Wo Shi Laowai – Wo Pa Shui
This Blog was Invented in Xi'an 5,000 Years Ago
China Blog Awards
EFF.org
From The Peanut Gallery…
Blogged.com Says
Copyright Notice
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - No Derivative Works 3.0 License
Attention: Warning!
- .
Some Nice Buttons
Wo Shi Laowai - Wo Pa Shui 
Chinese Netizen said
Maybe we can come up with one for Confucianism…
I’ll start: Confucianism – the belief that in the face of rampant corruption and abuse of power that goes on every day on your doorsteps, you still bear a stiff upper lip and say “mei you ban fa”
Next?
justrecently said
Seem to remember that the Calvinists are actually somewhat embarrassed about the concept of eating God, and therefore consider the bread and wine as symbolic, while the Catholics and Lutherans insist that they are eating God Almighty himself.
Scholar Tu (Weiming, Confucian of sorts himself)believes that a thoroughly politicized Confucianist society would be more into persecution and coercion than a purely Legalist society, because Confucianism didn’t only dominate peoples’ body, but also wanted to control peoples’ minds, whereas Legalism only wanted to control those who didn’t obey the law.
Maybe Confucians would eat dissidents as a last resort.
Ned Kelly said
First, a retort to this post, and then a serious response to JR.
1. “Darwinist/Non-Theist/Scientistic “Progressivism”: The belief that an essentially amoral, originally unconscious and self-creating Universe in which Man plays no special role – and whose ultimate destiny, based on all available putatively empirical evidence, is the total extinction of Man and of all life without any consciousness to remember Man or any life in the end – is somehow reconcilable with a belief in “progress”.
(In other words, you can’t logically believe in “progress” unless you believe in a teleological end of progress. If you believe that all of our Human endeavours and experiences will ultimately end in total extinction and oblivion, then “progress” is pointless.)
2. More seriously, in response to JR’s comment/query: “Calvinists are actually somewhat embarrassed about the concept of eating God, and therefore consider the bread and wine as symbolic, while the Catholics and Lutherans insist that they are eating God Almighty himself…”
…here’s what the Catholic Church teaches about that, summarised as simply as I can do for non-Catholics:
a. The Catholic idea of the Eucharist – the spiritually transformed bread and wine – is indeed very weird. But that’s the whole point, because it’s the nature of the Supernatural to seem “weird” in temporal and material terms. This is just common sense, to say that anything believed to be Supernatural, will ipso facto seem “weird”. If it weren’t unusual, then no one would bother to die for it.
b. The idea of “eating God” is both less and more significant than the Worldly sense of that phrase. OF COURSE it seems to be a “weird” idea; see above. However, the (Catholic) idea is NOT that the MATERIAL bread and wine are MATERIALLY God; the idea is a more subtle one, that THROUGH eating and drinking the transformed bread and wine, one’s body AND soul – which Catholics believe are essentially inseparable (which is why death is so horrible, as a temporary and unnatural separation of Man’s body and Soul which OUGHT to be inseparable) – is essentially a SPIRITUAL “communion” between a person’s body/soul and the body/soul of Christ.
In other words, Catholics emphasise the SPIRITUAL nature of the bread and wine. And yet, just as Jesus had a real body – meaning that the Human body and the material world are part and parcel of the Divine – the material is part and parcel of the spiritual…
…which is logical if you think about it. Not “scientific”, but logical, if one accepts the Christian premise (both Catholic and Protestant) that Jesus is God incarnate. There would be no point in God incarnating if the material world weren’t part and parcel of the spiritual.
c. In that light, the traditional Protestants – Calvinists and Lutherans – are very close indeed to Catholics in their attitude toward the Eucharist. The traditional Protestants just have a slightly different inflection upon the essentially SPIRITUAL nature of the Eucharist, in contrast to Catholics who put relatively more emphasis on the inseparability of spirit and matter.
d. On that note, I will mention that the Catholic Church acknowledges the baptisms of all Protestants as valid baptisms. (But not Mormons, because Mormons are polytheists.) The Catholic Church regards Protestants as true Christians.
e. Also, the Catholic Church teaches that atheists can go to Heaven as long as they follow their consciences.
Chinese Netizen said
regarding point “e”: Will there be any virgins there? Maybe a sorta virgin (one that just gave a BJ once in a while or took it in the poop chute)??
Ned Kelly said
No.
justrecently said
Atheists can go to heaven, but virgins can’t? That would be double punishment for the latter.
MyLaowai said
Sod Heaven. That’s where all the boring people go. I’d rather go to Hell, where at least you meet all the dirty girls and people whose autographs you’d like to collect.
And anyway, I’m going to Valhalla. These Christian types just don’t know how to have a good time.
justrecently said
Which leads me to the question where Mao Zedong and Confucius dwell. And where Zhang Ziyi will be. All in the same place, or in different ones? As people, I suppose neither of them is exactly fascinating.
Then again, if there are no virgins in heaven, Zhang Ziyi will probably either go to hell, or to Valhalla.
Sinosceptic said
Speaking as a sinner, a heathen and one of seriously flawed design – the Catholic church in NOT a force for good in the world.
I’ll go where the beer is cold and the pussy well trimmed, where ever that may be.
Ned Kelly said
Do you get all of your Church history, like Stephen Fry does, from late medieval state-sponsored hysterical propaganda like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs?
As for being a force for good even in the middle ages, the Catholic Church founded the first universities and hospitals.
Sinosceptic said
Away and boil your head. Another typical brainwashed christian who gets all defensive and aloof at the first sign of someone daring to criticise, question or confront their religion. Seriously, it’s assholes like you that need a good slapping and dragged into the modern world – just like your church.
Ned Kelly said
JR asked, “Which leads me to the question where Mao Zedong and Confucius dwell. And where Zhang Ziyi will be. All in the same place, or in different ones?”
No one knows. The Church considers it conceivable – even if unlikely – that Mao is a Saint in Heaven. Confucius would be a more likely candidate. Personally I imagine Zhang ZiYi spending a thousand years in Purgatory where she’ll be Sinosceptic’s roommate.
Ned Kelly said
Sinosceptic wrote: “Another typical brainwashed christian who gets all defensive and aloof at the first sign of someone daring to criticise, question or confront their religion.”
1. What do you mean the “first sign” of someone daring to criticise etc? It’s not like you’re the first one who ever did. Nor was Stephen Fry.
2. What does “aloof” have to do with it? Of course I’m aloof from anonymous internet commenters, and vice versa. You weren’t hoping I’d ask you for a quick shag, were you?
3. What’s inappropriately “defensive” about pointing out that Stephen Fry’s history was bullshit? Inter alia, contra Stephen Fry’s Late-Decadent-Church-of-England polemics, Galileo was never tortured, his trial had nothing to do with the validity of the Copernican solar system (which by the way has been proved to have been partly incorrect since then), and there are no legal records of Thomas More authorising the burning of any heretics. That’s from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, a late-medieval predecessor of Jack Chick tracts, cf http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp
Ned Kelly said
But in an ecumenical spirit, I submit to MyLaoWai, this parody of a Jack Chick “Christian” tract. And yes, this amuses me from a Catholic perspective, but it might also amuse others from other perspectives:
http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/judge/judge.html
Chinese Netizen said
Ain’t nuthin’ like a faithful Filipina Catholick
Slap2tickle said
Is Chinese Netizen speaking from experience or wishful thinking? Either way I think them religious types are just as sinful as the rest of us and use the cloth as an excuse to justify it….
Ned Kelly said
“I think them religious types are just as sinful as the rest of us and use the cloth as an excuse to justify it”
I agree that this is true of many “religious types” including many Catholic Priests, and even more true of many Catholic Bishops and Popes. But it’s not true that all believers in Christianity (or Islam, etc) are self-justifying. One of the foundational beliefs of Catholic Christianity is that belief in Christ doesn’t change one’s sinful nature; it is, rather, a belief in a remedy for sin. But no one ever totally completes that remedy in this world.
This is, by the way, an essential difference between Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy) versus “Born Again” Protestants typically exemplified by American wing-nuts: “Born Again” Christians believe that a profession of faith in Christ is a guarantee of Heaven. Catholics don’t. Catholics fear the possibility of Hell throughout their lives, which, I submit, makes them less dangerous than Born-Again Christians who believe they’re already “saints”.
Ned Kelly said
What happens when chronological snobs try to subordinate Christianity to the temporary fashions of the Late Modern Age of circa 1789-1989:
Ned Kelly said
And in all seriousness, HERE is what you get, in the long run, if your main faith is in the “Science” of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” (which I believe is partly true), without the UNSCIENTIFIC teachings of Christ and Buddha (and other Saints) about compassion:
justrecently said
If this makes sense, I can’t really see it, Ned. Your comments under #12 are basically on the level of “my opponents shag dogs”.
Ned Kelly said
JR wrote: “If this makes sense, I can’t really see it, Ned. Your comments under #12 are basically on the level of “my opponents shag dogs”.”
It’s typical of bloody Germans to speak like Barbarians.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
justrecently said
Shutting up and thinking for a while isn’t an option once in a while, Ned? Not even when you are – apparently – completely out of reasonable points? Sorry – but #13 is even weaker than #12.
Ned Kelly said
My comment number 13 was not a point. It was an insult to Germans.
I know the difference between insults and logic. And I believe that sometimes, a well-deserved insult is more appropriate than a logical argument – because logic does not encompass all truths.
justrecently said
Is your insult intended to hurt me?
Ned Kelly said
Not really, not personally. I can’t intend personally to hurt anyone I’ve never personally met. But I did intend to remind you that as a German, you have a responsibility to remain vigilant against any and all threats of eugenics and/or other exterminations or persecutions of “genetically unfit” AND/OR putatively “unenlightened” or “superstitious” humans (INCLUDING Catholics), because Nazism pretended to be – and to a considerable extent really was – based on “reason” and “logic”.
And what exasperates me about the Western (European and American and Antipodean) fetish of “reason”, is that “reason” is merely a practical tool. “Reason” is amoral. And the horrible truth is that there WERE logical and rational “reasons” for the Nazis to commit genocide, especially in light of Darwinian “survival of the fittest”. Nature has no mercy. Mercy for the weak cannot be justified by science or logic. Mercy for the weak, and compassion for the suffering, has NO basis in Darwinian “science”. If Darwinian “science” is the ultimate guide of morality, then Hitler was correct to exterminate the weak.
MyLaowai said
I’m not normally one to say something in the middle of the piece, but…
“as a German”, JR has precisely the same responsibility that every other human has for remaining “vigilant against any and all threats of eugenics and/or other exterminations or persecutions of “genetically unfit” AND/OR putatively “unenlightened” or “superstitious” humans”.
Reason and logic is above that, and you bloody well know it.
And for what it is worth, Darwin never said anything about ‘survival of the fittest’. Do your homework.
Carry on…
Ned Kelly said
A video of English braying for the Pope to be assassinated in the name of “tolerance”:
Ned Kelly said
Trying that video again:
justrecently said
My responsibilities depend on concrete situations, Ned, not on sharing other peoples’ ideologies or convictions. I’m not glad to tell you this, but the way you are questioning peoples’ attitudes or motivations, simply for their disagreements with you, is fenqing behavior – I have read many comments from Chinese “patriots” before who blame any of my reservations or uncouth offenses against their cherished feelings on the nazi past of my country.
But this is the first time that I see this – lousy – approach coming from a commenter who is no obvious fenqing. Then again, he’s speaking on the behalf of “truth”, rather than logic here. Weak, weak, weak, and greetings to Australia. You are coming across as uptight as your esteemed prime minister, my friend.
Ned Kelly said
JR,
Please notice the way that this thread began, with a de facto pornographic picture of Jesus suffering and dying, followed by some words indicating that Christianity is bullshit, and that therefore the torture and death of Jesus had no enduring dignity.
THAT (this) blog post on MyLaoWai, was literally the equivalent of burning a Koran.
Therefore, neither you nor anyone who runs “MyLaoWai” can claim to be offended – nor claim to be surprised – when a Catholic fights back against such an INSULT TO THE 2,000 YEAR OLD RELIGION OF OVER A BILLION PEOPLE, in logical AS WELL AS EMOTIONAL ways!
Tell me, WHAT could be MORE offensive, than to depict – as this blog post has done – a (putative) picture of Jesus being crucified WITHOUT ANY WORD OF COMPASSION FOR HIM? And with INSULTS to the BILLIONS of HUMANS who have BELIEVED, over the past 2,000 years, that Jesus is God?
Someone might retort, that the Catholic Church depicts Jesus suffering on the cross. But here’s a difference, which I believe that “MyLaoWai” WILL henceforth respect, after I explain it…
…the difference is, that we Catholics do NOT believe that Jesus’s death on the cross was the end of his life. We Catholics (and most Protestants too) believe that Jesus ROSE FROM THE DEAD! And THAT IS WHY…
…THAT IS WHY, it is PORNOGRAPHIC for anyone to depict Jesus suffering and dying, UNLESS one professes faith in Jesus rising from the dead.
Therefore, for the above reasons, I regard MyLaoWai’s post of the MAN Jesus of Nazareth being tortured and dying on the cross, as ABUSE OF A CORPSE! And REGARDLESS of my being a Christian, I say it is SHAMEFUL for anyone to abuse the corpse – or the memory – of ANY dead man, in the way that MyLaoWai has done to the memory of the body of Jesus, aka Yeshua Bar Yusef.
MyLaowai said
Had a late night, did we Ned? The lithium pills are in the kitchen.
On a more serious note, however…
I am interested in your choice of the words “de facto pornographic picture”. De facto means “in fact” and pornographic generally is used to refer to something obscene, though more usually in a sexual way, which this is clearly not. However, I will grant you that images showing the torture and death of any animal are certainly obscene – interesting is it not that the various Christian cults have, over the last fifteen hundred years, chosen this obscene image to represent their belief in their ‘God’. Enduring dignity? I think not, any more than there is an enduring dignity in the suffering endured at places such as Auschwitz or Toul Sleng. An obscenity, without question, but to find dignity in such a thing is, I think, disturbing.
You go on to speak of Jesus [Christ] as if he were a real person, yet not a shred of evidence has ever been found to back up this statement. Hey, I’m prepared to believe he was real, despite the complete lack of actual evidence, but to then go on to make the leap and decide that he was God, or the son of, is quite ridiculous. And anyway, belief in God is merely a by-product of an electrical short-circuit in the brain. Smarter and better educated folks than me have a large body of research on this matter, and I bow to science on this one.
But with regards your point (and your beliefs), I agree that it’s shameful for anyone to abuse a corpse. Which is precisely what the various Christian cults have been doing ever since Roman times, if one considers the way in which they have abused the image of a man being tortured to death.
All that aside, here’s the really important bit:
If it’s not okay to have a bit of a crack at one person’s idea of what is sacred, then it’s not okay to have a crack at what anyone else thinks of as being sacred, either. That includes, for many people, the memory of Chairman Mao Zedong, and he was the biggest butcher in all of human history, being directly responsible for more deaths than Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler combined. And if it isn’t okay to have a go at him and the people who believe he was just peachy in all possible ways, then what’s the point of anything at all? On the other hand, if you reckon it’s okay to throw a caltrop under the hooves of the Chinese Communist Party from time to time (and both you and I do), then it would be extremely hypocritical of us not to accept that others have the right to dig a spur into the flanks of whatever foolish things we happen to believe in. Except martini’s of course, for they are sacred.
This blog may be many things, but it’s not hypocritical. My personal beliefs on the subject of religion are just as important and just as unimportant as yours are, as JR’s are, as million’s of Catholics are, and as a billion and a half Chinese’ are.
I shan’t be burning a Koran, because that’s plain stupidity. And I shan’t be burning a Bible, either, for the same reason. But equally I shan’t hold back from saying my small piece for fear of it hurting the feelings of all the Catholic people, or whatever other group chooses to have a thin skin on any particular day.
Thank you.
justrecently said
Because Catholics and most Protestants believe that Christ rose from the dead, …it is PORNOGRAPHIC for anyone to depict Jesus suffering and dying, UNLESS one professes faith in Jesus rising from the dead?
Ned, just for the record, as it apparently doesn’t go without saying where you stand: I respect you as a person, your freedom of religion included, just as I believe that every preacher’s – past or present – rights to speak out needs to be respected. It isn’t my logic or belief that a man should be bound to a cross, not even for historicist reasons.
But in my view, you show very little respect for me or whomever you tell to respect your above-quoted logic, truth, or whatever you may call it.
I’m not in the least surprised that you are “fighting back” – as a Catholic, as a scholar, as a blogger, or in whatever kind of capacity. It’s your nature or choice, and you are obviously entitled to it. However, I do think that a somewhat more relaxed attitude would still suit you. Don’t be shy to offend others – you rarely are, are you? -, but don’t demand “respect” for your own hurt feelings when you feel offended. Let this be a level playing field, where as few rules as possible apply to everyone.
iamdoug said
This blog is obviously a very emotional thing for some people but if Christians have every right to defend their God, Atheists and non-believers have rights to say as they please too. If you were reading the caption below the pic of Jim Caviezel dying on the “cross”, having never heard the story of Christ or the Christian faith, it would seem like a pretty far fetched story for any rational person to believe in.
I used to be a very devout Presbyterian. I was the chaplain at a Boy Scouts of America summer camp in Georgia for two summers. I thought I had enough answers about God and heaven and I lead services at this camp. I had to resign after I found some troubling info about the Catholic Church that I didn’t know about prior to gaining this position on camp and I did my own research about it.
In short, I believe all religion at this point is just another way to control ignorant people. It will influence people’s decisions when it comes to voting, breed only more ignorance in the form of religious extremists who blow each other up, and it will eventually lead to the downfall of the human race.
QUIT BOWING DOWN TO A CRUCIFIX. If this is the single most important moment in Christianity, and one of the darkest moments, why do Christians still worship the cross? It’s illogical and I personally believe as long as you worship and idol, even if it is an idol your “savior” died on, you are in direct violation of your 10 commandments and will more than likely burn in Hell anyways.
Our time is so short here on Earth. Why spend your life being told how to behave? Since there is no proof for a post life world, I must deduce that it was created by man to ease peoples concerns about the afterlife..