Yes, it'll get locked eventually (ughh...), but meanwhile it's worth having this clip here... and most other places. If intelligent, articulate people can have these debates in nice chambers without the cops locking the doors, why can't YOU?
An interesting speech. It deals more with the un-biblical principles that the catholic church has embraced over the teachings of Christ on the nature of sin and how it has separated us from God according to scripture that the church seems to ignore.
I'm not even going to look at it. Why are you posting it when you have been advised that it is not a welcome topic? That is very poor form. Rather lousy manners, eh, Wot?
It seems apparent that this video has inspired you to take action. I think that's great.
But unless you believe that most film score fanatics are Catholics, you've posted this video in a place where it will have absolutely no effect.
This is a message board for film score geeks, and Lukas has decreed that religion and politics are not a factor here. Thus we don't discuss them. Defying that rule changes nothing.
Instead of breaking the rules here, go break the rules someplace where it matters. Someplace where it will make a real difference.
P.S. To display the youtube clip in the thead, just type (youtube) before the link and (/youtube) after, but use brackets [] instead of parentheses ().
Well, I'm not a Catholic, but it's only a debate. Many of Fry's criticisms aren't valid any more.
That thing about 'Purgatory' shows a remarkably limited side to Fry, you see it sometimes. He does make rather a THING of his vaunted 'intelligence', which is never questioned. Purgatory as an ALLEGORICAL thing works very well, but it really was a 3D attempt to describe a multi-D 'truth'. The 'after death' is presumably outside our notions of space/time, so that was a way to 'explain' it pictorially to the poor. Okay, it was concretised and turned into a dogma and a ridiculous money-spinner in the high Middle Ages, yes. That has led to cock-ups in many areas. C.S. Lewis provided a version of it in his 'Great Divorce' where this life is described as a sort of 'bus-trip' to the other, whichever 'other' that might be.
It doesn't do to be naive about the difficulties previous generations had in dealing with evil. It's too easy in hindsight. He never discussed the vast benefits of a system that created hospitals, universities, schools, charities etc..
But he's just opening up debate (which most of the Catholic clerical people in the audience look as though they're welcoming), he's looking for change and repentance from that church, he's not trying to provide fodder for the present 'trendy' macho atheism based on narcissism.
I'm really not sure why it's on here though, to be honest.
God damn, boy- I just got it back- I was in the Phantom Zone.
Thanks- now I can post these right.
So this thread about debate was in poor form, but it's OK for you to post in it with blasphemies? I would say that is very poor form there Steve. Rather lousy manners too, eh, Wot?
I'm really not sure why it's on here though, to be honest.
Sometimes the admin don't delete these things until our squabbling proves we can't have a rational debate on such matters, probably to underline why such topics are forbidden.
You justified the notion of purgatory then accepted that it was misused as a 'ridiculous money-spinner', confirming Fry's criticism by issuing your own. Which other of Fry's criticisms aren't valid any more? I think he was clear that some of his criticism was historical.
I would like to know what "present 'trendy' macho atheism based on narcissism" means, though. To me, any word except 'atheism' in this description is just trying to make a strawman.
You justified the notion of purgatory then accepted that it was misused as a 'ridiculous money-spinner', confirming Fry's criticism by issuing your own. Which other of Fry's criticisms aren't valid any more? I think he was clear that some of his criticism was historical.
I didn't 'justify' anything. Most of the world's religious systems assume the transcendental, a dimension where all time and space are one, the past is therefore not completely un-negotiable (redemption) and the future not entirely unknowable (prophecy). It was a matter of how you contacted that set of dimensions that you live in anyway without knowing it. For Christians it was LOVE and faith, for Hindus meditation, etc..
Tell a mediaeval peasant he's got to face a Judgement Day sometime in the future when the dead will be raised, whilst also trying to explain that he'll go 'straight to Abraham's bosom' the day he dies. Not easy, if you use a linear timeline such as we know in this life. So the 'holding room' and many other strange concoctions appear, all odd refractions to keep it simple. It still works as an 'allegory' though as in Heironymus Bosch's paintings etc.. C.S. Lewis points out that whatever a 'purgatory' might be, it would begin in THIS life, the testing ground. But when you stay space/time as we know it, you stay in Newton and economic systems, and so UNITS can be exploited for money. It happens everywhere, hence the indulgences thing. All organised activities are open to mistakes and corruption.
I would like to know what "present 'trendy' macho atheism based on narcissism" means, though. To me, any word except 'atheism' in this description is just trying to make a strawman.
People are jumping on a naive bandwagon now. The thoughtful 'atheists' of the past who really struggled and wrestled with moral dilemmas and TRIED to make religion work before rejecting it are replaced in the street by people who use the atheist label as a fashion accessory, or an easy option, so babies fly out with bathwater a lot.
People are jumping on a naive bandwagon now. The thoughtful 'atheists' of the past who really struggled and wrestled with moral dilemmas and TRIED to make religion work before rejecting it are replaced in the street by people who use the atheist label as a fashion accessory, or an easy option, so babies fly out with bathwater a lot.
I see this as an attempt to divide and conquer atheists. We have here thoughtful atheists, fashionable atheists, and lazy atheists. This is wrong because atheists are not united anyway except by their lack of belief in gods.
Secondly, atheist/theist is a binary condition. If I know an atheist who is a meat eater and another who is a vegetarian this doesn't mean there are two sub-types of atheist.
I do not understand how anyone could jump onto an atheist bandwagon. If they were not really atheists, fear of damnation would prevent them from declaring themselves as such. Declaring one's (true) atheism may be fashionable but in many countries such as the US it is far from an easy option. I have read many accounts of ostracism from family and employment because of it. In some cultures the results would be even worse.
Atheists are simply gaining the courage to make themselves known. This is down to personal honesty. Condemning this is despicable and is part of the reason that many atheists despise religion.
