The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
A post today by Ant and the discussion that followed started me thinking.
And I got my R1 Dogma DVD today and sat and watched it. Now for those of you that haven’t seen it, it’s about two angels that potentially can unmake creation.
Kevin Smith who wrote and directed it came under a lot of flak from Catholic and Christian groups when it was released, to the extent of receiving death threats from fundamentalists. (Christians that kill…there’s a concept I can’t find funnier).
But those people missed the point, Smith is very pro-religion, having been raised a Catholic.
And several points he makes in the film are written with the knowledge of a true theologian, you have to understand the ideas before you can satarise them.
So, here are some ideas/points he raises in the movie that I can’t put any better but speak about what’s wrong with a lot of religious beliefs these days.
Now I must point out I’m not attacking religion/religious people for one instant, these are just interesting questions/points raised I’d like to get the opinions of those that are religious on the ideas raised in the film:
---
Azrael:
Human, have you ever been to hell? I think not. Do you know that once Hell was nothing more than the absence of God? And if you’ve ever been in his presence, then you’d realise that’s punishment enough. But then your kind came along – and made it so much worse.
Bethany:
Humans aren’t capable of one hundredth the evil a demon like you is.
Azrael:
Evil is an abstract! It’s a human construct! But true to his irresponsible nature, man wont own up to being it’s engineer, so he blames his dark deeds on my ilk. But his selfishness is limitless, and it’s not enough for him to shadow his own existence. No – he turned Hell into a suffering pit – fire, wailing, darkness, the kind of place anyone would do anything to get out of.
And why?
Because he lacks the ability to forgive himself.
It is beyond your abilities to simply make personal recompense for the sins you commit. No – you choose rather to create a psychodrama and dwell in a foundless belief that God could never forgive your “grievous offenses” So you bring your guilt and inner-decay with you to Hell – where the horrid imaginations of so many gluttons-for-punishment gave birth to the sickness that has infected the abyss since the first one of your kind arrived there, begging to be “punished”.
And in doing so, they’re transformed the cold and solitude to pain and misery. I’ve spent eons privy to the flames, inhaling the decay, hearing the wail of the damned. I know what effect such horrors have on the delicate psyche of an angelic being!
Rufus:
God’s only real beef with mankind is the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity got it all wrong by taking a good idea and building a belief structure on it.
Bethany:
You’re saying having beliefs is a bad thing?
Rufus:
I think it’s better to have ideas. You can change ideas. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be mallable, but beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth – new ideas cant generate and life becomes stagnant. That’s something else that bugs Christ – still life. He wants everyone to be as enthralled with living as He was.
--
Thoughts on the above?
And I got my R1 Dogma DVD today and sat and watched it. Now for those of you that haven’t seen it, it’s about two angels that potentially can unmake creation.
Kevin Smith who wrote and directed it came under a lot of flak from Catholic and Christian groups when it was released, to the extent of receiving death threats from fundamentalists. (Christians that kill…there’s a concept I can’t find funnier).
But those people missed the point, Smith is very pro-religion, having been raised a Catholic.
And several points he makes in the film are written with the knowledge of a true theologian, you have to understand the ideas before you can satarise them.
So, here are some ideas/points he raises in the movie that I can’t put any better but speak about what’s wrong with a lot of religious beliefs these days.
Now I must point out I’m not attacking religion/religious people for one instant, these are just interesting questions/points raised I’d like to get the opinions of those that are religious on the ideas raised in the film:
---
Azrael:
Human, have you ever been to hell? I think not. Do you know that once Hell was nothing more than the absence of God? And if you’ve ever been in his presence, then you’d realise that’s punishment enough. But then your kind came along – and made it so much worse.
Bethany:
Humans aren’t capable of one hundredth the evil a demon like you is.
Azrael:
Evil is an abstract! It’s a human construct! But true to his irresponsible nature, man wont own up to being it’s engineer, so he blames his dark deeds on my ilk. But his selfishness is limitless, and it’s not enough for him to shadow his own existence. No – he turned Hell into a suffering pit – fire, wailing, darkness, the kind of place anyone would do anything to get out of.
And why?
Because he lacks the ability to forgive himself.
It is beyond your abilities to simply make personal recompense for the sins you commit. No – you choose rather to create a psychodrama and dwell in a foundless belief that God could never forgive your “grievous offenses” So you bring your guilt and inner-decay with you to Hell – where the horrid imaginations of so many gluttons-for-punishment gave birth to the sickness that has infected the abyss since the first one of your kind arrived there, begging to be “punished”.
And in doing so, they’re transformed the cold and solitude to pain and misery. I’ve spent eons privy to the flames, inhaling the decay, hearing the wail of the damned. I know what effect such horrors have on the delicate psyche of an angelic being!
Rufus:
God’s only real beef with mankind is the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity got it all wrong by taking a good idea and building a belief structure on it.
Bethany:
You’re saying having beliefs is a bad thing?
Rufus:
I think it’s better to have ideas. You can change ideas. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be mallable, but beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth – new ideas cant generate and life becomes stagnant. That’s something else that bugs Christ – still life. He wants everyone to be as enthralled with living as He was.
--
Thoughts on the above?
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
>
> Rufus:
> I think it’s better to have ideas. You can change ideas. Changing a
> belief is trickier. Life should be mallable, but beliefs anchor you to
> certain points and limit growth – new ideas cant generate and life
> becomes stagnant. That’s something else that bugs Christ – still life.
> He wants everyone to be as enthralled with living as He was.
>
>
The minute that line: "I think it's better to have ideas" was spoken, I agreed completely. We shouldn't be tied down to something that has been descended down on us, we should be free to do what we want, how else will you find out who you are as a person? I certainly couldn't find out for myself if I was tied down to a belief that couldn't be changed, altered. I could just get someone else to tell me who I was, what I was going to think, how I was going to act. I wouldn't get myself involved in that. I shall be free to make my own choices about life and where it will take me.
>
> Rufus:
> I think it’s better to have ideas. You can change ideas. Changing a
> belief is trickier. Life should be mallable, but beliefs anchor you to
> certain points and limit growth – new ideas cant generate and life
> becomes stagnant. That’s something else that bugs Christ – still life.
> He wants everyone to be as enthralled with living as He was.
>
>
The minute that line: "I think it's better to have ideas" was spoken, I agreed completely. We shouldn't be tied down to something that has been descended down on us, we should be free to do what we want, how else will you find out who you are as a person? I certainly couldn't find out for myself if I was tied down to a belief that couldn't be changed, altered. I could just get someone else to tell me who I was, what I was going to think, how I was going to act. I wouldn't get myself involved in that. I shall be free to make my own choices about life and where it will take me.
pb wrote:
"The problem with belief is that most of the time you do not actually believe in something which you’ve discovered, you believe in what others tell you."
Spot on. Completely agree with that.
What sort of life can someone live, if they cannot experience life for themselves?
"The problem with belief is that most of the time you do not actually believe in something which you’ve discovered, you believe in what others tell you."
Spot on. Completely agree with that.
What sort of life can someone live, if they cannot experience life for themselves?
Interesting points, all of them.
I've watched Dogma and marvel at Kevin Smith's ability to challenge the way the church responds to the bible.
I've always had the opinion that too many things have always been read into one pretty old book. It's the Old Testament that lists things which people who call themselves 'prophets' said they heard God tell them. The New Testament has some pretty extreme examples of how people thought at the time and their understanding of biology and social graces, the parts about a women's menstruation for instance.
I’ve had interesting discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses (they insist on coming round, so I insist on challenging them), who tend to read the bible very literally. This is why they refuse transfusions, because they read that the bible tells them blood is sacred and your blood is part of God. It comes from just one line of text in the bible and yet so much is read in to it. It’s interesting to see exactly how devoted they are to their set of beliefs, so much so that it rules their lives.
The problem with belief is that most of the time you do not actually believe in something which you’ve discovered, you believe in what others tell you. It has always been the case that the Catholic Church, and for that matter, many other churches have designed their service to reflect what they see as the issues today. In past times the church had more of a rule over the land and the people, so the laws reflected the standing of the church and vice versa. The stance on using protection during sex is a well known example of how different parts of one religion can be split due to the way of the world and was originally taken from the idea that pro-creation is a very important part of life which should be considered holy. While other sections of the Christian religion saw that there were too many children and the country was getting overcrowded and allowed the use of condoms, the Catholic church still kept it as a cardinal rule (if you forgive the pun) because it was an important stand-point for them. Now I know that pretty much every young Catholic I have known hasn’t taken this rule upon themselves, but it doesn’t mean they don’t believe in the church, they just don’t believe in that particular area.
As Ant rightly says, faith is different to belief in that it does not require exact rules or a way of life to have faith. Having faith in something is knowing that they are there when you need them and Belief, in this context, is following a certain, set path that will lead to spiritual reward. One compliments the other, but you can have faith without all the laws and rules that go with belief.
As for the idea that humans cannot forgive their own sins, or will not allow God to do this, it’s certainly a Catholic trait that makes you feel guilty for almost anything. However, following the bible and the teachings of the church, you should technically feel guilt so that you are forgiven. This means that anything you do will be forgiven if you are truly sorry for it, otherwise you can forget it! Something along the way has been forgotten or mis-interpreted by Catholics during the last few centuries and there is now a rebuke against this whole guilt trip.
I've watched Dogma and marvel at Kevin Smith's ability to challenge the way the church responds to the bible.
I've always had the opinion that too many things have always been read into one pretty old book. It's the Old Testament that lists things which people who call themselves 'prophets' said they heard God tell them. The New Testament has some pretty extreme examples of how people thought at the time and their understanding of biology and social graces, the parts about a women's menstruation for instance.
I’ve had interesting discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses (they insist on coming round, so I insist on challenging them), who tend to read the bible very literally. This is why they refuse transfusions, because they read that the bible tells them blood is sacred and your blood is part of God. It comes from just one line of text in the bible and yet so much is read in to it. It’s interesting to see exactly how devoted they are to their set of beliefs, so much so that it rules their lives.
The problem with belief is that most of the time you do not actually believe in something which you’ve discovered, you believe in what others tell you. It has always been the case that the Catholic Church, and for that matter, many other churches have designed their service to reflect what they see as the issues today. In past times the church had more of a rule over the land and the people, so the laws reflected the standing of the church and vice versa. The stance on using protection during sex is a well known example of how different parts of one religion can be split due to the way of the world and was originally taken from the idea that pro-creation is a very important part of life which should be considered holy. While other sections of the Christian religion saw that there were too many children and the country was getting overcrowded and allowed the use of condoms, the Catholic church still kept it as a cardinal rule (if you forgive the pun) because it was an important stand-point for them. Now I know that pretty much every young Catholic I have known hasn’t taken this rule upon themselves, but it doesn’t mean they don’t believe in the church, they just don’t believe in that particular area.
As Ant rightly says, faith is different to belief in that it does not require exact rules or a way of life to have faith. Having faith in something is knowing that they are there when you need them and Belief, in this context, is following a certain, set path that will lead to spiritual reward. One compliments the other, but you can have faith without all the laws and rules that go with belief.
As for the idea that humans cannot forgive their own sins, or will not allow God to do this, it’s certainly a Catholic trait that makes you feel guilty for almost anything. However, following the bible and the teachings of the church, you should technically feel guilt so that you are forgiven. This means that anything you do will be forgiven if you are truly sorry for it, otherwise you can forget it! Something along the way has been forgotten or mis-interpreted by Catholics during the last few centuries and there is now a rebuke against this whole guilt trip.
Stryke wrote:
> I want a dinosaur. It'd look pretty and stop the heron eating the fish
> in my pond.
>
> I would call it Tim. Tim the Dinosaur.
Just get a BB Gun. That stopped the heron near our pond.
> I want a dinosaur. It'd look pretty and stop the heron eating the fish
> in my pond.
>
> I would call it Tim. Tim the Dinosaur.
Just get a BB Gun. That stopped the heron near our pond.
I want a dinosaur. It'd look pretty and stop the heron eating the fish in my pond.
I would call it Tim. Tim the Dinosaur.
I would call it Tim. Tim the Dinosaur.
Replying to the last one about beliefs...I suppose it would be cool if we all had ideas instead of beliefs, because as he said, beliefs are harder to change.
But I prefer to call it neither of those things. I usually call it faith. Some say it's the same as believing, which I suppose it is...so that really makes no sense. {:)
Sorry, anyway, I think in the Bible many times it says, "believe in me," or, "if you believe in him," etc. which would sort of...disprove if you like, K.Smith's idea. Then again I don't read the Bible very often, so I wouldn't know.
This is the only problem for me when talking about my faith. I don't have all that many facts to base it on, apart from Jesus' tomb they've found and other stuff associated with his crucifixtion (sp? Yes, I know it's stupid that I'm not sure how to spell it. :D) All I can say is...well, he's there. For me anyway. If not, then I wouldn't expect I'd be up an hour normal than earlier discussing religious topics with people that are mostly around 10 years older than me. {:)
But I prefer to call it neither of those things. I usually call it faith. Some say it's the same as believing, which I suppose it is...so that really makes no sense. {:)
Sorry, anyway, I think in the Bible many times it says, "believe in me," or, "if you believe in him," etc. which would sort of...disprove if you like, K.Smith's idea. Then again I don't read the Bible very often, so I wouldn't know.
This is the only problem for me when talking about my faith. I don't have all that many facts to base it on, apart from Jesus' tomb they've found and other stuff associated with his crucifixtion (sp? Yes, I know it's stupid that I'm not sure how to spell it. :D) All I can say is...well, he's there. For me anyway. If not, then I wouldn't expect I'd be up an hour normal than earlier discussing religious topics with people that are mostly around 10 years older than me. {:)
monkey_man wrote:
> If God exists, why did he invent dinosaurs? Were they his first
> attempt at Humans that went horribly, horribly wrong?
Dinosaurs are strange, yes. But my pastor (who likes to keep with the times) went on the Internet and took a look, and found some people who believed they'd found the Dinosaurs in the Bible. I've taken a look and it doesn't actually call them "Dinosaurs", but something like, "large, ravenous beasts."
Up to you what you believe though. It could be describing an early version of pro wrestling.
> If God exists, why did he invent dinosaurs? Were they his first
> attempt at Humans that went horribly, horribly wrong?
Dinosaurs are strange, yes. But my pastor (who likes to keep with the times) went on the Internet and took a look, and found some people who believed they'd found the Dinosaurs in the Bible. I've taken a look and it doesn't actually call them "Dinosaurs", but something like, "large, ravenous beasts."
Up to you what you believe though. It could be describing an early version of pro wrestling.
A T-Rex would never be able to reach his cutlery or place a napkin in his lap. Diplodocus on the other hand doesn't really have a lap.
Dinosaurs are so odd. They don't really fit in with anything. Dinner parties, for example.
But they make no sense. No sense.
But they make no sense. No sense.
If God exists, why did he invent dinosaurs? Were they his first attempt at Humans that went horribly, horribly wrong?
Page: