Which religions promote creativity and self-expression?

Post Reply New Topic

Social commentary and satire is the whole premise of South Park, the premise that people *should* see.

Tim

Tim,

exactly. I was shocked when Isaac Hayes left because the writers gave Scientology the same treatment they give every other religion and culture. I still need to find that episode somewhere. I don't have comedy central and have been stuck with reruns.

Season 9 (the season which featured "Trapped in the Closet") and season 10 (which featured "The Return of Chef") are both available on DVD.

Tim

The satire on South Park tends to be libertarian.

AFAIK, those shows are for mature audience only, not suited for children under 18, so probably they are confusing them for kiddy shows? Christians, conservatives or not, may be more worried about family oriented shows, perhaps?

A truly creative person maintains an open mind about everything and examines everything to see what kind of connections can be made and where those connections may lead. Science in general maintains certain beliefs - that the universe is ordered and the human mind is capable of discerning that order and using that understanding to discover new order. One of the most important strategies of science is that any concept that is indicated as false is immediately rejected. Religions all each have their own world view but lack that last capability of science to reject false beliefs and maintain an underlying fear of discovering that a basic assumption may prove false. This is demonstrated in one of the posts in this thread that uses dashes instead of letters when referring to god or the creator or whatever as if words themselves contain a magic which could call down punishment. This is mere blatant superstition. Art and science are merely two different but related ways of exploring the world and neither should be limited by preconceptions. All religions, by their basic nature, impose rigid preconceptions on the adherent and are poison to both art and science.

Sand,

This is not true of all forms of religion.



I don't know of anyone who spells it as G-d or G!d instead of God to avoid punishment. It's a minhag or custom that is very rooted in the Hebrew meaning of the word holy which also suggests separation and distinction. By distinguishing a word that word takes on more meaning and power for the individual. A better example of this is YHWH instead of Yahweh or Jehovah. In that case there are additional reasons for spelling it as such. The first is that up until the Masorites there was no notation for vowels in Hebrew, just consonants. The other is that the actual pronunciation of the word has been lost.

I type G!d because it feels heimish, homey, and I find that the exclamation mark in between the G and d hints at the radical amazement to be found within the world.



That would be more true if you didn't state it categorically, but stated as such it's not true. You can most certainly find forms of every religion (that I am aware of) that go in that direction, but, to echo nominalist's earlier post in this thread, there are really many Judaisms within Judaism, many Christianities within Christianity and so on.

Yes. The problem with linguistic realism is that words, like "religion," are treated as real things rather than as mere labels and conveniences. There is no such thing as "religion." There are only diverse communities which may fall into someone's definition of a category.

The cartoon satire, as they might be called, aren't usually drawn for the purpose of wowing people artistically. They're meant to be drawn simplisticly so that the satire itself and the main messages behind them stand out rather than the art. If you are too drawn to the art, perhaps you might be too busy thinking about how cool the characters or worlds are than to worry about the actual value that these characters have--sure, they're not drawn well, or they're not attractive in any sense of the word physically--but only so that they may point you in the direction of seeing something about the characters or what they do that is not necessarily related to beauty.

There are several video games like that too. Most people think good graphics are an instant success for video games--that is true to some extent, but it is not the only way a video game can succeed--in fact, ignoring everything else could make the video game worse. Katamari, for example, is a game that features very simple graphics, though it has been labelled as one of the most innovative PS2 games around. In fact, despite its blocky graphics, it's still largely successful.

If South Park isn't liberal, then what shows are liberal?

Tim

Obviously, but I'm saying that the crude drawing style bugs my senses too much to watch it very long.

It's possible to make several good points by blowing a trumpet in my ear, too, but that doesn't mean I'll enjoy going into sensory overload.

It's possible for a cartoon to have meaning and be well done at the same time.

Tim,

This?

http://www.primtime.info/freeze.php?sec=3

A lot of people claim it, but there's really no biblical limits on what are acceptable styles of music (rock, classical), artwork, etc. I come from a conservative church, but I daresay we are a very artistic one too. We actually very heavily encourage it.

The pagan and old-style earth religions, in general, are very open and accepting of both sexuality and creativity.

The downside, of course, is that they're all hippies.

I was very confused at a church I went to when I was younger because they condemned Christian rock music as 'Satanic'. The best explanation for this that I was able to get was that certain sounds and rhythms evoked the holy Love of God, while other sounds and rhythms solely attracted the attention of Satan, regardless of the actual content.

The distinction between these two things appeared to be based entirely on the personal preferences of the person doing the differentiating.