The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I don't believe that Kingdom of Heaven was that historically accurate.

It wasn't.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/au ... omofheaven

It's not quite as bad as Braveheart - likely the nadir of Hollywood's approach to history - but it's fairly poor history.

Nor is it particularly strong on religion, plot, or entertainment.

The four hour directors cut is much better,

[Grand Calvert]

lol you just summed up modern TV/entertainment perfectly. Has anyone else noticed that whenever they put a devout Christian in a TV show they always make them look stupid? Like they'll have an atheist character ask them a question and the Christian character will just blankly stare into space like an idiot

You should watch X-files. I finished an episode in the first season, where a tent revivalist had this kid in his act who could bring people back to life, heal sickness etc. Throughout the episode they portray it as most people think, a hoax, and then at the end you realize...this kid was the real deal.

lol so when they do portray a religious person positively its a crazy tent-revival person

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You should watch X-files. I finished an episode in the first season, where a tent revivalist had this kid in his act who could bring people back to life, heal sickness etc. Throughout the episode they portray it as most people think, a hoax, and then at the end you realize...this kid was the real deal.

lol so when they do portray a religious person positively its a crazy tent-revival person

And the twist is, He's not crazy...get it?

[Grand Calvert]

It wasn't.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/au ... omofheaven

It's not quite as bad as Braveheart - likely the nadir of Hollywood's approach to history - but it's fairly poor history.

Nor is it particularly strong on religion, plot, or entertainment.

The four hour directors cut is much better,

I liked the battle scenes

[Grand Calvert]

lol so when they do portray a religious person positively its a crazy tent-revival person

And the twist is, He's not crazy...get it?

No I get it but my point is that he's still part of a tent-revival movement

[Diopolis]

Yeah those Left Behind movies just seem so...bizarre. I always try to find good Christian movies but its pretty hard. The best ones I've come across are the ones that aren't overtly and obviously Christian but the ones with subtle Christian undertones

There are some really bad religious movies out there.
The problem is that if you try and make a movies core theme be about a religion you tend to either get completely over the top storylines which would make even the most devout religious person question the plot integrity, or you get rather bland, tedious and boring movies.
It's not just Christians, see International Guerillas.

Edit: Are there any Christian movies you guys have come across that you would recommend?

I found the Passion of Christ quite good. I also liked the "history" channel's series The Bible, although I understand it might not be particularly accurate. I heard good things about The Encounter but found it tackily done and underwhelming, although still powerful.

[Diopolis]

Fr. Z's probably right. It's stupid enough that it probably won't due too much harm, but it is something that merits an explanation of how the devil really is, because that's a topic that's been neglected and covered up for too long.

Nothing like good old fashioned fire and brimstone. "If you don't believe this about the devil YOU'LL BE COME THE DEVIL! SCARY SCARY!" I jest, but come on Fr. Z,...a priest isn't gonna wind up in hell just because they'd rather talk about the livable faith as opposed to the boogeymen lurking around every corner.

The point is that there is too little preaching and catechesis on this very real danger.

[Luminesa]

There are some really bad religious movies out there.
The problem is that if you try and make a movies core theme be about a religion you tend to either get completely over the top storylines which would make even the most devout religious person question the plot integrity, or you get rather bland, tedious and boring movies.
It's not just Christians, see International Guerillas.

Edit: Are there any Christian movies you guys have come across that you would recommend?

I found the Passion of Christ quite good. I also liked the "history" channel's series The Bible, although I understand it might not be particularly accurate. I heard good things about The Encounter but found it tackily done and underwhelming, although still powerful.

The Passion of Christ was well-done. The Bible series...ehhhhhh...not really sure...

[Diopolis]

I found the Passion of Christ quite good. I also liked the "history" channel's series The Bible, although I understand it might not be particularly accurate. I heard good things about The Encounter but found it tackily done and underwhelming, although still powerful.

The Passion of Christ was well-done. The Bible series...ehhhhhh...not really sure...

It was a guilty pleasure.

[Czechanada]

And I'm just sitting here enjoying The Life of Brian.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

The Passion of Christ was well-done. The Bible series...ehhhhhh...not really sure...

It was a guilty pleasure.

I personally enjoyed the Moroccan actor who played Satan.

[Diopolis]

It was a guilty pleasure.

I personally enjoyed the Moroccan actor who played Satan.

Watching the blow-up about him looking ever so distantly like the president was entertaining. Very entertaining.

[Diopolis]

Joint declaration of Pope and Patriarch.
Seems mostly alright, except for the opposition to proselytism and the silence on contraception, but I suppose those are to be expected.

[Salus Maior]

Yeah those Left Behind movies just seem so...bizarre. I always try to find good Christian movies but its pretty hard. The best ones I've come across are the ones that aren't overtly and obviously Christian but the ones with subtle Christian undertones

There are some really bad religious movies out there.
The problem is that if you try and make a movies core theme be about a religion you tend to either get completely over the top storylines which would make even the most devout religious person question the plot integrity, or you get rather bland, tedious and boring movies.
It's not just Christians, see International Guerillas.

Edit: Are there any Christian movies you guys have come across that you would recommend?

While it's not necessarily a Christian movie, I would recommend "The Prince of Egypt" if you haven't seen it. It's an animated Dreamworks movie of the story of Exodus, and it's probably one of my favorite movies of all time.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Nothing like good old fashioned fire and brimstone. "If you don't believe this about the devil YOU'LL BE COME THE DEVIL! SCARY SCARY!" I jest, but come on Fr. Z,...a priest isn't gonna wind up in hell just because they'd rather talk about the livable faith as opposed to the boogeymen lurking around every corner.

The point is that there is too little preaching and catechesis on this very real danger.

I think there's plenty, and I think the Church is pretty much in the right place focusing on the Livable faith and the avoiding sin, rather than looking for the Devil to come possess you or what not. The Devil cannot spiritually harm Christians.

"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's."

We need to worry about ourselves more than the Devil.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I found the Passion of Christ quite good. I also liked the "history" channel's series The Bible, although I understand it might not be particularly accurate. I heard good things about The Encounter but found it tackily done and underwhelming, although still powerful.

The Passion of Christ was well-done. The Bible series...ehhhhhh...not really sure...

Especially since the AD part was mostly fabricated.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

1. It wouldn't have been the real Church, because for one, their claims to legitimacy doesn't come from the original Scriptures and they don't have origins that can literally be traced back to the original Apostles (In fact, their claims to legitimacy hinge upon their claim that the Apostles/Jesus came to them secretly and told them things only the most "spiritually advanced" could understand. Of course, there is no evidence for either of these claims, and Gnostic texts have been proven to have been written later than texts accepted by the Church as True Scripture.)

(1) They do claim to have come from the Apostles.
http://freelyreceive.net/metalogos/files/thomas.html

(2) If you mean if they actually come from the Gospel, then there is no proof that any of the current gospel comes from the Apostles either.

The argument, then, remains circular in its denying legitimacy to the Gnostic/Neoplatonist.

2.Greek Liturgy is preserved as part of Church tradition because for the majority of the Church's life for nearly two thousand years this is how it was done. If you want any real connection to Early Christianity, that at the very least is one. But even then, there are Orthodox Churches who have the Liturgy in English, and the vernacular of other countries. Would you say that the U.S banning slavery was "muddying the waters" of what makes a true American? After all, the Founding Fathers did it. Any change made to Church tradition or teaching has been done by Church Councils by the successors of the Apostles, just like the Apostles themselves did in the New Testament in Acts Chapter 15 at the Council of Jerusalem.

America is not a purveyor of eternal truths, it is a nation, the Apostolic Church claims that it is, and not only that, but their traditions are part of these eternal truths, until they are not.

3. It does, actually. Bishops, Deacons and Elders are named. And what if I told you both in Catholicism and Orthodoxy there actually are Women-led ministries? They're simply not ordained clergy.

Wrong.

http://www.gotquestions.org/clergy-and-laity.html

4. So, your point is moot. A lot of your points are based off of biased misconceptions of Church history and a Protestant-centric view of Sola Scriptura, which didn't exist in Christianity until Luther came along nearly 1500 years later.

The point was that you have no proof that these traditions existed since ancient times, and I provided examples of more modern traditions (celebration of Easter and Christmas on those days they are currently celebrated) as examples of traditions that are new, and whose history we know relatively well, but which we celebrate anyways.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

-deleted-

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Buddhism.



Most of it is justification via a certain reading of the Bible, when the Bible can admit a different, less incredible interpretation.

Okay, what denomination of Buddhism do you adhere to?

Mahayana

Also, what do you mean by 'a certain reading'?

Let's use the example of Matthew 16:19, which Catholics take to mean that Peter was given the keys to rightly interpreting scripture which is passed down through the Popes as the successor of Peter, and, by proxy the Church, which is founded upon Peter, the Rock, some will argue that, in the previous verse, the rock there means 'little rock' for the 'big rock' that is Jesus, which other argues is a misreading of the Greek, mistaking Koine Greek for Attic Greek. Other argue that the Rock is not Peter himself, but the statement he makes, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' in Matthew 16:16, which by proxy, means it is not Peter the person that Jesus found his Church on, but that sincere statement of faith, and that the faith, itself, is the Rock, and Peter is called Peter now because of his rock-like faith.

1. Oh that certainly is rich. And you're saying Catholicism makes fantastical irrational claims about the universe? Yeah, ok.

I don't believe that Buddhism has ever claimed that its clergy can magic a divine being into bread and booze.

2. I can make the bible justify the mass murder of all people if I really wanted, turn Jesus into a terrible war Lord if I so desired. It's not about what interpretation is less this or that it's about what interpretation is right.

And we usually think that an interpretation is right if it (1) adheres to the text and (2) that is conforms to reality as we currently know it. That is why most Christians don't literally accept that Pi is equal to three.

The Eucharist does not make sense and is only tentatively supported by scripture.

[Angleter]

2. I can make the bible justify the mass murder of all people if I really wanted, turn Jesus into a terrible war Lord if I so desired. It's not about what interpretation is less this or that it's about what interpretation is right.

And we usually think that an interpretation is right if it (1) adheres to the text and (2) that is conforms to reality as we currently know it. That is why most Christians don't literally accept that Pi is equal to three.

The Eucharist does not make sense and is only tentatively supported by scripture.

No, we don't. I wouldn't say that virgin births, water spontaneously being transformed into wine, people with various ailments and disabilities being spontaneously healed, exorcisms, raising the dead, rising from the dead, or ascending into Heaven 'conform to reality as we currently know it.'

[Luminesa]

Okay, what denomination of Buddhism do you adhere to?

Mahayana

Also, what do you mean by 'a certain reading'?

Let's use the example of Matthew 16:19, which Catholics take to mean that Peter was given the keys to rightly interpreting scripture which is passed down through the Popes as the successor of Peter, and, by proxy the Church, which is founded upon Peter, the Rock, some will argue that, in the previous verse, the rock there means 'little rock' for the 'big rock' that is Jesus, which other argues is a misreading of the Greek, mistaking Koine Greek for Attic Greek. Other argue that the Rock is not Peter himself, but the statement he makes, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' in Matthew 16:16, which by proxy, means it is not Peter the person that Jesus found his Church on, but that sincere statement of faith, and that the faith, itself, is the Rock, and Peter is called Peter now because of his rock-like faith.

1. Oh that certainly is rich. And you're saying Catholicism makes fantastical irrational claims about the universe? Yeah, ok.

I don't believe that Buddhism has ever claimed that its clergy can magic a divine being into bread and booze.

2. I can make the bible justify the mass murder of all people if I really wanted, turn Jesus into a terrible war Lord if I so desired. It's not about what interpretation is less this or that it's about what interpretation is right.

And we usually think that an interpretation is right if it (1) adheres to the text and (2) that is conforms to reality as we currently know it. That is why most Christians don't literally accept that Pi is equal to three.

The Eucharist does not make sense and is only tentatively supported by scripture.

Most PEOPLE don't think that Pi is equal to three. It's not, it's 3.1514...you know what I mean.

And what if I were to tell you that reincarnation does not make sense? Buddhists believe in reincarnation, right?

[Salus Maior]

1. A. They do claim to have come from the Apostles.
http://freelyreceive.net/metalogos/files/thomas.html

B.If you mean if they actually come from the Gospel, then there is no proof that any of the current gospel comes from the Apostles either.

The argument, then, remains circular in its denying legitimacy to the Gnostic/Neoplatonist.



2.America is not a purveyor of eternal truths, it is a nation, the Apostolic Church claims that it is, and not only that, but their traditions are part of these eternal truths, until they are not.


3.Wrong.

http://www.gotquestions.org/clergy-and-laity.html


4.The point was that you have no proof that these traditions existed since ancient times, and I provided examples of more modern traditions (celebration of Easter and Christmas on those days they are currently celebrated) as examples of traditions that are new, and whose history we know relatively well, but which we celebrate anyways.

1. A. That's what I said?

B. Considering the current New Testament books have been dated to the Apostolic period it is very likely that they are written by the Apostles and those who worked with them. Gnostic texts have been dated as being written later. Which is why the Apostolic Church cobbled together the New Testament the way it is as opposed to adding Gnostic texts.

2. I honestly have no idea what you're even talking about there.

3. Because that is a trustworthy source, being a Protestant site with clear bias. Nevermind that it's clearly basing its points on Sola Scriptura (again, something that didn't exist in the Early Church, which is rather ironic considering what you are arguing).

4. I find it funny that you use the word "modern" and "new" for practices that have been done for over a thousand years.

[Diopolis]

Mahayana



Let's use the example of Matthew 16:19, which Catholics take to mean that Peter was given the keys to rightly interpreting scripture which is passed down through the Popes as the successor of Peter, and, by proxy the Church, which is founded upon Peter, the Rock, some will argue that, in the previous verse, the rock there means 'little rock' for the 'big rock' that is Jesus, which other argues is a misreading of the Greek, mistaking Koine Greek for Attic Greek. Other argue that the Rock is not Peter himself, but the statement he makes, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' in Matthew 16:16, which by proxy, means it is not Peter the person that Jesus found his Church on, but that sincere statement of faith, and that the faith, itself, is the Rock, and Peter is called Peter now because of his rock-like faith.



I don't believe that Buddhism has ever claimed that its clergy can magic a divine being into bread and booze.



And we usually think that an interpretation is right if it (1) adheres to the text and (2) that is conforms to reality as we currently know it. That is why most Christians don't literally accept that Pi is equal to three.

The Eucharist does not make sense and is only tentatively supported by scripture.

Most PEOPLE don't think that Pi is equal to three. It's not, it's 3.1514...you know what I mean.

And what if I were to tell you that reincarnation does not make sense? Buddhists believe in reincarnation, right?

Interestingly enough, the bible doesn't actually say that pi is equal to three. It gives some dimensions that work out to pi as three, fair, but it doesn't give the thickness of the container's rim.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Mahayana



Let's use the example of Matthew 16:19, which Catholics take to mean that Peter was given the keys to rightly interpreting scripture which is passed down through the Popes as the successor of Peter, and, by proxy the Church, which is founded upon Peter, the Rock, some will argue that, in the previous verse, the rock there means 'little rock' for the 'big rock' that is Jesus, which other argues is a misreading of the Greek, mistaking Koine Greek for Attic Greek. Other argue that the Rock is not Peter himself, but the statement he makes, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' in Matthew 16:16, which by proxy, means it is not Peter the person that Jesus found his Church on, but that sincere statement of faith, and that the faith, itself, is the Rock, and Peter is called Peter now because of his rock-like faith.



I don't believe that Buddhism has ever claimed that its clergy can magic a divine being into bread and booze.



And we usually think that an interpretation is right if it (1) adheres to the text and (2) that is conforms to reality as we currently know it. That is why most Christians don't literally accept that Pi is equal to three.

The Eucharist does not make sense and is only tentatively supported by scripture.

Most PEOPLE don't think that Pi is equal to three. It's not, it's 3.1514...you know what I mean.

And what if I were to tell you that reincarnation does not make sense? Buddhists believe in reincarnation, right?

~3.1416 actually.

I know, pedantry.

[Czechanada]

Mahayana



Let's use the example of Matthew 16:19, which Catholics take to mean that Peter was given the keys to rightly interpreting scripture which is passed down through the Popes as the successor of Peter, and, by proxy the Church, which is founded upon Peter, the Rock, some will argue that, in the previous verse, the rock there means 'little rock' for the 'big rock' that is Jesus, which other argues is a misreading of the Greek, mistaking Koine Greek for Attic Greek. Other argue that the Rock is not Peter himself, but the statement he makes, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' in Matthew 16:16, which by proxy, means it is not Peter the person that Jesus found his Church on, but that sincere statement of faith, and that the faith, itself, is the Rock, and Peter is called Peter now because of his rock-like faith.



I don't believe that Buddhism has ever claimed that its clergy can magic a divine being into bread and booze.



And we usually think that an interpretation is right if it (1) adheres to the text and (2) that is conforms to reality as we currently know it. That is why most Christians don't literally accept that Pi is equal to three.

The Eucharist does not make sense and is only tentatively supported by scripture.

Most PEOPLE don't think that Pi is equal to three. It's not, it's 3.1514...you know what I mean.

And what if I were to tell you that reincarnation does not make sense? Buddhists believe in reincarnation, right?

Isn't it kind of hypocritical to state that reincarnation does not make sense while believing in the resurrection of Christ?