Barrister

Author: Robert (Page 279 of 328)

Who cares whether Jesus was divine?

The Daily Dish dedicates some time to tell us ‘All About Mormons’, courtesy of some South Park clips. The first clip suggests that Joseph Smith pretty much made up the Book of Mormon and claimed divine intervention, while the second clip reminds us that this doesn’t really matter:

Maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to Thank for all that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now, is loving your family, being nice, and helping people … you’ve got a lot of growing up to do buddy. Suck my balls.

It is odd that Sullivan makes no analogy with other Christianities, or other religions, which also carry absurdities. I’ve always thought that men claiming to have spoken to a burning bush are probably pretty high on something, but not God. And if someone goes wandering about the wilderness these days, and then claims to hear voices, we declare them to be psychotic, not prophets. And some passages of the Gospels which deal with sightings of the ressurrected Jesus (for example, Mark 16:12 or Luke 24:16) stretch credibility. Time and again, disciples do not recognise Jesus when he appears. Could that perhaps be because it was a different guy, claiming to be the crucified preacher!? I find it hard to believe that Sullivan did not take these glaring issues into account: I guess he simply decided against making that particular point in that particular post.
This is odd, however, since Andrew has been writing a lot about his faith recently, and I should have thought he would want to explicitly align himself with the sentiments expressed by the liitle boy in the South Park clip. Biblical inconsistencies do not, or should not matter to other strains of Christian either, because it is Jesus’ ethical teachings that should be of paramount importance. These persist even if there is no causal connection between God and the Holy Bible. They persist despite the falsity of the Virgin Birth. They persist despite the hoax of the Resurrection. Tony Benn is fond of quoting Malcolm Muggeridge, thus: Jesus was not the Labour MP for Galilee North. I say that is a shame, because Jesus is a great politician! “Pay a bit of tax“, “Be nice to the kids“, “Don’t let money rule your life” and, of course “get pissed at weddings“. Universal policies by which we can all interact with our neighbours. His ethical pronouncements stand us in good stead, even the evidence for his divinity is unconvincing.
It seems to me this is the difference between the fundamentalists, and the ‘private faith’ which Andrew Sullivan has been discussing in the past few months: faith is what you believe when no one’s watching. Only this latter group can embark, as Sullivan has done, on a reinterpretation of the texts that would (say) make homosexuality permissible. Meanwhile, the fundamentalists pursue the red herring of Intelligent Design, or concern themselves with what two or more people do in the privacy of their bedroom.

Ritual egg-laying: Scotland 15 – 44 Australia

[photopress:murrayfield_lineout.jpg,full,pp_image]
Scotland win this particular line-out, but were outclassed overall by the Aussies.
I don’t know what other residents of Edinburgh think of rugby weekends, but I’ve always enjoyed the flash floods of kilts and colour down Corstophine Road and Dalry Road. I the atmosphere which surrounds rugby matches is of course more festive and friendlier than football. This is probably because the football matches in Edinburgh are usually at club level, where the rivalries art local and more acute. Rugby matches, on the other hand, are internationals, meaning the visiting fans treat the match as an excuse for a holiday. Inside the ground, home and away supporters are not segregated, and we saw Australian flags waving alongside the Saltire.
Continue reading

Waves

Following our work on Black Watch during the summer, Fifty Nine was commissioned by the Royal National Theatre as video designers for Waves. For six weeks, a couple of my colleagues have been stoically travelling back-and-forth along the Edinburgh-London rail route. I would sit at my desk and watch as they rumaged through boxes, pulling out wires and adaptors. Cryptic talk of beaches, sunsets, and wide-angled lenses wafted through the office, and then then they would disappear again for another ten days.
So it was a delight last week to see, in its fully fledged form, the show my colleague Leo Warner has created with director Katie Mitchell. It is certainly one of the most ambitious – nay, audacious – projects our company has worked on. The eight actors perform Virginia Woolf’s internal monologues, providing first the voice, then sound-effects. Soon, they take up video camera, film scenes on-stage (often by contorting their bodies between improbable stage props).
The feat becomes rather meditative after a while. One’s eyes are drawn to the screen above the actors, and it is surprising how easily one ‘buys into’ the reality that the actors create. Even though you can see how a scene has been fabricated on stage, the judicious use of the visual language of film means that the projected scene retains its coherence. No computer generated imagery or cheats are used, but some clever uses of angle and light even achieve some stunning scene transitions. Some ghostly images appear behind a character as they gaze into a mirror – is that a coup d’theatre or a coup cinématographique? What medium are we watching? It was great to see new technology being used as an integral part of the creative process, telling stories in new ways.
At least, that’s what I think anyway… but I am biased. What are the opinions of others? Another interesting facet of the production is that it has divided the critics. No consensus or conventional wisdom here, the papers have awarded the show anything from two to five stars! There is something about this fact that I hope makes the show even more intruiging – one can be sure at the outset that the show is radical and provocative at least, even if Virginia Woolf is not your bag.
Some choice quotes:

“But how marvellous that Nick Hytner’s National Theatre is prepared to go out on a limb on a production of such experimental calibre and coherence. ”
Paul Taylor, The Independent ****

“… there seems to me something extravagantly pointless about trying to give Woolf’s words a physical reality … But, although Mitchell and her company are clearly not afraid of Virginia Woolf, the production is a sterile piece of theatre about theatre: a celebration of technical ingenuity that leaves the heart untouched. ”
Michael Billington, The Guardian **

“The nakedness of the method by which these illusions are created prompts questions about the nature of reality, and the technical mundanity, set against the beautiful imagery, succinctly expresses the banal backdrop to an individual’s secret thoughts.”
Sam Marlowe, The Times, *****

I’ll post some more links when I have time. Both the The Evening Standard and the Financial Times loved it, so I’ll probably add their quotes first…

Human Nature

Here is one such thought that I’ve been pondering for a week or so. Someone posted this comment:

Human nature and with it the need to marginalise, insult and bully people belonging to other groups, never changes…

I hear this a lot, usually (I have to say) cited as a reason for not bothering to support charitable causes and group endevours; or as an excuse for some tribalistic rejection of some other group. For too many people, citing the selfish aspect of human nature is the end of the conversation, a put-down to all the idealistic talk about equality.
And for me, it is this attitude which grates. I am sure humans have selfish side, but I am not so confident that this part of our nature trumps all our other qualities! Either way, I think this fact should be the start of the conversation: How do we work to overcome these urges? How do we achieve something greater together, than we could do alone?

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑