[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.

[Drew]

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))

[mikhael]

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.

[Ace]

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...

[Stryke 9]

I talked to God. He says you're wrong. He also said something about Slurpees, but I didn't really understand that part.

[Knight Templar]

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?

Sure, Christians might have stole the season, or the month/day, but the actual holiday and reason for it?

[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.

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.

[Sandwich]

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.

[Setekh]

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.

[J3Vr6]

Originally posted by J3Vr6
...all threads seem to become either uber political or religious.

AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!  YOU SEE!!! IT HAPPENED!

[mikhael]

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.

[Setekh]

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?

[mikhael]

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.

[Sandwich]

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.

[mikhael]

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.

[Setekh]

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). 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.

[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?

[Sandwich]

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.

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:

[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:

[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.

[pyro-manic]

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.

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.

[Sandwich]

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.