An Open Spirituality / Religion / Theology Forum
@Nathan
From the discussions and debates i’ve been apart of we’ve been very wary of the specific denominations of ALL major world religions. Am i mistaken? I certainly have been, as have Ruby, Riss, Jazz, House, and Brad from what i recall.
>>i’ll be alone on my end of the “spiritual spectrum.<<
Only until the MUBI Marxist contingency discovers this thread.
@Brad, Riss, or Jazz
Feel free to take my Melville question :)
From the discussions and debates i’ve been apart of we’ve been very wary of the specific denominations of ALL major world religions
I’m not asking you to be wary of denominations. Rather, I’m asking us all to be aware of them. My point is that interpretation is not a fixed thing; it can vary from sect to sect and person to person even. So when we start saying things like, “this is how Christians view the OT”, I get wary, because I understand that there are many different Christian perspectives on how to think about the OT. There may be vocal majorities, sections of Christian belief that are more visible than others in the public marketplace, but that does not mean that the vocal majority speaks for all.
I think this applies for all religions, and I’m just trying to say (not to anyone in particular here, but to the whole group as the discussion is being held) that the interpretation of sacred texts is a very difficult process that requires serious time and dedication. Simply saying that one has read the Bible and quoting a few passages from it here and there won’t do. At least not for me. I mean, we are talking about a collection of 66 different written works that, since being made into a canonical whole by the Church, are to be thought of as one continuous narrative/worldview. Interpreting this massive thing is not an easy task.
That Melville quote is certainly one I can relate to. Despite taking the religious POV in these discussions, I’d identify as a Jewish agnostic, so I’m no stranger to doubts. There is certainly a school of thought that without something like God, life has no meaning. Melville seems to be expressing the conundrum of wanting a just universe, while struggling with his own doubts.
“To describe my personal place with religion…well, let’s say I’m mad at God for not existing —Herman Melville”
I’m not sure if I can relate to this quote. Still thinking about it… (and I’m a fan of Melville)
i believe the Melville quote is from a letter he was writing to Nathaniel Hawthorne when they were exchanging letters for Melville’s advice from Hawthorne about Moby Dick (though it may have been from their series of letters around the time of Pierre: Or, The Ambiguities…too tired to research that now, sorry. I’ll try to find some citations for that later.
@Nathan
So when we start saying things like, “this is how Christians view the OT”, I get wary, because I understand that there are many different Christian perspectives on how to think about the OT. There may be vocal majorities, sections of Christian belief that are more visible than others in the public marketplace, but that does not mean that the vocal majority speaks for all.
I’m glad that you bring this up because it is extremely important to acknowledge this, yet when i said 9/10 Christians see the OT as mainly unimportant, and that most Christian sermons briefly mention, if at all, the OT, i’m speaking from my personal experience with nearly every denomination of Christianity out there. Throughout my life i have spoken with followers of many different denominations, and most of them agreed Christianity is more about the NT, that the OT is just “back-story.” Likewise in 2009, as a sort of social/theological experiment i attended church every Sunday of that year, and went to every denomination i could get in to (Jehovah’s Witness wouldn’t let me into Kingdom Hall, and i believe i had trouble with the Mormons at one point, but was allowed in later that year), so my lumping “Christians disregarding the OT” is not just hot air, it does have substance to it yet, even if it is just one man’s experience.
Also, no one answered me, has anyone taken the time to read the non-canonical gospels and the essays regarding the gospels written in Aramaic i posted back on page 3? i did a lot of work trying to find copies of those accessible to the masses!!!!! like a good 90 minutes of my free time!!
IT’S ALL FOR YOU MUBI! IT’S ALL FOR YOU!
You know, I thought it sounded familiar, and I bet I’ve read that letter. Need to seek that out again.
For my own experience with Christianity, I have the most with Catholics (I’ve been to an ordination, after all ;), I know more than I’d like about Jehovah’s Witnesses, I’ve known a few Mormons, and the rest kind of run together. Except for Baptists, but all I know is they don’t dance ;) And they hate the Pentacosts. jk
But from my limited knowledge of these different sects, I would say that the generalization about the OT versus the NT is (generally) correct. It’s the book they’ve spent more time with, can relate to more, etc.
^ that last image can segue-way into a topic we’ve yet to explore thoroughly in this thread. Portrayals of SATAN on screen. I find these films to be just as religious as the rest because as i said before, it doesn’t have to be a pro-religion film to be a religious film. Films like The Omen, Rosemary’s Baby, The House of the Devil, The Ninth Gate, The Exorcist etc.
I know more than I’d like about Jehovah’s Witnesses
likewise.
Brentos—I meant to answer you—I’ve read and own many stories of the Apocrypha dealing with Jesus’ childhood, as well as The Gospel of Judas.
@House
Isn’t the complete Gospel of Thomas fascinating. Covering nearly his entire life. And he portrays child Jesus so human, so child like, yet their belief in his divinity…he’s like a Harry Potter or something. The part where he kills a kid for…disagreeing with him i believe? i don’t remember exactly why off the top of my head.
And the books of Enoch are splendid in my opinion.
I don’t remember the names of the books (I read them in a freshman lit course—still have the book), but they have always stuck with me—especially the young petulant Jesus, who does indeed kill a child at one point. It shows a fascinating human side that was very endearing.
I once asked my priest uncle why these books weren’t included and he evaded my question. We were all on vacation together so I didn’t push, but he either didn’t know or was uncomfortable with the answer. I’ve never asked him again.
As for Satan—I’m partial to Viggo Mortensen in Prophecy, essentially for the way he says, “I love you, I love you more than Jesus!” It’s a chilling line and his delivery is so fucking passionate. THIS is the Satan from Paradise Lost, though it is a brief role.
Anyone up for casting Viggo as Satan in the adaptation of Paradise Lost? He’s an actor I trust.
That would be brilliant! I would love an absolutely well done Paradise Lost adaptation. I’d like to see a younger more charismatic Satan though, like the one in the novel. Paging Michael Fassbender…Fassbender do you copy?
Another actor I trust. Good choice.
Bigger question is who directs it? Do you go the big-budget, Hollywood route (yuk—I’d start believing in hell if Roland Emmerich were adapting this), or do you scale it down, go arthouse, and really make a film?
Either way, who’s your director?
I could see Guillermo Del Toro having a blast with that, given his religious background, how he feels about religion now (according to an interview with him the Pale Man from Pan’s Labyrinth represented the Catholic church devouring the minds and bodies of the youth in Spain), and his always stellar art direction.
I’d have to think about who i’d really want on that project.
Who would you go with?
I have no doubt that del Toro’s version would have an astounding production design, and he has arthouse chops, but I don’t know… His B-movie sensibilities on big productions are worrisome.
The first choice off the top of my head is dead, unfortunately, but Tarkovsky had a passion for the material and an impeccable record.
There is… nothing… innocent about garter belts.
After creating the world of The Fountain, Aranofsky may be able to pull it off, but at this point he’s nearly transitioned himself into hollywoodism and would try to throw in some weird symbolism that didn’t make sense whatsoever to make a “point” about “something”
I think The Fountain is his masterpiece. Very personal film for me. See my posts above for why…
I think The Fountain is his masterpiece. Very personal film for me. See my posts above for why…
for me as well. haters gonna hate.
I really want him to release a boxed set of his Mind, Body, Soul(Spirit depending on who you talk to) trilogy (Pi, Requiem, The Fountain)
There isn’t anything innocent about garter belts anymore, because now they’re more of a fetishy thing, but before pantyhose were invented EVERY woman had to wear them to hold up stockings.
And the invention of pantyhose wasn’t that long ago.
Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with this topic, but I wanted to state a historical fact here.
You can make anything non-innocent if you decide to.
challenge accepted
BTW, atheism is as bad as being religious, which is to say, same diff.
You say there is no such thing as “God,” I say there is. Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto, let’s call the whole thing off.
No proof.
Better to be an agnostic and say — there may be, there may not be, I’ll live my life just the same.
Atheism is as presumptuous as being a believer.
Please.
Brentos
No RUBY NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! You’re a great rep for atheism. We are atheist friends! Now i’ll be alone on my end of the “spiritual spectrum.”
To describe my personal place with religion…well, let’s say I’m mad at God for not existing —Herman Melville
That above quote is one of my favorite paradoxical approaches to religion. Likewise Melville spent two years off for “personal studies” before writing his now acclaimed Moby Dick. The first year he spent heavily analyzing and annotating the KJV Holy Bible, the second he did the same with the complete works of Shakespeare. Melville was a man who, like Bergman, riddled his art with religious symbolism, but they themselves was not religious, yet both artists struggled with religion and used art as their medium to ‘sort out’ their particular theological philosophies, problems, dilemmas, etc.
From a religious perspective, what does the Melville quote mean to you religious lot? How does it’s inherent paradoxical nature give way to a deeper seated foundation of what “God” is (i know that God is different to everyone blah blah blah, but there is an actual God described in the Bible, so lets go from that one)? And do you think being born in the West—especially in a country where religion (lets go with Christianity) is so prevalent that it roots itself into the psyche at a young age and continues to grow (or fester) until uprooted, or nurtured and explored? Can one “uproot” it at all?