Sounds reasonable...
- Thread starter Primeval
- Start date
I really have to stop watching dogma...thank goodness it\'s at peter\'s house
Don\'t stop a religious or book discussion because of me!
Go for it! I learn something new every day.And even though I know little to nada about religion, Dogma cracked me up! I actually end up enjoying movies that throw the whole religion idea into chaos.
Most of them aren\'t very good movies, but I like the ideas.
to tammy (t_haye2)
I know you didn\'t ask me, but let me put in my humble 2 cents.
To question the nature of Jesus isn\'t, in an of itself, unChristian. Many a good Christian has confronted the issue. And many have come up with different answers. In fact, in some Christian circles it is referred to as looking for the Historical Jesus, or the Jesus that we can know from historical records.
Many a theologian have tried to tackle this scientific approach to Jesus. Some have wound up in disbelief, some have wound up confused, some have found Jesus to be the Messaiah, but not the son of God (the two aren\'t necessarily connected), and some have found Jesus was both Messaiah and son of God.
If you are interested in a non-fiction foray into the Historical Jesus, and you have already read the Bible, I recommend these two books:
The Historical Jesus - The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, by John Dominic Crossan.
The Meaning of Jesus, Two Visions, by N.T. Wright, and Marcus Borg.
I have read both of these books. All three authors are believers, so they are coming from a stance of belief, but I believe the books to be fair and balanced, though I do not completely agree with everything said. Crossan\'s book is a beautiful depiction of a man who was struggling against the hypocrasies and social injustice of his religion, which he believed and loved. This book completely altered my image of Christ. I don\'t see how anyone can read the chapter on children and not cry. However, I could not go all the way and agree with Crossan that Jesus was not the son of God. Crossan believed him to be the Messaiah, but not God.
The other book is interesting in that both men believe in Jesus as Messaiah and son of God, but they have very different views on what that means, and how Jesus really was in history. They debate it from chapter to chapter. It is fascinating.
Both books are pretty heady reading. They are not fiction, so they are not plot driven. But, they are bound by truth, or an attempt to keep the truth, which fiction writers sadly are not.
barkel
I know you didn\'t ask me, but let me put in my humble 2 cents.
To question the nature of Jesus isn\'t, in an of itself, unChristian. Many a good Christian has confronted the issue. And many have come up with different answers. In fact, in some Christian circles it is referred to as looking for the Historical Jesus, or the Jesus that we can know from historical records.
Many a theologian have tried to tackle this scientific approach to Jesus. Some have wound up in disbelief, some have wound up confused, some have found Jesus to be the Messaiah, but not the son of God (the two aren\'t necessarily connected), and some have found Jesus was both Messaiah and son of God.
If you are interested in a non-fiction foray into the Historical Jesus, and you have already read the Bible, I recommend these two books:
The Historical Jesus - The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, by John Dominic Crossan.
The Meaning of Jesus, Two Visions, by N.T. Wright, and Marcus Borg.
I have read both of these books. All three authors are believers, so they are coming from a stance of belief, but I believe the books to be fair and balanced, though I do not completely agree with everything said. Crossan\'s book is a beautiful depiction of a man who was struggling against the hypocrasies and social injustice of his religion, which he believed and loved. This book completely altered my image of Christ. I don\'t see how anyone can read the chapter on children and not cry. However, I could not go all the way and agree with Crossan that Jesus was not the son of God. Crossan believed him to be the Messaiah, but not God.
The other book is interesting in that both men believe in Jesus as Messaiah and son of God, but they have very different views on what that means, and how Jesus really was in history. They debate it from chapter to chapter. It is fascinating.
Both books are pretty heady reading. They are not fiction, so they are not plot driven. But, they are bound by truth, or an attempt to keep the truth, which fiction writers sadly are not.
barkel
vincegamer
Active member
Originally posted by Errex
Originally posted by vincegamer(okay, just an excuse to show off my knowledge of third century christian heresies
Penitenziaggi te!
Dolcinites were the coolest lot!.
and they had Ron Perlman too...lol
I said third century. Now you want me to talk about 13th century? I assume you mean the \"Apostolical Brethren\" whose leadership was assumed by Fra Dolcino after the founder was executed in 1300. Rather a bunch of free-love hippies if you ask me, except for the whole denying the value of good works bit.
I guess that was the name given in \"the Name of the Rose\" to Ron\'s character\'s \"sin\"?
(My knowledge of heresy is vast - or at least my library is good
)Hold on, I\'m sending off some chaps to have a little talk with you...
(What number did I give Lord Coteaz on the speed dial?.... ,oh, well, Eisenhorn will do, but he\'s such a whiny git...)
:innocent:
Ok, in the meantime, Perlman\'s character was named Salvatore, and what he yells about to scare young Adso was \"Penitenziaggi te\", up until Brother William of Baskerville walks on the scene and bullies him into giving some info.
(What number did I give Lord Coteaz on the speed dial?.... ,oh, well, Eisenhorn will do, but he\'s such a whiny git...)
:innocent:
Ok, in the meantime, Perlman\'s character was named Salvatore, and what he yells about to scare young Adso was \"Penitenziaggi te\", up until Brother William of Baskerville walks on the scene and bullies him into giving some info.
darthfoley
Active member
@barkel
My apologies if I offended your sensibilities by using quickly found, incomplete quotes. The point I was attempting to make was that the interpretation of what is written is the issue.
Sincerely, I did not mean to offend.
My apologies if I offended your sensibilities by using quickly found, incomplete quotes. The point I was attempting to make was that the interpretation of what is written is the issue.
Sincerely, I did not mean to offend.
Originally posted by finn17
Perhaps we could turn atheism into some sort of a religion....
I\'m in, you\'ll need someone to \"persuade\" people to \"convert\"...
lol
Or we could just create new holidays of our own and place them on existing ones, and then claim everyone is really celebrating OUR holiday.. wait, that\'s already been done?
EDIT: Looks like Klute and I already have our own little group, Those Of The Big Boris Avatar
minimart
New member
Just a thought, is not a religion a group of people who believe in the same thing....ergo people I would submit for your perusal and thinkatude that indeed atheists are members of a religion
Along that same thought we are a religion of sorts or dare I say even a \"cult\"lol
Naaahhhh couldn\'t be you lot are all too civil:innocent:
Along that same thought we are a religion of sorts or dare I say even a \"cult\"lol
Naaahhhh couldn\'t be you lot are all too civil
:innocent:
T
t_haye2
Guest
I bow down to Baps! lollollollollollollollol!
religion is greta, you cna get into endless arguments about it, have discussions and fights about it, but in the end it\'s all individual, and you\'ll only really find out when you die. and some people don\'t even do that, look at Keith Richards, he died ages ago but doesn\'t actually realize it....
religion is greta, you cna get into endless arguments about it, have discussions and fights about it, but in the end it\'s all individual, and you\'ll only really find out when you die. and some people don\'t even do that, look at Keith Richards, he died ages ago but doesn\'t actually realize it....
A Dutch word that is often used instead of religion is \"levensbeschouwing\". Not sure how to translate that in English but it\'s basicly the way you look at live. And this can be religious but also atheïst.Origineel geplaatst door minimart
Just a thought, is not a religion a group of people who believe in the same thing....ergo people I would submit for your perusal and thinkatude that indeed atheists are members of a religion
wiccanpony
Official Freak Bar Witch
he made a pact, years ago.....
lol why it’s well known why Keith Richards can’t die, he has “\"Sympathy For the Devil\" :flip:
lol why it’s well known why Keith Richards can’t die, he has “\"Sympathy For the Devil\" :flip:Now, I\'m not familiar with the bible at all, I\'m sixteen, and I\'m not very eloquent, but I\'ve got some fairly strong views about things...*rant on*
Has anyone read the Pratchett that contains the fairly ineffectual athiest god? Or his wonderfully funny part about how gods just wait till somebody gets struck by lightning and step in to take the credit? I mean, belief is a fairly self affirming thing. As long as you look hard enough, there\'s always something to reaffirm the fact that God is there. Let\'s take a hypothetical Bobby, for instance. If Bobby was evil and died, he would have gotten his just reward. If Bobby was good and died, it was all part of Gods master plan. If little Bobby got struck by lightning, it was all part of Gods master plan to flambe Bobby, and it shouldn\'t be questioned. If little Bobby happened to have a genetic urge to kiss other Bobbys, and not Bobina\'s, it was wrong. Or was it right? Meh, we\'ll do whatever the hell we want. Religion just seems so malleable to me. If there really is a God, he sure as hell wouldn\'t be listening to the predjudices of a select few. I mean, what\'s the point of all the forceful suggestions in the bible if they\'re slowly changed over time to suit our needs? God really just seems like a construct and conduit of human beliefs...and I think that\'s cool, if we admit that there is no god, except in our needs and beliefs...when people talk of an actual god, with an actual plan that is far above us humans, that\'s when I get annoyed. \"God\" is human... Religion has always been important to us, for as long as humans have been around. We\'ve needed it as a way to explain the previously unexplainable, we\'ve needed it to explain why there is fire, why there is death, why good people die, and why we\'re here. We\'re fairly insecure beings, and I think religion has provided some comfort to us. We\'re getting to the point, at least in my opinion, where we don\'t necessarily need religion. I think evolution is just as wondrous in it\'s own right, and that the human body is so much more fascinating when you think that nobody made us out of a mold, but our amazingly complicated processes are all a product of evolution. I can accept that the world is messed up, that people die needlessly, that maybe when we die, we\'re really just slowly amalgamated back into the earth, and no shiny enlightening light comes, that nobody cares about us. That we\'re beings who have our own agendas, who may not have any purpose to be except to be. We\'re pretty pathetic in the big scheme of things, but who cares? I don\'t care if I have a point or not, or if I\'m immortalized in the short lifespan of the human race, I\'m alive now, and I\'m gonna enjoy it.
Has anyone read the Pratchett that contains the fairly ineffectual athiest god? Or his wonderfully funny part about how gods just wait till somebody gets struck by lightning and step in to take the credit? I mean, belief is a fairly self affirming thing. As long as you look hard enough, there\'s always something to reaffirm the fact that God is there. Let\'s take a hypothetical Bobby, for instance. If Bobby was evil and died, he would have gotten his just reward. If Bobby was good and died, it was all part of Gods master plan. If little Bobby got struck by lightning, it was all part of Gods master plan to flambe Bobby, and it shouldn\'t be questioned. If little Bobby happened to have a genetic urge to kiss other Bobbys, and not Bobina\'s, it was wrong. Or was it right? Meh, we\'ll do whatever the hell we want. Religion just seems so malleable to me. If there really is a God, he sure as hell wouldn\'t be listening to the predjudices of a select few. I mean, what\'s the point of all the forceful suggestions in the bible if they\'re slowly changed over time to suit our needs? God really just seems like a construct and conduit of human beliefs...and I think that\'s cool, if we admit that there is no god, except in our needs and beliefs...when people talk of an actual god, with an actual plan that is far above us humans, that\'s when I get annoyed. \"God\" is human... Religion has always been important to us, for as long as humans have been around. We\'ve needed it as a way to explain the previously unexplainable, we\'ve needed it to explain why there is fire, why there is death, why good people die, and why we\'re here. We\'re fairly insecure beings, and I think religion has provided some comfort to us. We\'re getting to the point, at least in my opinion, where we don\'t necessarily need religion. I think evolution is just as wondrous in it\'s own right, and that the human body is so much more fascinating when you think that nobody made us out of a mold, but our amazingly complicated processes are all a product of evolution. I can accept that the world is messed up, that people die needlessly, that maybe when we die, we\'re really just slowly amalgamated back into the earth, and no shiny enlightening light comes, that nobody cares about us. That we\'re beings who have our own agendas, who may not have any purpose to be except to be. We\'re pretty pathetic in the big scheme of things, but who cares? I don\'t care if I have a point or not, or if I\'m immortalized in the short lifespan of the human race, I\'m alive now, and I\'m gonna enjoy it.
