we should hold services in Buddies on saturday nights.
(Buddies is a gay club in downtown Toronto, just to contextualize that shit)
I would have to disagree. We would need the dance floor which would be too occupied by ass-shaking joy. Unless they cleared a space in the middle for us to practice glitter joy. “And I will prepare you a table of glitter in the midst of your lovers.”
Dear Glittecclessia, I thought it was important that you knew:
Today I was looking at the UI English Department course catalog for spring 2013 and being emo because
19TH CENTURY AMERICAN LITERATURE IS MY SOULMATE BUT I CANNOT TAKE THOSE CLASSES because my last two major requirements = old stuff
AND LIKE NO OFFENSE BUT AN ENTIRE SEMESTER ABOUT BEOWULF IS JUST NOT MY THING
so I am going to sign up for “SELECTED WORKS OF THE MIDDLE AGES” and the class that Twilight Professor is teaching; over the summer she invited us to her new class informally titled “The Bible for English Majors,” and I was so excited and we shared happy feelings
but what I really want to show you is that she is also teaching a graduate seminar in criticism and theory, and the course description reminded me of you guys!
This seminar is designed to provide graduate students with the theoretical tools to take part in what is being hailed as the return of religion in literary criticism and the religious turn in the humanities at large. Its readings lay the groundwork for addressing the changing dynamics of religion, secularism and secularization across literary historical periods and in conjunction with a variety of critical perspectives. One of the hypotheses of this line of inquiry is that our current theoretical, critical, cultural moment is calling into being a new critical approach to literary study, one I suggest we call postsecular criticism: not a criticism that proclaims secularization to be over-and-done-with, but one that, having passed through secularism as an ideology and secularization as a nexus of historical processes, is now subjecting that that ideology and those processes to critical examination.
In this seminar, we will read foundational texts in the sociology of religion as well as recent works in sociology, philosophy and literary theory, including works by Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Jürgen Habermas, Danièle Hervieu-Léger, Talal Asad, John Caputo, Charles Taylor, Slavoj Zizek, Graham Ward, and Jacques Derrida, as well as a range of contemporary literary scholars and critics whose work we might consider postsecular. Key concerns of the seminar include: exploring ways to examine religious phenomena as distinctly religious, not simply as functions of material determinants; understanding and problematizing sociology’s vexed secularization thesis; uncovering the logic of secularism as an ideology in Western European and US culture; unraveling the implications of scholarly investments in secularism; and configuring the grounds and contours of a critical inquiry and a pedagogy that are not secularist in their presuppositions but genuinely postsecular.
Oh dear goodness I can't stand Dawkins. I read his book as an atheist and it made me want to rip out my eyes and throw them into the sun then take my blinded body and cover it in honey and wait for bugs to eat me. New Atheism is an intellectual disease. Now that I'm post-atheism he's even more reprehensible.
This might be the best response to Dawkins book that I have heard.
can i miniturize you and keep you as pets and then coat you in some magic thing that makes you indestructable and then feed one of you to a snake and the other to a penguin and you can compare digestive process and report back to me?
Well, I was trying to get an effect similar to a Leslie speaker. Everything was going fine too, like the tape was holding up fine and all that. Then all of a sudden the cable started getting really tangled up in everything. Then, I tried turning the fan off, but accidentally flipped it to it’s maximum setting instead. So, now there’s a couple pound weight swinging around my bedroom at head level really fast so I decide to duck and right when I did I heard a really loud thump and the microphone is lying across the room on the ground. It was bad.
high priestess~! loved that.. I would actually disagree a bit about Spong being fine with it not fitting into coherent whole, because i feel like he just throws away the bits he disagrees with so he can be left with a coherent whole that aligns with how he feels it should be... i havent read any full books by wright, just seen a few interviews, so the vibe was based on that... but yeah.. Spong doesn't seem genuinely open to wrestling with the text, just executing it at will.
:D I’m so glad you enjoyed it, heterodox glitter priest! You are probably right; Spong is a semi-postmodernist and a hardcore pantheist, so his coherent whole is different from Wright’s coherent whole. I think that he wrestles with it from a different place.
Wright wants the Bible to tell one continuous story about a faithful God and humanity’s relationship to him, while Spong wants the Bible to tell one continuous story about evolving human concepts of God as they move toward a God of love. Here is a quote from LIBERATING THE GOSPELS that is a good summary of his interpretation feelings!