IANFC
So.. this one time, there was this band who just started playing on Foss hill, and a throng of hot young jockstuds called PSafe on them and filed a noise complaint. On Foss hill. Just think about how incredibly cool you would have to be to get a noise complaint on Foss hill.
What: I Am No Feeble Christ, Wesleyan's own masqued musical marauders of mysteriosity
Where: the WestCo Cafe
When: Friday at 4:20
Auralwes has this sweet post, complete with interview, if you need more information.
(Which you don't. Go.)
25 comments:
Alternatively, how incredibly annoying do you have to be to provoke people to call psafe on you on foss hill.
And Piss Christ? Really? I guess it has its merit but I can't help but think that there would be different reactions if it was a picture of some different religious symbol submerged in urine... or if the band was I Am No Feeble [Insert other Religious Leader].
-pretty far from being a hot young jockstud.
What if it were the band IAMFC submerged in piss? Now THAT would be clever.
i meant an N not an M.
As a Christian, I am offended and saddened by the depiction of my Lord and Savior submerged in urine. As a Christian and as a person who enjoys good music, I am offended by IANFC on two counts. However, I do support freedom of expression, and I am against violence when violence can be avoided, so I am not going to blow up anyone or anything because I am offended.
But what if someone posted a picture of Muhammad soaked in urine? I don't think it ought to be done because it's distasteful, but it has the potential to cause more of an uproar than a similar depiction of Jesus. ...Which is ironic since Muhammad was a LIAR and is DEAD and Jesus is LORD and LIVES.
Yeah how dare those other religions consider themselves the true ones when of course, yours is obviously the true one! I don't understand how they keep making that mistake...you should make sure to tell them.
are we sure that's urine? maybe its just taken with a shitty camera. they didnt have good photographic technology back then (Romans preferred sculptures), so we can't expect the photos to be set to the true color or texture or what have you.
Also it looks more like beer with a light shining on it than urine. Yeah, JC is yellow, but the background is black and dark red. I don't know what you've been drinking, but black and red are not good colors for urine (morally and health-wise). Even if it's a sea of urine, there'd be no cause for the red. He could probably turn it into wine anyways.
So if this is an attempted picture of the man shepherd submerged in urine (which it obviously isn't), then this band is stupid, cause they probably couldn't do shit when submerged in urine, except maybe to pee their probably exceedingly tight pants. More like I Am a Feeble Man With Tight Pants So I Cant Even Pee Myself Because My Fallopian Tube Collapsed Under The Pressure Of My Wicked Style, Though I Would Pee Myself Were I Submerged In A Sea Of Urine (IAAFMWTPSICEPMBMFTCUTPOMWSTIWPMWISIASOU).
I hope their music is good. Anarchy is kinda lame. Music is nice though.
umm that picture is CALLED PISS CHRIST and it is a well-known piece of art by Andres Serrano of a crucifix SUBMERGED IN THE ARTIST'S URINE.
But to cut down on the antagonism between us birthed by your over-zealous provocations made in the intoxication of your own ignorance, I would just like to say that I love you.
And, for all its controversy, the piece was made by a CATHOLIC artist who was expressing the omnipresence of his FALSE GOD
The point I was making was not one of contempt of other religions like Anon 12:04. That never was and never has been my intention, I'm not sold on the "one true religion" bit myself. Don't put words into my mouth.I was merely trying to suggest that there is a marked difference in the way that Christianity receives different treatment than do other religions. And maybe that just goes with the territory of being the majority religion in an area, you just come under more scrutiny.
Also, despite being in the same post, my disdain for IANFC really has nothing to do with religion or their name at all, I just found their "performances" last semester to be noise pollution and the fake British accents were the cherry on top of the sundae of annoying, but I am not and never have claimed to be a connoisseur of music.
I just don't like their tight pants (assuming they have some).
THEY ARE A BUNCH OF FUCKING VDS SYMPATHIZERS TOO. ESTRELLA IS RIGHT, FUCK THIS BAND
I wholeheartedly support peeing on any and all religious symbols. 12:04, The fact that your cult responds slightly less psychotically to mockery than other cults do is not a redeeming quality.
Christians: remember that day when your parents told you the truth about Santa Claus? What a pity that your young, impressionable minds did not see the obvious corollary about Jesus right then and there.
Other religious nuts: (Equivalent remark about whatever your fuck-wit ass-stupid "beliefs" are.)
To anyone who posted (or so much as thought) something like "I'm not offended but a lot of other people would be" is a stupid-head.
Honestly guys,
Use some common sense. Things are either true or not true. Let's stop with the "truth is relative" or "there is no one true religion" bullshit. What you follow is either true or not true, regardless of what you believe religiously or if you believe nothing at all. And it doesn't matter how earnestly you believe it: you're either wrong or right. Either Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again or he didn't. Either Islam is the truth or it is a lie. Either Joseph Smith was conveying God's words or he was just making things up. So make a choice on what you believe to be the "one true religion"... Because either none of the religions are true or one of them is true. Christianity and Islam, for example, cannot both be true. Let's stop being politically correct here and worried about offending people. THERE ARE ABSOLUTE TRUTHS and DIFFERENT RELIGIONS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They are not "all the same." Do some actual research and then maybe you'll be able to respond intelligently to the question:
What do you believe?
Anon 9:06:
That's your belief and you're entitled to it, and I respect your right to hold that belief, but you (and a lot of the other commenters here, particularly Anon 4:32, unless that was poorly pulled-off sarcasm) should maybe think about respecting other people's beliefs. Its one thing to be PC for the sake of being PC. Its another to respect people's rights to have the beliefs that they have. Just a thought.
Also, plenty of religious scholars and religious leaders would disagree with you, as many believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims for example worship the same God, albeit in different ways.
@9:06
You were born into a cult. Your brain has been fundamentally damaged by your indoctrination, to the point where you can no longer see the real world rationally. Sorry. Although you did make me laugh with your "Do some research" line.
Estrella I (4:32) was not being sarcastic.
I actually do "respect your right to have the beliefs that you have." But I don't respect those beliefs. Because they're idiotic. And as such, I will exercise my right to free speech by voicing the opinion that your beliefs are idiotic. You are welcome to do the same to mine.
And that whole "Islam, Christianity and Judaism are worshiping the same God." thing is a crock of shit. Go tell that to the past millennium of religious wars. Just because something makes you feel good doesn't make it true. The same can be said of your entire belief system.
And "religious scholar" is an oxymoron.
2:25 (4:32), you would be wise to realize that your faith in rationality is comparable to any religion, in that it is equally a way for one person, with all the perceptions and sensations that make that person feel alive, to relate meaningfully to others and to the rest of the world. Why does logic hold more water than pure faith? Because it is logical. Because it makes sense. And making sense feels good doesn't it. (note any recursions there? there are two)
And you may find that there is no room for religious beliefs in your rationality. That's great. Rationality has a long history of suppression at the hands of Religion. Break free and live in the system that runs a good portion of the world now. But just because your faith system (again, faith in rationality, since it, like faith, relies on itself to be true) rules the world's perception now doesn't mean that you're not being an asshole in the way you as a person interact with those who lead their lives differently.
Again, free speech is great. Talk about what makes sense to you. Someone's gotta do it or no one will know what you believe, right? Let's all relate through our perceptions of the world. How magical.
Oh but "religious scholar" is an oxymoron because education is knowledge, which has nothing to do with religion at all. Ever. Right? Especially not history. That past millennium wasn't really worth studying from the religious point of view. Except of course in that the religious wars waged by man must discount the religions or any shared aspect of them. Just like the atom bomb and the gun discounts the good that science can do for humanity. Be wary of these rationality-based stones you throw at the seemingly homogeneous groups and mentalities you seek to stereotype and dismiss. It shows your own hyperactivity when casting judgment. But hey, as long as the rationality adds up, it must be true right? Forget perspective, forget understanding the other side so that you can relate your argument to them meaningfully, let's just use our own rational perception to wave away what we see. Let's latch on to the first truth we find as the end-all be-all, rather than work to understand it as a relative truth, part of the greater context in which it has arisen--a human based one. That would be too scholarly though, probably, and you seem to dislike scholars. Go pray to your ego some more you closed-minded fuck. (Sorry for the hostility but my compulsion to respond to your bitchiness has taken up some of my time, which I accept but could have spent elsewhere, and feel like I should respond in kind to your own judgmental tone, even if only sarcastically. You may have noticed. Normally I wouldn't end on such a note, but I doubt I'll change your mind in any way, so the harm it does to the flow of my argument is worth less to me than the joy it brings me to mock you. Have a good day.)
Sorry, but your argument had no flow for your single swear-word to do any harm to. And your entire last paragraph had no discernible content for me to respond to.
Your first claim (That I myself am somehow "religious") is moronic. There is absolutely no room for faith in my world view. I have a religion called "not believing things without supporting evidence" just like I play a sport called "not playing baseball". I also have a hobby: not collecting stamps. And my favorite sex position is abstinence.
You can't just broaden the definition of a well-defined term just to suit your argument. Look up "religion" in any dictionary. Not to mention, if your claim that I have a religion was true, then your argument would amount to "But you're just as bad as us!" That isn't a very strong argument.
You also just employed an extremely common tactic of the religious faithful: claiming religious people are some persecuted minority. Do you really think "rationality rules the worlds perspective now?" Because I suggest you listen to any politician speak. Or go around asking "who supports the theory of evolution?" Maybe you could take a tour of the World Trade Center. Oh how I wish rationality was any kind of majority. But sadly, no. It is you who are the oppressor here, not I.
So don't lie to yourself, it's unbecoming. That goes for your debate techniques and your idiotic religion as a whole.
-4:32
i LIKE URINE
4:32~
In your response post you continue to employ the faulty style of judgment that I had only just outlined for you. I would suggest you become a more careful reader. Try to reconcile your own mindset with what you can learn of someone else's by stepping out of your own, if only for a moment (rather than misconstruing the argument in terms of stereotypes you have of the debate techniques employed by the religious).
I said you had faith in reason. The recursion that I alluded to (maybe you missed it?) was that the only supporting evidence for logic is logic-based. But logic as a system does not allow such recursions to be called logical. Why is rationality more appropriate than faith? The rationalists would answer, "Because it's logical" (you yourself cite 'evidence' as being important). The religious (christianity really) would answer, "Rationality is not more appropriate. I have faith that 'faith' is more important than my own logic." Do you see the similarity there? You may have to re-read it and pause to reflect (good idea!).
There is required a faith in the illogical recursion that stands as the basis of either system. That is what I was pointing to. I did not say you are religious, so your deference to the dictionary to do your arguing for you is misled, but rather you have a FAITH in the ultimate objectivity of logic.
And no, the lesson to be learned from this proposed similarity is not, "you're just as bad as us!" First of all you assume I'm religious. Second, the point is that each frame of mind is a way for someone to interact with the world, and that these two seperate world views are spawned from a single fork in the road of meaning. Down the one path, the precedence is rationality, and down the other, faith. It seems that a lot of the initial argument was lost on you in its abstractness. I apologize, and will use a metaphor to try and get the point accross.
Two groups: one championing the amazing importance of the color red, and the other blue. Who gives a shit? They're both just colors. You can't make an argument that actively engages the opposition's arguement for why blue is better than red, or vice versa. You can list what each color means to you, and compare the lists, but it ultimately comes down to subjectivity. Rationality-based and Faith-based world-perceptions are two peas in the same pod; to compare them is to assume one stance or the other. You cannot claim objectivity when using rationality to argue against faith-based thinking, because the method of arguing that you employ does not strike at the heart of the faith-based system. In other words, the two worlds CANNOT actively engage each other, because they are fundamentally uninteractive. That does not mean they are opposed. You can argue against the rationale of certain religions, but you can't TOUCH their faith argument.
the end.
as for the other things you spent time bringing up:
First, your argument in which you've quoted me as saying, "rationality rules the world perspective now." This whole effort on your part could have been avoided had you actually quoted me correctly as saying, "the system that runs a good portion portion of the world now." Go back to your friend the dictionary and look up "good" and "portion." Maybe you'll realize the discrepancy in my intended meaning and the point of your response without me having to tell you?
And the not lying to myself about my debate techniques and "idiotic" (assumed) religion sounds pleasantly relevant to something, but I'm not sure what. Maybe you think that, by having challenged my argument, you've made me a liar? To myself? I guess in that case the advice falls sort of flat. Maybe you could say, "Don't be so ignorant of what I think is right." That would be better at conveying the point you're trying to make, though, sadly, still generally unhelpful.
And sorry about that last paragraph, there was lots of sarcasm in there. I think I had given up on convincing you of anything by that point and was just having fun with what you'd said.
<3,
-2:46
The misquote was a genuine mistake on my part, and I apologize. My point was (still is) that the religious are by far the dominating majority.
Saying that I have "faith in rationality" is wrong. Saying I "have rationality" is correct. If you could say I have faith in rationality, then I could say you have faith in faith. If that sounds stupid to you (it should), then you know how stupid it sounds when you say I have faith in rationality.
Everyone has rationality. Everyone has reason. We're born with it. You observe the world. You process and store all incoming observations. From these accumulated observations, you can make judgments about whether or not statements are true. You and I and the rest of the world are rational in this sense. This rationality is innate.
Some people occasionally break from this rationality to make claims based on faith. Not me. I make absolutely no faith claims. I don't "have faith in rationality." Rationality is axiomatic. There's no "supporting logic for logic." Logic is axiomatic. Not just for me, but for everyone. In answer to the earlier question "What do you believe?" my answer is a succinct "Nothing."
And "faith-based thinking" is an oxymoron. So is "faith argument."
I'm done posting here. You write a lot, but you don't say very much. Your capacity for self deception is staggering. Maybe you really do have powerful, mindset-shattering ideas. If so, it seems your keyboard is efficiently filtering them out.
As such, this "debate" is going absolutely nowhere. Neither of us will convince the other of anything. I hope you'll always keep an open mind. I know I try to.
Just one remark; I'm saddened that you find joy in mocking me. I assure you, for me this has been nothing but depressing.
Really? You try to keep an open mind? Why don't you try looking objectively at a religion or at several different religions?
This has been depressing for you? If you have no faith in anything, isn't your whole life depressing? Doesn't it all seem so pointless?
To your first point: looking at things objectively is definitional open mindedness. I've done exactly that, and came to the obvious conclusions. You clearly have not.
To your second: no. Do you genuinely not realize how stupid you sound?
In case I didn't make myself clear enough last time: You're obviously an idiot, and this is a waste of my time.
Now please post something else idiotic so you can feel that you've gotten the last word. I won't read it and then this can, at long last, end.
allow me to end this. (im not zr. rationality or zr. give-faith-a-chance)
you're not going to change eachother's minds. zr. rationality is just going to be more pained and zr. give=faith-a-chance more sanctimonious.
zr. rationality, you have your head so far up your ass you can't see anything but what you believe. yes, BELIEVE, or have FAITH in. yes, your FAITH in your system of BELIEFS, logic, rationality, proof, evidence, etc. and "looking at things objectively" is not open-mindedness. open-mindedness involves a willingness to believe that you may be wrong and that there is another way of seeing/doing things that is not your own. you can't do this, but its probably because your head is, like i said before, too far up your ass. its ok, it happens. oh also, you're mean about it. so if you want to talk about oxymoronic and mutually exclusive, you might want to throw "name-calling" and "real intellectual debate" in the mix. sorry that discussing with someone a world-view different from your own is so painful for you.
zr. give-faith-a-chance, your arguments are weakened by the pro-christianity bias. kinda makes it hard when it looks like you're just defending your personal system of beliefs, your religion, and not the idea of religion like you claim to be doing.
minus the name calling and wholesale dismissal of the other person's beliefs a good debate I think, zrs.
someone raise another controversial topic?
and yes, i recognize that i said name-calling was not-nice and then i did it.
zrs. rational, give faith-a-chance, and overbearing superior snob are engaged in a heated circle-jerk. I'm watching.
Well I enjoyed it as well, and am sorry that you found it depressing, 4:32. The joy I take in mockery is a strange asset of my personality. I think it's because I often find I'm alone in my argument (being the agnostic, fairly aspiritual person I have become, yet arguing for faith-based life as an alternative to rationality-based), so if I don't find some humor in the discontinuities between our notions of the world, I too would be too depressed. I at least try not to be too degrading or overtly aggressive about it (which, as it turns out, was the initial problem I had with your first comment (4:32 itself) that got this all going between us). I also told myself that my previous post (the longest, 8:14) would be my last, but as it seems some others have stepped in to this anonymous forum and interrupted the argument without explicitly introducing themselves as neither you (4:32) nor I (2:46), some of my goals and arguments have perhaps become a bit misconstrued by those (11:49) who might have wished to carry them on in some form (though, props to you 3:36, for your break in this chain).
So I post once again to let you know that I too will not be posting here again, but that if that was you who posted at 3:16, then I am saddened because it seems nothing has come of this argument except perhaps for you to be more caustic in your reactions to the notion of faith as at all a legitimate alternative to logic. Your mistake, as I tried to map out in my last post, is to assume that human logic is the equivalent of ultimate objectivity. It is appropriate to treat it as such, for it seems to have many benefits when used in such a manner (science, rationality, the ability to have these discussions, etc). But, as you say yourself, logic is axiomatic. This is exactly the feature of logic that I have been pointing to, which is a troublesome coincidence because it means that we can both be looking at the exact same feature of logic, yet interpret it in such different ways. My point, as has been clearly mapped out (i hope), is that the axiomatic nature of logic is exactly what makes it illogical.
What is logic? It is evidence-based. A logical step requires some "necessary consequence" which depends on "initial conditions." Are you familiar with Euclidean proofs? The Given in all of logic is that logic is a correct method.
What is faith? And I quote, "Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim." Faith is the process of trusting in a Given without having another proof to back up that Given. You have faith in logic. Can I make it any clearer?
You say that everyone has rationality and reason. You speak about interpreting and storing information. I couldn't agree more with these premises. But you mistake faith-based world-views as having strayed from the natural path of rationality. Like I said before, this is very egocentric and does not treat the faith-based world view as a fundamental alternative to the rationality-based world view.
Those with faith can be quite rational, I assure you. And having faith does not make them irrational beings. What is different is the basis of their idea about the world. Rather than trust their own logic systems as the ultimate judge (hence limiting themselves to their own perceptions, which requires a leap of faith in itself), they trust in a higher being. Off this premise, they interact with life rationally. The only difference is that, in some aspects of life, the causality they find is informed by their notions of a conscious external being's involvement (which requires faith) rather than their own logic (which requires faith as well). I hope that one day you may see this as simply an alternative to trusting (having faith in) one's own rationality and learn to treat the religious as (at least initially) equally deserving of your respect as human beings doing their best to live life and interpret meaning. I'm not in any way implying that you should adopt their methods; just recognize them for what they are (at least in the abstract), rather than some sort of mutated and irrational self-deceiving hellspawn. The fact is, humans suck. The biggest problem with most religion is its followers who do harm. The biggest problem with science is the people who use what it creates to do harm. In that light, the whole religion vs science discussion is a bit of a waste of time, because it doesn't really address what's really important in either case.
I hope curiosity brought you back to see this, 4:32. All in all, at least we both got to talk about what we think, which is a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself that is too often neglected.
3:36, I'm not religious so if I seem like I have a pro-Christianity bias, that's a pity. I think I might seem biased because I treat both sides with a certain respect, but you are probably used to recognizing the respect given to the religious as existing only among the religious? If you disagree with that assessment, then perhaps my seeming bias can be explained in that it's the religion I'm most familiar with and thus feel most comfortable arguing about. And when it comes to faith, some of its more recent sects are pretty much entirely faith-based (believe in JC and you'll be set free, etc), so I found it to be an appropriate battle ground.
<3
-2:46
Post a Comment