That certainly will be interesting. If The Last Battle ever gets made that is.
Your religious beliefs
- Thread starter Rom's Sehlat
- Start date
That certainly will be interesting. If The Last Battle ever gets made that is.
No, but I think it's close-minded to think the reverse, which is what I thought you were arguing (false monotheism is better than false polytheism). You also said that inclusiveness in non-monotheistic religion was a result of today's "political correctness", which is patently false.
I think so, you think so. I have a feeling a bunch of people would disagree. And on a personal level, I much prefer to deal with people who do not feel "my way or the highway" than with people who try to convert me at every corner.
I fail to see how a closed theology is "better" that a open one. Some of it might be more logically consistent, but it's just because they use a much more narrow set of axioms. Studying geometry on a point-like space is ultimately simple, but also, pardon the pun, pointless.
That not all religion holds such a binary point of view.As a fellow atheist and materialist I am not sure what it is that you think I should open my mind to.
The contradiction is staggering.
Or, as J.Allen cleverly commented:
I'm not with C.S. Lewis about this (actually, I'm not with C.S. Lewis about everything, but that's another matter). As other have said, there are many more possible interpretations.
Actually, people like you pick and choose all the time. It also helps that the Jesus' message, as reported in the Gospels, is wildly incoherent.
Going by your logic, it's all fake. Because it can't all be true, the gospels are contradictory, particularly the gospels of Matthew and Luke. At least one of those texts has to be wrong, if not both, which means that they must all be wrong, which means that you shouldn't be a Christian by your own logic.
You have a very black and white view on things; it's either all fake or it's all true. But like any other text written by humans, it can contain both elements of truth and elements of falseness. It can be a story about something that really happened, yet embellished by the opinions and beliefs of those that wrote it.
It doesn't matter to me because I don't care if Jesus was real or not, or if the message presented in the gospels accurately captures the words of the man. Just like I don't care that Josiah Bartlet from The West Wing isn't real, but I still admire the man and his message. If Jesus was some nut or a con-man, I don't care, it doesn't change that he said some very smart things.
If Jesus were dead I'm sure he'd be spinning in his grave at the (ab-)use of his message.
As for C.S. Lewis, I'll just say I think Prince Caspian is the best of the three films, though once you start really looking at the messages presented by any of the films you're in trouble AFAIC. But then, I'm a bit of a cynic.
I found the ending of Dawn Treader particularly unsubtle and cringe-worthy...though to be fair I found much of that film unsubtle and cringe-worthy.
LWW is probably about the halfway point between the two other films in terms of subtlety and such, but then, there are parts of that story you really couldn't make more subtle without major reworking...like, say, Aslan's resurrection...
I was going to ask whether there has been any discussion of the fact that such generally Christian works include creatures such as satyrs, which espouse some values that I'm sure some would consider morally dubious, but then I realized that while I know the Narnia works include fauns, I don't recall any satyrs and I don't know that fauns are given to the same reputation. So that may be a dead-end.
As for C.S. Lewis, I'll just say I think Prince Caspian is the best of the three films, though once you start really looking at the messages presented by any of the films you're in trouble AFAIC. But then, I'm a bit of a cynic.
I found the ending of Dawn Treader particularly unsubtle and cringe-worthy...though to be fair I found much of that film unsubtle and cringe-worthy.
LWW is probably about the halfway point between the two other films in terms of subtlety and such, but then, there are parts of that story you really couldn't make more subtle without major reworking...like, say, Aslan's resurrection...
I was going to ask whether there has been any discussion of the fact that such generally Christian works include creatures such as satyrs, which espouse some values that I'm sure some would consider morally dubious, but then I realized that while I know the Narnia works include fauns, I don't recall any satyrs and I don't know that fauns are given to the same reputation. So that may be a dead-end.
1. Either Jesus was right, or he was wrong. Sure if you think he' wrong you can still admire his teachings.
2. Thats pretty absurd and offensive since you don't even know me. I don't pick and choose. The evangelical right has made me sick to death by refusing to heal the sick, clothe the poor, feed the hungry, etc. So if your assumption was that I belonged to that group then you are completely wrong.
3. I'd say its remarkably consistent. And if you want to know about what you see as inconsistent, talk to a pastor/priest.
Apparently you need to reread the gospels. They tell the same story. The variations are minor and hardly exclusive.
Shades of grey for most things, but others? Not so much. The disciples and apostles didn't find themselves executed for following some false embellishment. The entire early church didn't preserve the tradition because that Jesus dude was a nice guy.
He was extremely specific.
And if you want to respect his words but you claim that some of them were made up, then you really can't have it both ways. You wouldn't know what to respect and what was added later.
If you doubt any of this, go ask a good pastor. They'd actually be happy to set you straight. I don't have the time or patience though.
This is actually a really good thread! Interesting to read all of the debate about Jesus during Passover.
I took a few classes in papal history and once did a lot of reading about the period when Christianity developed (0-300 AD, give or take), but it's been a while and I'd have to do some major re-reading before I could contribute intelligently.
I took a few classes in papal history and once did a lot of reading about the period when Christianity developed (0-300 AD, give or take), but it's been a while and I'd have to do some major re-reading before I could contribute intelligently.
I find this charge of the evangelical right to be ill informed and insulting. I and my church would be considered part of the evangelical right yet we have, along with many other churches, many ministries that are geared specifically toward this kinds of things. http://www.nc4.org/get-connected/ministries
Also we have gone several times to Haiti for disaster relief and regular medical missions. We even sent out people for disasters in the local area and also to New Orleans after Katrina. We support orginizations like CareNet offer any help and supplies that we can. Also on Sunday nights we open part of the church for homeless to stay the night and offer a meal in the morning.......
Our church is just one but is not unique. So I would say people need to investigate before making such charges.
You're the exception to the rule. Generally its a matter of blaming the poor for being poor, shunning the prisoners, refusing to help the sick, and preferring to be a negative voice towards the very people we need to win over.
I know my political and religious landscape very well. I live in the bible belt of California and the majority of right wing christians are too busy calling the president a communist and trying to strip people of healthcare to go out and help anyone but themselves.
No, the monotheism vs. polytheism thing hadn't even crossed my mind. My main thrust was that religion should be subject to the same kinds of standards we apply to any other similar type of beliefs. When that has happened traditional religion has taken quite a beating from scientific and historical criticism, and as a result increasingly in the modern age people have retreated into kind of a vague spirituality which while comforting often doesn't possess much logical or metaphysical consistency. And I think tends to support the idea that it is a panacea to make people feel better or fill gaps in their life rather than a real attempt to explain the universe.
My religion is the religion of like minded people getting together for one purpose in positive unity... Probably falls more under the lines of secular humanism and unitarian. I'm very spiritual. That being said, I have found what I consider to be God more in concert halls than I think I ever will in a church.
Whatever, it makes me happy...
And this post makes me sound like a drug addict...
Whatever, it makes me happy...
And this post makes me sound like a drug addict...
To be fair many evangelical religious people and groups are very active in charity work. They may not support certain political ideas about how to best help people, but that doesn't mean they aren't concerned about other people's welfare and act to improve it.
That would defeat the purpose of the entire story to "rework" Aslan's resurrection. At that point, they either need to tell the story, or give it to a non-Hollywood company that will not be afraid to tell the story as it was meant to be.
Very true.
I probably would not be considered evangelical, but I do find it extraordinarily irritating how the left often accuses people on the right of being arrogant and judgmental and then turns around and accuses the other side of being heartless simply because they have a different idea of how to fix the problem--completely ignoring the fact that most people on both sides do care about fixing the problem and helping people. That, too, is judgmental.
For instance, just because someone does not give money to a panhandler does not mean they don't care about the problem of the homeless; they may give to a charity, they may volunteer at a soup kitchen, do social work, or other work intended to help those very people, that they believe to be more effective. But because they don't give to a panhandler they get labeled "heartless." I think that kind of thing is silly.
To use the current political issue of the budget, here's the problem I see.
It goes without saying that the church can not/will not provide medical care for everyone in need as Christ commanded (heal the sick). My natural reaction is to see that it is done by the government, I can "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" and still do what God wanted. Win/Win situation.
Instead the christian right zealously argues against providing those services the church can't/won't and even wants to eliminate them in the name of fiscal responsibility. Of course they're promoting tax cuts for the rich the whole time, despite the camel and eye of needle qualification. We're hoarding up treasures on earth and getting irate when its suggested we share them.
Thats my quarrel. That and the constant support for Israel and contempt for the far-more-numerous Arab christians. But thats yet another issue.
I'm an atheist, though technically I'm still a member of the German Evangelical Church. You have to go to the magistrate's court and declare you want to leave the church (and probably fill out a form ) and I have been too apathetic to do it, yet.
Until recently, I still accompanied my mother to church on Christmas and Easter but we didn't go last Christmas and won't go this Easter.
) and I have been too apathetic to do it, yet.Until recently, I still accompanied my mother to church on Christmas and Easter but we didn't go last Christmas and won't go this Easter.
Agnostic?
Don't be too sure about the church can't/won't heal the sick, provide medical care. And the danger of your way of thinking is, to quote my pastor, "those that support government run charity do not sacrifice of themselves."
