Posted on 12/27/2015 7:25:08 PM PST by presidio9
The Christmas Eve showing of “It’s a Wonderful Life†may be intended to make you believe in the importance of even an ordinary person’s life, but underneath that, what are the film’s secret hidden messages, the ones that become apparent only after two or three eggnogs? Let’s mull over some of the wackier possibilities.
It’s a salute to atheism. It’s “the least religious but most humanist film you could ever see,†said David Wilson in The Guardian, because it suggests people should fix their problems on Earth rather than waiting for God to help out. Regarding Jimmy Stewart’s character George Bailey, Wilson notes: “Even if he does at one point pray to God, [Bailey] is not religious at all, but simply a man trying to find transcendence in the routine of his life and in his duties to his family, friends and community . . . [director] Frank Capra . . . had a lifelong apathy towards his Catholic upbringing, and
-SNIP-
It’s Commie propaganda. A 1947 memo by the FBI containing interviews with Hollywood types, which became of interest to the House Un-American Activities Committee, stated, “With regard to the picture ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’, [REDACTED] stated in substance that the film represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a ‘scrooge-type’ so that he would be the most hated man in the picture.†This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. The pressure eased up when a witness liked by the HUAC, ex-Communist screenwriter John Charles Moffitt, testified
-SNIP-
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I did. I’m just not sure you understand the meaning of the term “Non sequitur.” Two words, by the way.
“Your attention span must be at least one second.”
Your not much into detail are you?
It’s just a movie, not a commie plot. It looks like someone had nothing else to write about re: the author.
.
He was being sarcastic.
.
Two words as a modifier, one word as a noun.
God directly created beings are called "sons of God". Mankind had nothing to do with it.
We are given the power to become sons of God (when we are caught up in the spirit, at the last trump).
Back up a little bit on that one. At first, we are sons of Adam, not of God. As it is written in John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Remember that conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus?
We become sons of God upon being born again because then, and only then, we are directly created by The Holy Spirit and are brand new (2 Corinthians 5:17 ).
TO ANY AND ALL, IF YOU ARE BORN TWICE, YOU DIE ONCE.
IF YOU ARE BORN ONCE, YOU DIE TWICE.
Not by any dictionary I've ever seen. But I'm really not interested in going down this rabbit hole with you. As a rule, I tend to see comments on typos as a waste of time. I've had something to that effect on my homepage for over ten years. I broke that rule, because I thought you were using the term incorrectly.
Clearly you are unable to explain your usage here. The Catholic Church's opposition to communism in Poland in the 1980's parallels nicely with the Spanish Church's support of Franco in the 1930's.
But if we're going to talk, what I'd really like to hear you respond to is POST 144. Did you miss that one?
.
Not sure what you want WRT #144
Lots of brazen idolatry, but that was not what I had posted about.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were a Muslim. My apologies if I or Michelangelo have offended your great religion with his depiction of the dead Christ and his Mother.
Kyle Smith’s whole shtick is to attack things with specious reasoning in order to get hits to the NYPost website. He’s less a critic and more a professional troll.
Greek is not Hebrew, and neither of those languages are English. The verse you refer to is a Greek translation of either a Hebrew or Aramaic original, but at any rate does not refer directly to the term Son of God, and is probably entirely misapplied if used for angelology.
Many minds more brilliant than mine in Jewish and Christian tradition have given far more thought to this subject than I have, though I certainly have given it a fair bit of thought and study. I can see how someone might think that it is Biblical to believe that if you butchered a Seraph you would end up with six wings and two drumsticks. That isn’t the tentative conclusion I have reached, and it isn’t the conclusion that the tradition has reached, but there are bigger theological fish to fry. If you really respect the sola scriptura approach, it is worth noting that you should respect the conclusions I have reached with scripture and not attempt to interject yourself into my relationship with God. If you aren’t of the sola scriptura approach, you need to present much better arguments.
If angels have bodies, do the bodies take up space?
Space is part of the space-time universe.
It is a concept totally inapplicable to the realm of the Father, thus your question is nonsense.
If the angels didn’t have a body the word of God wouldn’t describe them.
Your understanding is at the catholic level, insufficient to grasp the word of God. It is creature based, bound to the material universe, not the realm of the father
If the angels didn’t have a body the word of God wouldn’t describe them.
Last I checked, the Word of God does describe the Father. Do you believe He has a body?
Your understanding is at the catholic level, insufficient to grasp the word of God.
It is creature based, bound to the material universe, not the realm of the father.
While yes, I am a creature, last I checked angels are creatures too, so it seems fair enough. Perhaps you aren’t, or you don’t believe that angels are.
Precisely because I don’t believe that angels are bound to the material universe, I don’t believe they have bodies. In describing them, relations of prophetic visions employ bodily language for pedagogical reasons. If you believe they have bodies but don’t believe they have material bodies, of what are the bodies composed? Immaterial matter? I found Bonaventurian metaphysics unconvincing on this point, though it is always possible that if I had spent more time on it, I might have seen things another way. But I doubt it.
.
The word of God describes the bodies of the angels is considerable detail.
Therefore they must have bodies
Foolish ignorant catholic games.
Buy a Bible, and read it.
Buy a Bible, and read it.
I own over 30, and stopped counting the times I have been through it cover to cover when I passed about 4 dozen. I’ve been through it all in Greek, albeit relying heavily on the facing page translation in most of it, but my Hebrew is not yet up to going through the OT without considerable support, though it is good enough for scholarly mucking around.
The word of God describes the bodies of the angels is considerable detail.
While there are a handful of places that angels are described, I would hardly categorize the detail as considerable, and generally it is along the lines of metaphorical or artistic description.
Cherubs seem the most frequently described category of angel, and the description is more along how they are to be depicted in various pieces of religious art than what the look like. Exodus 25:20 says that they are to be portrayed with outspread CNPh, which would be best translated as “extremities,” and could be more specifically translated as wings or skirts, among other things.
Ezekiel 10:14 speaks of a single face, Ezekiel 41:18 speaks of a double face—but as in one instance the verb used is best translated as “appears,” meaning that we are dealing with a symbolic description of an ineffable reality, and in the other we are dealing with a description of how they are portrayed in the new temple, there is only a contradiction to get worked up about if one over-reads the text.
Given that Cherubim are portrayed with extremities, and no doubt portrayed with particular types of extremities (sort of a given if one has art that doesn’t consist of shapes), it is not surprising that the same language is used when describing other angels.
I had hoped that it would be self-evident that I, too, felt that arguments about angels were unresolvable and hence unproductive. But perhaps my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough.
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.