Belly dance and religion - Page 21

chryssanthi sahar · 02-10-2007, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by belly_dancer

wait a minute..... would it not be assumed that since the "officers" of the church would most likely be the professional performers.... church "business" would NEVER start before noon!!???!!! (and that would be an early day!

) yes.... early call to undulation SHOULD be the noon!!!

You got it, belly dancer

All dedicated members of this church can only be creatures of the night

So let's start our day with a noon undulation

Shanazel · 02-10-2007, 02:03 AM

No, no, complete separation of state of employment and church. Zagarheet Chapter One, Amendment Three, Subsection viii: Equal Rights for the Under Employed.

But I'm all for skipping early morning undulations.

Oooh, rough fabrics and shattered rhinestones- that's enough to keep me on the narrow and undulating path.

Kharmine · 02-11-2007, 04:25 AM

If someone else has mentioned this, I apologise: "Liturgical dance" is quite popular in some churches and temples. It's pretty well covered up, of course, and has its own styles, but like everything else it all depends on local culture and interpretation.

Someone mentioned that the Amish don't dance or listen to music -- well, close but not quite. They shun "secular" dance and music.

They regard some forms of square dancing not as 'dance" but as 'games" and games are alright, apparently. Although what they call it rather than "square dancing," I don't remember. And they do sing hymns at "singings," which is also quite a social occasion.

From the view of a journalist who has made cultural anthropology something of a hobby, I've come to the conclusion that two things have a tremendous impact on how religion is taught and practiced:

(1) interpretation -- which, considering most of the masses who were around when theologies were being formed were illiterate, means that a handful controlled what got (and still does) taught to the greater population, even unto succeeding generations.

Which is why it's important to know the original writings, if not in the original language, than as translated and interpreted by reliable and reputable scholars who are not obviously working from a determined personal agenda.

(2) context -- much of what is written in sacred texts is timeless. And some of it isn't. It is of THAT time.

For instance, the New Testament: When Paul the apostle wrote directions to far-flung churches, a lot of his advice went to congregations who had been Jews and now worshipped Jesus as the Messiah. So they wanted to know if they should keep to the old ways. Sometimes he said yes, other times he seemed perfectly happy with new adaptations -- as when he saluted women as "deacons" on the same level as their brothers (something unheard of in traditional Judaism.)

In some cases, what he was advocating was practices designed to not make new Christians stand out in a hostile environment, whether it was a Jewish community or Rome. If only whores ran around with their heads uncovered in some places, well, then, Christian women would be a lot better off with their heads covered.

Believers who don't understand or accept "context" today are usually called "fundamentalists."

You can say these two things about any religion I can think of. Which is why there is no one sect for any belief system that I know of. But then, I've never known any two atheists who agreed on everything either.

chryssanthi sahar · 02-12-2007, 01:48 AM

Dear Kharmine.

What you wrote is very interesting and I also see it this way. No person who thinks logically would consider everything which is written in "holy scriptures" (doesn't matter of what religion those are) as an eternal and unchangeable truth. But unfortunately there are many people who don't think logical. And there are many people who need somebody or something to lead them, because they are not capable of living self responsible lives. That's why we still have the global problem called "fundamentalism". In the last posting in this thread, we have been parodying the birth of a sect. But unfortunately, there are many sects born in a similar way and, opposite to our "church of perpetual undulation" are taken seriously

Kharmine · 02-12-2007, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chryssanthi sahar

...What you wrote is very interesting and I also see it this way. No person who thinks logically would consider everything which is written in "holy scriptures" (doesn't matter of what religion those are) as an eternal and unchangeable truth. But unfortunately there are many people who don't think logical. And there are many people who need somebody or something to lead them, because they are not capable of living self responsible lives. That's why we still have the global problem called "fundamentalism". ...(

Thank you -- but I think I need to clarify a couple of things.

I did not mean to question the truth of any sacred text -- because there are questions about an interpretation does not mean that there is not truth in the text. What I tried to say is that one should not simply take another's interpretation/translation for granted.

IMHO, it would be like getting directions to a strange place from someone you don't know -- if that's all the help you can get, you hope for the best but you also don't ignore other information that might be more accurate and helpful.

And I know many fundamentalists of different religions who lead very responsible lives -- they believe in being able to support themselves and their families in an honorable way, in helping others even when it is not convenient or easy for them to do, in being honest, and even in being patriotic and good citizens as long as doing so doesn't clash with their beliefs.

Fundamentalism is not necessarily a bad thing -- unless it is twisted to make people think that those who are not practicing a certain interpretation of fundamentalism (which often depends heavily on taking texts out of context) are not just misguided or simply wrong, but outright evil.

At that point, we are not talking about religion -- it's about control of religion, and control is politics.

Whew! I am sorry to be so long-winded!

Ariella · 02-13-2007, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kharmine

And I know many fundamentalists of different religions who lead very responsible lives -- they believe in being able to support themselves and their families in an honorable way, in helping others even when it is not convenient or easy for them to do, in being honest, and even in being patriotic and good citizens as long as doing so doesn't clash with their beliefs.

Fundamentalism is not necessarily a bad thing -- unless it is twisted to make people think that those who are not practicing a certain interpretation of fundamentalism (which often depends heavily on taking texts out of context) are not just misguided or simply wrong, but outright evil.

I have the same issue with fundamentalism as I do with communism. They both work very nicely on paper, but when applied to humans, terrible things happen. So I agree that fundamentalism in principle isn't a bad thing, but unfortunately we are not-so-perfect human beings and this makes good ideas go awry when these good ideas are applied to any human society. It's somewhat unfortunate, but as a society we must take into account our failings to be successful.

chryssanthi sahar · 02-14-2007, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kharmine

I did not mean to question the truth of any sacred text -- because there are questions about an interpretation does not mean that there is not truth in the text. What I tried to say is that one should not simply take another's interpretation/translation for granted.

Sorry, maybe I expressed myself wrong. I also didn't want to say, that there is no truth in the sacred texts. I just wanted to say, that the truth in there is relative and it is a matter of interpretation. I find it important to consider those texts in a historical and cultural context.

Tarik Sultan · 02-14-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chryssanthi sahar

Sorry, maybe I expressed myself wrong. I also didn't want to say, that there is no truth in the sacred texts. I just wanted to say, that the truth in there is relative and it is a matter of interpretation. I find it important to consider those texts in a historical and cultural context.

May our Lady of the Blessed Beladi forgive you for suggesting that everything written in our sacred dance magazine, (Raks on) is not true! For it says right there in Letter From The Editor 1st paragraph line 1, (Right after Featured Articles and before Rates and Subscriptions), "Everything in this Magazine is sacred Truth as revealed to us by our Lady of the Blessed Beladi". I shall pray that you find the path back to the right beat

Moon · 02-14-2007, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarik Sultan

May our Lady of the Blessed Beladi forgive you for suggesting that everything written in our sacred dance magazine, (Raks on) is not true! For it says right there in Letter From The Editor 1st paragraph line 1, (Right after Featured Articles and before Rates and Subscriptions), "Everything in this Magazine is sacred Truth as revealed to us by our Lady of the Blessed Beladi". I shall pray that you find the path back to the right beat

Hilarious!!!

I wanted to give some rep. but the pc doesn't let me hahah (have to spread more around first)

Aniseteph · 02-14-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarik Sultan

... "Everything in this Magazine is sacred Truth as revealed to us by our Lady of the Blessed Beladi".

Well if It Is Written that's good enough for me. Must be true.

02-11-2007, 04:25 AM	#203 (permalink)
Kharmine V.I.P. Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Foot of the Rocky Mountains Posts: 1,248	If someone else has mentioned this, I apologise: "Liturgical dance" is quite popular in some churches and temples. It's pretty well covered up, of course, and has its own styles, but like everything else it all depends on local culture and interpretation. Someone mentioned that the Amish don't dance or listen to music -- well, close but not quite. They shun "secular" dance and music. They regard some forms of square dancing not as 'dance" but as 'games" and games are alright, apparently. Although what they call it rather than "square dancing," I don't remember. And they do sing hymns at "singings," which is also quite a social occasion. From the view of a journalist who has made cultural anthropology something of a hobby, I've come to the conclusion that two things have a tremendous impact on how religion is taught and practiced: (1) interpretation -- which, considering most of the masses who were around when theologies were being formed were illiterate, means that a handful controlled what got (and still does) taught to the greater population, even unto succeeding generations. Which is why it's important to know the original writings, if not in the original language, than as translated and interpreted by reliable and reputable scholars who are not obviously working from a determined personal agenda. (2) context -- much of what is written in sacred texts is timeless. And some of it isn't. It is of THAT time. For instance, the New Testament: When Paul the apostle wrote directions to far-flung churches, a lot of his advice went to congregations who had been Jews and now worshipped Jesus as the Messiah. So they wanted to know if they should keep to the old ways. Sometimes he said yes, other times he seemed perfectly happy with new adaptations -- as when he saluted women as "deacons" on the same level as their brothers (something unheard of in traditional Judaism.) In some cases, what he was advocating was practices designed to not make new Christians stand out in a hostile environment, whether it was a Jewish community or Rome. If only whores ran around with their heads uncovered in some places, well, then, Christian women would be a lot better off with their heads covered. Believers who don't understand or accept "context" today are usually called "fundamentalists." You can say these two things about any religion I can think of. Which is why there is no one sect for any belief system that I know of. But then, I've never known any two atheists who agreed on everything either. Last edited by Kharmine; 02-11-2007 at 04:29 AM.

02-12-2007, 01:48 AM	#204 (permalink)
chryssanthi sahar Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Heidelberg, Germany Posts: 1,485	Dear Kharmine. What you wrote is very interesting and I also see it this way. No person who thinks logically would consider everything which is written in "holy scriptures" (doesn't matter of what religion those are) as an eternal and unchangeable truth. But unfortunately there are many people who don't think logical. And there are many people who need somebody or something to lead them, because they are not capable of living self responsible lives. That's why we still have the global problem called "fundamentalism". In the last posting in this thread, we have been parodying the birth of a sect. But unfortunately, there are many sects born in a similar way and, opposite to our "church of perpetual undulation" are taken seriously __________________ Oriental dancer and instructor of Greek origin, living in Germany www.chryssanthi.com

02-10-2007, 02:03 AM	#202 (permalink)
Shanazel Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Rocky Mountains USA Posts: 4,684	No, no, complete separation of state of employment and church. Zagarheet Chapter One, Amendment Three, Subsection viii: Equal Rights for the Under Employed. But I'm all for skipping early morning undulations. Oooh, rough fabrics and shattered rhinestones- that's enough to keep me on the narrow and undulating path.