1,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
moving discussion
==Occult (moved from [[Talk:Mulan]]==
While most of WilsonB's edits have been reverted, I have taken a look at the article based on one of his criticisms and he seems to have been warranted in his objection to this (though not his rudeness). This is a Disney film about ancient China - it makes no more sense to call this "occultic" than it does to decry The Beauty and the Beast for having a talking clock or candelabra. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:50, 31 December 2009 (EST)
:Wilson was bad-tempered, and I don't believe for a minute that he was ever a conservative, but his point is well-taken.
:*The Ancestors are deceased members of the Fu family that, in a ghost like form, still have very real connections with the living world. In fact, Mulan's father prays to them. [http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/pre2000/i-mulan.html Christian Spotlight on the Movies]
:It may be a bit heavy-handed to associate [[ancestor worship]] with the [[occult]], but a bigger question is whether the Chinese "veneration" of ancestors goes this far. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:34, 20 January 2010 (EST)
::At the risk of sounding [[postmodernism|postmodernist]] (God forbid), it would be a mistake to talk about the occult, which is a Western concept, with an unrelated Eastern culture. The occult's entire history, indeed its very definition, involves a westerner operating ''outside of'' western religious practice. Even when borrowing from eastern religions which occultists freely mix with other pre-Christian European practices, it's always westerners we're talking about. Perhaps one might say that a self-professed Wiccan worshipping his ancestors would be occult, but a Japanese buddhist doing the same would not. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:47, 20 January 2010 (EST)
:::You don't sound as much postmodernist as [[Orientalist]], in the sense that you seem to be saying that we outsiders cannot understand (or comment on) anything about non-Western cultures. For us conservatives who are Christians, the whole thing about the [[occult]] is whether any given [[supernatural]] or "[[spiritual practice]]" is good, indifferent, or bad.
:::Materialists, who comprise a significant fraction of Western liberals, categorize everything supernatural as nonsense. For them, the only question is whether such superstitions can have good or bad psychological or social effects. For the rest of us - i.e., religious believers - the supernatural is crucially important. We are concerned with questions such as as the existence and nature of God, what His will is for us, the effectiveness of prayer, issues of [[faith]] and [[works]], etc.
:::For those who believe that moral absolutes exist, all people everywhere are bound by one universal standard. If you don't know it's wrong to do something, and you do it anyway, does this make it less harmful to do the thing? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:21, 20 January 2010 (EST)
::::Nahh, count me out of the Orientalist crowd as well. I'm saying that there's an essential difference in motivation between someone who grows up in a Christian culture and ends up worshipping spirits, and one who grows up in a non-Christian culture and does the same. One is indulging in something "secret" or "clandestine" (don't forget the etymology of the word "occult"), and the other is following a tradition.
::::From a Christian perspective (and trust me, east Asian Christians are as adamant about this as anyone else), they're both sinful, but the means of proselytizing to them would obviously be very different. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:38, 20 January 2010 (EST)
:::Certainly, there is a difference in [[motivation]], and that must always be taken into account when discussing [[ethics]]. A simple example is killing a person: there's a huge difference between [[self-defense]]; an accident; [[negligent homicide]]; and [[murder]] (not to mention legally sanctioned [[acts of war]]). But regarding the issue of [[child molestation]] ...
:::*The question is, if sleeping with a nine year old child was not deemed bad and therefore was not considered immoral, was it ok? Not everything that a society accepts as moral is right. Having sex with a minor may not have been immoral for Arabs 1400 years ago, but it is now, as it was then, unethical. Moralities are defined by circumstances, but ethics transcend time and space.
:::We've opened a can of worms, so let's be good biologists and classify them instead of throwing them under the plow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:44, 20 January 2010 (EST)
While most of WilsonB's edits have been reverted, I have taken a look at the article based on one of his criticisms and he seems to have been warranted in his objection to this (though not his rudeness). This is a Disney film about ancient China - it makes no more sense to call this "occultic" than it does to decry The Beauty and the Beast for having a talking clock or candelabra. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:50, 31 December 2009 (EST)
:Wilson was bad-tempered, and I don't believe for a minute that he was ever a conservative, but his point is well-taken.
:*The Ancestors are deceased members of the Fu family that, in a ghost like form, still have very real connections with the living world. In fact, Mulan's father prays to them. [http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/pre2000/i-mulan.html Christian Spotlight on the Movies]
:It may be a bit heavy-handed to associate [[ancestor worship]] with the [[occult]], but a bigger question is whether the Chinese "veneration" of ancestors goes this far. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:34, 20 January 2010 (EST)
::At the risk of sounding [[postmodernism|postmodernist]] (God forbid), it would be a mistake to talk about the occult, which is a Western concept, with an unrelated Eastern culture. The occult's entire history, indeed its very definition, involves a westerner operating ''outside of'' western religious practice. Even when borrowing from eastern religions which occultists freely mix with other pre-Christian European practices, it's always westerners we're talking about. Perhaps one might say that a self-professed Wiccan worshipping his ancestors would be occult, but a Japanese buddhist doing the same would not. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:47, 20 January 2010 (EST)
:::You don't sound as much postmodernist as [[Orientalist]], in the sense that you seem to be saying that we outsiders cannot understand (or comment on) anything about non-Western cultures. For us conservatives who are Christians, the whole thing about the [[occult]] is whether any given [[supernatural]] or "[[spiritual practice]]" is good, indifferent, or bad.
:::Materialists, who comprise a significant fraction of Western liberals, categorize everything supernatural as nonsense. For them, the only question is whether such superstitions can have good or bad psychological or social effects. For the rest of us - i.e., religious believers - the supernatural is crucially important. We are concerned with questions such as as the existence and nature of God, what His will is for us, the effectiveness of prayer, issues of [[faith]] and [[works]], etc.
:::For those who believe that moral absolutes exist, all people everywhere are bound by one universal standard. If you don't know it's wrong to do something, and you do it anyway, does this make it less harmful to do the thing? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:21, 20 January 2010 (EST)
::::Nahh, count me out of the Orientalist crowd as well. I'm saying that there's an essential difference in motivation between someone who grows up in a Christian culture and ends up worshipping spirits, and one who grows up in a non-Christian culture and does the same. One is indulging in something "secret" or "clandestine" (don't forget the etymology of the word "occult"), and the other is following a tradition.
::::From a Christian perspective (and trust me, east Asian Christians are as adamant about this as anyone else), they're both sinful, but the means of proselytizing to them would obviously be very different. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:38, 20 January 2010 (EST)
:::Certainly, there is a difference in [[motivation]], and that must always be taken into account when discussing [[ethics]]. A simple example is killing a person: there's a huge difference between [[self-defense]]; an accident; [[negligent homicide]]; and [[murder]] (not to mention legally sanctioned [[acts of war]]). But regarding the issue of [[child molestation]] ...
:::*The question is, if sleeping with a nine year old child was not deemed bad and therefore was not considered immoral, was it ok? Not everything that a society accepts as moral is right. Having sex with a minor may not have been immoral for Arabs 1400 years ago, but it is now, as it was then, unethical. Moralities are defined by circumstances, but ethics transcend time and space.
:::We've opened a can of worms, so let's be good biologists and classify them instead of throwing them under the plow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:44, 20 January 2010 (EST)