Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

The King James Bible in schools


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 326-350 of 351 posts in this discussion
Posted on 7 Jun 2012 21:11:26 BDT
Spin says:
The Best Shakespeare adaptation is the film "Richard III" with Ian McKellen.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Jun 2012 21:12:45 BDT
Pendragon says:
Do you mean the Laurence Olivier film version? That was brilliant.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Jun 2012 21:50:20 BDT
Spin says:
Pen: No. Ian McKellen put in a excellent portrayal of Henry in a film set in the 1920s. The adaptation of the phrase "A Horse! A Horse! My Kingdom for a Horse!" was excellently portrayed, displaying not only the ruin of a devious politician, but also our societies reliance on technology...

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Jun 2012 21:53:17 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jun 2012 00:27:20 BDT
CAS - "I was refering to the rest of my original statement- which you ignored."

You seem to have ignored my second comment "For the rest ... ", which was my answer! You already know that my view of the Bible is that it is largely metaphorical symbolism.

- "I hate Shakespeare, and no-one has been dumb enough to for a religion around the Bard."

Shakespeare is almost sacred to many Brits and others. I guess you must prefer Marlowe - great poet but indifferent dramatist - or be kidding me with a preference for the gore of Kydd and Webster, or perhaps the marvels of Marvell, or maybe the sermons and meditations of Donne are more to your liking.
I suspect, on the other hand, that you just can't be bothered with the minor difficulties of 16th-17th century writers, the founders of literature in Modern English. But they're a lot easier than learning any foreign language!
You might try the explorers and adventurers, such as John Smith and Captain John Jourdain as an interesting alternative! ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Jun 2012 22:06:43 BDT
Isobel - "It's still so relevant (as is shown by the countless modern adaptations of everything ... )

In afterthought, I now rather regret not having seen the 60's musical production of "Two Gentleman of Verona" with B. B. King! At the time, I rather snubbed it as over-popularisation.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Jun 2012 22:24:49 BDT
Norm D. & others. - "I have fond memories of seeing "The Plantagenets" in the 1980s."

My first experience of Shakespeare (and of theatre) was "A Midsummer Night's Dream" in Regent's Park before I was 5. I loved the squirrels and the sparrows, as well as the fireworks accompanying the fairies! I guess I must have had a good sleep too! But it was all very exciting.

Posted on 7 Jun 2012 22:28:29 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 8 Jun 2012 02:31:25 BDT
Does anybody have any suggestions for non-Christian religious classics, in worthy translations, that could or should be incorporated into the NC for literary appreciation and comparative RK?

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jun 2012 08:28:14 BDT
AJ Murray says:
Monkey (Penguin Classics)

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jun 2012 10:01:07 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
I hadn't known it existed, it was a fair bit before my time.

Re: Webster, I like the Duchess of Malfi but I don't actually think I've read anything else by him. Of Marlowe I've only read the obvious (Tamburlaine, Dr Faustus).

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jun 2012 11:51:13 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Michael- I prefer the pink panther to Shakespeare- I must be a philistine!

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 00:04:00 BDT
CAS - "I prefer the pink panther to Shakespeare- I must be a philistine! "

But I thought you were an atheist! ;=)

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 00:15:07 BDT
ATHEIST ETHICS - PRO AND CON ARGUMENTS

I don't really know if this is the right thread for this, but the "50 best atheist quotes" seems to have gone to earth!
Since none of you atheists could put me on the right track, I'd like your comments on the following 2 articles.

http://civic.bev.net/atheistsnrv/articles/definition.html
http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Ethics.htm

If you know of better ones, please point them out.

Clive, if you're going to keep calling Moth. T "an evil old witch", then could we please have YOUR definitions of "evil" and "witch"!

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 04:49:37 BDT
Withnail says:
There are atheists all over the world, so why not Philistines?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 05:56:50 BDT
Withnail - "There are atheists all over the world, so why not Philistines? "

It was intended as a joke, but as you're asking:
(Wiki)
"Philistine culture was almost fully integrated with that of Canaan and the Canaanites. The deities they worshipped were Baal, Astarte, and Dagon, whose names or variations thereof appear in the Canaanite pantheon as well.[2]
The Philistines were also renowned for both their production and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Numerous finds have exposed a well-managed spirits industry, from breweries and wineries to retail outlets that advertised beer, wine, and strong drink."

I hadn't realised atheists could be Baal worshippers!

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 07:26:22 BDT
While I might go into details if I get the time later (no guarantees), the second article is absolute nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 07:52:37 BDT
Sam H. - "While I might go into details if I get the time later (no guarantees), the second article is absolute nonsense."

I would rather expect you to think that, but there do also seem to be some flaws in the first article.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 09:08:51 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2012 08:52:19 BDT
Drew Jones says:
The first article is fine, the second is just a master class in how easy it is for Christian apologists to find a segue into their favoured ignorant canards (eg. if your not certain you are not correct, absolutes or nothing, evolution = eugenics) from any angle.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 10:06:03 BDT
I assume you expect me to think that because you recognise that I think my way through things and can see poor reasoning when it's in front of me...

...or did you mean that, as an atheist, I would automatically disagree with it?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 10:25:51 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Any definition of evil would do, however witch was incorrect. I would put her in the same moral circle as Robert Mugabe.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 01:32:27 BDT
Sam H. - "I assume you expect me to think that because you recognise that I think my way through things and can see poor reasoning when it's in front of me... "

Whilst recognising your excellent powers of reasoning, you do also have an agenda, and would therefore, naturally, be inclined to be more critical of one than the other.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 01:42:35 BDT
CAS - "Any definition of evil would do, however witch was incorrect. I would put her in the same moral circle as Robert Mugabe"

Some of your criticism at least is aimed at her "lack of self-sacrifice", a question of interpretation, as other posters have tried to demonstrate.
But, in a system of ethics based largely on the principal of "survival of the fittest", how can self-sacrifice be regarded as "good". I would have thought that power and wealth would be "better" goals for survival of self, family and cultural influence.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 08:17:53 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2012 08:19:41 BDT
Sorry, but... wrong. If the article is poor then I'll say so regardless of the position it's advocating.

You need to be just as critical with your own arguments and conclusions as you are with other people's.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 09:01:12 BDT
Sam H. - "You need to be just as critical with your own arguments and conclusions as you are with other people's."

You need to be MORE critical with your own arguments, because you have a natural tendency to think that, because you agree with it, then it must be right.
We all think that what we believe is right! At least we know it is OUR opinion.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 09:23:34 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Michael- no. My criticism is because she was a hypocritical, cruel, money grabbing, lying, self agrandising, murdering little Hitler. She cynically duped people who fell for the spin of her publicity campaign.

She denied simple anti bitoics to children who would have easily have been saved, prefering to let them suffer and die because she prefered god to save them, and that thier suffering would bring them and her closer to god. A great shame she lived for so long.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  351
Initial post:  20 May 2012
Latest post:  10 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions