Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on March 09, 2004, 03:07:49 pm
-
Don't ask me, 'cause I don't know any more than what you can see here.
-
It's made by Disney and thus will suck.
Period.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
It's made by Disney and thus will suck.
Period.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
It's made by Disney and thus will suck.
Period.
IIRC: Toy story, Nemo, pirates, mirical etc were all made by disney and they didnt suck.
THey can still do a good job
-
No, they were not made, but distributed by disney. There lies the difference :p
-
Hmmph. They could at least do them in order... :p
And Disney.....bleh.
I'll probably still go and see it, though. Rather good books. I liked Silver Chair and VOTDT the best.
-
Pfff. We've already heard this story.
It's just 'The Passion' Lite.
-
Never been big on CSL, might be good though.
-
Shoot it! Shoot it now!
-
As mildly exciting as this is, they could get it HOPELESSLY wrong......at least the effects budget will be bigger than the BBC drama......:D
Besides, VOTDT was, is, and always will be my fave. :)
-
Never read Narnia, but am I correct in assuming its more Harry Potter than LOTR and other "serious" literature?
-
ummm move over LOTR? hardly. get excited? deffinetly. :nod: ;7
-
Those books were bad ass. Used to love reading them in junior high. I was just thinking about these books a few months ago, wondering if I still had a few copies. Will I see the movie? Probably, but I'm the type of guy who doesn't like seeing a movie after reading the book cuz usually the movie rapes all that I enjoyed in the book, leaving it to the interpretation of the screenwriter and director.
-
No, Rictor. Its Christian allegory, and it rocks beyond belief. In The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, C.S. Lewis essentially retells the Passion. Interestingly, he gets the story closer to Biblical accuracy than Gibson, since he dwells on the Resurrection and not the crucifiction (entabulation, I guess would be the right word for LWW).
While there is certainly a bit of Harry Potter (English public school children, in the English sense of 'public', meaning 'private'), and more than a bit of the numinous as found in the Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia are almost entirely different in scope and character than either of those other fictional worlds. You owe it to yourself to give the books a thorough reading.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
It's made by Disney and thus will suck.
Period.
pirates of the caribbean was made by Disney, and it was awesome
EDIT: or was it just distributed by Disney? either way, it was badass :D
-
My question is who/what is Walden Media?
-
Them's these guys: http://www.walden.com/
-
No doubt they'll butcher the story's christian attributes to make it more 'compatible' with other faiths. What Stunaep said, basically.
-
So is this going to be animated or live-action?
-
this is the thing with the witch that turns everyone to stone, and the lion, and the corybant?
-
Never heard of it.
-
TLtWatW has been done to death...I've seen atleast 3 or 4 different movies, some were animated and one was live-action...
...My theory is that: It might be good...then again...Long Live LOTR!
(Edit: Post 666 BWHAHA!!! almost at 1000! D00d!!!)
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
No doubt they'll butcher the story's christian attributes to make it more 'compatible' with other faiths. What Stunaep said, basically.
I don't know, Sid. If one were to leave the story word for word intact and make no mention of God or the crucifiction, most people most likely wouldn't notice. I for one completely missed the biblical themes during my first three readings. It didn't help that I read the books in chronological, rather than canonical, order. As a result, I saw Aslan creating Narnia. That doesn't match well with Christian dogma, since Aslan represents the Christ, not the Father (consistently, Aslan always refers to his 'Father across/beyond the Sea', indicating His place in the world).
You might, however, run into some issues with the later books (The Horse and His Boy, The Last Battle). It would be very easy to find ethnocentric and religiocentric bigotry in Lewis' writings, with regard to the Calormene. Its not a far step to associate Tash with Allah. Of course, to do so would be most assuredly contrary to Lewis' intentions. Despite the middle-eastern depictions of the Calormene, Tash is surely intended to represent a Satan figure, rather than Allah. This is, of course, highlighted in Aslan's words to the Calormene soldier (something like, "whomever does good works in the name of Tash, is doing My work").
I think I remember all of that rightly. Calormene might be the wrong word, but I'm pretty sure that Tash is the evil god figure.
-
Never read the book, so :p
-
??!!!!??? Ok, I'm red all over (and a little blue). I loved these books so much when I was younger. Now is the first time I hear that they were Christian/biblical-themed books... Now I really wanna read them again to see what I missed.
-
Yeah, J3Vr6. It caught me by surprise too. I remember the moment when I went "Whoa... waittaminnit... Aslan is JEBUS!"
-
So what do the little kids represent? Man o man, I really gotta read these again. I think I'm gonna go to my moms house tomorrow and see if I can find my copies.
-
Narnia? Bah....:ick:
History of Middle Earth Rulez!!:D
Sillmarillion kicks ass!!!;7
-
*SMACK* Fanboy.
J3Vr6: the children are mankind as a whole. Alternatively they could be all of Christendom (though some 'Christians' might argue these are the same thing).
-
Well, they are...
-
Tsk tsk, J3Vr6. Christendom does not, I'm afraid, encompass Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, etc. All of these are, however part of "mankind". There's a distinct difference.
To be mathematical, let's use set theory:
A is the set of all mankind.
B is the set of all Christendom.
B is a subset of A. A is a superset of B.
IE: A contains B, but B does not contain all of A.
-
I was joking, silly billy, as all threads seem to become either uber political or religious.
But, isn't the belief of Christians that everyone is God's children and made in his likeness, whether or not they believe in him?
EDIT: But let's not go down this route. I'm just fooling around. I try not to get into those debates. It makes me pee.
-
Originally posted by J3Vr6
It makes me pee.
Goodness. I hope that's a euphemism or other figure of speech. :lol:
-
Just purchased meself the complete Chronicles in on big fat volume yesterday, as it happens. Queen Whatsername is just about to relate the deployment of the Deplorable Word, IIRC (best WMD ever). She was a right nasty piece of work, that one :nod:
To think, yesterday arvo I was all set tp post a 'Narnia Rules OK' thread... small world I suppose. For the record, Dawn Treader owned an incredible ammount, especially the last bits :nod:
-
Wasn't there already a series of movie versions of this? I remember a truly awful rendition of the Silver Chair one, in particular, though I don't really recall why it sucked so badly.
And yes, they are good books. And no, there's no way corporate Disney could possibly do them justice, even to the slight extent of not sucking.
-
they could let someone else do it and then take all the credit.
-
From what I understand, Nicole Kidman is going to play the White Queen. I don't know how I feel about that. On the one hand, she can pull off gorgeous, cold, haughty evil, but on the other she doesn't fit my image of the villain.
-
Narnia movie NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
-
I definitely remember watching LtWatW when I was much much younger, it was definitely a childrens' TV series (probably on the BBC, as it used to be much better before any matter of the Teletubby-era crap appeared).
mikhael, I do hope you're right, but I can't help but envision a multicultural hodgepodge interpretation of things. :(
-
NIcole Kidman is too good. Let Glen Close do it. She did a passable Cruella Deville. And if I rememebr correctly, the White Queen wasn't a prize winner in the looks department either.
I read the books in Jr high and remember most of them. They were excellent. I do hope however that they go for the purist view and I won't be happy unless Aslan bleeds like a stuck pig (just as I remember). Oh and BTW only now as you mentioned it I see the Jesus correlation, and you're absolutely correct. That menas U know who was Judas...(not wanting to be a spoiler).
-
Indeed, WRT Judas. And what a paltry forty pieces of silver!
However, I think in the Magician's Nephew, the Queen is described as terrible and cold and beautiful. I don't have a copy here, so I can't look it up, though.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Tash is surely intended to represent a Satan figure, rather than Allah.
I don't want to start discussing this (again), but just a note that the fundamental basis of Christianity holds that Allah is either Satan or a demonic figure. Lewis undoubtably either held that view or was aware of it.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I don't want to start discussing this (again), but just a note that the fundamental basis of Christianity holds that Allah is either Satan or a demonic figure. Lewis undoubtably either held that view or was aware of it.
Some, maybe. Just for the heck of it, let's go look at the official website of the Vatican.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1969/august/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19690801_comunita-islamiche_en.html
A letter from the Pope to the "Dignitaries and Representatives of Islam", including such phrases as "unite Christians and Moslems ever more closely, in true brotherhood" and "We feel sure that, as Representatives of Islam, you join in Our prayer to the Almighty, that He grant all African believers that desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Koran".
Seems to me the Pope thinks that Allah and Yahweh are the same person. And he's the representative of one of the largest sects of Christianity, with about one billion members.
-
Anyone who holds Allah as seperate from the Christian God is about as clued in on their judeo-christian theology as anyone who thinks that Jews and Christians worship different Gods.
Of course, I know people who think that Catholics aren't Christians, so what do I know?
-
lalalala...narnia...lalalala...here they come...lalalala my brains gone...:)
-
Money can by talent and disney has tons of money, i think they could do a good version but its doubtful.
-
I happen to love Clyde Staples Lewis alot. ANd I love the narnia series. HOWEVER DISNEY WILL BUTCHER IT.
on a side note:
I always loved the movie Shadowlands which is about how he marries and then loses his wife to cancer. Seeing anthony Hopkins in that role was amazing. He was gushing tears in the end and all through the movie. so was I. OK so I am a pussy.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Of course, I know people who think that Catholics aren't Christians, so what do I know?
...and remember, Christmas is not a Christian holiday! It's an evil pagan holiday adopted by the distant from God un-Christian Catholics!
GOD BLESS WAL-MART and MERKIA!
(Note: The above Calvinist views are not held by the poster, but are held by six million Americans)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Some, maybe. Just for the heck of it, let's go look at the official website of the Vatican.
....
Seems to me the Pope thinks that Allah and Yahweh are the same person. And he's the representative of one of the largest sects of Christianity, with about one billion members.
No offense to any Catholics out there, but to the majority of mainstream Christianity, the Pope is full of BS. Catholicism has departed from the Bible in so many ways it's not so much a Christian sect as it is an idol-worshipping cult. Worship Mary (or Miriam, the real name of the Jewish teenager who was Jesus' mother)? What in the Bible indicates that we should worship God... and Mary, hmm? That's like saying we should worship the Jewish people because they were used by God to bring forth Jesus. Please. :rolleyes:
Plus the very act of the Pope making such an all-encompassing, "let's bring all religions together!" statement is not just un-Biblical, it's anti-Biblical.
Like I've told my army buddies, I hold the same respect for the Pope, and he holds the same authority over me, as would an uppity-up Orthodox Rabbi to a secular Jew. I respect his position of authority over so many, but that's about it.
Originally posted by mikhael
Anyone who holds Allah as seperate from the Christian God is about as clued in on their judeo-christian theology as anyone who thinks that Jews and Christians worship different Gods.
Of course, I know people who think that Catholics aren't Christians, so what do I know?
Let's talk about this on ICQ or something, eh? I think the vB's Religion-O-Meter is about to explode from all the abuse. :D
-
Originally posted by Ace
...and remember, Christmas is not a Christian holiday! It's an evil pagan holiday adopted by the distant from God un-Christian Catholics!
Well that's true, you know, but when it's convenient, people prefer to forget things like that. Hey, yeah, all the christians are celebrating a pagan holiday once a year, and, oh, irony, it's probably everyone's favourite.
I wonder how god feels having all his peons celebrating the Sun :p
"I laught at thee" :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
Well that's true, you know, but when it's convenient, people prefer to forget things like that. Hey, yeah, all the christians are celebrating a pagan holiday once a year, and, oh, irony, it's probably everyone's favourite.
I wonder how god feels having all his peons celebrating the Sun :p
"I laught at thee" :p
Yes, I know it's true. But I still laugh at the people who are anti-Christmas because they're: "TRUE CHRISTIANS!!!! JESUS, (insert your country here) APPLE PIE, AND THE STOCK MARKET!!!111oneoneone"
Am I the only one who doesn't understand the whole materialism "God wants to bless you in this world" thing? :p
Anyway back on topic:
If the plan on doing all of the books, and the movies are OK, I can't wait until Voyage of the Dawn Trader and the Magician's Nephew are done.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I happen to love Clyde Staples Lewis alot. ANd I love the narnia series.
Bonus points for getting his kick-arse middle name, but his first name is Clive. ;)
And indeed, Voyage of the Dawn Treader will make TEH BEST MOVIE. I'll definitely be seeing that one. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
No offense to any Catholics out there, but to the majority of mainstream Christianity, the Pope is full of BS. Catholicism has departed from the Bible in so many ways it's not so much a Christian sect as it is an idol-worshipping cult. Worship Mary (or Miriam, the real name of the Jewish teenager who was Jesus' mother)? What in the Bible indicates that we should worship God... and Mary, hmm? That's like saying we should worship the Jewish people because they were used by God to bring forth Jesus. Please. :rolleyes:
Um... Catholocism is mainstream Christianity. Its the single largest Christian sect. Pentacostals might get the nod for OLDEST established sect, but they're not exactly 'mainstream' either. If you confuse honoring Mary with worshiping Mary, it might be time to go back to catechism and learn the difference. Saints are not worshipped; they are honored. They're like uber-priests that are dead.
Be careful, please, with the dismissive tone, btw. You're heading in the same direction as people like Liberator and Trashman. I'd hate to see that.
Plus the very act of the Pope making such an all-encompassing, "let's bring all religions together!" statement is not just un-Biblical, it's anti-Biblical.
Chapter and verse, please?
-
DANGER! DANGER! ON-TOPIC POST:
The Magician's Nephew does indeed harp on about how beautiful Jadis is... and also how she beats up coppers with an iron bar and wipes out entire cities with a word.
Thing is, in TMN, can you imagine the whole Wood between the Worlds dealy? You could spend your whole life exploring all those worlds - imagine exploring places like Charn. The concept is absolutely mind blowing, and knocks the stargate network in to a cocked hat :D
-
The Wood Between Worlds is the single concept that made me read all the rest of the Narnia books.
Thanks for reminding me of "Jadis"--and the iron bar. To be accurate though, its the cross bar from a lamp post. It can't be just ANY iron bar, for obvious reasons. :)
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Bonus points for getting his kick-arse middle name, but his first name is Clive. ;)
And indeed, Voyage of the Dawn Treader will make TEH BEST MOVIE. I'll definitely be seeing that one. :)
His prefered name is Jack also.
-
ROFLAMO
-
'Shrek' director to helm LW&W (http://www.narnia.com/movie/news/movienews_020731.htm)
Ph34r
-
There's hope, then.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Um... Catholocism is mainstream Christianity. Its the single largest Christian sect. Pentacostals might get the nod for OLDEST established sect, but they're not exactly 'mainstream' either. If you confuse honoring Mary with worshiping Mary, it might be time to go back to catechism and learn the difference. Saints are not worshipped; they are honored. They're like uber-priests that are dead.
Be careful, please, with the dismissive tone, btw. You're heading in the same direction as people like Liberator and Trashman. I'd hate to see that.
I used "mainstream" rather than "fundamental", since the latter has - in opposition to its true meaning - come to mean something negative. But if you think about it, when you stick to the fundamentals of something, you're not going off into all sorts of different tangents. In Christianity's case, the fundamental basis is the complete Bible - Tanach and New Covenant.
Departure from what is written in the (unchanging) Bible is a departure from the fundamental basis of a Christian's faith. No matter who a person is or how much authority he/she may have, if they say something that is diametrically opposed to the Bible, they are in error. The Bible is Christianity's "control subject", if you will.
When one has idols / statues (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=ex+20%3A4-6&x=0&y=0) of a figure all over the place to the extent that the Catholics do with Mary, it's safe to assume that that figure is being worshipped.
Originally posted by mikhael
Chapter and verse, please?
Certainly.
Exodus 20:3 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=ex+20%3A3&x=0&y=0):
[q]"You shall have no other gods before Me."[/q]
John 14:6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOHN%2B14%3A6&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NKJV&x=14&y=4):
[q]Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."[/q]
-
And those two verses in what way obviate Catholocism, Sandwich? Catholics hold no god before God. Saints are men and women, mortal and fallible and are not worshipped. Neither do the saints grant salvation, which you seem to imply with the John quote.
I think you're at least as sadly confused as to the nature of Catholicism as you seem to think other people are to the nature of fundamentalism.
-
Catholicism suffers from the overuse of symbolism.
Many of its doctrins are taken out of context from scripture. (eg, transubstantion at communion, mary, etc) it suffers from a distorted view of christ sacrafice, u notice that christ is always depicted as hanging on the cross. THis is the only problem i have with the Passion, it fails to elaborate on his ressurection.
Mik, catholics still believe that salvation is attained through works, not through a trust in god. (iv talked with enough of them to know this)
I hate to use this as an example, but the movie dogma lays out the catholic faith and its problems quite accuratly. (watched it with catholics they agreeded with most of what it had to say (there were lots of theatric elements to root thorugh tho))
-
I talked to a Catholic too, Drew. She's usually about 3ft behind me at her computer. I married her a few years back. I get this stuff first hand.
Catholocism has lots of problems, just like fundamentalism. There's not a single sect of christianity that doesn't have to deal with contradictions, logical conundrums, its-a-symbol-no-its-not-now-it-is-again silliness, and outright denials of reality. That's what makes them 'religions', instead of merely philosophies.
Until you get the big man himself, in person, face to face, telling you, me and everyone else what's what, you can't really claim any one interpretation is more or less correct. You're just making assumptions based on a two to six thousand year long round of the Telephone Game.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I used "mainstream" rather than "fundamental", since the latter has - in opposition to its true meaning - come to mean something negative. But if you think about it, when you stick to the fundamentals of something, you're not going off into all sorts of different tangents. In Christianity's case, the fundamental basis is the complete Bible - Tanach and New Covenant.
Since "mainstream" means the majority, mainstream Christianity would in fact be Catholicism. ...and if fundamentalism has gained a bad name, it earned it honestly.
Anyway back on topic, I do wonder how they'll do the Jadis' home planet/dimension when they get around to it. You know, the whole dying red sun ruined world thing. Really reminds me of the Dark Sun campaign setting for D&D for some reason...
-
I talked to God. He says you're wrong. He also said something about Slurpees, but I didn't really understand that part.
-
Originally posted by Ace
...and remember, Christmas is not a Christian holiday! It's an evil pagan holiday adopted by the distant from God un-Christian Catholics!
GOD BLESS WAL-MART and MERKIA!
(Note: The above Calvinist views are not held by the poster, but are held by six million Americans)
How is celebrating the birthday of Jesus a pagan tradition? :wtf:
Sure, Christians might have stole the season, or the month/day, but the actual holiday and reason for it?
-
Drew Catholics believe you go to heaven through good works AND faith. Its based on the whole do evil and go to hell thing.
Originally posted by Sandwich
but just a note that the fundamental basis of Christianity holds that Allah is either Satan or a demonic figure. Lewis undoubtably either held that view or was aware of it.
Originally posted by Sandwich
In Christianity's case, the fundamental basis is the complete Bible - Tanach and New Covenant.
Departure from what is written in the (unchanging) Bible is a departure from the fundamental basis of a Christian's faith.
Islam was born about 600ad, long after the Bible was wrote.
Never knew Narnia was a biblical thing, though I was only around 12 when I read it.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
And those two verses in what way obviate Catholocism, Sandwich? Catholics hold no god before God. Saints are men and women, mortal and fallible and are not worshipped. Neither do the saints grant salvation, which you seem to imply with the John quote.
I think you're at least as sadly confused as to the nature of Catholicism as you seem to think other people are to the nature of fundamentalism.
Look through my quotes again, Mik. Those last 2 verses were in response to the Pope's "let's bring all religions together" statement. Christianity that remains faithful to it's fundamental basis leaves no room for other ways unto paradise / utopia / salvation.
I only was referring to Catholicism by my first quote of one of the Ten Commandments in Exodus chapter 20, about carved images and idols.
Originally posted by Ace
Since "mainstream" means the majority, mainstream Christianity would in fact be Catholicism. ...and if fundamentalism has gained a bad name, it earned it honestly.
Yes, it has. Primarily because people forgot to love their neighbor as themselves, and instead focused on "convert Convert CONVERT!". :-/
But then again, if they forgot such a primary commandment, how can they still be fundamental? Extremist, yes. But fundamental?
Originally posted by Gank
Drew Catholics believe you go to heaven through good works AND faith. Its based on the whole do evil and go to hell thing.
In the Catholics' favor, I will say that most Christians today do not realize that faith without works is dead. But we've already had that conversation. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ace
Anyway back on topic, I do wonder how they'll do the Jadis' home planet/dimension when they get around to it. You know, the whole dying red sun ruined world thing. Really reminds me of the Dark Sun campaign setting for D&D for some reason...
Yeah, Narnia sure has its fair share of fantastic environments. I can't wait to see how they'll visualise it all.
Agreed, Mike, on the confusion around the term fundamentalist. The popular meaning for fundamentalist is quite far from "people who hold to the basics" - but language is like that, I guess. Not that it helps.
-
Originally posted by J3Vr6
...all threads seem to become either uber political or religious.
AAAAHHHHHH!!!!! YOU SEE!!! IT HAPPENED!
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Look through my quotes again, Mik. Those last 2 verses were in response to the Pope's "let's bring all religions together" statement. Christianity that remains faithful to it's fundamental basis leaves no room for other ways unto paradise / utopia / salvation.
I only was referring to Catholicism by my first quote of one of the Ten Commandments in Exodus chapter 20, about carved images and idols.
Your reference to Exodus is predicated of a misunderstanding of Catholocism, as I already pointed out.
The Pope's meaning were NOT "let's bring all religions together". Somehow, I'm pretty sure Shinto and the Aboriginal Dreamtime weren't included. In point of fact, I think you'll find that the Pope was only referring to what Muslims refer to as the religions of the Book: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all three of which worship the same God. I'm almost, though not quite, certain that the Pope was also not saying anything in his statement about anyone getting into Heaven, but rather referring to the brotherhood of people who share a faith in the same God.
Originally posted by Setekh
Agreed, Mike, on the confusion around the term fundamentalist. The popular meaning for fundamentalist is quite far from "people who hold to the basics" - but language is like that, I guess. Not that it helps.
There's a problem there, Steak: the fundamentalists--the people who declare themselves to be fundamentalists--are not 'people who hold to the basics, at least in this country. I'm sure there are some people who hold to a fundamentalist, hold-to-the-basics faith, but most, especially the ones here in the South, do not. They do things and evangelize beliefs that are not in their Book, nor do they hold to the teachings that are in their Book. If its a hold to the basics, fundamental way of life and belief, how can they ignore the rules and a stricture laid out in their Book? Its either fundamental or its not. That's the contradiction: they profess one thing, but do something else. That's why they get such a bum rap.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
There's a problem there, Steak: the fundamentalists--the people who declare themselves to be fundamentalists--are not 'people who hold to the basics, at least in this country. I'm sure there are some people who hold to a fundamentalist, hold-to-the-basics faith, but most, especially the ones here in the South, do not. They do things and evangelize beliefs that are not in their Book, nor do they hold to the teachings that are in their Book. If its a hold to the basics, fundamental way of life and belief, how can they ignore the rules and a stricture laid out in their Book? Its either fundamental or its not. That's the contradiction: they profess one thing, but do something else. That's why they get such a bum rap.
Yeah, I grasp that. That's where the problem happens, I guess. For the record, fundamentalists did start as merely a small group of "basics" people, but then the people you describe took on the name as well.
I guess it comes down to: if you a bunch of people declare themselves to be a particular group of people, should they be responsible for representing said group of people? That's logical, until some ridiculous group of people claims to be (hypothetical) "Patriots of the United States of America", then launches a large-scale terrorist attack on innocent Muslims living in the States (this example is totally fictitious). No one in their right mind would attribute these acts to the greater body of American patriots - that would be insanity. I'm not so sure, is that's what's happening here with fundamentalists?
-
Originally posted by Setekh
I guess it comes down to: if you a bunch of people declare themselves to be a particular group of people, should they be responsible for representing said group of people?
A group is defined as much by what it believes and does as by what they do not do and do not believe. In American society today, the people you describe either do not exist or do not do anything to prevent the slander of their good name by the highly vocal, evangelical majority. My grandmother is a self-described fundamentalist. She does not, however, agree with the views espoused by the likes of Pat Robertson and his Moral Majority. Voices like her's however, are either never raised up, or they are drowned out by the mass of 'fundamentalists' who are busy decrying Teletubbies as homosexual role models.
That's logical, until some ridiculous group of people claims to be (hypothetical) "Patriots of the United States of America", then launches a large-scale terrorist attack on innocent Muslims living in the States (this example is totally fictitious). No one in their right mind would attribute these acts to the greater body of American patriots - that would be insanity. I'm not so sure, is that's what's happening here with fundamentalists?
There are those who would say this has already happened. Just that they chose not to prey on innocent Muslims in the US, but innocent Iraqis. ;)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Your reference to Exodus is predicated of a misunderstanding of Catholocism, as I already pointed out.
The Pope's meaning were NOT "let's bring all religions together". Somehow, I'm pretty sure Shinto and the Aboriginal Dreamtime weren't included. In point of fact, I think you'll find that the Pope was only referring to what Muslims refer to as the religions of the Book: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all three of which worship the same God. I'm almost, though not quite, certain that the Pope was also not saying anything in his statement about anyone getting into Heaven, but rather referring to the brotherhood of people who share a faith in the same God.
I stand corrected about the religions referred to by the pope.
However, let me state very plainly: The god of the Islamic religion is not the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. Period, full stop, end of story.
The idea that the 3 major religions are all worshipping the same god is one of the greatest lies around these days. If you believe this lie, and since you've already (apparently) read through the Koran, I suggest to go get yourself a copy of the Bible (King James Version or New King James Version, though neither are completely accurate translations) and read it through, with an eye towards validating / invalidating the statement that it's the same god.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The god of the Islamic religion is not the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. Period, full stop, end of story.
See, that's the sort of thinking that pretty much kills a discussion. Period, full stop, end of story. It can't be proven either way, and it doesn't allow for any meaningful discourse. That's, well, pretty bad form. Its not cricket. You'll need to back up your statement with some facts or logic or SOMETHING.
Back to what my response to the rest:
You know, I'm sure there's some Jews who would say that Christians who follow that upstart Jesus aren't worshipping the same God they are. Can you give me, chapter and verse, please, where the Bible says that Muslims do not worship the God of Abraham and Jesus? Surah I, speaks to the children of Israel in verse 40, 47, 63 and 83 (referenceing the Covenant with Abraham). It also speaks, in verse 51 of Allah giving Moses the Scripture and the Criterion of right and wrong. Further, verse 87 says:
And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs, and We supported him with the holy Spirit.
Sounds an awful lot like the same God to me.
My question here is simple: Why does your book trump their book?
Actually, not so simple: Does this mean that Mormons don't worship the same God as other Christians? What about those Jehovah's Witnesses (did they get an angel? maybe I'll ask next time they come to my door).
As far as I can tell, the Christ made a few changes when he was teaching, and his teachings became the foundation for a whole second book. After all, before Christ, God was wrathful and vengeful and stern. Now He's a happy, loving God. Now, if God can do an image rewrite once, why not twice (or really three times if you throw in the Book of Mormon). We know from various places, after all, that God likes to send angels about to deliver messages from on high. Why decide that Moroni and Gabriel never delivered the messages that inspired the Book of Mormon and al-Qu'ran?
Surely, there's nothing preventing God from deciding to dispatch another angel with a revelation for a new prophet? He can do that, right? It falls under the umbrella of omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, yes? It wouldn't be the first time, after all, that He changed His mind.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
As far as I can tell, the Christ made a few changes when he was teaching, and his teachings became the foundation for a whole second book. After all, before Christ, God was wrathful and vengeful and stern. Now He's a happy, loving God. Now, if God can do an image rewrite once, why not twice (or really three times if you throw in the Book of Mormon).
I like addressing small parts. ;) Anyway, I'd like to point out the weakness of this assertion. The Bible is consistent with God as a character of justice (hence constantly judging his chosen people Israel with regard to their wickedness), yet of mercy. Whenever the nation (and also, the world) is punished, salvation is there amidst it: think of the Fall (along with the curse on creation, God promises a son of Eve who will crush the enemy of God and mankind, the Serpent); the Flood (among the destruction, Noah and his family is saved); the Exile (Israel is devastated, the Holy Temple torn down - and yet the nation is preserved). It's a common mistake to forget the salvation among the judgement.
The picture is the same in the New Testament. Jesus comes to save the world (which most people are familiar with), but most forget that he has come also to judge it (eg. Matthew 10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+10:33-35&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)). So it may pay to have a closer look at God's mingling of righteous anger and merciful salvation that the whole Bible bears witness to. I know I was quite surprised by it at first.
-
Steak, I think, by focusing on the small part, you missed the whole point.
Changes in direction ARE made from Testament I to Testament II. If such changes can be made by God once, why can they not be made twice, or even three times?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
See, that's the sort of thinking that pretty much kills a discussion. Period, full stop, end of story. It can't be proven either way, and it doesn't allow for any meaningful discourse. That's, well, pretty bad form. Its not cricket. You'll need to back up your statement with some facts or logic or SOMETHING.
My apologies, but I thought this was ground we had already covered. You must have missed my explanations that I gave previously. Or maybe they were in one of the other threads - they're all a blur. Whatever - read this:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/History/Al-Quds/qubbat.htm
Specifically, the quotations of the writings on the Dome of the Rock, among which you will find:
[q]
...The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is but a messenger of Allah and His word which He cast upon Mary and a spirit from Him. So believe only in Allah and of His messenger, but do not say "Three" (Trinity) and it will be better for you. Allah is only one God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son....
...It is not for Allah to take for Himself any offspring, glory be to Him....
...Praise be God who has not taken unto Himself a son...
[/q]
How anyone can read this and yet still try to reconcile Christianity with Islam is beyond me.
Originally posted by mikhael
You know, I'm sure there's some Jews who would say that Christians who follow that upstart Jesus aren't worshipping the same God they are. Can you give me, chapter and verse, please, where the Bible says that Muslims do not worship the God of Abraham and Jesus?
Aside from what I posted above? No, becaue the Bible was written before Islam existed.
Abraham is a/the patriarchial figure of both Judaism and Islam - his offspring, Ishmael and Isaac, are where the lines split, so to speak.
Jesus is considered to be a great prophet by Islam, but not much more. Certainly the quotes above from the inside of the Dome of the Rock rule out what the New Covenant says about Him being the Son of God - after all, "Allah has no son."
Originally posted by mikhael
Surah I, speaks to the children of Israel in verse 40, 47, 63 and 83 (referenceing the Covenant with Abraham). It also speaks, in verse 51 of Allah giving Moses the Scripture and the Criterion of right and wrong. Further, verse 87 says:
Sounds an awful lot like the same God to me.
My question here is simple: Why does your book trump their book?
Not having access to those verses, I cannot respond to them, although I find it very interesting that the Koran follows Issac's line of decendants (among other things, I assume). Just don't tell me it claims Jesus was Palestinian. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, not so simple: Does this mean that Mormons don't worship the same God as other Christians? What about those Jehovah's Witnesses (did they get an angel? maybe I'll ask next time they come to my door).
Personally I cannot speak for the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, as I have had no direct experience with them. I can say, however, that my mother, back before I was born and when she was a hippy, came to know Jesus through a Jehovah's Witnesses' bible study - they came to her door and offered her to join the bible study, and she thought, "I've always wanted to study that occult book."
So in short she did, and soon thereafter had a vision of Jesus sitting at the foot of her bed, saying that he knew everything she ever did, and that he loves her and forgives her. So that was that; the JWs had some influence in that situation.
Originally posted by mikhael
As far as I can tell, the Christ made a few changes when he was teaching, and his teachings became the foundation for a whole second book. After all, before Christ, God was wrathful and vengeful and stern. Now He's a happy, loving God. Now, if God can do an image rewrite once, why not twice (or really three times if you throw in the Book of Mormon). We know from various places, after all, that God likes to send angels about to deliver messages from on high. Why decide that Moroni and Gabriel never delivered the messages that inspired the Book of Mormon and al-Qu'ran?
While a general, casual look at the Tanach seems to show a God of wrath and judgement, and a similarly casual look at the God portrayed in the New Covenant shows someone who has seemingly mellowed out as He grew older, that's not the case. There are plenty of beautifully crafted passages of love in the Tanach, such as Jeremiah 31:1-6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JER+31&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on):
[q] 1 "At the same time," says the LORD, "I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people."
2 Thus says the LORD:
"The people who survived the sword
Found grace in the wilderness--
Israel, when I went to give him rest."
3 The LORD has appeared of old to me, saying:
"Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love;
Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.
4 Again I will build you, and you shall be rebuilt,
O virgin of Israel!
You shall again be adorned with your tambourines,
And shall go forth in the dances of those who rejoice.
5 You shall yet plant vines on the mountains of Samaria;
The planters shall plant and eat them as ordinary food.
6 For there shall be a day
When the watchmen will cry on Mount Ephraim,
"Arise, and let us go up to Zion,
To the LORD our God."' [/q]
And for all those who think that Jesus is a mild-mannered Clark Kent, I give to you His second coming, in Revelation chapter 19, verses 11-16 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+19&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on):
[q] 11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. [/q]
Originally posted by mikhael
Surely, there's nothing preventing God from deciding to dispatch another angel with a revelation for a new prophet? He can do that, right? It falls under the umbrella of omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, yes?
The only thing "preventing" God from doing anything is His faithfulness to His word - He will not break His word, ever.
-
Ye gads, people! This is a thread about films of books! Enough of the religion already! Sandwich, Mikhael, agree to disagree or something, and leave it at that. You both obviously have very strong opinions on this, and you're both very well-read, so I don't think you'll sway each other either way. :)
Oh, and let's have some more people reading the books, please. They're bloody good. Yes, they may have some decidedly Christian overtones in some respects, but they're still great. And they're fiction anyway, so it doesn't matter. :D
EDIT: But while we're on this:
Originally posted by Sandwich:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is but a messenger of Allah and His word which He cast upon Mary and a spirit from Him. So believe only in Allah and of His messenger, but do not say "Three" (Trinity) and it will be better for you. Allah is only one God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son....
...It is not for Allah to take for Himself any offspring, glory be to Him....
...Praise be God who has not taken unto Himself a son...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How anyone can read this and yet still try to reconcile Christianity with Islam is beyond me.
I actually consider that to be pretty good proof that they are one and the same, just perceived from slightly different angles. :)
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
I actually consider that to be pretty good proof that they are one and the same, just perceived from slightly different angles. :)
Eh? Explain, please. :)
-
I'm sorry, Sandwich, the inscriptions in the Dome of The Rock do not obviate Muslims worshipping the same God as Jews and Christians.
You're basing your case on your belief in the words in a book. Muslims base their belief on the words in a book. Unfortunately, neither book can be proven (or disproven) to be the actual and factual Word of God. This is a simple case of a dispute over a fact of faith. You are indeed free to believe that they don't worship your God. That does not, however, make you correct and them incorrect. It only makes you BELIEVE them to be incorrect and BELIEVE you are correct.
Just out of curiosity, is there any passage in the New Testament where God Himself--not an apostle or Jesus--states unequivocally to the world that Jesus is His Son, in the specific biological and genealogical sense ("Sandwich is his father's son, ain't he cute!"), not in the general and figurative sense ("Sandwich is a son of Israel")? I don't know of one, which is hardly surprising, as I'm rather undereducated. If there is, could you quote it for me, with chapter and verse references?
In a discussion of comparitive theology (in the classical, secular definition of the word: study of religion), mere belief of one group or the other is insufficient to determine anything. It leads to unsupported theses, wherein believing something to be true, without establishing its objective truth, leads one to conclude the truth of something else.
-
Might I also add that there were Christian sects before the council of Nicea that did not believe in the trinity, even more so believed that Jesus was mortal and was the son of god in a methaphorical sense. After Nicea these sects were declared heretical.
Anyway, the inscriptions on the dome of the rock make it very clear that:
Allah is God
The Muslims do acknowledge the existance of Jesus, but do not believe in the trinity.
So by taking a heretical approach, you can easily reconcile the two religions. If protecting life requires bending the rules a little, then so be it. God might even be testing you to come up with creative solutions. I'm sure that someone is going to state that this type of opinion is what makes people "distant from God."
-
I have oftine wondered myself exactly why the 'son of God' thing couldn't be interpeted as more that we are all the children of God and he was just keenly aware of this fact.
-
I don't recall Jesus saying he was the Son of God but the once, on the cross, and that was rather open to interpretation.
-
Didn't he tell the Rabbis he was the son of God?
-
he talked about God, his Father, on many occasions
-
I'm not really sure it matters what Jesus claimed, really, since he didn't author any of the books of the New Testament. Any claim the man may or may not have made may have been altered injudiciously by any of the later authors.
That's why I asked about God Himself claiming paternity. Given the Muslim belief that Isa (Jesus) was a prophet, but not the literal Son of God, any statement by God Himself to the to the contrary would be a telling point in favor of Sandwich's assertion. If, however, there is no such passage, it merely appears that God's word as given to Muhammed and recorded in al-Qu'ran are correcting and clarifying what is to be found in the New Testament.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
he talked about God, his Father, on many occasions
Priests talk about God, the Father, as well. In the formalised prayers you find such things as "Our Father, who art in Heaven...". Personalizing your relationship with God into a powerful father-respectful child relationship is common.
-
check this Stryke:
There are several places ... that speak of Jesus as the only "begotten" Son of God (http://www.biblelessons.com/begotten.html)
also, with regards to the Muslims beliefs in Jesus (being the son of God):
http://www.carm.org/islam/obj_Jesus_son.htm
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Priests talk about God, the Father, as well. In the formalised prayers you find such things as "Our Father, who art in Heaven...". Personalizing your relationship with God into a powerful father-respectful child relationship is common.
well i don't really know what this topic is about (or rather, what it's become)... i just looked at the last post (at the time it was Stryke, who said "Didn't he tell the Rabbis he was the son of God?") and replied. i don't know any of the context, i was just trying to help with some research *shrugs* :) :nod:
-
Interesting links up there, Stealth, but they have the problem of not being spoken by God in the text. They all come from men.
As I understand it, the most common doctrinal Islamic interpretation of Isa as 'son of God' is in the sense that all men are 'sons of God' and that he was a prophet, in the same manner as Mohammed. I'd say its a fair interpretation.
Specifically, I think the last paragraph of the carm.org page you linked shows a rather interesting lack of understanding of al-Islam. As a prophet, Isa would have no problem performing the miracles he is said to have performed, without having to be the literal 'Son of God'. Those prophets, they have mojo.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I'm sorry, Sandwich, the inscriptions in the Dome of The Rock do not obviate Muslims worshipping the same God as Jews and Christians.
You're basing your case on your belief in the words in a book. Muslims base their belief on the words in a book. Unfortunately, neither book can be proven (or disproven) to be the actual and factual Word of God. This is a simple case of a dispute over a fact of faith. You are indeed free to believe that they don't worship your God. That does not, however, make you correct and them incorrect. It only makes you BELIEVE them to be incorrect and BELIEVE you are correct.
Ok, I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here, because on the face of it, it seems like you've gone off the deep end with regards to logic.
On the face of it, it seems like you're saying is that Islam and Christianity may worship the same God, despite their holy writings having concrete contradictions. Which deserves a :wtf::
:wtf:
But in trying to understand what you're getting at, I realized that you may be saying that the holy writings themselves are in error concerning this point. Which would sort of help reconcile things, but for one wee problem.
I can't speak for Islam, but for Christianity, the Bible is the absolute unchanging Word of God. It doesn't matter that it was written by man, it was God-inspired, He holds the universe in His Hands, so making sure that we got The Real Thing™ was child's play for Him. It is the bottom-line comparison we can measure all the doctrines against. All our personal beliefs, if they are contrary to the Bible, are in error.
Now I'm assuming that what is written multiple times at Islam's 3rd most holy site, the Dome of the Rock, is also as true and unchanging for them.
Originally posted by Ace
Anyway, the inscriptions on the dome of the rock make it very clear that:
Allah is God
The Muslims do acknowledge the existance of Jesus, but do not believe in the trinity.
So by taking a heretical approach, you can easily reconcile the two religions. If protecting life requires bending the rules a little, then so be it. God might even be testing you to come up with creative solutions. I'm sure that someone is going to state that this type of opinion is what makes people "distant from God."
That's not the point I was getting at with those quotes. I was referring to the multiple statements there that "God has no son", which is impossible to reconcile with the basic concept of the once-for-all blood atonement of sins which God provided by allowing His Son to be sacrificed.
Originally posted by mikhael
Just out of curiosity, is there any passage in the New Testament where God Himself--not an apostle or Jesus--states unequivocally to the world that Jesus is His Son, in the specific biological and genealogical sense ("Sandwich is his father's son, ain't he cute!"), not in the general and figurative sense ("Sandwich is a son of Israel")? I don't know of one, which is hardly surprising, as I'm rather undereducated. If there is, could you quote it for me, with chapter and verse references?
Of course. Matthew 3:16-17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT%2B3&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NKJV&x=16&y=7):
[q] 16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."[/q]
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Steak, I think, by focusing on the small part, you missed the whole point.
Changes in direction ARE made from Testament I to Testament II. If such changes can be made by God once, why can they not be made twice, or even three times?
Ah, I thought I had made a mistake for a minute, but I did understand your idea the first time. You see, I don't really think there are changes in direction between Testament I and Testament II - just completions of directions that were always there before.
-
Sandwich, if you were considering Allah not to be the same as Iehovah/Yhwh solely on the basis of the members of the Islamic faith not believing that Jesu is god, then you are forgetting your history of heretical sects in Christianity. Specifically, the Gnostics, who denied the divinity of Jesus.
And yes, I am having fun using archaic versions of names.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Eh? Explain, please. :)
Erm, right:
Christians: Jesus is the son of God.
Muslims: Jesus is not the son of Allah, merely a messenger.
From that, I would have thought it's obvious that they're talking about the same entity. They just have differing opinions on Jesus i.e. whether he is the son of god and a divine being in his own right, or a prophet of god and no more.
I honestly struggle to see how you can look at that and conclude that they are talking about entirely different deities (sp???:nervous: ). I really do. Your mind must work very differently to mine. :)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Sandwich, if you were considering Allah not to be the same as Iehovah/Yhwh solely on the basis of the members of the Islamic faith not believing that Jesu is god, then you are forgetting your history of heretical sects in Christianity. Specifically, the Gnostics, who denied the divinity of Jesus.
And yes, I am having fun using archaic versions of names.
I've encountered a number of Gnostics here, actually. I have one question for them: If they do not hold Jesus to be divine, then what the hell are they doing worshipping a man?
And if you wanna get archaic, I can play too. It's יהוה (YHVH or YHWH) and ישוע (Yeshua, which is Jesus' name in Hebrew). ;)
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Erm, right:
Christians: Jesus is the son of God.
Muslims: Jesus is not the son of Allah, merely a messenger.
From that, I would have thought it's obvious that they're talking about the same entity. They just have differing opinions on Jesus i.e. whether he is the son of god and a divine being in his own right, or a prophet of god and no more.
I honestly struggle to see how you can look at that and conclude that they are talking about entirely different deities (sp???:nervous: ). I really do. Your mind must work very differently to mine. :)
Ahh, ok, on the surface it may indeed seem that way. If it were merely a question of Jesus' "true" identity then there wouldn't be much of a problem.
However, it is His identity as the unblemished Son of God which allows Him to fulfil the blood sacrifice required by God for the forgiveness of sins of the world. If He was merely a messenger, than His death and ressurection had no meaning (since He would ahve been sinful man) beyond being a cute miracle, and we're all royally screwed.
So I hope that you can see how the single statement that Jesus is not the Son of God essentially invalidates the very core of Christianity.
-
Thanks for the reference, Sandwich. Can you tell me with certainty the original language was in the patrilinear and not the figurative sense?
Pyro-manic, Sandwich's position is based on the inerrency of the Bible and the inerrancy of al-Qu'ran. In other words, he's basing his belief about someone else's beliefs on his belief in a book of beliefs. Not terribly useful for comparitive theology purposes.
The idea of Biblical is rather silly at best, and downright heretical at worst. If the Bible cannot be in error, then God cannot change his mind and rewrite the rules. Further, the Bible IS in factual error on several things (grasshoppers, my friends, have six legs, not four, and rabbits do not chew cud).
If the Bible is errant, then inerrancy cannot be used to prove that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians and Jews.
-
But its obvious from the same statement that Islam worships the same God as Christianity.
-
Its obvious to you and me, Gank. I can imagine some reasons people would want to deny the connection.
-
Sandwich, the Gnostics did not worship Jesus they treated him as a prophet of God. Pretty much the way that most of the followers of Islam do.
-
Indeed Mikhael. Sandwich, out of curiosity are you part of the jews for jesus movement?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Thanks for the reference, Sandwich. Can you tell me with certainty the original language was in the patrilinear and not the figurative sense?
I can't, nope - I'm not a Greek scholar. I have a number of friends who are, though. I can ask if you want. :)
Originally posted by mikhael
If the Bible cannot be in error, then God cannot change his mind and rewrite the rules. Further, the Bible IS in factual error on several things (grasshoppers, my friends, have six legs, not four, and rabbits do not chew cud).
God can change His mind, just like He can influence us and force us to do whatever. But He chooses not to break His word, He chooses not to invalidate our free will.
And what's with the vague animal references? :p
Originally posted by Gank
Sandwich, out of curiosity are you part of the jews for jesus movement?
Not per se, nope. They do generally believe in the same things I do, though.
-
Only one is vague, Sandwich: there's a passage I remember that discusses grasshoppers as four legged animals.
The rabbit reference is from Leviticus, 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you".
Rabbits don't chew cud.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Only one is vague, Sandwich: there's a passage I remember that discusses grasshoppers as four legged animals.
The rabbit reference is from Leviticus, 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you".
Rabbits don't chew cud.
Huh. reminds me of a Henny Youngman joke I hear my dad repeat a bunch.
[q]This guy goes to Vegas, and ends up losing almost all of his money. So he calls it quits and heads back home.
But just as he's driving out of the city, he hears a voice. Go back to Vegas...
So he turns the car around and goes back to Vegas.
Go in to the Crown Vegas casino...
So he goes into the Crown Vegas casino.
Go to the main table...
So he goes to the table.
Put all your mooney on number 4...!
He puts all his money on number 4.
Number 6 comes up.
The voice says, Huh! How 'bout that!
[/q]
Anyway, that was my initial reaction, to be honest. :p I looked it up online, and found this (http://www.scripturessay.com/q273b.html).
-
So because Aristotle also mentions rabbits (though not rabbits that chew the cud) it must be an extinct form of rabbit refered too despite the fact that no other evidence of one exists? Poor.
Grasshoppers (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=NIV&passage=Leviticus+11:21-23)
-
From the NIV, Leviticus, Chapter 11, verse 5 and 6.
5 The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.
6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.
Rabbits aren't extinct. I might buy CONEY'S being extinct.
Perhaps a translation error, Sandwich?
-
Arnabeth was the original word according to the sites I just visited.
-
wtf is a coney?
-
and additional stomachs for cud chewing is not the sort of thing that would just show up in one spices of rabit and no others.
the grasshoppers 'walking on all fours' may simply be a translation error though
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
wtf is a coney?
An amusement park AFAIK. Maybe it's the biblical term for Carnies? They chew cud.
-
(http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/C/coney.html)
coney or cony[both: kO´nE] Pronunciation Key, name used for the rabbit (Oryctolagus) and for its fur; more often, for the pika, a small rodent found at high altitudes in both hemispheres; and for the hyrax, a small herbivorous, hoofed animal of Africa and SW Asia. The last is probably the coney referred to in the Bible (Ps. 104.18; Prov. 30.26).
[/url]
-
There goes my late night stab at humour.
-
Originally posted by Gank
So because Aristotle also mentions rabbits (though not rabbits that chew the cud) it must be an extinct form of rabbit refered too despite the fact that no other evidence of one exists? Poor.
Grasshoppers (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=NIV&passage=Leviticus+11:21-23)
Poor? How about totally plausible? Think of the extinction rates we have these days.
Btw, Mik, out of curiosity, what else do you think about the change in direction between Testament I and Testament II? I still think that there is in fact no change of direction (at least, not like the one you mention, eg. God = solely angry -> solely loving) - what's your evidence for the assertion?
-
give me some sort of evedence that such a creature exsisted and then we will be talking plasabilit
-
Bobboau, you know as well as I do that not everything in the past (especially the distant past, and especially the distant past on our planet that has an almost ruthless ability to virtually erase life that does not survive the rigours of its harshness) leaves visible or tangible evidence of its existence.
However, let me put my thus-formed idea of things like this: science has continually claimed to disprove the Bible. But archaeology and historical enquiry have progressively uncovered the truth of facts in the Bible. I don't doubt that the process will continue.
-
well I'm not saying it's imposable, but when someone points out something that is factualy wrong within the bible you cannot prove the acuracy by saying it was in the bible it must be true, find some sort of evedence to backup your claim, surely there must be some evedence of a four stomached rabit, there would be vestigile tishue or genetic evedence, a much more wide acount of such a creature even would fall into this catagory, so far we have a small mention by a phlosipher and a holy book, find some more.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well I'm not saying it's imposable, but when someone points out something that is factualy wrong within the bible you cannot prove the acuracy by saying it was in the bible it must be true, find some sort of evedence to backup your claim
Okay, sure, I understand where you're coming from, but I guess now's a good time to show a point at which my faith becomes important. At stages where I don't have direct evidence for what the Bible asserts, I go with the Bible. It's the same deal with science and nature, I think. When scientists look at their theories of science, and then see some place where their theories prove nature factually wrong, they think harder and realise that closer investigation of nature brings us closer to the truth. I appreciate that the analogy is not close by circumstance, but for me it's close for the way I act. This is where my faith steps in, not outside of my intelligence but to spurn it on - the other alternative is for me to swallow and not think, but I choose to grapple and struggle and so grow through that. Hasn't failed me yet.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Poor? How about totally plausible? Think of the extinction rates we have these days.
Not very plausible at all really, we know about animals that became extinct hundreds of millions of years ago. The likelyhood of such an abnormality of a rabbit that chews the cud and has hooves existing without leaving any trace except an oblique mention in the bible is pretty remote. What is plausible to me is that whoever wrote the passage had only ever seen rabbits from a distance and had limited knowledge of their workings.
However, let me put my thus-formed idea of things like this: science has continually claimed to disprove the Bible. But archaeology and historical enquiry have progressively uncovered the truth of facts in the Bible. I don't doubt that the process will continue.
First of all, archaeology has proven nothing except that places and people described in the bible existed. Given the nature of the bible it would have been pretty stupid of those who wrote it to fill it with fictional places and people. Saying that because these places exist and are in the bible the rest of what the bible says is a fact is idiotic. What the bible says about god,jesus etc is not provable by anything other than god himself coming down and telling us.
Secondly the same archeology has proven the bible to be incorrect, unless there's an excuse for dinosaurs now. Or do they just get ignored?
-
Shhh, they don't exist, Lucie ( you know, that caveman chick ) neither, and Darwin's an heretic!!!!
'nyway, so, that Narnia thing is just a stupid remake of the bible? Oh, cool, sure, Tolkien, move over :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Poor? How about totally plausible? Think of the extinction rates we have these days.
There's some problems here though, Steak. It just isn't totally plausible. Extinction might explain it, if you're willing to believe that one species of grasshopper existed in one part of the world that differed from every other grasshopper species everywhere else. However that's not how the world works. Same goes for the rabbit.
Grasshoppers have six legs. They've alway had six legs. Every bit of evidence that we have for the existence of grasshoppers shows them to have six legs. If a Grasshopper had FOUR legs,it wouldn't be a grasshopper. It would be something else entirely. It would seem to me that this is a translation error, since any person can walk up to a grasshopper and see that it has six legs very easily.
Consider the rabbit. Some animals chew cud (that is to say, they regurgitate their food for further mastication). Cows and (i believe) camels do this. Rabbits, of no variety, do not chew cud. Not only do they lack the physical apparatus to do this (a multi chambered stomach, or some sort of pre-digestive organ in line before the stomach) is part and parcel of ruminant anatomy. This would seem to be a translation error as well, for the same reason as the grasshopper.
Btw, Mik, out of curiosity, what else do you think about the change in direction between Testament I and Testament II? I still think that there is in fact no change of direction (at least, not like the one you mention, eg. God = solely angry -> solely loving) - what's your evidence for the assertion?
I thought I'd already admitted that it was an exaggeration for the purposes of illustration, Steak? I can find examples of Divine anger in both testaments and I can find examples of Divine benevolence in both testaments. The overall tone, however, of the Old Testament is that of an angry God, and the overall tone of the New Testament is that of a loving God. These two things are NOT irreconcialable and thus the distinction is not accurate. I used this as an example of obvious changes between the testaments that any lay person (and thus pretty much everyone reading this thread) could see.
-
1) Tash is not a representation of Allah, for the simple reason that Lewis agreed with Mikhael on the question of whether YHWH and Allah were refering to the same deity. (Although Lewis has a bit more nuance since Mik fails to appreciate the doctrine of the Trinity in shaping Christian understandings of God.)
2) Gnostics: Gnosticism was/is a movement that can adopt to various religions. There were Zoroastrian Gnostics, Neoplatonic Gnostics, Christian Gnostics, and more. They should not be blanketed as subsets of Christianity.
3) Regarding the factual truth of the Bible: It is one of the strange side effects of "modern" philosophy (i.e. 17th- mid 20th century) to think that "truth" and "fact" are synonyms. This is not the case. Believers and unbelievers both get into trouble by assuming that these two terms are equivalent. A "fact" is a certain type of "truth", but not the only kind.
Since we are beating on the old Genesis-1-vs-the-dinosaurs horse again, lets us that example:
Genesis 1 is written using the literary form and style of mythology (note, that is not a bad word). The author intentionally chose that form and style. This means that the passage is meant to convey a truth that is best conveyed in the mythological form and style. It is mythology, and for a believer, it is divinely inspired mythology.
When a believer or an unbeliever ignores the intended form and style, they are guaranteed to get themselves into trouble. A "creation scientist" and a "bible debunker" are being equally stupid in the way they address Genesis 1, because neither is reading the text the way it was intended. Its almost as bad as basing your calculus on Shakespearian verse, or throwing out Shakespeare because he isn't useful for solving calculus problems.
Ancient people were no stupider than we are. An uneducated 1st century Jew in backwater Palestine might have believed that God sat literally on a big throne in the sky. His educated counterpart in Jerusalem or Alexandria wouldn't dream of abusing the metaphor with such crass literalism.
If you are going to deal with the biblical text, at least be as smart as a bunch of dead guys, and respect the form of the text instead of imposing your own agenda on it.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Saying that because these places exist and are in the bible the rest of what the bible says is a fact is idiotic. What the bible says about god,jesus etc is not provable by anything other than god himself coming down and telling us.
Gank, I didn't say that the facts already proven proved the rest of the facts - and as a general pointer, you may want to refrain from ridiculing others' positions, because that's what leads to flame wars (all the more when others' positions do not justify ridicule, which they mostly do not, and especially here). I expect better of you. That aside, there is the point that Christianity holds that God has himself come down and told us. However, for hypothesis' sake, what would you say if he did, and that historical event was recorded? How would you react to that if (say) you actually took it as true? Or maybe, if such an event happened today in your town, how would you record it so that future people would be able to understand it - how would you prove to future peoples that what you record was not a lie or a fabrication?
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Since we are beating on the old Genesis-1-vs-the-dinosaurs horse again, lets us that example:
Genesis 1 is written using the literary form and style of mythology (note, that is not a bad word). The author intentionally chose that form and style. This means that the passage is meant to convey a truth that is best conveyed in the mythological form and style. It is mythology, and for a believer, it is divinely inspired mythology.
When a believer or an unbeliever ignores the intended form and style, they are guaranteed to get themselves into trouble. A "creation scientist" and a "bible debunker" are being equally stupid in the way they address Genesis 1, because neither is reading the text the way it was intended. Its almost as bad as basing your calculus on Shakespearian verse, or throwing out Shakespeare because he isn't useful for solving calculus problems.
Ancient people were no stupider than we are. An uneducated 1st century Jew in backwater Palestine might have believed that God sat literally on a big throne in the sky. His educated counterpart in Jerusalem or Alexandria wouldn't dream of abusing the metaphor with such crass literalism.
If you are going to deal with the biblical text, at least be as smart as a bunch of dead guys, and respect the form of the text instead of imposing your own agenda on it.
Well summed up. :yes:
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
It is mythology, and for a believer, it is divinely inspired mythology.
Mind you, they all are, and I don't give more credits to Zeus than to God. Save for the fact that Zeus came first :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
Mind you, they all are, and I don't give more credits to Zeus than to God. Save for the fact that Zeus came first :p
Well, not all. Homer didn't think he was being divinely inspired, and as far as I know, no other Greeks really took his writings to be divinely inspired the way the Judeo-Christian tradition sees its writings to be.
But that little qualification aside, were you going somewhere with that?
-
Omer? How poor of an exemple. Fist of all, you can take the Ilyade and the Odyssey ( dunno how you say in english, couldn't care less ) are inspired from mythology, you know, just like the Passion is inspired from the bible. "Omer" did not create that story.
Second, Omer probably never existed. I don't remember the details, I studied that a long time ago, but nobody REALLY knows who wrote those stories.
And "as far as I know" doesn't work as a proof, man :doubt:
As for divinely inspired, any 'true" christian who creates the smallest **** believes he was divinely inspired, and has no talent whatsoever, god did it through him ( a bit arrogant, btw, no? ).
I'm going somewhere? No, I was just pointing a fact. That's bad?
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
1) Tash is not a representation of Allah, for the simple reason that Lewis agreed with Mikhael on the question of whether YHWH and Allah were refering to the same deity. (Although Lewis has a bit more nuance since Mik fails to appreciate the doctrine of the Trinity in shaping Christian understandings of God.)
I appreciate the doctrine of the Trinity in shaping SOME Christian understandings of God. Whether or not I agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity is irrelevant, since I am not arguing my own belief. I'm discussing the beliefs of others who do.
3) Regarding the factual truth of the Bible: It is one of the strange side effects of "modern" philosophy (i.e. 17th- mid 20th century) to think that "truth" and "fact" are synonyms. This is not the case. Believers and unbelievers both get into trouble by assuming that these two terms are equivalent. A "fact" is a certain type of "truth", but not the only kind.
Since we are beating on the old Genesis-1-vs-the-dinosaurs horse again, lets us that example:
Genesis 1 is written using the literary form and style of mythology (note, that is not a bad word). The author intentionally chose that form and style. This means that the passage is meant to convey a truth that is best conveyed in the mythological form and style. It is mythology, and for a believer, it is divinely inspired mythology.
When a believer or an unbeliever ignores the intended form and style, they are guaranteed to get themselves into trouble. A "creation scientist" and a "bible debunker" are being equally stupid in the way they address Genesis 1, because neither is reading the text the way it was intended. Its almost as bad as basing your calculus on Shakespearian verse, or throwing out Shakespeare because he isn't useful for solving calculus problems.
Ancient people were no stupider than we are. An uneducated 1st century Jew in backwater Palestine might have believed that God sat literally on a big throne in the sky. His educated counterpart in Jerusalem or Alexandria wouldn't dream of abusing the metaphor with such crass literalism.
If you are going to deal with the biblical text, at least be as smart as a bunch of dead guys, and respect the form of the text instead of imposing your own agenda on it.
I agree with you, but I don't think your point is QUITE relevant. The discussion is currently predicated (in the purely logical sense) on an assumption of biblical literality--especially given we aren't talking about Genesis, but the later, non-metaphorical books, such as Leviticus and John.
Most specifcally we were discussing the accuracy of certain statements and quotes about Jesus, with regard to the doctrinal idea that Allah and God are the same. None of this is written in the mythological form, religious or otherwise. Thus, I contend that your point, though well thought out, is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Its like deciding that you having learned Shakespeare might help you whilst you take that calculus test this evening.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I appreciate the doctrine of the Trinity in shaping SOME Christian understandings of God. Whether or not I agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity is irrelevant, since I am not arguing my own belief. I'm discussing the beliefs of others who do.
:wtf: Of course your agreement with the Doctrine of the Trinity or lack thereof is irrelevant. So is mine. By "appreciate" I meant only that at some points in the discussion I have noted some oversimplification in dealing with the Christian conception of the Deity.
For example, you stated that the Father is supposed to have created the world. However, both the Son and the Spirit are also credited with creation of the world in the Bible. Making too strong a division between the three persons causes one to fall into tri-theism, rather than trinitarian monotheism. Of course, there is also the danger of overcorrecting and falling into modalism, but that dosn't seem to be your tendency.
But all of this was originally meant merely as a comment about Lewis's view. Whereas you, Mikhael, argue without qualification that the Christian god and the Muslim god are the same, Lewis would say (and does, though I admit I'd have to research to find the location again) that the terms may refer to same objective entity, but that that entity is understood differently in the different religions. Islam's radical simple monotheism developed in part as a reaction against Christian trinitarian monotheism. Thus, the two are markedly and intentionally different.
I agree with you, but I don't think your point is QUITE relevant...
Actually, point 3 of my post was addressing the discussion between Gank and Setekh. :)
-
Originally posted by Nico
Omer? How poor of an exemple. Fist of all, you can take the Ilyade and the Odyssey ( dunno how you say in english, couldn't care less ) are inspired from mythology, you know, just like the Passion is inspired from the bible. "Omer" did not create that story.
Second, Omer probably never existed. I don't remember the details, I studied that a long time ago, but nobody REALLY knows who wrote those stories.
And "as far as I know" doesn't work as a proof, man :doubt:
As for divinely inspired, any 'true" christian who creates the smallest **** believes he was divinely inspired, and has no talent whatsoever, god did it through him ( a bit arrogant, btw, no? ).
I'm going somewhere? No, I was just pointing a fact. That's bad?
Ah, I think I see the problem, Nico. :)
The techincal term "divinely inspired" has a different meaning that the usual meaning of "inspired."
The everyday meaning of "inspired" includes such ideas as:
- to produce or arouse (a feeling, thought, etc.): to inspire confidence.
- to fill or affect with a feeling, thought, etc.: to inspire a person with distrust.
- to give rise to, bring about, cause, etc.: a philosophy that inspired a revolution.
"Divinely inspired" is different:
- to communicate or suggest by a divine or supernatural influence.
- to guide or control by divine influence.
[Note: Definitions take from the Random House Webster's Dictionary, College Editon, 1992]
When Jews, Christians, and Muslims say that their Scriptures are divinely inspired, they mean that they are in some form or another a communication from God. They do not mean that someone was so overwhelmed with love and wonder of God that they decided to write something about it.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
:wtf: Of course your agreement with the Doctrine of the Trinity or lack thereof is irrelevant. So is mine. By "appreciate" I meant only that at some points in the discussion I have noted some oversimplification in dealing with the Christian conception of the Deity.
For example, you stated that the Father is supposed to have created the world. However, both the Son and the Spirit are also credited with creation of the world in the Bible. Making too strong a division between the three persons causes one to fall into tri-theism, rather than trinitarian monotheism. Of course, there is also the danger of overcorrecting and falling into modalism, but that dosn't seem to be your tendency.
That's a rather broad rewriting of the Old Testament there, Sesq. Tripartite Godhead isn's something I recall from the Old Testament--though I admit I could be wrong. In fact, the notion of The Father and the Spirit being seperate doesn't ring true with what I recall of the Old Testament at all, let alone the addition of a Son. Only in the New Testament, IIRC, is God triune. Further, at no point is the Christ mentioned in any way as a part of the Creation.
I don't understand your 'WTF' smiley up there.
But all of this was originally meant merely as a comment about Lewis's view. Whereas you, Mikhael, argue without qualification that the Christian god and the Muslim god are the same, Lewis would say (and does, though I admit I'd have to research to find the location again) that they may be the same objective entity, but that they are understood differently. Islam's radical simple monotheism developed in part as a reaction against Christian trinitarian monotheism. Thus, the two are markedly and intentionally different.
You are incorrect about Islam's interpretation of God. They interpret God as unitary, the Father AND the Holy Spirit. Jesus was merely a prophet. It is, admittedly, simpler than the Christian doctrine, but is not incompatible with it and does not render Allah and the Christian God incompatible or irreconcialable.
I don't believe God (or gods) are defined by those who follow or believe. If He (or they) exist, then they inspire the believers and not the other way around. If the believers define them, then They are small petty things.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
That's a rather broad rewriting of the Old Testament there, Sesq. Tripartite Godhead isn's something I recall from the Old Testament--though I admit I could be wrong. In fact, the notion of The Father and the Spirit being seperate doesn't ring true with what I recall of the Old Testament at all, let alone the addition of a Son. Only in the New Testament, IIRC, is God triune. Further, at no point is the Christ mentioned in any way as a part of the Creation.
First to note, I am speaking in terms of what Christian doctrine teaches, and thus out of that perspective, when dealing with this topic. Thus, the triunity of God is taken as a given. (If we choose to question the doctrine of the Trinity, that opens a whole other discussion.) That being the case, we can move on to look at whether all three persons are considered to be active in creation.
The Father's role is obvious and uncontested.
The Son's role is evidenced in such passages as Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:10-12 (in which Ps. 102 is understood to refer to the Son and not only the Father), and John 1:3.
The Spirit is directly mentioned in the Genesis account, and there the instrumentality of the Spirit seems to be what is intended. Within this (pre-trinitarian) text, the connection between "God" and "God's Spirit" is very strong--to say his Spirit was there is to say he was there (and thus speaking things into existence). The trinitarian view, derived from other sources, subsequently reads this in such a way that the Spirit (as another person within the Godhead) is seen as also an active player in creation.
You are incorrect about Islam's interpretation of God. They interpret God as unitary, the Father AND the Holy Spirit. Jesus was merely a prophet. It is, admittedly, simpler than the Christian doctrine, but is not incompatible with it and does not render Allah and the Christian God incompatible or irreconcialable.
I am quite familiar with Islam's interpretation of God. To say Jesus is merely a prophet is incompatible with the Christian doctrine. Thus, on a certain level the views are incompatible, Lewis would say. On another, they are not, as he would also say. [Note: whether I agree with Lewis or not has not been expressed, just in case that has been at all unclear]
I don't believe God (or gods) are defined by those who follow or believe. If He (or they) exist, then they inspire the believers and not the other way around. If the believers define them, then They are small petty things.
It seems that I edited the quoted post while you were writing in order to clarify the very point you raise. I was speaking of interpretations--God as they see him--when discussing the differences.
-
dammit, those bastards..
why doesent anyone ever recognize the Magicians nephew?
Its part of the series, and the most important one if you ask me.
-
We've been discussing it since the beginning of the thread, Krackers. ;) It was the first Narnia book I read, and indeed, by far the most important.
I'll respond to Sesq tomorrow. I'm tired. :D
-
As you will. :)
-
BUMP
http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/the_chronicles_of_narnia.html
-
weta are like, holy or something.
-
Saw that trailer the other day... looks like a cross between the hardcore fanatasy world of Tolkein and the children's-level fantasy of Lewis - which is awesome IMO. Completely children's-level depictions of the Narnia world have already been done in film; this will add that much-needed "realism" to it. ;)
-
Streaming traielrs can go **** themselves (http://bvbp-qt.vitalstream.com/LionWitchWardrobe/LionWitchWardrobe_BehindMagic_1500.mov)
__________________
Diamond Geezer owns the complete chronicles of Narnia in a single volume
-
Yeesh.......by Rind-sama isn't it possible to actually discuss a piece of our childhood being turned into a movie WITHOUT it becoming a huge exercise in religious debate?
Okay, I know that the Narnia series is allegory, but I really don't care! I first came across Narnia when I was about five, and I still love it to bits as a CHILDRENS FANTASY STORY, which funnily enough, it is.
Analysis is one thing, but as soon as it detracts from the enjoyment of the books as stories, then that's going too far.
-
link to quick overview of the book?
-
You are incorrect about Islam's interpretation of God. They interpret God as unitary, the Father AND the Holy Spirit. Jesus was merely a prophet. It is, admittedly, simpler than the Christian doctrine, but is not incompatible with it and does not render Allah and the Christian God incompatible or irreconcialable.
Unfortunately, a true prophet and not a false prophet, a prophet can never utter any false prophecy. The standard for prophets is 100% accuracy. Meaning anything they say is true; if it's found to be false, even if anything else they've said before was true, they'd be labeled a false prophet.
Jesus has claimed to be God both directly and indirectly ("I and my Father are one."). Most notably, he's also used "I am" to refer to himself, something's that's quite literally blasphemy for anyone other than God to do.
If what Jesus said is true that means he can't be a prophet. If what Jesus said was false, he's not a prophet anymore.
Incidentally, does anyone know the origin of the name Jesus? I don't understand why they didn't just use Joshua.
-
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
I don't understand why they didn't just use Joshua.
Because God said his name was Jesus.
-
As for a synopsis. I'll give a short one for the tLtWatW from memory
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is, in its simplest, a story of four children, who stumble upon another World and their adventures.
It starts off in England, with a rather Ordinary beginning and some child-like fun and games in the large home of a old man. Of course, that also includes games involving the imagination (as is more common with children back then; modern children don't use that talent very often), and they've invented adventures that they're going to have. Alas it was poor weather and they had to stay inside.
However, while exploring the house, the youngest, a girl called Lucy (if I recall correctly) hid in a wardrobe, a large one full of fur coats. Now this wasn't a bad place to hide and she had the presence of mind to not fully shut the doors (as any wise person would know to do) and the story wouldn't have turned out to be anything if that wardrobe was made from an Ordinary tree. As it turns out, the wardrobe was not made from an Ordinary tree and as Lucy moves further back into the wardrobe, the story really begins.
Damn, now I have to hunt down my box set of the books and read them again.
My favorites were (in no particular order):
The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
The Magician's Nephew
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Because God said his name was Jesus.
Yes and that's actually Joshua. As in "God Saves". Exactly in the manner of the same dude who took down Jericho.
-
Blimey. Talk about a return from the dead. This IS an ancient thread. :D
And I never did get back to Sesq, and probably won't now, either. *heh*
-
oh look, the prodigal son returns.
-
Welcome back mik!!! You've been missed.
-
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Incidentally, does anyone know the origin of the name Jesus? I don't understand why they didn't just use Joshua.
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Yes and that's actually Joshua. As in "God Saves". Exactly in the manner of the same dude who took down Jericho.
Actually, no, it isn't. The transliteration of the Hebrew characters into English would be Joshua = Yehoshua, and Jesus = Yeshua. Yehoshua means "God Saves", correct. Yeshua, OTOH, means "Salvation". Similar, but there's a definite difference there.
-
Ah, thanks for the clear up. I've been wondering about that one for quite a while.
-
Bloody 'ell, it's Mikhael
(see, that's a rhyme. I'm clever like that, I is)
-
Originally posted by Ace
...and remember, Christmas is not a Christian holiday! It's an evil pagan holiday adopted by the distant from God un-Christian Catholics!
GOD BLESS WAL-MART and MERKIA!
(Note: The above Calvinist views are not held by the poster, but are held by six million Americans)
You know that's true, right?
-
Oh stop it!
It's true, centuries ago, the early church adopted the holiday to make transitionto Christianity easier, but it's a Christian holiday now no matter how you slice the fruitcake.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Oh stop it!
It's true, centuries ago, the early church adopted the holiday to make transitionto Christianity easier, but it's a Christian holiday now no matter how you slice the fruitcake.
Yes, I did not deny that. But it was - and quite recently, mind you - a pagan fest, and still has strong paganic influences and symbolism attached to it, at least in Northern Europe.
BTW, some idiot on another forum said that Christmas has ALWAYS been a Christian holiday. "Christmas... christ mass..."
That was THE most anglocentric thing, ever.
-
Originally posted by Janos
BTW, some idiot on another forum said that Christmas has ALWAYS been a Christian holiday. "Christmas... christ mass..."
That was THE most anglocentric thing, ever.
Er... Christmas has always been a Christian holiday. It's just some ways of celebrating Christmas that are non-Christian in origin.
-
No christians assymulated a pagan holiday. The holiday of Chistmas has always been a christian holiday. But has some origins and influences in pagan traditions:
Source http://de.essortment.com/christmaspagan_rece.htm
Few people realize that the origins of a form of Christmas was pagan & celebrated in Europe long before anyone there had heard of Jesus Christ.
No one knows what day Jesus Christ was born on [it is guessed to be April 17 by scholars]. From the biblical description, most historians believe that his birth probably occurred in September, approximately six months after Passover. One thing they agree on is that it is very unlikely that Jesus was born in December, since the bible records shepherds tending their sheep in the fields on that night. This is quite unlikely to have happened during a cold Judean winter. So why do we celebrate Christ’s birthday as Christmas, on December the 25th?
The answer lies in the pagan origins of Christmas. In ancient Babylon, the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast.
In Rome, the Winter Solstice was celebrated many years before the birth of Christ. The Romans called their winter holiday Saturnalia, honoring Saturn, the God of Agriculture. In January, they observed the Kalends of January, which represented the triumph of life over death. This whole season was called Dies Natalis Invicti Solis, the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun. The festival season was marked by much merrymaking. It is in ancient Rome that the tradition of the Mummers was born. The Mummers were groups of costumed singers and dancers who traveled from house to house entertaining their neighbors. From this, the Christmas tradition of caroling was born.
In northern Europe, many other traditions that we now consider part of Christian worship were begun long before the participants had ever heard of Christ. The pagans of northern Europe celebrated the their own winter solstice, known as Yule. Yule was symbolic of the pagan Sun God, Mithras, being born, and was observed on the shortest day of the year. As the Sun God grew and matured, the days became longer and warmer. It was customary to light a candle to encourage Mithras, and the sun, to reappear next year.
Huge Yule logs were burned in honor of the sun. The word Yule itself means “wheel,” the wheel being a pagan symbol for the sun. Mistletoe was considered a sacred plant, and the custom of kissing under the mistletoe began as a fertility ritual. Hollyberries were thought to be a food of the gods.
The tree is the one symbol that unites almost all the northern European winter solstices. Live evergreen trees were often brought into homes during the harsh winters as a reminder to inhabitants that soon their crops would grow again. Evergreen boughs were sometimes carried as totems of good luck and were often present at weddings, representing fertility. The Druids used the tree as a religious symbol, holding their sacred ceremonies while surrounding and worshipping huge trees.
In 350, Pope Julius I declared that Christ’s birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity. The new religion went down a bit easier, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them.
Christmas (Christ-Mass) as we know it today, most historians agree, began in Germany, though Catholics and Lutherans still disagree about which church celebrated it first. The earliest record of an evergreen being decorated in a Christian celebration was in 1521 in the Alsace region of Germany. A prominent Lutheran minister of the day cried blasphemy: “Better that they should look to the true tree of life, Christ.”
The controversy continues even today in some fundamentalist sects.
-
The holiday of Chistmas has always been a christian holiday. But has some origins and influences in pagan traditions
Umm, the article you posted says the exact opposite:
In 350, Pope Julius I declared that Christ’s birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity.
Its not a christian holiday, simply a renaming of a roman one. It has nothing whatsoever to do with christ. The whole thing about giving gifts and feasting is a direct port from the roman festival, they just renamed it to get converts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia
even santas hohoho comes from roman origins.
-
The declaration of "chistmas" as in name only was a christian holiday. The day of DEC 25 was a long standing pagan holiday. All of the tradition came from pagan religions. So it is christian in name only. But in reality a culmination of other religous practices brought together as a tool of assymulation.
-
It's now a Christian holiday, which was once built up on another holidays (yule, Saturnalia and their qwazillion variants, all which were more or less the same "let's hope the sun will rise because it's dark now like in DOOM3 lol"). After transitional time - which varied from decades to even millenia - the old symbols and Christian tradition were mixed, and now what we know as Christmas is a Christian holiday sometimes filled with age-old symbols we don't often even recognize.
So yeah, today's Christmas is a Christian holiday with roots deep in older holidays. All fests, holidays and important days are culture dependant - they change over time.
-
Incidentally, Cromwell & Puritans abolished the Christmas holiday in Britain in the 18th century; even after the restoration of the monarchy, the practice of celebrating it was dying out until the release of A Christmas Carol by Dickens.
-
Originally posted by Gank
The whole thing about giving gifts and feasting is a direct port from the roman festival, they just renamed it to get converts.
Giving gifts was widespread already as a matter of hospitality. And you'd be hard-pressed to find a holiday without feasting. You can hardly claim either of those as uniquely Christian, pagan, or anything else.even santas hohoho comes from roman origins.
And many Christians are also upset that Christmas is more about Santa nowadays than Jesus. ;)
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Source http://de.essortment.com/christmaspagan_rece.htm
...
No one knows what day Jesus Christ was born on [it is guessed to be April 17 by scholars]. From the biblical description, most historians believe that his birth probably occurred in September, approximately six months after Passover. One thing they agree on is that it is very unlikely that Jesus was born in December, since the bible records shepherds tending their sheep in the fields on that night. This is quite unlikely to have happened during a cold Judean winter....
[/B]
Although I'd never heard of that April 17th thing, the September-era date I have heard of as the most likely period for Jesus' birth. That would put it right around the feast of Succot (Tabernacles). But think a bit further into the matter... what's the miraculous event here? His birth? Nothing really miraculous about that, nope. How about His conception in a virgin? Calculate 9 months back from a September birth date, and you could very well have the miracle of His conception occuring right on December 25th. ;) :p
-
Originally posted by redmenace
The declaration of "chistmas" as in name only was a christian holiday. The day of DEC 25 was a long standing pagan holiday. All of the tradition came from pagan religions. So it is christian in name only. But in reality a culmination of other religous practices brought together as a tool of assymulation.
And you know, only english speaking countries call it Christmas, right? In french it's Noël for exemple, a name that has no christian meaning whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by Nico
And you know, only english speaking countries call it Christmas, right? In french it's Noël for exemple, a name that has no christian meaning whatsoever.
Gee, maybe because Christmas is an English word? Dingbat.
And let's see what the dictionary has to say about Noel--
"[Middle English noel, from Old French, variant of nael, from Latin natalis (dies), (day) of birth, from natus, past participle of nasc, to be born. See gen- in Indo-European Roots.]"
Yes, "day of birth". No Christian religious connotations there!
-
Well no, since it was about about the winter's solstice, the rebirth of sun. Oups, my bad :p
And what's english in christmas? christ, it's the same for everybody, and mas, her... what does that mean? I know it's not my native language, so care to tell me?
And anyway, as I actually don't give a damn about that, does anyone have a non streaming link to a trailer of that Narnia thing? The WETA thing was cool enough to make me want to know more.
-
Christmas is a shortened form of Christ's Mass (as in a Catholic Mass).