 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Art Thieme Date: 02 Dec 01 - 07:20 PM And in the spanish speaking world, Pan = bread. In the hip world bread = money. Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Art Thieme Date: 02 Dec 01 - 07:17 PM Pan must be Coyote. Art ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Dec 01 - 07:11 PM You missed out Father Christmas, Art. (He always used to wear green till the Coca Cola moved in on him. Check withthe Christmas Carol.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Dec 01 - 07:06 PM It's not easy being green |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Don Firth Date: 02 Dec 01 - 06:47 PM Come to that, I've always been a bit suspicious of Kermit the Frog. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Art Thieme Date: 02 Dec 01 - 06:37 PM The ents are Green Men personified. What about Sir Gawain and the Green Knight?? (And The Clay People in the Buster Crabbe version of Flash Gordon??? And Ming the Merciless?? Hitler maybe? And Thun, king of the Lion Men? and Voltan the fat king with wings and the rest from the Sky City???) This could go on and on... God, Jehovah, and all the other hundreds if not thousands of Masks Of gods (or masks of God)...? Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: CarolC Date: 02 Dec 01 - 04:28 PM Don Firth, I think I agree with you. When I was reflecting upon who Tom Bombadil might represent in older mythologies (if anyone), I thought of the Green Man and Pan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Hippie Chick Date: 02 Dec 01 - 03:46 PM I love the Harry Potter books. It is a great fantasy series and both is imaginative of itself and promotes use of imagination in readers. I am also a Christian, and I have no problems with it. I love the Narnia series, the Wizard of Oz, the Xanth series, The Mists of Avalon, etc. People who are concerned about evil need to lighten up on literature and start looking at a culture and society which sells our jobs overseas and perverts the election process, and......you see where I'm standing, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: GUEST,Merlin Date: 02 Dec 01 - 03:25 PM How can either Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter be offensive? In Harry Potter, he is saved by the love of his parents, and his friends. In Lord of the Rings, the bad guys, Sauron and the Ringwraiths, are pure evil, and get their butts kicked. The Elves are pure good. The good guys are willing to sacrifice everything they care about to destroy this evil. How can this be offensive to people who call themselves Christian, a religion which is supposed to value love and goodness (in my experiance)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Don Firth Date: 02 Dec 01 - 02:16 PM Uh-oh! I just put "movie" and "Tom Bombadil" in google.com's Advanced Search and came up with this. I did a quick check on a couple of the links and it looks like a pretty interesting site for LotR buffs (I'm be there for awhile). Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Don Firth Date: 02 Dec 01 - 02:03 PM I'm not really sure, Mark. I just wasn't able to find Tom Bombadil in the cast list. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Mark Clark Date: 02 Dec 01 - 02:00 PM Until I saw this thread, it had never occurred to me that “Lord of the Rings” had any deep symbolic meaning. I regarded as a great story and perhaps one of the most intricate and complete mythologies to have been created—certainly by a single intelect. Consider that Tolkien not only created the characters and the plot, he also created more or less complete histories for all the various peoples, languages for each of the peoples and poetry in most of the invented languages. The idea that Tolkien's work could be offensive to some religious viewpoint had never crossed my mind. It still seems incredible as I think about it now. But, as I try always to be ready to consider new viewpoints, I'm doing my best with this one. I'm sure sorry to hear that Bombadil was deleted. I think his inclusion is necessary for a full understanding of the forces driving the characters and the nature of Middle Earth itself. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Don Firth Date: 02 Dec 01 - 01:59 PM "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Art Thieme Date: 02 Dec 01 - 01:11 PM I think the most God-like character in L.O.T.R. is Gollum. He gets invisible when he chooses. The Christ-like guy is Frodo. He takes over and finds out how to do that too. MAGIC is nothing more than a group of people having the knowledge and the will and the knowhow to do things that others are ignorant of. DOCTORS in our society are the closer to practitioners of magic than anyone else. Nobody knows how to do the things they can do regularly---after having spent YEARS learning those SECRETS in medical school. Having had several spinal surgeries allowed me to see some of that MAGIC in person when the neurosurgeons on the same floor I was on aimed their lasers THROUGH THE SKULL of someone with a brain tumor. The place INSIDE THAT SKULL where the lasers focused and met and is where the tumor would be blasted into smithereens while making NO ACTUAL INCISION AT ALL. In the old days, somebody who could do those kinds of things, seemingly magical things, was burned at the stake as a witch. Folks, the ladies of old had the erb lore knowledge to do medicinal things that seemed magical. They were killed off by those who saw bad stuff in that knowledge---people who who had no understanding or tolerance of some pretty amazing and beneficial things. That's what people now-a-days who are scared out of their wits by lovely fairy tales are doing when they perpetuate those old narrow attitudes and the fears of fear itself. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Dec 01 - 12:54 PM I think the symbolism is what bothers me most......way too much clanging. Seriously, was there ANY piece of "IN" reading back in the 60's that wasn't just et up with symbolism? I remember discussing "Lord of the Flies" about 4139 times during the decade. Maybe it was just a good peeriod for "Lord" stuff....Ring, Flies, Jim................ Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Don Firth Date: 02 Dec 01 - 12:49 PM Among Tolkien scholars, there is a lot of speculation about Tom Bombadil. He and Goldberry are the "odd characters out." They only appear at one point in the story and take no part other than to save the travelers from a couple of bad situations and help them on their way. Yet they are such delightful characters and so finely-drawn that they seem to leave a profound effect on most readers. Ask people to "name your favorite characters in Lord of the Rings," and early in many people's lists, the name of Tom Bombadil appears. Many literary critics analysing LotR say that Tom Bombadil represents Nature. Kind, helpful, happy, aloof, he is essentially immune to what hobbits, wizards, humans, and evil forces do. Judging from looking at the website and the cast list, apparently Tom Bombadil didn't make it into the movie. He doesn't actually further the narrative, and since they undoubtedly had to cut a lot, I guess they figured he wasn't really essential to the plot. I can understand their reasoning, but it is unfortunate. Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are fascinating characters and a sort of oasis of calm and safety in the Fellowship's dangerous quest. One can find symbolism in practically anything, and I'd be surprised if Tolkien didn't have a lot of symbolism in mind, but I personally take LotR as what it appears to be: a marvelous epic adventure story. Gandalf? Yeah, I can see that. But to me, since Frodo agrees to take the burden of the Ring on himself, he is the most obvious Christ figure. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Dec 01 - 12:41 PM This should surprise no one, but to be the odd man out here, I really never enjoyed Tolkein. I read it because it was the thing everyone was doing and I never had a clue about any of it. My apologies to one and all, but the stuff just seemed completely screwed and I never saw the point. The movie looks equally weird, but cinematic in the extreme so it should do well. I feel the same about the Bible too so I'm a equal opps dumbshit and adding LotR to the Twain quote pretty well sums it up: "It's not the parts of the Bible and Lord of the Rings that I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I DO understand." Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Dec 01 - 12:23 PM My feeling on all this would be that the Lord of the Rings is shot through with imagery and and patterns of thought that echo traditional Catholicism much more strongly than other varieties of Christianity. Which is what you would expect of a Catholic, of Tolkien's generation especially.
So for example the hymn to Elebereth is very reminiscent of Catholic hymns to Our Lady
Snow-white! Snow-white! O Lady clear!
Gilthoniel! O Elbereth!
O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! Compare tyhis to the mediaeval Salve Regina:
Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy!
Turn, then, most gracious advocate, Or again compare it to what I think is the loveliest of the Mary hymns, written in the 18th century:
Hail, Queen of Heaven, the ocean star,
Sojourners in this vale of tears, To save myself typing out the Elbereth hymn I used a search engine to find someone who had already done that, and found this essay about this very thing, which makes interesting reading (though I'd distance myself from some of the writer's views).
And in relation to Tolkien and "fundamentalists", I would expect that these very aspects of his writing would in themselves be sufficient reason for some varieties of "fundamentalists" to see the book as unwholesome and dangerous.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Dec 01 - 12:12 PM I read Tolkien about the same time I read The Beowulf - Tolkien was an Old English scholar (or was it Middle English?), and there certainly was a connection there. I didn't find any religious connotations, and I'm glad I didn't. I was reading for fun, and every volume was sheer pleasure. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Tiger Date: 02 Dec 01 - 12:05 PM If it bothers you, don't read it. Next act! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Mark Clark Date: 02 Dec 01 - 09:45 AM Well, sure. I didn't mean to indicate I thought Gandalf was a Christ figure necessarily, I was just supposing—if one found Christian imagery in “Lord of the Rings”—that Gandalf would be the most likely candidate. Arguably the most god-like inhabitant of Middle Earth is Tom Bombadil. He seems to have more absolute power than any other character. So much so, that he simply doesn't care what the other characters are doing. He leaves them to play their games, secure in the knowledge that nothing they do will have any effect on him. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: CarolC Date: 02 Dec 01 - 05:44 AM I would think Gandalf is more of a druidic (old religion) type of figure, closer to a Merlin perhaps, than to anything found in the Christian mythology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Dec 01 - 04:17 AM I dunno. I read The Hobbit and the trilogy when I was a Catholic seminary student, and didn't get any Christian imagery out of it at all. It was just a good story. We had to watch Bergman films when I was in the seminary, and then there was all this discussion about characters who were Christ-figures in the movies. I thought the movies were boring, but I was in the minority. I didn't get the Christ-figure stuff at all. Now, Ingrid Bergman is another story. She was far more interesting. I guess that's why did didn't make it into the priesthood, huh? Yes, but we'll always have Paris... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Mark Clark Date: 02 Dec 01 - 01:26 AM Christian imagery—that's an interesting idea. Several Tolkien characters are given god-like powers, which character would you say is closest to a creator in the Judeo-Christian sense—the Father person in the Triune Godhead? I'm guessing that Gandalf would be regarded as a “Christ” figure because of his entry into the netherworld at the hands of the balrog and his subsequent reappearance in a glorified form. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Dec 01 - 09:18 PM Boy, this thread has wandered. It's not a thread, it's a tapestry. To go back to where it started, when the question was about FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS, and then wandered into "Christians," then on to Nazis, I just want to add a simple point. When one of my sons was in High School, he wrote a term paper on the Christian imagery in Lord of the Rings. I thought he made many excellent points... enough that it is one of the few school papers that I saved. I read the Hobbit and the whole trilogy to my sons TWICE when they were kids, and as a christian, I didn't find anything even mildly bothersome. When you start talking about "Christians," it's like talking about "folksingers." Generalizations are comforting, but don't mean a whole lot. Jerry |
|
Subject: Lord of Rings offensive to fundamentalists? From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Dec 01 - 07:19 PM Yeah, I suppose it's not a good idea to look to the Church Fathers for definitive statements, even though there is great value in their writings. They were theologians, and theologians are likely to have their own opinions. Theology is not doctrine - it attempts to bring about an understanding of doctrine, within the context of the current age. That understanding helps people make the faith their own, so that their faith is not just an obedient acceptance of a list of "facts" they are required to believe. As I see it in this context, "rationalization" is using intelligence to find loopholes in matters of faith, while "theology" is using intelligence to find understanding in matters of faith. The works of the Church Fathers were theology, not rationalization. Faith does not require abandonment of intelligence. Many religious traditions encourage intelligent questioning and discussion of doctrine. It's only the fundamentalists who are required to check their brains at the door. As for doctrine, which is the official teaching of a religious group, I think I'd rely on the Nicene Creed of AD 325 as a fairly comprehensive statement. It is shared by most Christian groups. That's not the case with "the Fundamentals" that Murray cited, which come from a series of pamphlets published with oil company money in the early 20th century. "The Fundamentals" are the source of the name "fundamentalism" and they give a pretty good summary of conservative Christian belief. "Mainstream" Christians have trouble with the fundamentals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Don Firth Date: 01 Dec 01 - 01:39 PM W.C. Fields was anything but a religious man. When he was on his deathbed, someone walked into the room and found him leafing through the Bible. "Bill, I'm surprised," said the visitor. "I thought you didn't believe in that sort of thing." Fields answered, "Just looking for loopholes." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Coyote Breath Date: 01 Dec 01 - 12:22 PM hey spaw!I just figured out why I'm sitting here on a Saturday morning jumping back and forth through the Mudcat (well besides I love this site and I have a near cord of firewood to split). It reminds me of the old radio days when we kids would sit around the Fairbanks-Morse listening to "Lets Pretend" and "Grand Central Station" sheesh! CB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Dec 01 - 11:34 AM CB, I'm glad you got a chuckle and I thank you for saying so. I agree there is too much ranting and not enough laughing. So if it gave anyone a giggle or two, then I'm happy. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Coyote Breath Date: 01 Dec 01 - 11:28 AM John P, naw in reality, very little actually offends me. I am a fun(duh)mentalist human. Or something. And never, never, never, would I EVER try to stop anyone from exploring, or learning, or experiencing, anything (well, as long as it's not harmful and inappropriate to OTHERS)! I love LoTR and I'm sure that when I go to see the Harry Potter movie I'll enjoy it as much as it's artistry allows (I mean if its a rotten film, I won't enjoy it, cinematically speaking.) I have strong beliefs or rather I should say I have strong opinions about many things. I was Joking, fergawdsake. I feel (look out, here comes an opinion!) that there is too much ranting going on in this world. spaw's thing was a giggle to me. CB PS I just sent my boxed edition(s) of JRRT's 'Hobbit and Lord of the Rings to my daughter Molly who remembers fondly my reading them to her and her younger sister, lo these many years ago She wants to read them to her daughter. I doubt I'll get them back (sigh) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Art Thieme Date: 01 Dec 01 - 10:21 AM Getting interested in things theological late in life or on one's deathbed is a bit like cramming for finals to my mind. Panic cramming rarely ever does the trick (so to speak). It's like trying to convince yourself you weren't gay all those decades after you've become impotent and Viagra don't work for ya. Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Dave the Gnome Date: 01 Dec 01 - 10:07 AM I mentioned on the other thread and I'll mention it again here. I would challenge anyone to read the books within the Bible and those within the Silmarilion and then say honestly which they think is the accepted religion and which is the work of fantasy. Given long enough I reckon someone could come up with enough 'historical proof' for the Silmarilion as well! No-one has mentioned Denis Wheatley yet either. As a teenager I read all of em (Think they are p"£$ poor now but I was only young then:)). 'The devil rides out' and 'They used dark forces' are the ones I remember - full of Satanism, Witchcraft and Wizardry - but with a Christianity always wins type motto. The later was Nazi/Satanist/Jewish/Christian twoddle at it's complete worse if I remember rightly! What do the fanatics (they are not Christian, or Muslim, or any other religion in my mind just nutters) think of those? Are they OK because the 'goodies' always win? Makes me wonder how these bigots work! Cheers
Dave the Gnome |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: John P Date: 01 Dec 01 - 07:55 AM Coyote Breath, As a fundamentalist Christian, are you offended by Harry Potter and/or The Lord of the Rings? If so, why? And if so, do you think the fact that they offend you means that others should be prevented from reading or viewing them? John Peekstok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Geoph Date: 01 Dec 01 - 04:49 AM "Dear Geoph the Biblical scholar. The Sixth Commandment does NOT read : 'Thou shalt not kill'." The correct translation from the Hebrew or the Greek is: 'Thou shalt not murder'. Gargoyle: Thank you for pointing out the accurate translation. Actually, I am quite aware of the veracity of the above statement. In fact, I almost pointed that out in my post, but was too lazy to support the statement and declined. And besides, I'm not particularly interested in debating theology at this point in my life. Finally, its much more fun to come in with a quick quip and run. Geoph |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Coyote Breath Date: 01 Dec 01 - 01:29 AM as a fun-duh-mentalist christian I am offended by all the above except for spaw's contribution. Was that REALLY the result of meds? As a cheese-head, I have relatives with a small dairy farm near Burlington who fit your description of "paw" I wonder if we're cuzzins?!? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 30 Nov 01 - 10:27 PM Art, Joe and John..... You are right it IS a good thread.
Sorry the html offends. Learned it here. Will continue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 30 Nov 01 - 10:23 PM Dear Geoph the Biblical scholar.
The Sixth Commandment does NOT read : 'Thou shalt not kill'. The correct translation from the Hebrew or the Greek is: 'Thou shalt not murder'.
In the Latin Vulgate translation. The author of that translation, Saint Jerome (died in 420), spent much of his career in the Land of Israel, where he consulted frequently with Jewish scholars whose interpretations he often cites with great respect. Even the Septuagint, the old Greek translation of the Bible, translated the commandment with a word that means "murder" rather than "kill." St. Augustine, basing himself on the standard translations, made it clear that the commandment does not extend to wars or capital punishment that are explicitly ordained by God.
Try these sites for explanations of this greatly misunderstood commandment. The agreement is plain amongst Jews, Catholics and Protestants, the meaning is "MURDER."
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html
http://dcwi.com/~faithch/sermons/1998/98.3.1.htm
It is clear within the Bible that there times for killing and war.
Your Humble Servant,
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: mousethief Date: 30 Nov 01 - 06:37 PM Naem: And Augustine isn't? Puh-leeze. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Art Thieme Date: 30 Nov 01 - 01:27 PM Garg, I'll rage against the storm when it's important enough to warrsnt that. -- Like how very similar to a moron George Bush has turned out to actually be after, first, stealing an American election, and then pulling crap very much like Joe Stalin and creating a seeming dictatorship here that threatens to bipass the Constitution, Congress and the judicial system (not to mention We The People in order to set up on-the-spot kangaroo courts that hang people as soon as their self-manufactured tribunals come to their instant verdicts of guilty. Some things are important. Folk stuff, as much as I've dedicated myself to it over the years while striving to make myself a decent sized fish in our little pond, is only a temporary collection of water in a low spot under a viaduct when compared to other more real problems that threaten to swamp us. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Geoph Date: 30 Nov 01 - 12:51 PM Ahem, Of course, immediately after that part where "Thou shalt not kill" was inscribed onto the tablets along with the other 14, oops, make that 9 commandments, Moses came down from the mountain and immediately commenced to killing all of those who became Golden Calf worshippers in his absence. Geoph |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Naemanson Date: 30 Nov 01 - 12:26 PM Alex, I'm afraid I have to side with Murray on this. The writings of the church fathers (not mothers?) tend to be an individualistic interpretation and rationalization of the basic document. Regarding the actions of the US versus the "Evil Ones" Mr. Bush needs to reread that section of the Bible that says "Thou Shalt Not Kill." There are no subclauses or exceptions. I think we have an oppotunity to look for a new way to pursue justice. We should look for a way other than bombs and machine guns. However, that would not be as politically convenient as the bombs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: mousethief Date: 30 Nov 01 - 10:49 AM Murray, let me get this straight: you aren't a Christian, but you have appropriated to yourself the right to tell everyone here what Christianity consists of? Talk about hubris. Get off your soapbox and go read some of the church fathers BESIDES Augustine and his croneys. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: John P Date: 30 Nov 01 - 08:52 AM Re: music for Tolkien lyrics: I thought the music by Flanders and Swan was terrible. It was classical art music. The lyrics are strongly rhythmic in a very primal way and the music missed that entirely. If you've never read Tolkien's poetry out loud, you should try it. I've only written music to one Tolkien song, "The Man in the Moon". I thought it worked pretty well, and have always intended to write more, but I always seem to have other more immediately practical projects in hand. John Peekstok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Geoph Date: 30 Nov 01 - 08:46 AM For those interested in the "theology" behind LOTR, read Tolkein's "The Silmarillion" (I think I got that right) which deals with the history of early Middle Earth all the way back to its creation. I am looking forward to the movie, as it appears from the trailers that they got it right this time. However, those purists looking for a word-for-word transcription of the "Fellowship" may be disappointed since that is very difficult when putting a book onto the screen. I think the main problem with the early attempts, besides the fact that they were done very cheaply, is that they treated the subject as a children's story rather than the epic adventure it really is. Too much Disney influence in our culture. Oops, is that a fundamentalist opinion? d8^) Geoph |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: John P Date: 30 Nov 01 - 08:43 AM Gargoyle, There are at least 85 active threads about music right now. Go read them. Don't you have anything better to do with your time than to open threads that are obviously not about music just to bitch about the fact that they are not about music? Get a life, man. Or, if you really want to be part of this thread, how about a discussion of the religious overtones vs. the magical nature of many of Tolkien's poems, and how they might be percieved by fundamentalist Christians? I can see you are having fun with HTML, but your posts are starting to look like Dr. Bronner's soap bottles or flyers put out by whacko numerologists. Most of us can understand your points without the amateur graphical emphasis. John Peekstok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: John P Date: 30 Nov 01 - 08:26 AM I find it interesting that the so-called Christians who are so offended by Harry Potter and the LOTR are, in effect, saying they believe magic and wizards and such are real. It seems they are actually giving power to the things they hate. Not real bright, these fundies. As for a definition of Christianity, I wish our born again President would pull his head out of the vengeful portions of the Old Testament and read the bits about "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love thy enemy" and "The greatest of these is love". John Peekstok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Don Firth Date: 30 Nov 01 - 03:17 AM Things have changed a bit since the days of St. Augustine. (Goin' to bed now) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Murray MacLeod Date: 30 Nov 01 - 03:11 AM Eationalixation is as irrelevant to Christuanity as it was to the Taliban, Joe. I have played gigs in Unitarian churches (during) "services" and I mean, its rationalization gone mad. My take on the matter is, accept the "truth" or reject it. ME I reject it. But pleeeze don't go around trying to tailor it to your own personal requirements. Doesn't compute. I know what the Christian doctrine says. So do you. Murray |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Big Mick Date: 30 Nov 01 - 02:46 AM I admit to not reading every post before I wrote this. Garg..........nice to see you in your curmudgeonly role without the rank, base attacks. Now go take your medicine and get me a Guinness on your way back through the kitchen. Joe..........loved the fundamentalist Mudcatters remark.......my sinuses won't recover until morning. I live in an area which is the home to Calvin College and is known for being very conservative and "fundamentalist". It is also known for chasing Kath Westra off to the East coast, hence making me have to love her from afar...........LOL. As you might guess, the Public Pulse section of the paper is full of analysis by these good folks about why the rest of us, the great unwashed are all going to go to hell and so are our children, for watching this. In fact, my "almost 10 years old, DAD!!!" daughter was accosted by one of her classmates and told she was going to hell because The Bible says that is what happens to people that see the movie or read the book. Fortunately the formidable Miss Ciara has been raised to know ignorance when she sees it, and dismissed this little friend. I guess I want to ask these self righeous and IMHO, idiotic people if they ever read The Arabian Nights, Norse, Roman, or Greek classic mythology, or for that matter comic books, when they were kids. It is a work of fiction for crying out loud. It seems to me it is much more important to teach the wee ones to live honorably and by the codes that we each choose to live by. It is much more important to teach that being judgemental is a fundamental sin in itself. I am not smart enough to understand what makes The Greatest One upset enough to not let me into the clubhouse. But I am smart enough to know that it is more important to live according to the precepts that I have chosen to live by, and to teach my kids the difference between fantasy and reality. One of our jobs as bards of the modern age, is to expose hypocrisy and idiocy. Where I live, I see a lot of it. Time to go to bed. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Don Firth Date: 30 Nov 01 - 02:23 AM 1. -- Murray, what you say about Christian beliefs may be true of a small percentage of Christians now. But not the majority. And it might have been true in some aspects historically. But not recently. Christianity is monotheistic, but it is not monolithic, which is why there are so many different denominations. Overgeneralization can't help but miss the mark. 2. -- I think Joe just fed us a reality sandwich. Well said, Joe. 3. -- I flipped on the tube a little while ago and watched a program on the making of The Lord of the Rings. Interviews with the cast and the director, and they showed a few scenes. It looks good. It looks very good! 4. -- I'll be interested to see how (if) they handle the songs. Don Firth |