talk about “celebrating the passion (torture)” of Christ; I guess those are the same Mel Gibson-ites who dug his god-awful snuff film.
Anyway, the reason I post, in part, is because I discovered that “good” and “great” are not universal terms. Some people call it “the Day of Christ’s Suffering”. Others call it “Sad Friday” or “Long Friday”. Hm!
I know I’m not a believer and I know I’ve posted about this topic before, going back and forth on the merits of fixation on such a horrific moment (i.e. the image of Christ’s suffering in every church is both a representation of “the greatest sacrifice” and a disgusting torture/barbaric execution scene). But while I basically agree that nothing could be more powerful than showing what happened to Jesus (errr, what Jesus allowed to happen) as a reminder to every person why they need to be good and walk the straight-and-narrow path of righteousness, I sometimes wonder if people (Mel Gibson-ites) aren’t missing the point just a little.
Bah, it’s probably just me. :p Haha.
***
So much Obama love. I think I like it. It feels unifying. But we’ll see.
Regardless, I keep up with Obama and Clinton (figuring that one of them is getting elected and determining what life will be like for the next four years at least), their platforms and so forth, but I admit I’m not completely certain what life will be like if one or the other wins. Anyone else out there have any thoughts on why they want one or the other (or McCain, or someone else entirely)? Any thoughts on the Obama love?
I’ve been off-line a bit and for that I apologize! I have a few posts in the works (I just need to get the pics off of Candice’s camera - and no, it’s nothing dirty. Don’t get all excited). They’re coming! Maybe tomorrow. But for now, there’s this note of things to come and a copy-and-pasted message board post - apologies in advance, because it’s a rant regarding a (religion-based) pet peeve of mine (which I probably have mentioned on this site before). So until next time, here’s the post:
Originally Posted by zoonyFirst of all, I’m not defending everything the church does or has done, but a couple things for you to consider.
1. The works contained within the Vatican were created to glorify God. Which is ironically enough, what gives them their value. Also, consider Jesus’s actual words from the Gospels when your exact point is made in his presence.
I promise none of this post is marked directly at you. Right at the front of your post you admit that there is good and bad with the church, and that your post was simply intended as an offering of ideas to consider. I can agree with that (that there is good and bad) about the church. And I’m totally cool with considering different ideas in contrast to currently-held beliefs.
But I disagree with some of your defenses. And it makes me want to rant. But that’s more about my issues with the church (and even then this rant is more about specific practices (hoarding wealth) regarding a specific faith (Roman Catholicism)) and not you. Or the faith (that’s another story). OK? Haha.
That said…
This (shows of wealth) is something that’s always bothered me about the church. In fact, when I visited Vatican City some years ago I remember feeling the ol’ rage build as the others around me ooh’d and ahh’d at the displays of wealth therein. I remember thinking that this is how far the church has fallen, but obviously that is not the case; somehow, as your reference points out, this practice of allowing wealth was even supported to some extent by Jesus thousands of years ago.
And to be honest I should have known that. (I’m no longer religious and I’d consider myself agnostic at best, but I was raised Catholic, attended 12 years of catholic school, and have most definitely read the Bible cover-to-cover.) But I guess the way I reconciled religion, when I had faith, was to separate the failings I saw in the human side of church from the beauty I saw in the spiritual stories of Jesus’ adventures. So yeah, I was wrong. :p According to your quote, even Jesus, it would appear, didn’t mind a little bling. :p
“Oh yeah, wash up my feet with the good stuff. And hey, Judas, don’t be a hater.”
Quote:
2. What do you propose that the Church does? Have an auction at the Vatican, sell everything, give it to the poor?Yeah. That actually sounds like a pretty good start! Pretty good, indeed.
Quote:
Then what? For all its past transgressions, the Catholic Church has and continues to be one of the largest and most impactful charitable organizations in the world. Go to any 3rd world country today, come back, and look me in the eye and tell me this isn’t so.No, I won’t disagree with you. They are, from what I understand, a very charitable foundation - even if that charity is somewhat self-serving (i.e. missionary work). (And I don’t mean that to sound like a butt because I do think the church does overwhelmingly good work, so far as religions go.) I’m saying the church should eliminate its signs of excess, its shows of wealth. It’s not necessary and it seems to be in contradiction with the teachings of the faith.
Look, if all the followers of the church properly tithe their 10 per cent then the church can and should use that money to support itself, humbly, and its charities, generously. You give to the church what you can spare, and the church uses that money toward good purpose. If it needs more, then maybe it should explain that to the supporters. Heaven knows (literally :p) people - many people - can afford it. And those who can’t? Well, then they get in line for help from the church. Right?
Quote:
Would you also ask that every scolarship fund that is set up to provide generation after generation of children an education be closed out, and that money given to education? Well that would be great in the short run, but in the long run it would be a disaster.No. I’m not saying that the church needs to wastefully and foolishly give away all its money toward no good end. I’m not saying it should eliminate its own ability to be helpful.
If a guy works and happens to make $5,000,000 a year because that’s our world and that’s what he can do and that’s how we value things, I wouldn’t tell him to stop working because he makes too much. I’d tell him to give a *ton* of that money back to help others. Give it to the government. Give it to the church. Set up his own foundations and use those foundations to help. Whatever it is, do it.
But then again I’m something of a socialist and I’d be more than happy to earn $5,000,000 per year and only receive $15,000 if that was the kind of world we lived in - one where we supported one another. Apparently socialists are more into the idea of charity than many religious types - even if it seems like the religious types should be much more socialistic in nature.
It isn’t the point, to me, that people can’t have little niceties or frivolous little luxuries. I’m all for it. But let’s get everyone up out of poverty before we start worrying about giving up a year’s salary to buy some perfume to wash Jesus’ feet one time. That just sounds obnoxious to me.
Let me go back a second to close out this rant. You said at the start that “The works contained within the Vatican were created to glorify God. Which is ironically enough, what gives them their value.”
OK, I’m pretty sure I know what you’re saying. You’re saying that some famous painter is caught up in the spirit of Jesus. He decides to create a painting. Or maybe some rich guy or some guy with pull is able to contract a famous artist (or beg him, whatever) to make some brilliant painting. The painting is donated. Hey, nice! Some guy spent some time to make a little something for the church. Neat!
But the problem to me is that it doesn’t end there. Pretty soon we have marble columns being donated. And golden statues. And ivory fountains. And whatever the hell else the church is sitting on.
Did you see There Will Be Blood? Remember the church in that movie? If you don’t, or if you didn’t see it, I’ll describe it: it was not much more than a cardboard box in appearance, but sized to hold the people of the community. I think there was even some argument during the movie as to whether the church should even have a window. Period. End of description.
And that’s the way it should be. Isn’t it? Donate some labor to the church. Donate some wood. And then spend a few days building a *humble* (it doesn’t have to be miserable, but it doesn’t need gilded frescoes and stained-glass windows and on and on) place of worship. If one day the price of wood rises beyond the scope of our imaginations, then yeah! Tear the churches down, sell the wood, and build new, once-again-humble places of worship. And use that excess money to do more for those in need.
