|
Smoking Crow posted:Are you reading the whole thing or are you skipping the genealogies So far I'm mostly reading the genealogies but I remember them being a lot worse than they currently are so I'll probably skip the later ones, if those are the ones I remember.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:48 |
|
|
CestMoi posted:So far I'm mostly reading the genealogies but I remember them being a lot worse than they currently are so I'll probably skip the later ones, if those are the ones I remember. They get really bad once you hit chronicles and kings The genealogy of Jesus is important for his status as messiah so you can't skip those
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:The genealogy of Jesus is important for his status as messiah so you can't skip those How far does it have to go? Dad = God boom done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
i'm reading the history of early christianity called 'the closing of the western mind' and now i'm halfway through and im'beginning to think that some htings might've made more sense if i'd read at least the new testament to see for myself if paul seems such an rear end in a top hat in his letters as the author is showing him to be and if matthew's gospel really seems to be aimed at jews.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Burning Rain posted:i'm reading the history of early christianity called 'the closing of the western mind' and now i'm halfway through and im'beginning to think that some htings might've made more sense if i'd read at least the new testament to see for myself if paul seems such an rear end in a top hat in his letters as the author is showing him to be and if matthew's gospel really seems to be aimed at jews. The inclusion of Paul as canonical always struck me as really strange honestly. He was a dude who showed up after the fact and said he totally saw Jesus so listen to him talk about women shutting the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:How far does it have to go? Dad = God boom done. It has to include David because David was promised that the messiah would come from his house
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:It has to include David because David was promised that the messiah would come from his house woosh
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:The inclusion of Paul as canonical always struck me as really strange honestly. He was a dude who showed up after the fact and said he totally saw Jesus so listen to him talk about women shutting the gently caress up. Paul is the most second most important figure in Christianity. Without him, Christianity would have been a small mystery cult centered around the Eastern Mediterranean instead of the world religion it is today. A lot of people know nothing about the Bible but still talk about it on the Internet, my brother in Steelers love
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
everybody unironically needs to read the bible. you don't have to be harold loving bloom to think this
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
I'm Harold Bloom, and I agree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Paul is the most second most important figure in Christianity. Without him, Christianity would have been a small mystery cult centered around the Eastern Mediterranean instead of the world religion it is today. Oh yeah I get that. I just find it interesting that pretty much the entirety of Christianity is from of his interpretation. You would think some protestant church at some point would be like "gently caress that guy" CestMoi posted:I'm Harold Bloom, and I agree. The canon is dumb *gives you the finger*
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I just find it interesting that pretty much the entirety of Christianity is from of his interpretation. There's a lot of stuff that's Pauline but he's hardly the be all end all. Also the Protestant churches were way more concerned with the sanctity of the Bible in the early days than the Catholics iirc so change was unlikely to come from there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Oh yeah I get that. I just find it interesting that pretty much the entirety of Christianity is from of his interpretation. You would think some protestant church at some point would be like "gently caress that guy" IIRC, the Cathars didn't follow Paul's lead. Of course, all gnostic sects didn't follow him, and Tolstoy didn't follow Paul's interpretation
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:There's a lot of stuff that's Pauline but he's hardly the be all end all. Also the Protestant churches were way more concerned with the sanctity of the Bible in the early days than the Catholics iirc so change was unlikely to come from there. Imo, nowadays Christianity is much more Athanasian than Pauline
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:and Tolstoy didn't follow Paul's interpretation I keep meaning to read about Tolstoy's interpretation of the bible, I hear its interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I keep meaning to read about Tolstoy's interpretation of the bible, I hear its interesting. Go nuts http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4602
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Tolstoy posted:XII. CONCLUSION—REPENT YE, FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND Hell of a conclusion
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Andre Gide's straight is the Gate has the character call Paull a ponce, then he fucks his sister, so... beware Mel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Burning Rain posted:you should all follow kobe bryant on goodreads Hello that's me, thanks
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Read the Enrique Vila-Matas I was talking about earlier today. If you like Italo Calvino or meta-fiction in general, give him a read. A bit too heady for my tastes but I respect what he is accomplishing. http://www.amazon.com/History-Porta...ique+vila-matas
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
mistermojo posted:Hello that's me, thanks
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
WAY TO GO WAMPA!! posted:Why is your av AI? Hes my favorite player
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Mishima is my favorite Japanese novelist. This is one of his weaker books I thought though. Why didn't you like it? Decay of the Angel is my favorite I think, but Sailor is a close second, mostly because it's a bit like an earlier draft of Decay of the Angel, they're both about evil, sea-obsessed boys. My least favorite Mishima is Shiosai I think, because it has all this symbolism that seems to build up to something (the cliffside place with the ominous name, the boys in the cave predicting some kind of catastrophe), but then nothing really happens and the book is over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:The inclusion of Paul as canonical always struck me as really strange honestly. He was a dude who showed up after the fact and said he totally saw Jesus so listen to him talk about women shutting the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
Grimson posted:Yeah but it's all after the fact including the gospels, and anyways what got canonized as Mainline Xtianity had more to do with legitimating the institutional church that had emerged than with identifying the oldest, trillest, most purestrain Christ (or assessed the latter in light of the former, at least) Please do not use the term Xtianity in any thread made by me or any other person, for that matter
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Yours in X,
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
mistermojo posted:Hello that's me, thanks cool! So why don't you post here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Why didn't you like it? Decay of the Angel is my favorite I think, but Sailor is a close second, mostly because it's a bit like an earlier draft of Decay of the Angel, they're both about evil, sea-obsessed boys. I think that hit on it for me. I feel like Sailor is weak because it deals with a lot of themes that were better developed in his other stories. The idea of violence as beauty and death as glory saturates a lot of his works and if you really wanted to explore that idea there are better books by him that do it. My personal favorite is Runaway Horses. Can we all agree Temple of Dawn is the weakest of the cycle?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:My personal favorite is Runaway Horses. Can we all agree Temple of Dawn is the weakest of the cycle? Temple of Dawn would be the best (old lecherous dude spying on the female reincarnation of his dead childhood friend, whilst she's having lesbian sex) but the 100 pages of history & interpretation of Buddhism or whatever is b0ring
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Grimson posted:Yeah but it's all after the fact including the gospels, and anyways what got canonized as Mainline Xtianity had more to do with legitimating the institutional church that had emerged than with identifying the oldest, trillest, most purestrain Christ (or assessed the latter in light of the former, at least) Quit being a loving child and read some non-canonical gospels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
House Louse posted:Quit being a loving child and read some non-canonical gospels. Smh if y'all haven't renounced the Demiurge and embarked on the path towards true gnosis
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
u guys should read Dawkins the God Delusion. rly very deep imho
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
It's faster to just read Dawkins Delusion (75 pages vs. 375) which summarizes the main points, plus that way you won't accidentally take Dawkins seriously
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
I remember Terry Eagleton wrote a scalding review of the book and its kind of funny to see an ardent Marxist Literary critic argue with a Biologist about rigor in theology. And I just saw Eagleton has written a book about religion and debate, will have to check it out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I remember Terry Eagleton wrote a scalding review of the book and its kind of funny to see an ardent Marxist Literary critic argue with a Biologist about rigor in theology. He is also a Catholic iirc
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Nestorianism or bust.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
I'm a Doceticst, myself. Bodily resurrection has never sat quite right w/me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
bogomilism bestism
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Dawkins is an idiot who doesn't understand counterfactual faith. It'd be a disaster for faith if god really did exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:48 |
|
|
I prefer Caecilius Natalis (via Minucius Felix) to Dawkins for sick burns: Christians come from the lowest ranks of the people . . . ignorant and gullible women who indeed, just because of the weakness of their sex, are easily persuaded . . . [These] bands of conspirators . . . fraternise in nocturnal assemblies and at solemn fasts and barbarous feasts, not through a holy ceremony, but through an unatonable crime . . . Everywhere they also practise among themselves, so to speak, a kind of cult of sensuality; without distinction they call each other brother and sister, and through this holy name even the usual immorality becomes incest . . . In a darkness that is favourable to shamelessness they are consumed by unspeakable passion, as determined by chance Burning Rain fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:29
|
|