Frank Herbert's Dune, 50 Years On 234
An anonymous reader writes: This October will be the 50th anniversary of Frank Herbert's massively popular and influential sci-fi novel Dune. The Guardian has written a piece examining its effects on the world at large, and how the book remains relevant even now. Quoting: 'Books read differently as the world reforms itself around them, and the Dune of 2015 has geopolitical echoes that it didn't in 1965, before the oil crisis and 9/11. ... As Paul's destiny becomes clear to him, he begins to have visions 'of fanatic legions following the green and black banner of the Atreides, pillaging and burning across the universe in the name of their prophet Muad'Dib.' If Paul accepts this future, he will be responsible for 'the jihad's bloody swords,' unleashing a nomad war machine that will up-end the corrupt and oppressive rule of the emperor Shaddam IV (good) but will kill untold billions (not so good) in the process. In 2015, the story of a white prophet leading a blue-eyed brown-skinned horde of jihadis against a ruler called Shaddam produces a weird funhouse mirror effect, as if someone has jumbled up recent history and stuck the pieces back together in a different order."
Um ... (Score:2)
Cue the alien influence ... (Score:5, Funny)
... um, yeah, that's the eerie parallel. OK.
Yeah Herbert's "Shaddam" is similar to "Saddam", like Nostradamus' "Hister" was similar to "Hitler". Next season the "History Channel" will be running shows discussing possible extraterrestrial influences on Herbert's writings. :-)
Re:Cue the alien influence ... (Score:5, Funny)
Nostradamus' "Hister" was clearly a foretelling of Lister. It's eerie how he knew about Red Dwarf hundreds of years before television was even invented!
Re: (Score:2)
Nostradamus' "Hister" was clearly a foretelling of Lister. It's eerie how he knew about Red Dwarf hundreds of years before television was even invented!
Clearly Red Dwarf is a documentary and they eventually time travel and visit Nostradamus and the BBC.
Re: (Score:3)
The device they thought of as the "Total Immersion Video" unit was in truth a time machine.
Re: (Score:2)
it wasn't Lister; I was found in a box with OUR ROB OR ROS (or something similar) written on it, under a pub table...
Re: (Score:2)
But the invention of liquid disinfectant was a good thing, no?
sPh
Not blue eyed ... (Score:5, Informative)
the story of a white prophet leading a blue-eyed brown-skinned horde of jihadis
They were not blue eyed in the normal sense of iris color. They were blue eyed in the sense that the drug they were saturated with had turned the whites of their eyes blue. And for heavy long term users it could be a dark blue making their eyes seem black at a distance.
Re:Not blue eyed ... (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, so it's about the War on Drugs.
Re: (Score:3)
More like a war FOR drugs. Melange provided benefits such as extended lifespan and expanded consciousness at the cost of severe addiction.
Well the war on drugs does fit better in the sense that "melange" would be a controlled substance subject to government regulation. Its production, processing, distribution and use government controlled. Much like medicinal opioids made from the same poppies as heroin. Cocaine and THC (marijuana) have their approved medicinal uses too. Referring to THC at the federal level, not state deregulation of medicinal marijuana.
Re:Not blue eyed ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the cool parallel you forgot is that melange was essential to the Guild Navigators, they couldn't navigate ships between stars without constant heavy use of melange to make them future-seeing. The rest of melange properties were merely valuable; this one kept universal trade going, essential to the economy. In short, it was the absolutely necessary strategic resource that kept transportation working.
Now that's a parallel.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the cool parallel you forgot is that melange was essential to the Guild Navigators, they couldn't navigate ships between stars without constant heavy use of melange to make them future-seeing. The rest of melange properties were merely valuable; this one kept universal trade going, essential to the economy. In short, it was the absolutely necessary strategic resource that kept transportation working. Now that's a parallel.
Well we did have many centuries of land and sea transportation before oil. Admittedly the long range transportation usually involved more important stuff. The less important and simpler stuff coming from more local sources, unlike today where even this comes from the other side of the world. Our society has alternative, historical and modern. The imperial society of Herbert's Dune had no alternative, they were interstellar not terrestrial. The absence of melange meant planetary isolation with the loss of in
Re:Not blue eyed ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not blue eyed ... (Score:4, Interesting)
There were many millennia of space travel before spice-guided navigators. It was slow and dangerous and there was a good chance you just wouldn't show up at your destination. You couldn't discount the price enough to make up that risk premium and still turn a profit. The government in a sense subsidized the Guild via the prohibitions on certain kinds of scientific research. It wasn't until the Ixians flouted those prohibitions competitive alternative was found, and they also had to assassinate the emperor to make the no-ships commercially viable.
Re: (Score:2)
dude, I got some great gasoline off a guy I know from way back, wanna sniff a pint later?
That's still exactly what it was (Score:5, Insightful)
Herbert was exactly writing about hydraulic despotism, which is a common thing for varying definitions of "hydraulic". Oil is the big one right now, but water is showing all signs of being the next. As for revolution, anyone compassionate enough to be a good leader will have to face the choice that what path they are embarking upon will lead to death and destruction. Playing a race card is just shock value clickbait...
Re: (Score:2)
"As for revolution, anyone compassionate enough to be a good leader..."
Compassionate... I don't think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Hitler or Lenin weren't compassionate for those groups of people they were trying to help? If everyone hates you, nobody is going to follow you.
Re: (Score:2)
"Arguing that Hitler wasn't compassionate about his precious Arian race. Not on good terms with reality eh?"
He was so compassionate that he didn't doubt at putting as many arians in front of their enemy's gun machines to be killed as he could, including women and children and stating that if "his" people couldn't win the war, then they weren't worth to exist (i.e. not surrending after carpet bombing their big cities, using children for the last stand of Berlin...).
No, there's no need to be compassionate to
Re: (Score:2)
Oil is the big one right now, but water is showing all signs of being the next.
No, it isn't. Water falls out of the sky in most of the world. And farmers, the largest consumers of water can in most parts of the world considerably reduce their water consumption with some simple approaches should that ever become important enough to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Water falls out of the sky in most of the world.
Sadly, in more and more parts of it, it's becoming illegal to collect it. And mind you, I'm not talking about diverting seasonal drainage, I'm talking about collecting rainfall from your roof, let alone from a structure purpose-built for collecting water like you commonly see in areas with high rainfall and low government interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, in more and more parts of it, it's becoming illegal to collect it. And mind you, I'm not talking about diverting seasonal drainage, I'm talking about collecting rainfall from your roof, let alone from a structure purpose-built for collecting water like you commonly see in areas with high rainfall and low government interference.
That's a far cry from a hydraulic empire since first, there would be no central control over water and it's trivial in the cases you mention to circumvent any such authority.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you are referring to the Rocky Mountain region of the US where it has always been illegal to divert the rains from the rivers to an extent that you are withholding more than the allotment accompanying the title to your land. Small-scale wars were fought over this. Read history, it really does have more to it than "white people were mean to non-whites" and "men were mean to women."
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, in more and more parts of it, it's becoming illegal to collect it. [...] I'm talking about collecting rainfall from your roof
Care to give a reference?
This is hard to believe!
Re: (Score:2)
Low government interference? Again, you're just talking about a California problem.
That's what they say about everything... well, everything that doesn't come from NY.
Re: (Score:2)
apparently it isn't that much of a problem that fracking consumes more freshwater than humans use domestically.
Re: (Score:2)
Drinking water is not distributed evenly over the surface of the planet. Some areas have an abundance, others do not. Climate change means that some areas become more arid, causing widespread and long lasting droughts. Usage of various poisons in agriculture and other pollution is making it into ground water, slowly causing well after well to be unfit as a source for drinking water. On top of that, the consumption of water in many areas is larger than the replenishment due to rainfall, so local reserves are
Re: (Score:2)
it's not so much the fear of that happening, the oil industry themselves admit that every single borehole on the planet, no matter where it is or how carefully it's sealed, *leaks*.
No, the concern is that we're not being told what's in the soup. We can guess, going by what's been seen rolling onto the sites (hydrochloric acid is one chemical often cited), but that's all we can do. If the public knew for sure what's being pumped in, I'm fairly certain that there would be blood spilled.
Re: (Score:2)
fracking consumes more freshwater than humans use domestically
Sure, if you look at water use by comparing it locally where intensive fracking operations are in remote areas that are essentially unpopulated. Otherwise that's utter nonsense.
The most obvious parallel: (Score:2)
If there is a small area which contains an essential resource of which a global shortage exists, there will inevitably be some form of political or military conflict for that area. This situation will last until the resource is depleted or the resource becomes non-essential.
The author doesn't understand Herbert (Score:2, Insightful)
Frank is a deeper fellow than all but a few really grasp.
"The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action."
- Frank Herbert.
How perfectly does that describe the Guardian and most of its readership?
True wisdom requires the humility to see the universe for what it is... a step beyond our reason... always and forever. That is not an endorsement of some religion... that is rather a caution before anyone becomes consumed by unshakable convictions.
Be decisive f
Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert (Score:5, Insightful)
Frank is a deeper fellow than all but a few really grasp.
"The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action."
- Frank Herbert.
How perfectly does that describe the Guardian and most of its readership?
Um... not very well?
Re:The author doesn't understand Herbert (Score:4, Insightful)
oh really? So you think the Guardian is an open minded institution that doesn't routinely engage in ideological advocacy of the same ideology?
Or that that ideology in question doesn't basically a have the same solution for everything?
Because if you don't know that... you haven't been paying attention.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep... That's where I fucking live... Down people's throats... Watch the teeth. I'm almost there. :D
I can't help myself... its too easy.
In all seriousness, my issue was with the attempt by the author to attribute Herbert with a culture and and political framework that he's actually well beyond. This "age of Aquarius" thing is beneath Herbert. That movement was typified by phoney mystics, people that were more high than actually thoughtful, and often callow philosophies that were so trite as to be comical.
Wh
Re: (Score:3)
... and not a single falsifiable statement in there anywhere.
Good job. It is literally impossible for you to be wrong. Why? Because you didn't make complete argument in there anywhere. And as such... you can't be wrong... you also can't be right but I imagine you don't care about that.
Your real worry is being proven wrong and surrendering any ability to be right in the process is probably a small price to pay.
Make a complete argument or your fucking statement is null. Idiot.
You don't understand the universe (Score:2)
True wisdom requires the humility to see the universe for what it is... a step beyond our reason... always and forever.
I heartily endorse that statement, and encourage you to teach it to your children.
(My children, on the other hand, will be competing with yours in the global society and I want to give them the best chance of success.)
Re: (Score:2)
vague... what will you be teaching your children? And why do you think they'll out compete people taught to be flexible and open minded?
Re: (Score:2)
And why do you think they'll out compete people taught to be flexible and open minded?
Because in practice, that default position morphs into "incapable of critical thinking about objective reality and causality, and spending your life trying to make sense of the world while being poisoned with a crippling case of mixed premises and moral relativism" - that's why. Being open to new facts is important and wonderful. But being an intellectual invertebrate is unfortunately what's generally being indoctrinated.
Re:The Guardian (Score:4, Funny)
Plus ca change...
30 year old description but still scarily accurate:
"The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is."
Re: (Score:2)
thank you for that, that was amusing.
Re: (Score:2)
Frank is a deeper fellow than all but a few really grasp.
His books were largely philosophical treatises and it's so often disappointing to talk with people who can't see past the superficial stories that he uses to explore an element of philosophy. I'm surprised that anyone can get through the entirety of Dune without that dawning on them, but it becomes much more clear when you start reading his other works (especially those not set in sci fi settings).
Re: (Score:2)
precisely...
I read Dune at the same time I was reading "the User Illusion" and a book on zen philosophy... I was 16... it was sort of surreal mix and it changed the way I see myself, society, and the rest of humanity... apparently permanently.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes more sense if you understand eastern philosophy or actually read any of the Herbert books.
What I'm talking about is neither being so conflicted with doubt that you're unable to act effectively nor so married to any way of thinking that you can't change. As Lee said "be like water".
The point is... act... but be open to change. Maintain that child like ability to both commit to courses of action but also entirely alter your thinking at any moment.
My comment was not for anyone... it was for people tha
Re: (Score:2)
You think I'm an Ayn Randian or a Marxist?... I can't tell which... I was clearly defending Herbert from association with the guardian... who are basically marxists... so that implies your randian statement is directed at me. And then you call me a marxist.
Your post is very confusing.
Do you think I'm a Randian or a Marxist? I'm neither.
I believe in freedom of course... individual self determination... but I don't ascribe to organized political philosophies personally. I might support one or the other from o
Re: (Score:2)
I never contradicted that.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Okay... lets be straight.
1. Reputable news organization? Debatable.
2. The glowing piece also claimed ownership of his work effectively within the ideological camp of the paper. That was the core my disagreement with the fellow. If he had just said nice things about Herbert that would have been one thing. It was the whole age of Aquarius thing that was unacceptable.
3. As to your presumption to judge the posting history of someone that logs in while yourself being an AC... that you can't grasp the mindblowing
The Golden Path (Score:2, Interesting)
*SPOILERS!*
> 'of fanatic legions following the green and black banner of the Atreides, pillaging and burning across the universe in the name of their prophet Muad'Dib.
This is exactly what happens. Paul Muad'Dib is later able to see the future, yet doesn't stop this from happening.
It's all in the name of some greater plot to prevent a catastrophe in the far future, thousands of years ahead. The "Golden Path".
After six books in the Dune series, Frank Herbert died. At this point, it's still not fully reveal
Re: (Score:2)
The prequel books were very good. I really enjoyed reading all of the lead up to the original Dune book. House Harkonnen, House Attreides and the Bulterian Jihad.
in 1917 it was Lawrence of Arabia (Score:3, Interesting)
Golly, you think? (Score:2)
Is the OP aware the Dune milieu was intended as a commentary on the West and Middle Eastern oil?
IIRC, in the story, as ridiculously profitable as Dune was for the Emperor, the cost of his army assault ate up some 40 years worth of sales, which was almost spot on to the first Gulf War vs. Iraq's profits, which were not even taken to pay for it
Dune was good just took a few chapters to grab you (Score:2)
I forget the last Dune book I read as there were so many books in the series. They became well garbage and I thought he was milking it for all it's worth.
Re: (Score:2)
You may want to remember that Frank Herbert wrote only first six--and the last two were done a couple of years before he died. After that it was his son, Brian Herbert, in conjunction with Kevin J. Anderson, work about which some people, well, have a rather low opinion. [penny-arcade.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You may want to remember that Frank Herbert wrote only first six--and the last two were done a couple of years before he died. After that it was his son, Brian Herbert, in conjunction with Kevin J. Anderson, work about which some people, well, have a rather low opinion. [penny-arcade.com]
No I wasn't aware.
Reminds me then of the L. Ron Hubbard's series "Mission Earth" it's a 10 volume set. It's said he died while writing it, someone taking over the story. I can tell you where it happened - volume 3 it went stupid after that one, just ridiculous. I have the 10 volume hard back set (hopeful collectors item) but just collected the last 6 (unread).
Arabic and Islamic themes in the Dune universe (Score:5, Interesting)
Many years ago, I wrote an article on Arabic and Islamic themes in Frank Herbert's Dune [baheyeldin.com]. It includes many etymological info on terms used in Dune.
Hope some of you enjoy it.
Cordwainer Smith (Score:2)
Shows Herbert for the so-so writer he is.
My favorite Frank Herbert book after Dune (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'Dune' is in the details. (Score:2)
ive read the six Herbert Dune books several time, and while there are several over-arching themes, it's the little things that bring me back...
'Governments hate a popular leader.'
'Revenge is for children and the emotionally retarded.'
'His greatest skill is that he learned how to learn.'
So many bits of wisdom from a man that thought with purity.
Decades pass, hillarity ensues... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. Herbert, looking for exotic inspiration for his stories, uses elements of the Arab, Persian and Muslim world thus making his stories very different from the vast majority of scifi at the time, which tended to be was based in civilizations resembling those built by Jews and Christians in moderate climates (most authors start with what they and their readers are familiar with and then get busy telling a story). Herbert floods his stories with words that have a middle-eastern sound, scenery straight out of "Lawrence of Arabia", middle-eastern-style tribal and martial behaviors, and titles the first book "Dune" as if to put a huge capstone advertizing this on the endeavor. This is all obvious to the early readers of the work. The military aspects of Dune are obvious both in the way the off-world forces approach Arrakis (an actual Arabic word) like Westerners approaching the Arab/Muslim world. The Fremen are clearly modeled on the tribal people of the middle-east, and therefore are organized and fight as those people have historically organized themselves and fought (absent the scifi props of worms and such). Even the spice is an allegory both for oil (which from a Western perspective "must flow" and is required for transportation across large distances) and for actual drugs (such as the heroin from Afghanistan)
Decades pass
Ignorant morons pickup the book "Dune", skim through it (or, admittedly, SOME even READ it), and declare that the author was amazingly prophetic and that aspects of what he wrote seem to have a mysterious connection to the modern world etc.
[face palm]
One one level it's very a funny display of extreme ignorance, but on another level it's a disturbing display of intellectual failure. This confusion about cause-and-effect, source-and-sink, and otherwise backward thinking is right up there with cargo cultism and is an indictment of the reasoning and education of the person displaying it.
This needs to be a well done movie (Score:2)
The attempts to put Dune on screen have been largely terrible, but this is one of those books where the "big budget blockbuster" would be totally justified. Either that or potentially an HBO series in the vein of Game of Thrones. Given the amount of story to tell that might be the best chance to really do it justice.
Somehow, it really needs to happen.
Re:This needs to be a well done movie (Score:5, Insightful)
Huge stretches of the book are internal monologue or whispered conversations in dark rooms, where two people exchange few words and pages are spent on exposition. The book is unfilmable; or rather, you can make a lot of movies with the title Dune but they're going to end up just sharing character names and the general bag of situations.
T. E. Lawrence is missing from many reading lists (Score:5, Interesting)
T. E. Lawrence is missing in the action of writing summaries.
T. E. Lawrence is missing from many places, especially the reading lists of the politicians and diplomats who tried to manage the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. That said, Lawrence is also absent from the reading lists of many who criticize the US' anti-terrorist efforts. Regardless of your opinions regarding the wars, US policy, etc Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" is an absolutely informative and insightful book and "both" sides of the issue will learn from it.
FWIW - suggest book over kindle (Score:2)
Re: FWIW - suggest book over kindle (Score:2)
On paper many of the Arabic personal and place names are spelled strangely. Lawrence favored his own style of transliteration.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't have to be as good as I think. It only had to be a singular vision from a cinematic shaman. With all the sequels and "re-boots", it's not like any one film has to be THE film. Just look at the Lynch version. Even with all the holes and miscues, bad decisions and questionable choices, it's still a terrific experience. Better in many ways than the book.
I trust genius. Herbert
Re:Holy Mountain (Score:5, Insightful)
A good workmanlike book? It is to SF what The Lord of the Rings is to fantasy, and one of the greatest pieces of world creation ever written.
Re: (Score:2)
That says it all, right there.
No matter what you think of the book, I hope you don't believe that every movie version has to stick slavishly to "canon".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>No matter what you think of the book, I hope you don't believe that every movie version has to stick slavishly to "canon".
I thought the Watchmen movie improved on the graphic novel by ditching the giant fake alien and replacing it with Dr-Manhatten brand blue nukes, made far more sense, and the alien thing wouldn't have stood up to even brief scrutiny.
I'm sorry Mr Moore
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what you think of the book, I hope you don't believe that every movie version has to stick slavishly to "canon".
If a movie violates canon, it should use a different name. If the movie isn't good enough to be made without using a name it doesn't deserve, then it isn't good enough to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to The Godfather and Wizard of Oz, two movies that are both in just about every top 10 of all time list.
"Canon" only comes into play in sci-fi, video games and comic books, which is one reason those wonderful art forms have such trouble getting taken seriously as art.
Oh, and of course, "canon" also comes into play in religi
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and of course, "canon" also comes into play in religion, which also says a whole lot.
I think it says something about people, and their brains. The need for belief. I don't care enough to go out and picket, let alone to kill people over it, though.
Re:Lawrence (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how long he or todays t.e,would last in the middle east today ?
One major difference between then and now is that according to the Arab leaders of the day who explained things to Lawrence, a fundamentalist movement arose once or twice a century for many centuries. And when these fundamentalists became troublesome the moderate majority would rise up against them, from the mosque to the street and everything in between. But the Arab leaders added that such fundamentalists are always lurking somewhere so it will be best to travel in native clothing and with a native guard in the desert.
Perhaps I am mistaken but I think the fundamentalists becoming troublesome refers to something far less than what we are seeing today. The cultural understanding and respect and the diplomacy of Lawrence would not help him much in an environment where being a local moderate muslim can be a death sentence.
Re:Lawrence (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the fundamental difference here (so to speak) is that ISIS is not a fundamentalist uprising. Oh, sure, they claim to be a religious movement, but everyone in the region does. Fundamentalism, in any religion, is not typically accompanied by using sexual slavery as an incentive to get young men to fight for you (ISIS has quite the flexible and convenient moral code).
My understanding of ISIS (mostly from a Muslim Arab coworker, so of course my "expert" could be wrong) is that they're "religious" in the same way Scientology is: they have all the trappings of religion, but it's all quite contrived. They emphasize whatever parts of scripture helps their goals and ignore the rest in a very obvious and transparent way that fools almost no one. It's not that they're murdering "moderate Muslims" per se, they're simply murdering anyone who speaks up about how evil they are, or simply speaks against them, whether on religious grounds or any other grounds.
There are many other places in the world where IMO the problem really is religious fundamentalism, but those guys aren't raising armies and conquering vast territory. Even in Afghanistan it's just one tribe after another, not a united fundamentalist army.
I think it's a mistake to confuse the problem with fundamentalist Islam in other parts of the world and other cultures with ISIS and the Arabian Peninsula.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
within their "religious beliefs" because those things are permissible when the victim is a non-believer and has been given the opportunity to convert;
That is nonsense.
There are three so called "book religions", Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Islam honours all those as "believers". Some fanatics in any of those religions might disagree.
However as a matter of fact: all those religions pray to the same god. And actually there are a few more religions that pray to that god, eg. the Yazidis.
Centuries of cent
Re: (Score:2)
within their "religious beliefs" because those things are permissible when the victim is a non-believer and has been given the opportunity to convert; That is nonsense.
Yes, but that remains what these heretical fundamentalists believe.
There are three so called "book religions", Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Islam honours all those as "believers". Some fanatics in any of those religions might disagree.
Do you realize we agree? Yes, traditional Islam considers Jews and Christians "people of the book", people at different levels of God's revelations depending on what prophet they are following. A string of prophets, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and finally Mohammed. All prophets of the same monotheistic God. However the non-Muslims were not on a par with Muslims, they were merely "protected people". They had to pay a special tax, were not allowed t
Re: (Score:2)
Islam honours all those as "believers".
Umm no, not if they are seen as oppressing Muslims. Then they are enemies. How do you think Mohammed justified going to war against Jewish tribes -- aka people of the book.
Even if they are not oppressing Muslims, but just seen as being too "uppity" they become targets. That's why jizya was prescribed to be collected in a humiliating way.. in the Ottoman Empire, Christians would be slapped and cajoled by a crowd as they lined up to pay their jizya. These are also people of the book.
So no.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why you're calling them heretics. That means someone engaging in heresy. Heresy is a belief or action that is fundamentally opposed to the commonly held beliefs of a religion, taken as legitimate for that religion. For instance, if a Christian were to say "Well, Jesus was not the son of God, I think the Bible really says that he was a regular guy who did so and so with God's help" that is heresy because you are attempting to redefine Christianity.
Calling fundamentalism heretical doesn't r
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand why you're calling them heretics.
Because that was what the moderate muslims who put down these movements called these fundamentalist extremists. That is the language arabs used to explain things to Lawrence. It is neither Lawrence's nor my phrasing, it was the mainstream arab phrasing of the day.
You see the same thing today when modern moderate muslims say that Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc are preaching a false interpretation of Islam. This false, heretical, etc interpretation is not a modern invention, it is one that popped up once or twice a c
Re: (Score:3)
It manifests as "all the old rules are not good enough" and sometimes the new rules look like utter heresy. A much milder Christian version was some Puritans who banned Christmas - only used as a comparison because it's an example of an offshoot denying what people see as a core of the religion.
So even though it looks like an utter heresy of absolute evil (the first case no
Re: (Score:2)
A much milder Christian version was some Puritans who banned Christmas
Minor clarification, but Puritans didn't ban Christmas, they banned the non-religious parties and traditions rooted in Saturnalia that had become associated with Christmas. Puritan Christmas involved spending most of the day in Church. They certainly tried to ban fun at Christmas (and at most other times), but not the Christian festival.
Re:Lawrence (Score:4, Insightful)
My understanding of ISIS (mostly from a Muslim Arab coworker, so of course my "expert" could be wrong) is that they're "religious" in the same way Scientology is: they have all the trappings of religion, but it's all quite contrived. They emphasize whatever parts of scripture helps their goals and ignore the rest in a very obvious and transparent way that fools almost no one. It's not that they're murdering "moderate Muslims" per se, they're simply murdering anyone who speaks up about how evil they are, or simply speaks against them, whether on religious grounds or any other grounds.
I would argue that that's true of all religions, and everybody. If you can show me an entirely internally consistent religion and a person who follows 100% of those teachings exactly, I would be shocked! Everybody emphasizes whatever part of the scripture they want and ignore other parts. Some conservative Christians glide past the "Do not judge" part and spend a lot of time focusing on sexual immorality! Some liberal Christians glide past the many parts of the new testament that deal with sexual immorality and spend a lot more time with the "do not judge" part! That's just religion for you. Remember, even a religion as seemingly peaceful as Buddhism had adherents who really perfected the modern concept of the suicide bomber.
Personally, I was offended when President Obama attempted to define what true Islam was, and who was a true Muslim and who was a faker. How colonialist of him to attempt to be the arbiter and definer of native religion!
There are many other places in the world where IMO the problem really is religious fundamentalism, but those guys aren't raising armies and conquering vast territory. Even in Afghanistan it's just one tribe after another, not a united fundamentalist army.
I think you're partially right and partially wrong. The issue is that Islam to a very large degree overlaps with parts of the world that have maintained pre-modern tribal ties to a degree that most of us in the east and west are no longer familiar with. Thus, in Afghanistan, it's not that the fundamentalists aren't united, but that many tribal coalitions have been unified through fundamentalist Islam.
I think it's a mistake to confuse the problem with fundamentalist Islam in other parts of the world and other cultures with ISIS and the Arabian Peninsula.
I don't. We could have a nearly infinite discussion about the history of Islam, the history of the Middle East, the rise of the West, and the economic and social morass of much of the Islamic world. We would actually probably end up agreeing about a lot of these things! Militant fundamentalism used to be a part of Christianity, but was stamped out a long time ago. Militant fundamentalism in Islam has yet to be eradicated. If you think the trappings of Caliphate, the revival of the 'Uthman dinar and other potent symbols of early Islam, and the persecution of historical enemies exist in a vacuum, I think you're very wrong.
Have you ever heard a evangelical Christian Bible study or lesson? It's interesting. They will focus to an incredible degree on each word of the verse they are studying. They will talk about the word in the original Greek (or Aramaic, etc.) and its connotations, how it compares to other Biblical accounts, etc. We're talking nitty gritty minutia and some interesting historical analysis. BUT, they also start with the inviolable precondition that the Bible is the literal word of God and divinely inspired. So, forget any line of reasoning like "Maybe Paul said XYZ because of his Jewish heritage and don't forget that the Roman governor had been stamping down on ABC, so if the early Christians wanted to avoid being persecuted, they had to act this way." The correct answer is always "Because God."
Same for ISIS. They are VERY grounded in history, but they are very one dimensional. Belittling (or disregarding the validity of) their beliefs is a huge mistake, however.
Re: (Score:2)
So, forget any line of reasoning like "Maybe Paul said XYZ because of his Jewish heritage and don't forget that the Roman governor had been stamping down on ABC, so if the early Christians wanted to avoid being persecuted, they had to act this way." The correct answer is always "Because God."
That is complete nonsense.
Everyone I'm aware about doing bible interpretations is fully aware about the fact that the bible was written by humans.
We all know Jesus was not "walking on water" as the amaraic phrase only m
Re:Lawrence (Score:5, Informative)
That is complete nonsense.
Everyone I'm aware about doing bible interpretations is fully aware about the fact that the bible was written by humans.
We all know Jesus was not "walking on water" as the amaraic phrase only means "to stroll at the beach".
With all due respect, "everyone you're aware of" does not constitute probably much but a tiny fraction of the diversity of religious belief in the world. Just google "Bible divinely inspired" or see the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration [wikipedia.org] or view a local evangelical or fundamentalist church service. Many Christians do believe that while the Bible was written by humans, it was divinely inspired and as such is the literal word of God.
This belief is even more universal in Islam, where there is much less of a history of critical or literary theory reading of the Qur'an. It's a tenet of faith that the Qur'an was "revealed" to Muhammad one revelation at a time. There is a concept of the "Umm al-Kitab" -- the mother book -- a sort of celestial ur-book of wisdom and religious teaching that sets there floating in the ether. The Qur'an is but a portion of the umm al-kitab that God chose to reveal to Muhammad.
Care to point some out? AFAIK the new testament has not much to say about sexuality.
Sure. Most are in the Pauline epistles (that's actually why I mentioned Paul in the section of mine you quoted), but they appear directly as quotes from Jesus too. Here are just a few:
Jesus:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/matthew/passage/?q=matthew+5:27-28 [biblestudytools.com] -- Looking at a woman with lust is the same as adultery. (Matthew 5:27-28)
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/matthew/passage/?q=matthew+5:31-32 [biblestudytools.com] -- Divorce is as bad as adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32). (You can also get out of these two that adultery is bad)
Paul:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/1-corinthians/passage/?q=1-corinthians+5:1-5 [biblestudytools.com] -- Sexual immorality is a big deal. (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/romans/passage/?q=romans+1:26-32 [biblestudytools.com] -- More on sexual immorality. Those practice such things (one of such things being ... well, read it and see!) are "deserving of death." (Romans 1:26-32)
You can find probably dozens more.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever heard a evangelical Christian Bible study or lesson? They will focus to an incredible degree on each word of the verse they are studying. They will talk about the word in the original Greek (or Aramaic, etc.) and its connotations, how it compares to other Biblical accounts, etc. We're talking nitty gritty minutia and some interesting historical analysis. BUT, they also start with the inviolable precondition that the Bible is the literal word of God and divinely inspired.
You might try learning the difference between evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. Nothing of what you said is a good generalization of evangelicals, which is why the fundamentalists don't like them much. Evangelicals are about the church (and especially the financial success of it), while fundies are often as you describe. It's fun to remind fundies that they are also, technically, evangelicals (an evangelical church is simply one that does not have an exclusive territory assigned, but must comp
Re: (Score:3)
You might try learning the difference between evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. Nothing of what you said is a good generalization of evangelicals, which is why the fundamentalists don't like them much. Evangelicals are about the church (and especially the financial success of it), while fundies are often as you describe. It's fun to remind fundies that they are also, technically, evangelicals (an evangelical church is simply one that does not have an exclusive territory assigned, but must compete with other churches of the same faith for followers and tithes).
I disagree with everything you just wrote. There is a considerable overlap between fundamental and evangelical Christianity. No part of the definition of evangelical stresses that they are "about the church" or the "financial success" of the church. I think you are conflating evangelical with Pat Robertson / Jerry Falwell breed of televangelist?
It is not true that an evangelical is just a church that does not have an exclusive territory assigned...that's jut not it at all.
I don't really care to get into a p
Not a mistake (Score:2)
Belittling (or disregarding the validity of) their beliefs is a huge mistake, however.
It's not a mistake. It's a critical step in moving forward as a species.
Re: (Score:2)
+10 insightful
Unfortunately most western politicians don't see it like this, or at least claim to see it different for their own agendas.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the fundamental difference here (so to speak) is that ISIS is not a fundamentalist uprising.
The leadership of ISIS is dominated by military officers who served under secular dictator Saddam Hussein (source [washingtonpost.com]). So, unless all these people just had a religious awakening (not entirely impossible), the leadership of ISIS is simply trying to grab a lot of land and power for themselves. And they found that a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist agenda would aid in their recruitment. Especially in Iraq, where the Shia dominate government and Sunnis are being persecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the same thing about regular arising of fundamentalists seems to be true of the west, and with a population much, much slower on the update. We are now well into another resurgence of fascism. Last time, it took WWII to stop it. This time will likely be worse.
Lawrence would not survive today (Score:4, Interesting)
"Lawrence would, I assure you, get along swimmingly," said Tony Blair [theguardian.com].
Perhaps in the Saudi palace but not over the countryside he once roamed. The cultural understanding and respect and the diplomacy of Lawrence would not help him much in an environment where being a local moderate muslim can be a death sentence. Re-read your Seven Pillars. The fundamentalist herecies that periodically occurred were normally put down by the local moderates before they caused much trouble. Plus the protection of the Saudi king doesn't carry the weight it used to in the region. Things are completely different today in so many ways.
Re: (Score:2)
(And during the few moments that we have left
We want to talk right down to earth in a language
That everybody here can easily understand)
Look in my eyes, what do you see?
The Cult of Personality
I know your anger
I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be
I'm the Cult of Personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the Cult of Personality
The Cult of Personality
The Cult of Personality
Neon lights, a Nobel Prize
When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set me free
I sell
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, Dune was copyrighted in 1965 so I'm fairly certain Paul Atreides was also not modelled on some politician from the 1980's either.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to all, or even most Republicans. That's mostly the Religious Right, and they have far, far more influence than their numbers say they should because the GOP needs their votes to win elections. Just because the far right extremists act that way doesn't mean that the party as a whole agrees with them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:First Book Is Still Solid (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps you meant to include it between Dune and Children of Dune? If not, you should give it another look - especially after a rereading of Dune.
Re: (Score:2)
Dune Messia has more legible when it was originally published in serial installments in Analog magazine. The somewhat disjointed plot was less apparent if you only read 1/4 of in a month.
Re: (Score:3)
For me, Heretics was a struggle and Chapterhouse was unreadable until after I read the House books. It was in the House books that some of the technology that seemed to come out of nowhere in Chapterhouse was introduced and then it fit in. They weren't as well written as the original books, but the House series did do a nice job of filling in much of the backstory.
Re: (Score:2)