rock and roll musings by Tim Byrnes

About me

User: timbyrnes
Name: tim byrnes
subject appears to be a white male, early 50's, pathologically tall/skinny. brain patterns show evidence of a life in alcohol - first swimming in it then running from it. fingers show wear from years of guitar playing. heart presents slow repair, through writing, from being broken by rock and roll.

  • Contact me
  • My profile
  • Linkme

Recent comments

Anonymous on Bleeker and ...

Counter

visited *loading* times

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Apropos of Nothing

     Been thinking too much lately. Maybe it's all the da Vinci Code debris lately, fallout from all the documentary televison I've been watching and the Christian Radio station that's always on at work. But I've been thinking about the whole god thing more than usual lately and find myself getting angrier and angrier at every talking head who states they 'know' the 'truth'.

     And I was kinda wondering why that was.

     I go to this Christian themed messageboard http://www.dorfsmith.com where they, among other things, sell CD compilations; some of which include a tune or two of mine. Don't ask me, I'm as befuddled as anyone but, hey, there you are. But the most fun thing for me is the messageboard itself where I play, almost literally, Devil's advocate amongst a really nice group of people I happen to disagree with.

     And then there's Christian Commentator.

     Old CC is one of those 'This is the way it is" type of Christians. Catholic actually and such a firm believer in his faith, or more to the point, the way he defines his faith, as to discount the faith of his fellow, Protestant, board members as not being true Christianity because their faith hadn't, as his Catholic faith had, sprung forth directly from the word of Jesus or some such nonsense. And while I kinda admire his certainty, I'd like to be able to feel that secure in a time like this, I also feel sorry for him because he's shut out all possibilitiy that he might be wrong and thus, to me, any opportunity to learn or grow.

     Again please direct all hatemail to timbyrnes@antimusic.net

     Which I think is kinda the goal of religion. To sell you a story that you'll stick to and in many cases, defend to the death, all the while sanctioned by States that live high off of our hogs while sending our children to die in defense of the story they sold you to stick to. I really see no sense in setting up an ideal that is unreachable byr design. And god is as designed as a 65 Chevy, just with fewer fins.

     How did the universe begin? I don't know. How was life created? I don't know. What's gonna happen to us after we die? I don't know. But religion does!! And it'll let you in on it!!! And for centuries, people with voids too vast to live with and too ill-defined to fill have run like sheep on fire to this call, that call, any snakeoil selling smooth talkin mamalook in a cheap suit and a big wig who knows! KNOWS!!!, Brothers and Sisters. The Truth! The Light! The Way!! Just send $29.99 to the First Church of the Shivering Dolphin.....

      OK, it's not all like that, but my argument that religion itself is based on that model. Not to dismiss all the truly good work done in the name of God, but I think good work can be done without invoking what, no matter what or you you call it, amounts to King Neptune as Father Figure. Why do we invent a creator and final judge who can't help but find us severley lacking because we made him so (pardon the expression) goddamned good?

    Patti Smith began one of the best records ever made (wondered when I'd get around to punk rock, huh?) w/the words "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine." I've since read interviews w/La Smith where she now recants and has made some kind of piece w/Jesus but explained that at the time she meant that she was willing to take responsibility for her sins. To own and maybe embrace her humanity flaws and all. Og course that extrapolation is mine and, as such, probably completely wrong, but that's how I felt about the line then. And still feel.

    My code of conduct is mine, and quite flexible. Harm no one and do what thou etc. and all. Problem is is who decides what harms someone? Religion likes to demonize ideas a lot and is quick to name sins. Like homosexuality and female reproductive rights to name two which immediately spring to mind. Whereas I think it's harmful to demonize someone for their natural state or to restrict personal liberty  in order to achieve an agenda.

     Religion, along w/Nationalism -and believe me that combination is potent, dangerous and at play today -  is a  man made contraption designed to make us feel less than whatever god we've drawn, but (and here's the dangerous part, kids) superior to the infidel! History if full of Holy Wars, but trust me, they're all just the same land grabbing, kill the inferior species mindset dressed up in fake rainments of something called sacred. Slap a god on yr platform and we shall overcome.

     So keep yr god. When my time comes I'll take whatever punishment that awaits like a man.

    

Posted by: timbyrnes at 19:06 | link | comments (8)


Comments:
#1  07 June 2006 - 19:40
 
Hi tim! :D
User: burninglight Contact me View user's mediablog burninglight
#2  07 June 2006 - 19:44
 
I split with Christianity a long time ago, as soon as I got to college. I just don't have the faith and the trust that is required to believe that the Bible is actually God's word, (not God's word as quoted by men and then twisted and turned around throughout time and religious splits to serve church leaders' purposes), and I just cannot believe that out of ALL the organized religions in the world, there is only one that will get you into Heaven, so choose wisely.
User: Cannonball14 Contact me View user's mediablog Cannonball14
#3  08 June 2006 - 17:27
 
P.S. Aside from the obvious disagreements we have here, I should add that Da Vinci Code crap and Christian radio would both send ME running for the nearest hatchet as well. (And I mean Da Vinci Code crap on both sides -- just reviewed a couple "evangelistic" materials and have big problems with the whole typical dismissive straw-man approach they use [although not with the facts themselves -- but you knew that, even if it isn't in the way *I* meant it]. You know, like yr living breathing straw-man buddy CC. :))

carl
trampin', I'm trampin'.... SHOCKANDAWE!!! SHOCKANDAWE!!!
Um, I mean, "Maybe one day we'll be strong enough to.. / Build the peaceable kingdom / Back again.)" :D

(gad, so many misconceptions, so little time.... it's a wonder I can form a coherent sentence defending so many fronts at once....:P)
User: burninglight Contact me View user's mediablog burninglight
#4  08 June 2006 - 20:18
 
Thanks all! As far as the da Vinci Code goes it has to be stressed (apparently) that the book is fiction. Guess the Church doesn't like the competition. In any event, anything that causes doubt is OK in my book (which I haven't actually written yet, but the threat endures). The peaceable kingdom will probably not come as long as we consider it a kingdom and thus in need of a king.
Anonymous
#5  15 June 2006 - 02:24
 
If Jesus was really The Son of God, though; wouldn't He leave us with one religion rather thatn a bunch of them?

He did leave us with one religion: Christianity, and with one denomination: Catholicism. The fact Catholicism has not wavered in its teachings for 2000 years, shows its credibility, and that is protected from error by The Holy Spirit.

Jim
Anonymous
#6  20 June 2006 - 06:28
 
"The fact Catholicism has not wavered in its teachings for 2000 years, shows its credibility, and that is protected from error by The Holy Spirit."
Huh? That's an incredible leap of faith cuz it sure doesn't stand up to reality.
Anonymous
#7  20 June 2006 - 17:34
 
"The fact Catholicism has not wavered in its teachings for 2000 years, shows its credibility, and that is protected from error by The Holy Spirit."

OR..............

The fact Catholicism has not wavered in its teachings for 2000 years, shows its obstinancy up to outright refusal to face an unfolding future on it's (the future's) terms, and that they feel protected from error by The Holy Spirit, a devise THEY constructed and as such an agent of their own denial."

Discuss.
tim

Anonymous
#8  20 June 2006 - 21:59
 
None of the above? :P
User: burninglight Contact me View user's mediablog burninglight
Comments: