Prev: Inter v Barcelona Sithcast
Next: half filled anfield in complete silence even at 2-0
From: Red Rackham on 19 Apr 2010 05:14
Just got my copy of Philip Pullman's', 'The good man jesus and the scoundrel
christ', got a couple of books to finish first but that's going to be a
highlight.

He's in the Guardian this morning as saying 'I hope the catholic church
vanishes completely.' Haven't read the article yet but it sounds
interesting.

Do you do much reading at all?

HTH


From: Red Rackham on 19 Apr 2010 11:47

"Pope Pompous XVIII" .
>>>
>>
>>
>> Have you actually read any of Pullman's books pope? And if so, which?
>
> No I haven't. Bitter zealots like Pullman and Dawkins are an instant
> turn-off.


Doesn't really put you in a very strong position to comment on his work
then, I'd have thought. You could try expanding your mind a little. You
never know, it might help you to form some independent thought.


>
>> He says we should all read the bible.
>
> How generous of him. No doubt if we're confused we can ask him to
> interpret it for us.
>
>> Historically the religious authorities
>> forbade the people from reading it. They liked to drip feed only the
>> parts
>> that suited them.
>
> Strange. I could have sworn the ancient liturgies of the Catholic Church
> have always included a reading each from the OT, NT, and a Gospel.
>


Yes. A reading. A passage chosen by the authorities and dictated by them. A
passage on whatever they wanted the local population to think and feel at
the time.



>> And, because it was in Latin, very few people had the
>> means to read it.
>
> My guess is very few people had the means to read it because for
> hundreds of years before the invention of printing it was handwritten on
> expensive parchment and vellum. In Greek, Aramaic, and Latin, by the
> way.


And then afterwards it was kept from the plebs in case they started thinking
for themselves.


>
> My second guess is that the ordinary plebs went to Mass on Sundays in
> part to have the very same OT and NT read to them and interpreted for
> them by "qualified" priests.


Which is exactly how those qualified prists wanted it. Qualified in what
though we might ask.


>
> My third hunch is that you'd rather have a 21st-century bestselling
> British novelist interpret the whole Bible for you than an ignorant
> peasant priest of the Catholic Church.



Well, one of them is highly intelligent and has been allowed the freedom to
think, express ideas, and form opinions for himself. The other has had what
to think, feel and believe inculcated in him without any room for
interpretation or free-thinking whatsoever since his earliest days.

I wonder which will give the clearest and most objective picture?



The Gospel according to Philip
> Pullman eh? And why not? He's obviously better qualified to shoot the
> whole thing down from the luxury of his 21st-century suburban British
> home than any superstitious, child-molesting and ignorant priest. Not to
> mention the Jewish savages who wrote it in the first place, about 2000
> years ago. The people who actually went about with this Jesus scoundrel,
> in other words.
>
>> The church became worried when English translations became
>> available but they needn't have been as very few people could be bothered
>> to
>> read all of it.
>
> For the Church reading the bible was never the problem. Interpreting it
> correctly was the problem. You only have to read a review of Pullman's
> book to realise ignorant pissants are not intellectually equipped to
> interpret the Word of God correctly.



And you only have to listen to someone damning a book having read only a
review of it to see the scale of willful ignorance involved here.




>
>> Of course, the truth is, if you do read it, you discover for yourself the
>> incredible extent to which the gospels all contradict each other. And
>> they
>> want us to believe these stories are true.
>>
>> Yeah, right.
>
> All the old monks were taught to deliberately introduce flaws
> into their work, be it a Russian icon or the Book of Kells. In those
> days people were humble enough to know nothing perfect on earth could be
> created by man, and so they deliberately crippled their work as a sign
> of their humility before God.



Priceless. Truly priceless. The reason the gospels don't make sense is
because the story contradictions were all put in by the monks on purpose.

And you can tell the bits were they got it right from the deliberate
'mistakes' how?

Pope, come on, someone of even average intelligence must feel some shame at
offering this up.





From: Mentalguy2k8 on 19 Apr 2010 11:59

"Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LW_yn.483348$2R.451383(a)newsfe11.ams2...
>
> "Pope Pompous XVIII" .
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you actually read any of Pullman's books pope? And if so, which?
>>
>> No I haven't. Bitter zealots like Pullman and Dawkins are an instant
>> turn-off.
>
>
> Doesn't really put you in a very strong position to comment on his work
> then, I'd have thought. You could try expanding your mind a little. You
> never know, it might help you to form some independent thought.

You're wasting your breath. If Popey himself doesn't realise the enormous
irony of calling other people "bitter zealots", there seems little point in
going on.

From: Red Rackham on 19 Apr 2010 12:00

..
>
> "Pope Pompous XVIII" .
>>>>


>>
>> All the old monks were taught to deliberately introduce flaws
>> into their work, be it a Russian icon or the Book of Kells. In those
>> days people were humble enough to know nothing perfect on earth could be
>> created by man, and so they deliberately crippled their work as a sign
>> of their humility before God.
>


And this is a bunch of total nonsense for a start. Like so much religious
thinking there is no logic to it. The monks had to 'deliberately' introduce
flaws? So if they hadn't made a mistake on purpose the icon or book would
have been perfect?

But according to them nothing made by man could be perfect so even if they'd
tried their damnedest their work wouldn't have been flawless. So why bother
putting in the deliberate mistakes in the first place?

Sheesh pope, it's no wonder the authorities were scared of people starting
to think for themselves. They'd see straight through this baloney in a
flash.

And isn't the bible supposed to be the word of god. So it was the monks duty
to copy it verbatim. Who were they to decide to alter His words?

They quite clearly didn't and the gospels contradictions are inherent.

Nice try though.



From: Red Rackham on 19 Apr 2010 12:02

"Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy2k8(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:V5%yn.21586$Pu5.18493(a)newsfe30.ams2...
>
> "Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LW_yn.483348$2R.451383(a)newsfe11.ams2...
>>
>> "Pope Pompous XVIII" .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have you actually read any of Pullman's books pope? And if so, which?
>>>
>>> No I haven't. Bitter zealots like Pullman and Dawkins are an instant
>>> turn-off.
>>
>>
>> Doesn't really put you in a very strong position to comment on his work
>> then, I'd have thought. You could try expanding your mind a little. You
>> never know, it might help you to form some independent thought.
>
> You're wasting your breath. If Popey himself doesn't realise the enormous
> irony of calling other people "bitter zealots", there seems little point
> in going on.

Indeed. But I feel duty-bound to carry as many towards the light as I can. I
won't give up on him yet.


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Inter v Barcelona Sithcast
Next: half filled anfield in complete silence even at 2-0