Been thinking about what happened in France...

Post Reply New Topic

Well, since you say you have no problem with SATIRE, what is the purpose of this thread in your argument that states that satire is insulting.

Satire is designed to be insulting.

That's the OVERALL purpose of it, to raise an eyebrow, AND GET FOLKS pissed off, and talking about the REAL problem.

And this how I do it, YES SATIRE, when it comes to Christianity.

http://katiemiafrederick.com/2015/01/10/all-seeing-eye-of-kat/

And truly if I did this Kinda thing as a Muslim against the Muslim religion in a Muslim country, I could be potentially killed for it.

And IN FACT, in the not so distant past where I live, I could be killed for doing it, as a Christian fighting back against Christian IGNORANCE AND TRULY Anti-Christ Behavior, per modern Christianity in its former Crusade Glory.

And now all that can happen is I lose Face Book Friends, and FOLLOWERS on BLOGS.. Boo HOO.. I'M NOT CRYING OVER that for sure..

As close to ONE million folks at 993,070 have already viewed what I do on Google PLUS.

There's always another avenue, no matter WHO TRIES TO CENSOR WHO THESE days, at least in the free country of the U.S. and the IT HIGHWAY!..

https://plus.google.com/+KateMia/posts

The religions are not the problem, but, it is the human ego that is the problem. Humans do not want to expect the truth, thus, they turn to the irrational to obtain value for their pathetic existent. It is even true with ideologies as they support blind irrational acceptance. For example, atheism is not about rationality anymore, it is about marketing the atheists identity for profit. Humanity needs the rise of the rationalist, however, this will never happen since humanity will never destroy their ego.

The fundamental ideas behind any of the five are beautiful. What happens when it becomes a social institution for the average mind is another matter entirely.

It could be beautiful to some who like the idea of living the way Abramic religions want you to live, as either a member of the clergy and/or a totally heterosexual married person who never strays from their spouse or questions God, but some people cannot live that way and it only causes them inner pain when they try. So why not let them live the way they know how? If they are divorced and remarried, forgive. If they are gay, forgive. If they cuss, forgive. If they eat pork, forgive. If they create art, believe in science, have Christmas trees and Easter bunnies, forgive. If they are an outspoken woman, forgive.

i enjoy satire immensely. it helps me deal with very real frustration about the status quo. it's much better than violence and has the ability to educate.

Well right, what I mean is that any holy book is a mixture of principles and politics. Most of the ugly stuff in it is the politics; the principles are why I won't quite throw out the baby with the bath water.

Amen.

Ameen again.

Amen, Amen, amen. !

Amen.

You keep not answering the question about your ability to read French. It's not a trivial question. I suspect you can't and are judging the Hebdo cartoons without understanding.
To call those anti-racist, anti-facist images "racist" on the basis of a context free and text free analysis (because you don't understand the French political culture in which those images appear and don't understand the overt message in the French text) is wrong. If you don't know about Le Pen and you don't know what the words say, you are judging from ignorance.

You might be interested in the discussion here on quora

Context is really important.

This is an image with a swastika in it, but it is a buddhist temple box, not a nazi artifact. You can't look at it and see the swastika and conclude that buddhists are nazis or the Japanese have temples to Hitler, etc.

Your interpretation of Charlie Hebdo is equivalent to interpreting Stephen Colbert as the host of a right wing talk show.

Way to rationalise the evil message inherent in the prominent 'holy' books.

Sorry - too terrified of death to be intellectually honest.

Jokes aside this is one of those things people have to research for themselves, it's constructive and hence there's no possible way to debate in defense of it - especially against a worldview where it's given as gratus that its all hokus pokus (if an atheist does take me to task I have to roll over and hope they don't kick me too hard while I'm on the ground). If you'd believe I'm a moral monster for edifying anything about the bible though it'd be your call and I won't tell you what you can or can't think.

Religion is the monster. I see believers as victims mostly. I mean, a lot of them crafted their own crosses, but still...

Haha, are you telling me I need to speak french to understand an image before my eyes? Keep in mind, this is a paper with illustrations, not just straight up wording. You are trying to browbeat me by telling me I couldn't possibly understand unless I am fluent in french but that is entirely untrue unless you are talking about articles without any illustrations. You do not need language to see an image before your face. I can't believe it. I do find this humorous, that you are suggesting I have no clue if I don't speak french it's more irony. That's how I see it. And irony always makes me lol.

To me, it is way more humorous and satirical to suggest I need to understand language to interpret an image that is drawn as an illustration than any of the illustrations I saw when I Googled Charlile Hebdo. It's funny! Now that is the kind of humor I would buy if I saw it in a paper or book!

ALL the "holy books" are written by human beings, not by God, or gods, unless you consider humans to be gods and I always keep that in mind when talking to the overly religious. They have simply been brainwashed by other humans but God speaks to us individually and we can all connect to our divine selves through our personal connection, not through books written by human beings, which are inherently imperfect.

Yes.

You really have no idea what you are talking about because you don't know the context. What you "see with your own eyes" is misleading because you don't know the context.

You see a black woman portrayed with the body of a monkey and conclude the illustrator is a racist. You don't understand that he is quoting a statement by a right wing politician and the illustration is calling the Front National a racist party for supporting such ideas. The context matters.

Where I come at it from, just to try and give a few examples because I want to be fair and not abdicate all responsibility for the comment I made:

Story of the prodigal son - the descent of spiritual man into matter through various incarnations and his journey back

Story of the garden of eden - differentiation of consciousness from a unified atavistic state (comparative to now) and differentiating out the awareness of a certain qualifying factor of the existance of moral good and evil (prior to that everything - particularly to the animal observation - would simply be nature 'doing' what it does)

Laws of the Israelites - an arbitrary exercise, discarded later, in refining awareness of the details (10 commandments seem to be - as Christopher Hitchens pointed out - something that any tribe couldn't have survived long at all if they couldn't understand that killing, stealing, and adultry were a societal problem - just that there were 613, not 10, in Leviticus - it was dubbed the 'way of death' simply because it was an excersize marked by obsessing on what the wrong ways to to things was rather than focusing on the right way - of which Jesus of Nazareth was able to compact that into one sentence - love your neighbor as your self, love God as you've been loved - takes a lot less to point upward than try to codify all problems downward)

Us as the 'body of Christ' - archetypal man in the Platonic sense, the idea that there's a collective group soul of humanity, sayings like Christ as the 'true vine', saying things like love your neighbor and your God as you've been loved, Christ saying at judgment the sheep and the goats will learn that he was omnipresent through everyone incarnate - it's the idea that the collective soul of humanity, higher self of higher selves, came down to touch base. James and Peter would have had of course nothing to do with this, they were Messianic Jews through and through and couldn't stand Paul because he was blaspheming Judaism, they would have hated John even more because he took Judaism through the idea of Jesus as eternal Logos to the extremes of Platonic and Pythagorean thought (utterly pagan but the church had to take it in because they had impecible character and you couldn't bash them without untying morality altogether).

I finally came to understand the huge veneration of Mary in Catholicism - ie. the thing that always just was but you were never allowed to ask about. Mary Queen of Heaven, Isis, Sophia of Solomon, all of these are names of the female presence of God, the Egyptians referred to these same principles as Isis and Osiris, Mother and Father, Kabbalists would refer to them as Chokmah and Binah. To that last tangent - the very idea that you can take love (13), unity (13), and add them to 26 (YHVH), or get serpent (358) and messiah (358) matching along numberic lines (ie. same force that caused the fall is the same force that redeems - not a concrete devil but proper utilization of understanding the 'tree of good and evil') and stack more numeric symbols on this really shows that just like in Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, even Islam - there was a religion for the people (which is usually what causes the typical 'religion burning the world down' idiocy) and there was the version of the truth for the 'initiated' - in this case pantheistic monism.

I really take this much more from the Theosophic viewpoint that these were mystic and mystery texts, purely symbolic rather than literal, that these were a combination of Egyptian and Babylonian mystery rights, and that Ezra put them together in Babylon (what we might call the Old Testament) as a very jingoistic and in many cases oppressive system which loaded all kinds of very negative guesswork as to why the Israelites were conquered by the Babylonians and from there it's all backward retrofitting - moralizing that the Israelites were Polytheists with El (later transformed into YHVH) as sort of the Zeus figure that the others such as Baal and Astarte revolved around and their polytheism was the cause of the fall, believing that chasing after psychism or prophetic ability (at least for non-Levites) was the cause of the fall from YHVH's favor, and ultimately he reverse-engineered the history of Israel bashing Egypt, bashing Babylon, and telling of the mass Israelite genocide of Canaanites when arks such as the ark of the covenant were an Egyptian artifact, the creation story and cosmology of 7's (luminaries/planets of ancient astrology) were Babylonian, Hebrew is a Canaanite text, and the Israelites themselves descended along those lines. Moses, if he did live till 40 in Egypt for some reason as the Emperor's adopted son would have been an advanced Egyptian mystery initiate, there's no history of any Canaanite genocide by the Israelites and that story is highly dubious, it's just that..... when you start peeling the whole thing apart and looking at the nuts and bolts you start finding connections to Buddhism, Hinduism, Neoplatonism, it's all one amagamated mass which looks dogmatically different on the outside but its really all the same on close enough inspection.


That's why I can't debate any of this - almost no one here is used to thinking along those lines and you absolutely can't debate a person on a whole field of observation or study that the best they can do is shut it down. To the credit of most anti-theists they would see all mysticisms and esotericisms as tortured apologies for backward ideas of bronze-aged people and no matter how well polished that esoteric line of thought is they would walk it backward all the way to saying "The earth is not 6,000 years old, animals didn't spontaneously 'happen', all of that is just primitive misconception for lack of science, and anything you'd say is a hopeless and misguided building upon a lie - therefore nothing you have to say merits any analysis whatsoever when what we know you stemmed it all off of is patently untrue". In that line of logic people can't inwardly project, they can say and believe they did but its not possible. Someone can have an NDE, say that they saw someone who no one knew was dead yet, they find that to be true, but this was only chance because again - we know that the world isn't 6,000 years old, therefore all religious or spiritual thought or pretense of obvservation is built on backrupted ideas of primitives therefore there is no such thing as a valid possibility that there is consciousness beyond the body or beyond physical life because, again, the only thing out there that would suggest such a thing are books that on a literal read are proven untrue (or modern 'new age' which is just a wishful corruption of those books by people just as terrified of death).

It's undefeatable logic which is why I'd say that I simply lay down and hope I don't get kicked to hard by those who know the truth that there's no such thing as life hereafter, a human soul, any kind of subtle bodies, and by a few one liner questions could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm a liar and snake-oil salesman. Trying to debate Christianity or atheistic evolution in Iran these days would go about as well.


Sorry for the super-long post, its just that to stick my neck out and say something sarcastic, get a fair response back, and then not even say what it is I'm considering as the truth of religion makes it very difficult for me to qualify what 'truths' I'd be suggesting in the bible and you can't know what you're disagreeing with me on unless I share that much. You don't need to agree with anything I said, just wanted to get that out.