Parents try to perform magic by making Harry Potter disappear.

Ok. I still think that the Valar are more like angels than gods. And I also still think that Aule couldn't really create. But I'm through arguing about this since I got lambasted in that other Harry Potter thread.

I hate stupid Harry Potter even more than I ever did now.

 

Do kids even read books anymore???

This is a classic example of parents getting involved in all the WRONG things and ignoring the others. I remember preachers' daughters who smoked pot and lost their virginity before they were 16, yet the preachers only cared about school uniforms and the books allowed in the library. Um, hello, your daughter is a pot-smoking slut. Your son is a heavy drinker and he's not even 17. Sounds like someone is missing the timber in his own eye.

I'm always amazed with parents who ignore some of the most fundamental problems in the education of children and instead focus on things that make little or no difference.

 

Just an interesting aside...

The single most oft-banned book in US history is Huckleberry Finn...What's most interesting is that the vast majority of the reasons cited for it's banning in the past have had nothing whatsoever to do with race...Reasons have included foul language, inproper depiction of authority, blasphemy, socialism ( I kid you not), and grapgic violence...but almost never in it's long and storied history of being banned has Huck Finn been banned due to the most assosciated issue in the book...racism. An incredible book, maybe the best American novel ever, although I place it behind Gatsby, and the history of the censorship associated with it is, to a degree, a microcosmic reflection of the issues which have plagued US history...except the issue it tried most to address.

 

I understand your point rimbaud, but you should remember that Christianity isn't so cut and dry. Some Christians believe in one god and some do not. Consider these questions: was jesus really God on Earth? And if so, then who was he praying to, and why did Satan tempt him the way that he did? If he wasn't god on Earth than does that mean he wasn't a god at all or another god or a lesser god, what? Certainly, he displayed god-like qualities. The dominate thought now is that God is a trinity, but there are Chrisitians who reject this theory. And even if we do agree that god is composed of the father, son, and the holy spirit, is that one god or three. The point being, in my best JEFF voice (j/k), to label Christians thought as absolutely thus and so forth would be rather unfair and narrow minded. We don't all think as a group on many fundamental issues.

 

help...i have never heard of any branch of christianity claiming there is more than one god...there is disagreement about the nature of the trinity, but all cling to monotheism, as far as i understand it.

 

What is the grip about the trinity? Why is that important, and how would you justify monotheism in light of it? Your arguement is semantic max. Sure, every branch believes in one god, but many disagree on what one god really means. Therefore, you have debate over the trinity.



Just a side note, I won't agrue this semantic point with you. If you want to lay down the ax that every christian branch believes in one rigid god then by all means believe it. I know better.

 

Actually not historically accurate...The Hebrew God Yaweh, who has been adopted by Christians as God, is believed by archeologists to have been one of at least two gods in a loosely defined polytheistic desert-based religion..the other known 'god' of the time being Yaweh's female counterpart, or mother-god...Monotheism, although not original to the Hebrews, evolved out of a tribal polytheistic faith.

 

wow..certainly never heard that before...

nevertheless...does nothing to point towards Christians today believing in polytheism.

kbm - geez..ease up on the condescension...i qualified everything i said by saying, "as i understand it." how do i justify monotheism with the trinity?? are you kidding?? the church has done that years ago!!! you may disagree with it, but i have yet to encounter in person or in print christians who call themselves polytheists...even if you view them as polytheists...i'm a christian and i've been called a polytheist by muslim friends before...it's simply a lack of understanding of the trinity (or at least a lack of understanding of mainstream Christianity's understanding of the trinity). pick up a book on it...there are smarter people than i who explain why the trinity still is relevant to ONE god

 

Right, max. I understand how it can be explained, and I even agree with the explanation. The sun is a good analogy, and so is the egg. But those explanations, while they satisfy us, don't satisfy everyone. There are people who see this distiction as worshiping more than one god. I'm sure you realize that. I think it is perhaps more correct to say that all christians believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah. That is how I separate those who are and are not christians.

 

Some of you people are digging too deep. How did god creep into a discussion about Harry Potter, censorship and how/why the Lord of the Rings is better/worse than Harry Potter?

These books are <i>Fantasy</i>, People. The only thing they are meant to teach you is how to use your imagination. I guess some people are afraid of independent, creative, thinking if it doesn't fit safely into their belief system.

 

6o im so ****ign up wirght now

 

Lol, unfair and narrow minded? Thanks. All of this is irrelevent to my original point of multiple (not just one additional Christ-like "confusion," either) gods contrary to the story in the Bible having been created and, thus, having the potential of offending Christians, as it speaks nothing of "their" God, Jesus, etc...

In regards to the trinity, status of Jesus, etc...well, Paul did say that the world was created by God through Jesus...but that is a bit different than labeing him as another creating God. Additionally, there have been artistic representations of the trinity with four elements - God, The Holy Spirit, Jesus, and another Jesus. Fun, but has little to do with this topic. So, uh, yeah...I sure do know a lot.

Interesting because your "broader" definition also forces monotheism on all Christians if we are to speak of Jesus the Christ and his being the messiah. "The Christ," or "anointed one" was a title carried by earthly kings and prophets and is pretty synonomous with "messiah" as well. You, therefore, are relegating Jesus to the more worldly, human, and less divine stage. Maybe we should just speak in "old school" terms and speak of "truth" or "logos" or whatever...that even allows for the feminine or androgynous (self copulating, even) forms of "Jesus" throughout history. But all of this is only if you want to get extra picky in order to avoid being narrow-minded.

You should be more careful with your words.

 

No public school is showing Debbie Does Dallas either, but that doesn't mean that society doesn't try to keep children from exposing themselves to it. From my understanding of the article, they are trying to have the books removed from the library, it is not a curriculum issue. Anyway, as I said before, I don't care what kids read, I just thought that some of the incredulity was unnecessary given the same application of community standards in other media.

 

Vidor is a redneck town nuff said..
and bigots at that.

 

People are idiots.

 

I don't stop to pee in Vidor. I'd rather pee in a soda can than stop for a tinkle.....

 

Lol, unfair and narrow minded? Thanks. All of this is irrelevent to my original point of multiple (not just one additional Christ-like "confusion," either) gods contrary to the story in the Bible having been created and, thus, having the potential of offending Christians, as it speaks nothing of "their" God, Jesus, etc...

Narrow minded was the wrong word. It sounds harsh and gives the impression that I'm angry--I'm not. At any rate, this whole "paragraph" is incomprehensible, so forgive me if I interpretate it wrong. In this thread, you said that all Christians believe creation came from one God and contrasted that point with the Tolkien books, which have minor gods creating. Not sure if you would call this your "original" point or not; however, it was a point you made. All I am saying is that many Christians believe in slightly different forms of God. The trinity, therefore, is oft-debated since those who oppose the theory see it as worshipping more than one god. You seem to think that this theory is a given truth. (again, because you write so incoherent, it's often hard to tell.) The point being that just because people who believe the trinty to be monotheist worship does not make it so. It is a very radical idea.

You also seem to be making a distinction between the God of creation as if he, too, was absloutely one god acting by himself. Let me point out that the word God in Gen. 1:1 is in the hebrew elohim. The word literally means God(s), plural. It is often constructed as a singular. Ambiguous? Yes.

In regards to the trinity, status of Jesus, etc...well, Paul did say that the world was created by God through Jesus...but that is a bit different than labeing him as another creating God. Additionally, there have been artistic representations of the trinity with four elements - God, The Holy Spirit, Jesus, and another Jesus. Fun, but has little to do with this topic. So, uh, yeah...I sure do know a lot.

This dodges the question. I could say, well, Jesus said in his prayer "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to THEE. Holy Father keep through thine own name those whom THOU hast given me, that they may be one, as WE are." Neither of us would be the better for it.


Interesting because your "broader" definition also forces monotheism on all Christians if we are to speak of Jesus the Christ and his being the messiah. "The Christ," or "anointed one" was a title carried by earthly kings and prophets and is pretty synonomous with "messiah" as well. You, therefore, are relegating Jesus to the more worldly, human, and less divine stage. Maybe we should just speak in "old school" terms and speak of "truth" or "logos" or whatever...that even allows for the feminine or androgynous (self copulating, even) forms of "Jesus" throughout history. But all of this is only if you want to get extra picky in order to avoid being narrow-minded.

Rimmy, since you couldn't help yourself but throw art history at me in the previous quote, let me throw some grammar your way. "The" is a definate article. That means we use it when we refer to something specific. Consider: the president and a president. What is the difference? Now consider how a hebrew would react to the statement "the messiah has come." You get my drift.

At any rate, you did stumbled upon some truth. Was Jesus fully God on the Earth, could he have been? The reason Satan tempted God the way that he did was he knew Jesus had to assume a human form in order to redeem the world, and so to turn stones into bread would disqualify him as being human only as he would have been acting as God rather than being lead by God; therefore, he could not have then redeemed the world. The interesting part to me is that the people who reject the trinity theory have a better claim to Jesus on Earth than those who accept it. Therefore, they are very monotheistic. Whereas the people who subscribe to the trinity theory have to explain much more in terms of Jesus on Earth. So in a sense, just not the way you reasoned it, Jesus was much less divine on Earth; he had to be.

 

Grammar lesson usually are more effective when they are not littered with incorrect spelling.

Of course, the lesson also had no bearing on my post, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

I guess I was wrong. Tolkien was writing about Christianity.

It's over there, it's over there
My building has every convenience
It’s going to make life easy for me
It’s going to be easy to get things done
I will relax, along with my loved ones...

 

This is a very friendly jab since I know you could care less about grammar. But you should either put a definite article before "Grammar" or put a "s" after the "n" in lesson. I would add the "s" since then you'll agree with the verb "are." Also, "they" doesn't agree with the subject grammar lesson (singluar). Next, you used "littered," which implies mulitiple spelling errors; therefore, you really need to use "incorrect spelling(s)" plural. At any rate, grammar sucks, especially on the bbs, and I can't fathom you making this many errors unless you wanted to make a point.

I guess I was wrong. Tolkien was writing about Christianity.

If you haven't noticed rimmy, I like arguing with you. It's fun and entertaining.