Are LMM's Works Evil?

Discuss the author's literature and life.

Postby Wild Roses » Fri May 09, 2008 8:23 am

But it has to be said, that christianity indeed claims to have the absolute truth.


I have news for you: other religions that came before or after Christianity made the same claim. Every religion does.

And, even Christianity while claiming to be the absolute truth pilfers off other religions. Christmas takes place on a Pagan holiday. The Noah story is based off the Gilgamesh story. One would think if it was the "absolute truth" it would be... I don't know...maybe completely original and not stealing off of other cultures' folktales/myths/etc.

Oh, I found some more stuff on LMM's beliefs. The introduction to the book THE POETRY OF LUCY MAUD MONTGOMERY edited and introduced by John Fern and Kevin McCabe has this.

Excerpts:

"For Montgomery, writing poetry was more than a literary activity: it was almost a form of Holy Communion. To read poetry was to glimpse into the realm of ideal beauty. God spoke to man through Poetry and nature. In this trinity God was the most remote and inscrutable member. Indeed, because we only see God darkly through his creation and the writings of great men, all dogmas (said the transcendentalists) are merely human products. The poet is then a kind of priest who interprets the universe to men, who unfortunately aren't wise enough to acclaim his insights.

There is a distinct element of snobbery in this new patheseistic religion, for in order to be a transcendentalist it was almost a requirement to be a writer or an artist. Montgomery herself often wrote sarcastically about the homely Presbyterianism of her background, although she carefully maintained the forms of Christianity throughout all her life. Jesus was merely transformed into a wise and poetical teacher---one of the many precursors of Emerson." (5)

"She confessed disbelief in the deity of Jesus." (13)

"The feelings of discomfort and distaste which Montgomery sometimes felt as a child for her immediate surroundings only grew deeper as she grew older, and, by association of ideas, tended to embrace whatever was connected to her her early memories. For example, churchgoing became for her mainly a social activity because it provided an escape from her home surroundings and gave her a taste of society. On the other hand, the images and doctrines of Christianity were forever associated with her grandparents and their comtemporaries, and therefore, aroused a negative response. Her diary comments that her Sunday School teachers 'rather prejudiced me against it, since they were 'Christians' and I somehow had the idea that to be a Christian meant to be as ugly and stupid and---well, as unromantic as those 'good' women were.'" (14)

"She developed an interest in spiritualism, psychic phenomena, life after death, and reincarnation." (15)

I don't have the book with me, but L. M. MONTGOMERY: AN ALBUM has an essay on LMM's belief in recarnation, visions, and psychic phenomena and details how she consistantly maintained an ardent belief in spiritualism throughout her life and the examples she gives in her diary throughout her life of how she believes spirtualism has been beneficial to her and/or has guided her being.
Wild Roses
Rose Cottage Resident
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:34 am

Postby Wild Roses » Fri May 09, 2008 8:32 am

So in fact, democracy only works for those who have a democratic mindset.


Well, duh. Just because George W. Bush thinks democracy can succeed by force does NOT mean the rest of us in the United States are that dumb, dear. I can put up with the patronizing tone of your posts for only so long. Please do not assume I am one of the those ignorant Americans. I am not. I keep up with the news and with the politics of what is going on here and abroad to the best of my ability. I don't need or appreciate you talking down to me. (I am willing to believe it could be the language difference, but all the same, I get the impression from your posts that you think I am completely ignorant. I grew up with Christianity. I don't need it explained to me. I am aware of the news. I am informed--maybe not well but moreso than many people--on a variety of subjects. Stop lecturing me! I will only give you permission to lecture on witchcraft as I am not up to snuff on that, despite having several friends who have books on the history of witchcraft.)
Wild Roses
Rose Cottage Resident
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:34 am

Postby The Chef » Fri May 09, 2008 8:47 am

Wild Roses wrote:I have news for you: other religions that came before or after Christianity made the same claim. Every religion does.

And, even Christianity while claiming to be the absolute truth pilfers off other religions. Christmas takes place on a Pagan holiday. The Noah story is based off the Gilgamesh story. One would think if it was the "absolute truth" it would be... I don't know...maybe completely original and not stealing off of other cultures' folktales/myths/etc.

O you mean those copycat stories the uninformed always come up with, like christianity being simply a copycat religion based on Mithraïsm and so forth. It's not news to me that those self-proclaimed so-called scholars always dream up these stories without knowing the facts. You mention the flood and gilgamesh. In this school of thought we have for example cowboy cum scholar Scott Bidstrup who offers us a soup-condensded, conspiracy-laden view of how he thinks Christian origins went. For the most part he simply lifts uncritically whatever he can pick up from the sources he already agrees with (Finkelstein, Spong, Doherty, etc, works whose conclusions are highly in dispute and can easily be refuted). Bidstrup claims that the Bible's narrative of prehistoric times to 1850 B.C.E. is borrowed [by Genesis] from the Epic of Gilgamesh, a story of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world. This is the standard line, but the consensus outside of Bidstrup's limited circle of agreeable writers is that the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis represent parallel developments from a common core - not that one borrowed from another.
As for christmas, where in the Bible is there a command that we should celebrate it? And where in the Bible are we told that Jesus was born on december 25th? That fairy tale was not invented by the early christians, but by the catholic church. According to Scripture, Jesus was probably born at the end of september or the beginning of october.

Wild Roses wrote:Oh, I found some more stuff on LMM's beliefs.

When I grew up in the Reformed Church, I turned my back on that form of religion too, and turned to the occult. I recognize all the feelings. What LMM got to know was clearly not the real Jesus and real christianity, but a manmade christianity filled with laws imposed on her flesh whilest God never asks that we obey Him in our own strength. It is actaully a sad story.
Last edited by The Chef on Fri May 09, 2008 9:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
A man fell in a deep pit and suffered greatly. A Buddhist said: 'Meditate and ignore your circumstances.' A Hindu said: 'You must have bad karma, you deserve your fate.' But Jesus had pity on the man, climbed down and rescued him.
User avatar
The Chef
Cured Peter Craig
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:20 am

Postby The Chef » Fri May 09, 2008 8:58 am

Wild Roses wrote:Well, duh. Just because George W. Bush thinks democracy can succeed by force does NOT mean the rest of us in the United States are that dumb, dear. I can put up with the patronizing tone of your posts for only so long. Please do not assume I am one of the those ignorant Americans. I am not. I keep up with the news and with the politics of what is going on here and abroad to the best of my ability. I don't need or appreciate you talking down to me. (I am willing to believe it could be the language difference, but all the same, I get the impression from your posts that you think I am completely ignorant. I grew up with Christianity. I don't need it explained to me. I am aware of the news. I am informed--maybe not well but moreso than many people--on a variety of subjects. Stop lecturing me! I will only give you permission to lecture on witchcraft as I am not up to snuff on that, despite having several friends who have books on the history of witchcraft.)

I am not patronizing, at least not consciously or willingly. If you feel I am I want you to know that I do not consciously have that attitude towards you. You asked "What's wrong with democracy?" Thus you suggested that I perhaps thought democracy was wrong. I simply replied to that from the heart, without any additional thoughts or ulterior motives, explaining that democracy doesn't always work, especially in islamic nations. Why do you have a problem with that? I never said that the REST of you Amaricans thought the same as Bush. Where did I suggest that? I don't know you. I never assumed you were a "dumb american". Someone with a major in literature is not considered "dumb" by me. You draw conclusions way to soon. I'm sorry if I said anything that may have offended you. But I think this is an example of misunderstanding eachother.

Yes you grew up with christianity, I have read that in several of your posts, and I am not saying you are ignorant of christianity. You say you are informed, maybe not as well as some, but you are informed. I grant you that. But what I can conclude so far is that you say things about christian history that are simply not true. I gather you took that from authors you think are really knowledgable, but who in fact don't know what they are talking about. Those who come up with christian copycat stories really haven't a clue whatsoever in my opinion. I have no urge to debate christianity or masonry or US policy with you if you don't want to, but don't think you won't get sharp comments on the content of the matter. And if a person wants to challenge christian history he or she should not be surprised to get a reply now and then.

For more about all the copycat stories:

copycat stories
A man fell in a deep pit and suffered greatly. A Buddhist said: 'Meditate and ignore your circumstances.' A Hindu said: 'You must have bad karma, you deserve your fate.' But Jesus had pity on the man, climbed down and rescued him.
User avatar
The Chef
Cured Peter Craig
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:20 am

Postby Wild Roses » Fri May 09, 2008 10:40 am

Well, any Christian who believes in the Bible literally is going to dismiss carbon dating as well the lineage of history. No surprise there. I grew up with Christians who are/were literalist, so your 'copycat' theory is old news to me.

Nor did I say that the entire of Christianity of Christianity is a copycat, but I do think some parts of it aren't entirely original.

This is the standard line, but the consensus outside of Bidstrup's limited circle of agreeable writers is that the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis represent parallel developments from a common core - not that one borrowed from another.


Just how limited is this circle of Bidstrup's? The same History Channel that shows me documentaries on the Secret Society of the Masons disagrees with you. As do the scholars of the Gilgamesh epic.

The Epic of Gilgamesh goes beyond what you have mentioned plot-wise. The Flood is actually recounted as part of a flashback sequence.

I notice you avoided responding to my bit about witchcraft. Avoiding the subject doesn't do anything for me. Instead, it just sends me off to google (until I'm able to get the library). While looking up stuff on Harry Potter and witchcraft, it did lead me to the question of if you've actually read the books. Because having read the books, I was concerned with how many sites are misquoting JKR's books as evidence. (If they got the evidence right, i would happily believe them. But if they can't get the facts of the books right, why should I believe their evidence?) (I also notice they pull their evidence to support themselves from a hodge-podge of places. JKR has mentioned Jane Austen is her favorite author and a character in the Harry books is named after one in Jane Austen novels, but that doesn't get investigated for signs of evil.)

As for christmas, where in the Bible is there a command that we should celebrate it? And where in the Bible are we told that Jesus was born on december 25th?


Where in my quote did I say it from the Bible? I did not. *Don't put words in my mouth.* I merely said that Christians celebrate Christmas on a Pagan holiday.

I have no urge to debate christianity or masonry or US policy with you if you don't want to, but don't think you won't get sharp comments on the content of the matter. And if a person wants to challenge christian history he or she should not be surprised to get a reply now and then.


You were talking in a sharp manner even before I joined in the discussion. I have noted how nearly every post of yours in nearly every forum has some bit on Christianity and 'occultism.' Forgive me for stating the obvious, but this is a site to discuss and celebrate L.M.M's life, novels, and tv series and movies based on her work. Furthermore, you do judge me without knowing me calling me 'bitter' about Christianity just because I was a little snarky in a post (I am a snarky person by nature, thank you very much.) Despite your claims otherwise, through your posts you are acting as if you are superior while I am inferior. (Which is not a surpise. Having grown up with literalist Christians, they can be too smug and full of themselves while making *false* pretenses towards being humble.)

But what I can conclude so far is that you say things about christian history that are simply not true. I gather you took that from authors you think are really knowledgable, but who in fact don't know what they are talking about.


Or, perhaps, I choose to be open-minded and don't blindly accept Christianity as the be-all-and-end-all where scholarship is concerned. Especially given that the historical evidence does not always support the Bible. (The historical evidence also doesn't always support other religions either. But lack of evidence where other religions are concerned is seen as proof by Christians that that religion is false. Lack of evidence regarding Christianity is seen by Christians as proof that the Bible is real, because faith will prove it. However, all religions are like this so I have to give Christians a pass on this one for the evidence/lack of evidence paradox.)

******************************************

To get this topic back to L.M.M., I don't believe her works are evil, but I do believe there exists in some of them strands of racism and even sexism. The racism is most prevalent in KILMENY OF THE ORCHARD. The sexism is more subtle (steroetypes regarding the genders). However, while she was knowingly racist, I do believe it is largely a product of her time. For the advances of the Edwardian era, there were still a lot of bad ideas going around (eugenics springs to mind).
Wild Roses
Rose Cottage Resident
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:34 am

Postby Wild Roses » Fri May 09, 2008 11:25 am

By the way, we may think we still live in a democracy, but did you know that for example in your country, the USA, the "hate crime law" lists the following people as "dangerous terrorists": (1) those who take the bible literally, (2) those who seriously reckons with the second coming of Christ, (3) those who homeschool their children, (4) those whol pile up food for more than 3 months, (4) those who punish their children by beating them. Or even worse, the US hate crime law deems the following people as guilty of hate crimes: (1) those who criticize the government and disagree with the president, (2) those who speak out against homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle.


Well, those people in the first part of your paragraph are more likely than not to be labelled 'dangerous terrorists' because many of the cults that exist here have all 4 of those elements as part of their practices. (The Branch Davidians and The LDS branch of Mormonism are examples of those kinds of cults.) (A cult that would be labelled dangerous by the U. S. but that doesn't fit that description would be Scientology.)

Well, I believe any person who 'beats' their child is rightfully labelled a terrorist. I can more or less condone spanking, but beating otherwise is not okay.


Please provide evidence for the claims of the second part of the paragraph. Why am I asking?

I have participated in anti-war protests (which are **not** kosher with Bush adminstration) and I have many posts floating around the internet demonizing Bush and his policies. Yet, I am not writing from a prison cell. I also know plenty of other people who have spoken out against the President and/or U. S. policies and aren't in jail for 'hate crimes. And, the few people I do know who have gone to jail weren't there for more than a few months and their crimes were not labelled hate crimes. ("Trespassing" for one who served for a few months, and the other two for "disrupting the public peace," but they were out within a week. None of the three were labelled hate crimes even though all three were very clearly speaking out against the U. S. government.)

Also, there are TONS of politicians who are blatantly homophobic in the U.S. Congress and they aren't in jail. For that matter, Pat Robertson isn't in jail either even though he blames gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people for everything under the sun (up to and exceeding the terrorist acts on Sept. 11, 2001). I also know nobodies who are very homophobic and aren't in jail. (While most of our States have Hate Crime bills that cover homophobia, our Federal government does not. However, whether it is labelled a crime or not, you will be jailed if you kill someone for being gay or lesbian. Under state law, it would prosecuted as as Hate Crime, under federal law just as an act of murder.)

Being a Women Studies minor I do know a little something about hate crime legislation and who gets in jail or not for it. While I am happy the U. S. has a Hate Crimes legislation bill, it isn't enforced as much as it should be and it needs to be revised (right now it only covered race, religion, and gender mainly. It doesn't include gender expression and freedom---although if the Matthew Shepard Act gets passed it will). The Hate Crimes law was an offspring (or related to) the Civil Rights Act and legislation. A later day offspring of those two is the Violence Against Women and Children Act. These laws are only enforced if there is a liberal, or Democratic, president in the White House. Conservative Presidents have a history of weakening or trying to overturn these laws completely (and George W. Bush has managed to weaken or overturn all 3 laws/acts.)

Although I am trying to get this topic back to LMM's work, I did want to address those particulars.
Wild Roses
Rose Cottage Resident
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:34 am

Postby The Chef » Sat May 10, 2008 7:09 am

Well you bring up a new topic yourself, creation or evolution, we better let that subject to people such as the arrogant evolutionist guru prof. Richard Dawkins and creationist Prof. A.E. Wilder Smith, who both debated with eachother at the Oxford Union Debate, the famous Huxley Memorial Debate which was recorded on audio. By the way, of the 300 students 115 voted for the creationist view, and religion was not te be discussed in any way or form. So were those 115 students stupid? Or was Wilder-Smith as Dawkins spitefully called him, simply an old clever "baboon?" They were asked not te consider religion when voting mind you. Dawkins attacked him time and time again on the subject of religion, while they were asked beforehand not to do so. Having a lot of books on the subject matter I don't feel the need to open a new topic about this, but yes, carbon dating is only trustworthy if you know the history of the materials. Studies have shown that for example 100 year old lava rock gave results of millions of years. By the way, a good book on some of the ridiculous claims of Dawkins about religion and science is "Dawkin's God" by Alister McGrath. Professor of Geography and Intellectual History at Queen's University Belfast had this to say in his review: "McGrath announces what every Darwin Fundamentalist needs to hear: that science is and always has been a cultural practice that is socially shaped- an enterprise to be cultivated and fostered, but hardly worshipped or idolised." If you think evolution is a science you need to wake up, because it doesn't even stand up to the exact definition of what science actually is. Evolution is actually a religion too, because there is no evidence for it whatsoever.

I'm not avoiding witchcraft. I have loads of books on the subject, not by novices but by scholars. If I don't directly answer something, it is either because I have little time, or because I don't think it's necessary to waist my time on it.

About the beating, I actually meant spanking. But some are even against this. I already see visions of a new generation of spoiled children.

Your claim about other religions being just as trustworthy as christianity: you as a literary major should know that the Bible cannot in the slightest way be compared with any other religious book or non-religious book for that matter. The Bible sores high above all of them, so how can you compare them with eachother at all? The Bible is a literary masterpiece. There is NO book like it. Frederick Starrison once said during a college at Oxford: "No prose in any literary work has the quality of the natural prose in the Bible." And Thomas Carlyle wrote about the content of the Bible: "It is the most wonderful literature that has ever been produced!" And he knew what he said because he himself was a master of the pen. The great English historian Froude, though not a christian himself, once said: "The well-known Bible is a work of literature in itself, the rarest and richest in any field of thought." Sir William Jones, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica one of the greatest lingual experts and expert on the Middle East ever brought forth by England, wrote on the last page of his Bible: "I have read these Holy Scriptures regularly and attentively and I am of the opinion that the contents of this book are more lofty and beautiful than any other book in the world, and that it is also morally superior to any other book, contains more important historical narratives, and is more eloquently written than any other book, no matter in what century these other books were written, and no matter in what language they were written. There is no book like it." Linguist/philologist prof. M. Monier-Williams, formerly professor of Sanskrit, an old Indian language) said after having studied Eastern literature for over 42 years, including the religious works: "Pile them all up if you like, on the left side of your desk; but put your own Bible tot the far right end of your desk, all by itself, with a wide space between them. Because (...) there is a wide gap between the Bible and the pile of books on the other side, seperating them totally, hopelesly, and forever (...) a real gap which cannot be bridged by whatever science of religious thinking." That's how unique the Bible is! Sir Walter Scott asked on his deathbed his son in law to read to him from "the book." When asked "what book" he meant Scott replied: "There is only one book: the Bible". These literary giants knew how totally different the Bible is from all other books. And I would like to add, would any god allow another god to produce a book that is better than his own? What does it say about the skills of all those so-called gods? Think again. The non-christian Arthur Brisbane said that the Bible contains "brilliant examples of great literature in every form: lyric poetry epic poetry, dramatic poetry, narrative art, rural idyl, pattriotism, practical wisdom, philosopical reflections, short stories, mystical extasy, and so forth." The influence of the Bible on world literature is immence.

Yale-historian Kenneth S. Latourette (I have his two volume work on christian history throughout the centuries) said about Jesus, that His importance is shown by the influence He had on history. He had an influence on human history like no other living creature ever had. So if you think you can compare christianity with other religions, as if they are of an equal standing, you obviously do not know the real difference between them. Especially when you come to realize that the Bible is a book written in a timespan of 1600 years, by people who didn't even know eachother and had no access to eachothers material; of different status in life, different backgrounds, poor, rich, kings, shepherds, farmers, fishermen, and so forth, with no scholarly knowledge whatsoever, and still is the greatest literary work ever produced in the history of the world. If that is not a miracle I don't know what is. Have you ever read the Qur'an? I have. It's a piece of crap, really. Except for everything that has been copied by Muhammad during his talks with Jews and christians. Remember, his religion came 600 years later. I have been active in zen-buddhism as well, martial arts, the whole eastern philosophical world. It's nothing compared to Jesus.

About the copycat stories. What's that got to do with being a christian literalist? Nothing. You say it's old news to you, but if you really knew more about the subject matter, you wouldn't have mentioned the gilgamesh story as something being copied by Genesis, since most scholars agree that it wasn't copied; only rogue internet hobbyists or dilettants still come up with these silly claims. Sorry for being a bit sarcastic here. There's absolutely NOTHING in pure christianity that has been copied.

About the hate crime laws. I read them years ago somewhere with the claim that it was a direct quote from the official papers. Thats all I know.

Well it all started with the question whether LMMs works were evil. How on earth do you think you can avoid what christians have to say about these matters? And what christianity's view on the matter is? As LMM was clearly so against christianity as is being said over and over again, it is no surprise that everything christian will be discussed. I'm perfectly able to leave this thread for what it is and only post noce and cosy posts in the other topics. I don't mind at all.

What do I have to do with Pat Robertson? I don't believe christians should be enganged in politics AT ALL.

About masonry. Do you really believe everything on the History Channel? If you want to know about masonry, buy Albert Macky's encyclopedia on Masonry. Then you will find that even high-level masons cannot even agree whetehr masonry is a religion or not. If you think you can learn all about masonry from the History Channell, you are sadly mistaken. If you really want to know the deeper things of masonry visit a site like this one: Freemasonry Watch, or read a book like The Brotherhood, where English Lords who are masons are interviewed.

You may consult books on masonry all you want, or on witchraft, I have them too, lots of them, but I have also personal firsthand knowledge of both and that counts in my book.

Listen, I'm perfectly willing to debate every topic you want, in special topics for each item, but this is getting a hodgepodge of subjects. I'm also perfectly willing to call it a day. It's up to you.
Last edited by The Chef on Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:34 am, edited 9 times in total.
A man fell in a deep pit and suffered greatly. A Buddhist said: 'Meditate and ignore your circumstances.' A Hindu said: 'You must have bad karma, you deserve your fate.' But Jesus had pity on the man, climbed down and rescued him.
User avatar
The Chef
Cured Peter Craig
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:20 am

Just a little something

Postby jeremiah2911 » Sat May 10, 2008 8:02 am

I am not worthy enough to enter into the debate between you two. :shock: I don't think that LMM was a devil worshiper. I have only read the AOGG books, so I cannot atest to the Emily stuff.


I always saw her as I saw Anne, someone with Asperger's syndrome. A very literal, headstrong and socially unaware person. She took everything into consideration and worked her faith around what she saw as fact.


When you have Asperger's faith takes on a new meaning. My son has it and he asks much more in-depth questions about science and the supernatural than your average child. His brain works differently and so does his faith. He loves Jesus and God, but he needs to absorb differently. I take faith as you don't ask questions. He does not.
For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jeremiah 29:11
jeremiah2911
King Farm Hired Hand
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:42 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Just a little something

Postby The Chef » Sat May 10, 2008 8:10 am

Well of course these sort of discussions are for the classroom, not for the average home. I also cannot say that she was a devil worshipper, but then again there are also some satanists who don't worship the devil and even don't believe in a literal devil. But I think I can say she was dabbling in the occult, hwich according to the christian view, would have caused some form of occult bondage.

I think there are many christians who ask questions, and many who are like you, without the need for asking questions. Some live more in the mind than others. My faith is also the simple faith of a child, but it doesn't prevent me from studying things a bit deeper. Asperger is some kind of high functioning autism or something like that?

jeremiah2911 wrote:I am not worthy enough to enter into the debate between you two. :shock: I don't think that LMM was a devil worshiper. I have only read the AOGG books, so I cannot atest to the Emily stuff.
I always saw her as I saw Anne, someone with Asperger's syndrome. A very literal, headstrong and socially unaware person. She took everything into consideration and worked her faith around what she saw as fact. When you have Asperger's faith takes on a new meaning. My son has it and he asks much more in-depth questions about science and the supernatural than your average child. His brain works differently and so does his faith. He loves Jesus and God, but he needs to absorb differently. I take faith as you don't ask questions. He does not.
A man fell in a deep pit and suffered greatly. A Buddhist said: 'Meditate and ignore your circumstances.' A Hindu said: 'You must have bad karma, you deserve your fate.' But Jesus had pity on the man, climbed down and rescued him.
User avatar
The Chef
Cured Peter Craig
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:20 am

Postby jeremiah2911 » Sat May 10, 2008 8:18 am

Yes, I have one son with Asperger's and one (who had a reaction to his MMR) turned out with autism (Asberger's is naturally occuring you only get autism when a toxin is introduced to an Asberger's genetic predisposition).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers_syndrome

If God didn't give us asperger's syndrome we wouldn't have computers, cars, NASA, etc. It isn't the worst thing in the world. Unfortunately, autism is man made, so it is the worst thing in the world.
For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jeremiah 29:11
jeremiah2911
King Farm Hired Hand
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:42 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Postby The Chef » Sat May 10, 2008 8:29 am

Thanks, I also found a Dutch wikipedia article on it. In my family there are also two people who are handicapped, and while some consider them a burden, I think they are an enrichment in many ways.

Yes I guess thats why we have the compukids ;)
A man fell in a deep pit and suffered greatly. A Buddhist said: 'Meditate and ignore your circumstances.' A Hindu said: 'You must have bad karma, you deserve your fate.' But Jesus had pity on the man, climbed down and rescued him.
User avatar
The Chef
Cured Peter Craig
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:20 am

Postby The Chef » Sat May 10, 2008 8:30 am

Wild Roses, I think we should do as you suggest, restrict the topic to LMMs works, thats what its for. Though I also feel there is not much to be discussed because everyone knows how we christians think about spiritualism.
A man fell in a deep pit and suffered greatly. A Buddhist said: 'Meditate and ignore your circumstances.' A Hindu said: 'You must have bad karma, you deserve your fate.' But Jesus had pity on the man, climbed down and rescued him.
User avatar
The Chef
Cured Peter Craig
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:20 am

Postby Wild Roses » Sat May 10, 2008 3:41 pm

The influence of the Bible on world literature is immence


The Bible is not the only religious text considered a masterpiece. The Bhagavad-Vita has long been considered a masterpiece as well and an influence on literature in eastern countries. Since I have taken world literature courses, I feel I can correct your assertion in that the Bible only became an influence in other cultures when colonism took place. Having taken ethnic studies and literature courses, I can also assert that most people of color in countries colonized are rejecting the Bible in favor of using pre-colonization myths as standard bearers for their tales.

Have you ever read the Qur'an? I have. It's a piece of crap, really. Except for everything that has been copied by Muhammad during his talks with Jews and christians. Remember, his religion came 600 years later. I have been active in zen-buddhism as well, martial arts, the whole eastern philosophical world. It's nothing compared to Jesus.


Yes, I have read the Qur'an. If you are going to accuse Muslims of pilfering off Christianity, you might keep in mind Christianity is an outgrowth of the Jewish religion.

I do believe the eastern world has much to offer and I appreciate the wisdom of the east. Being a literature major, I would be more apprecRtive than you of the the other written philosophies and writings of other cultures. I appreciate beautiful language when I see it and I am not going to demean it just because it doesn't celebrate Jesus.

So, just because 115 people voted for creationist doesn't mean it should be taught as a science. Nor does it mean they are stupid for favoring creationism. However, it doesn't mean that those who believe in evolution are stupid and spiteful either, although your post seems to suggest that all who believe in evolution must be that way. (Way to generalize there.) There are thousands of Creation stories out there--if we are going to teach the Christian POV in the science classroom, we might as well add every other religious creation text within the classroom.

You act as if only non-believers attack Christians, but there are plenty of Christians out there who attack non-believers. Both sides attack each other. It is not as if non-believers have a monopoly on attacking Christians. Certainly, I do believe the Native Americans rightfully critique and/or attack Christians for advent of colonialism and other horrors perpetrated on sovereign tribes and I do understand why they would reject Christianity in favor of their beliefs when for nearly 400+ years Christians have been denying rights to Native Americans.

No, I don't believe I can learn everything from the History Channel. I take all their programs with a grain of salt. However, they do use scholars who are highly respected to gather their materials. I read the Epic of Gilgamesh in my world Lit course and we learned the scholarship on it and I read up on in in Encyclopedias and other respected academic sources.

Your claim about other religions being just as trustworthy as christianity


Actually, you are misquoting me. I didn't say but I heavily implied that I believe ALL religions to not be trustworthy. I take all of them with a grain of salt, because all of them have writings that are racist, sexist, homophobic and classist. My own beliefs are in line with L.M.M.--each religion has wise teachers but they are not the be-all-and-end-all on wisdom. That goes for everything---from Wicca to Christianity, from Islam to Hinduism. They are all problematic, but each does have wisdom in them.

However, your self-serving smugness is beginning to grate. Its ***very*** obvious you think people who don't identity as Christian are inferior to you. That comes on top of your constant MISQUOTING and MAKING UP statements I never said. Since you obviously are only using me to further your own agenda, I am going to cease talking to you. (Although I wryly note with a bit of irony and a hearty laugh that you didn't answer my question about reading actually reading the Harry Potter books.)[/quote]
Wild Roses
Rose Cottage Resident
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:34 am

Postby The Chef » Sat May 10, 2008 5:13 pm

Wild Roses wrote:The Bible is not the only religious text considered a masterpiece. The Bhagavad-Vita has long been considered a masterpiece as well and an influence on literature in eastern countries. Since I have taken world literature courses, I feel I can correct your assertion in that the Bible only became an influence in other cultures when colonism took place. Having taken ethnic studies and literature courses, I can also assert that most people of color in countries colonized are rejecting the Bible in favor of using pre-colonization myths as standard bearers for their tales.

First, why don't you try to comment on the quotes of those literary geniusus I mentioned. Second, so most people of color reject the Bible in favor of of their pre-colononization myths? I know of several Indonesian tribes who did just the opposite. And oh, Indonesia is a country formerly colonized by the forefathers of yours truly. And for your information, the old Indonesian religion has since been almost totally replaced by Islam, NOT by the religion of the colonizer. How about that! Isn't that ironic. Or am I missing something here? Why do you leave out the obvious "other side of the coin?" I'm sure it's not on purpose, but I do understand it would take away the force of the argument if you did. Also, the fact that these people reject the Bible doesn't mean they do so because of their literary skills ;)

Neither do some of them hold on to their pre-colonization myths because they think those stories make for better entertainment or higher-quality literature. There are several other reasons for that.

Wild Roses wrote:Yes, I have read the Qur'an. If you are going to accuse Muslims of pilfering off Christianity, you might keep in mind Christianity is an outgrowth of the Jewish religion. I do believe the eastern world has much to offer and I appreciate the wisdom of the east. Being a literature major, I would be more apprecRtive than you of the the other written philosophies and writings of other cultures. I appreciate beautiful language when I see it and I am not going to demean it just because it doesn't celebrate Jesus. So, just because 115 people voted for creationist doesn't mean it should be taught as a science. Nor does it mean they are stupid for favoring creationism. However, it doesn't mean that those who believe in evolution are stupid and spiteful either, although your post seems to suggest that all who believe in evolution must be that way. (Way to generalize there.) There are thousands of Creation stories out there--if we are going to teach the Christian POV in the science classroom, we might as well add every other religious creation text within the classroom. You act as if only non-believers attack Christians, but there are plenty of Christians out there who attack non-believers. Both sides attack each other. It is not as if non-believers have a monopoly on attacking Christians. Certainly, I do believe the Native Americans rightfully critique and/or attack Christians for advent of colonialism and other horrors perpetrated on sovereign tribes and I do understand why they would reject Christianity in favor of their beliefs when for nearly 400+ years Christians have been denying rights to Native Americans. No, I don't believe I can learn everything from the History Channel. I take all their programs with a grain of salt. However, they do use scholars who are highly respected to gather their materials. I read the Epic of Gilgamesh in my world Lit course and we learned the scholarship on it and I read up on in in Encyclopedias and other respected academic sources.

You grew up in a Baptist Church (I was in one also for several years), but if you knew christianity, you would know that in Gods mind, the Church already existed before there was even a nation called Israël, and that the Jewish religion was not the end of Gods way, but the beginning. The Jewish tabernacle for example was but a shadow of the heavenly tabernacle, which is Christ Himself. It's not unlike the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg. By the way, the Son of God had an existence in heaven long before He became a Jew ... When I come to think of it, you could actually say that the heavenly pattern (the Church chosen before the foundation of the world) was the heavenly hen laying the egg of judaism on earth, which hatched and in turn layed the egg of christianity ;) After all, God's eternal purpose was not Judaism, but Christ having the preeminence over all things. That's actually the reason why Israël and the Hebrew religion were created in the first place. You take it out of context, viewing things only from an earthly standpoint, and not from God's eternal heavenly standpoint.

I never said I did not respect certain eastern values or teachings, but they are not as Christ is, the sum of all Wisdom. I also do not demean literature just because it doesn't celebrate Jesus. Whether Jesus is celebrated or not doesn't say anything about the quality of literature itself. I would very much like you to react on the quote by former Oxford professor M. Monier-Williams who studied eastern literature for 42 years, where he says there isn't any book that can remotely be compared with the Bible, you know, "the gulf between tyhe Bible and the so-called sacred books of the East".

You know what? I'll give you a larger part of his speech. After all, he was called by some the greatest authority on all questions affecting the literature and faiths of the Orient who ever lived. The quote I mentioned before was taken from a speech given at an anniversary of the Church Missionary Society in London in 1888, where he delivered a most remarkable address, in which he said that, when he began investigating Hinduism and Buddhism, he began to believe in what is called the evolution and growth of religious thought. But he adds, and here are his own memorable words:

"I am glad of the opportunity of stating publicly, that I am persuaded I was misled by the attractiveness of such a theory, and that its main idea was erroneous ... And now I crave permission at least to give two good reasons for venturing to contravene the favorite philosophy of the day. Listen to me, ye youthful students of the so-called sacred books of the East: search them through and through, and tell me, do they affirm of Vyasa, of Zoroaster, of Confucius, of Buddha, of Mohammed, what our Bible affirms of the founder of Christianity, that He, a sinless man, was made sin? Not merely that He is the eradication of sin, but that He, the sinless son of man, was himself made sin. Vyasa and the other founders of Hinduism, enjoined severe penances, endless lustral washings, incessant purifications, infinite repetitions of prayer, painful pilgrimages, arduous ritual, and sacrificial observances, all with the one idea of getting rid of sin. All their books say so. But do they say that the very men who exhausted every invention for the eradication of sin were themselves sinless men made sin? ... This proposition put forth in our Bible stands alone, it is wholly unparalleled; it is not to be matched by the shade of a shadow of a similar declaration in any other book claiming to be the exponent of the doctrine of any other religion in the world.

"Once again, do these sacred books of the East affirm of Vyasa, of Zoroaster, of Confucius, of Buddha, of Mohammed, what our Bible affirms of the founder of Christianity, that He, a dead and buried man, was made life. Not merely that He is the giver of life, but that He, the dead and buried man, is life. All I contend for is, that such a statement is absolutely unique; and I defy you to produce the shade of a shadow of a similar declaration in any other sacred book of the world. And bear in mind that these two matchless unparalleled declarations are closely, intimately, indissolubly connected with the great central facts and doctrines of our religion: the incarnation, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension of Christ.

"The two unparalleled declarations quoted by me from our Holy Bible make a gulf between it and the so-called sacred books of the East, which severs the one from the others utterly, hopelessly, and forever; not a mere rift which may be easily closed up, but a veritable gulf which cannot be bridged over by any science of religious thought, yes, a bridgeless chasm which no theory of evolution can ever span."

I never said that all evolutionists are arrogant. I only said it about Dawkins, and I have heard him speak about religion on tape. Believe me, it's not a prety "sight." I heard how he treated Wilder-Smith, who stayed a perfect gentleman. When Wilder-Smith started to explain things about information-theory, one professor in the front row aggressively interrupted him saying rather harshly "I know information-theory!" As if Smith suggested otherwise, or as if Smith was only talking to him. O yes, christians also attack non-believers, true. I know enough about debates to know that debating creation/evolution isn't a very intelligent thing to do, because it tends to bring out the worst in us, also in me. Often after posting something I regret the way I acted. I'm not perfect, what a surprise.

Christians and colonialism, and horrors perpretrated on natives. A totally different but interesting subject. Can simply be refuted by quoting tribes who were very thankful for rceiving the gift of eternal life. Tribes who did not have to give up anything, but were instead delivered from the scare of evil spirits asking sacrifices in order to ward of bad things. I once saw a documentary about how a tribe in Irian Jaya was saved and delivered from fears that had haunted them for generations. It moved me to tears when I saw how the tribe elders one by one let themselves be baptized with a great smile and joy on their faces. And who says it were real christians that perpretrated horrors on the natives. Sounds more like a political thing to me, of which I earlier said that in my view is something christians shouldn't be a part of anyway. I already thought you didn't believe everything on the history channel, I guess you know that. I was trying to make a point.

Wild Roses wrote:Actually, you are misquoting me. I didn't say but I heavily implied that I believe ALL religions to not be trustworthy. I take all of them with a grain of salt, because all of them have writings that are racist, sexist, homophobic and classist. My own beliefs are in line with L.M.M.--each religion has wise teachers but they are not the be-all-and-end-all on wisdom. That goes for everything---from Wicca to Christianity, from Islam to Hinduism. They are all problematic, but each does have wisdom in them. However, your self-serving smugness is beginning to grate. Its ***very*** obvious you think people who don't identity as Christian are inferior to you. That comes on top of your constant MISQUOTING and MAKING UP statements I never said. Since you obviously are only using me to further your own agenda, I am going to cease talking to you. (Although I wryly note with a bit of irony and a hearty laugh that you didn't answer my question about reading actually reading the Harry Potter books.)

Tell me where the Bible is homophobic, as in fear of homosexuals. Yes, it says that the homosexual act is a sin, because it goes against Gods order. I don't know if you know it, but up to the 70s most psychatrists considered homosexuality a perversion, and many still do, christian or not. It changed when one meeting of psychiatrists on the subject was disrupted by the often very aggressive gay lobby demanding they changed their views. Quote from one of Erwin Lutzer's books. I also once heard on tape how aggressive gays were banging on the door of a Church in Texas screaming "we want your children!" After which several old ladies had to be taken care of because they were in total shock. Since my brother is a homosexual, I think you can hardly accuse me, a fundamental christian of being homophobic, and I have read a lot about the subject, enough to know that up till this moment there is no evidence that "God made them that way" or that they were born that way. And yes I've read also material and research of pro-gay organizations. Visit http://www.narth.com and you read all about the so-called gay-gene studies. The problem with those who claim the Bible is against certain human beings is really ludicrous. The reason why you say that is because you do not agree with Gods view on humanity, and with God's view on morality. The same goes for the suggested sexism or racist issues. The Bible is "against" the whole human race, in the sense that is no longer able to fulfill God's purpose. That's why the entire human race was crucified on the cross in Christ.

There you go again, misquoting and misinterpreting me. I never said I considered non-christians as inferior. Didn't Paul call himself the worst of all sinners? Please explain to me how that can be considered feeling oneself superior to others? I'm sorry but although you claim you know christianity, your answers make it very clear that you don't. I'm not blaming you for that, but if you wanto to debate christianity with me, you really have to do better. I'm not one to brag, but I have translated 17 theological books into Dutch. By the way, I do not claim to be superior to those who endorse another religion. It was Jesus Himself who said that no man can come to the Father except through Him. If there is one who claims superiority over all, it is Jesus. You find fault with Jesus, not with me. Perhaps it is time to admit that.

As I already told you before, I am not dodging your bullets, I don't have to (sorry for my ostensible arrogance). No I have not fully read the Potter books, only paragraphs, excerpts. But don't cheer to soon. Let me ask you a question. Do you really believe that it is necessary to read the books entirely? Or do you not also readily agree with me that reading paragraphs in which she talks about the subject matter is enough to know what kind of witchcraft she writes about. It really isn't necessary to know the context in the Potter books. It's not the Bible, to interpret the Bible correctly you need to know the context. I know her witchraft, as I said before. Not because I have completely read the Potter books, but because I know illuminist witchcraft. So in fact the more important question is, what do you know about illuminism and illuminist witchcraft ...

Before I forget, I'm very curious what parts of christianity actually are copied according to you, because you mentioned earlier that you didn't think that everything was copied, but at least part of it. What part exactly? You must have your sources, I'd like to know who they are ... If you can prove it, I take my hat of for you. As you probably have guessed already, I'm fairly confident you can't.

For those interested in the debate between Dawkins and Wilder-Smith (who said about Dawkins: "That man has nothing to offer science"), you can still order the audio CD of the debate here:

The Huxley Memorial Debate
Last edited by The Chef on Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
A man fell in a deep pit and suffered greatly. A Buddhist said: 'Meditate and ignore your circumstances.' A Hindu said: 'You must have bad karma, you deserve your fate.' But Jesus had pity on the man, climbed down and rescued him.
User avatar
The Chef
Cured Peter Craig
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:20 am

Postby Shelly » Mon May 12, 2008 10:56 pm

I just realized I never answered this myself.

Lessee...I've read all the Anne books. Nothing evil there. I've also read The Story Girl and The Golden Road. Nothing evil there, either. I've read half of Emily of New Moon (the furthest I've gotten in my two attempts to read it), and while there are bits that are, I suppose, quite mystic (for lack of a better term) in nature, I didn't see anything evil about that, either. I've been reading Jane of Lantern Hill for the last several months (slowly but surely); while Jane has quite an imagination, I've not seen anything evil about that, either.

Pierre wrote:And where in the Bible are we told that Jesus was born on december 25th? That fairy tale was not invented by the early christians, but by the catholic church.


It doesn't say that. Some scholars believe Christ's birth was closer to summertime, from my understanding. (No link available.)

The reason Catholics "invented" (or, rather, carried on) that "fairy tale" was because waaaaay back when (during Constantine's reign, as I recall), the date Christmas was celebrated was changed from January 6 (Feast of the Epiphany/Orthodox Christmas) to December 25--which is the same day as the Pagan feast of Saturnalia and the birth of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar (goddess of fertility), as well as Yule. It was all part of a plan to get Pagans to convert to Christianity. Wild Roses is absolutely right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
foreverzach.net
"Luck. It had nothing to do with it." ~ Izzy Pettibone
User avatar
Shelly
Leader of the Suffragette Movement
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: new england

PreviousNext

Return to LM Montgomery and her Works

cron