Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 03-05-2007, 03:30 PM

a couple odd points.

1) i want to say that nothing in this thread shakes my faith in not watching tv. strangely, i do not feel assaulted by the fact that members of other faith communities watch tv. people have gone so far as to argue that one SHOULD watch tv, but my committment to not watching tv remains unshaken somehow. now i know that folk could, were they so inclined, make arguments that by not watching tv i become something of a luddite--but against any such claim i could balance the low quality information tv provides, even at its best--and this doc does not appear to be something that one would describe as "at its best". but tv is everywhere, and i do at times feel assaulted by it. i react to this sense of being-assaulted by watching, preferably an english premiership game, which happens to be rountinely available for therapeutic viewing at the various publick houses i frequent, to the extent that i frequent.

2. drawing on my background as catholic boy, i would think that finding out that the physical jesus was not hoovered into the sky would pose a real problem for any christian who is not secretly a gnostic. it was gnostics like the manichees who argued that because spirit and body were irreconcilable that only the spirit jesus was involved with the resurrection and ascension--and those folk were stomped out--mostly we only know about them now via augustine's confessions.

same thing with the idea that jesus had a kid by mary magdalene, who was supposed to be madame jesus--this is a feature of a number of gnostic accounts of his life, but was not included in the nicea batch of authorized stories about the true jesus as understood from the 4th century viewpoint.

it would seem to me that either of these claims, should they turn out to be true, would pose basic problems for christians: that it is otherwise is perhaps a function of the fact that the material treated in the doc is not new and that it is beset with the predictable problems that accompany trying to locate stuff related to a specific individual from 2000 years ago. the debris field would be highly scattered and what survives arbitrary. it is that arbitrariness of that which survives 2000 years that is the ultimate bulkward of defense against the problems that would be raised.

anyway, i dont watch tv.

03-05-2007, 03:30 PM	#99 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	a couple odd points. 1) i want to say that nothing in this thread shakes my faith in not watching tv. strangely, i do not feel assaulted by the fact that members of other faith communities watch tv. people have gone so far as to argue that one SHOULD watch tv, but my committment to not watching tv remains unshaken somehow. now i know that folk could, were they so inclined, make arguments that by not watching tv i become something of a luddite--but against any such claim i could balance the low quality information tv provides, even at its best--and this doc does not appear to be something that one would describe as "at its best". but tv is everywhere, and i do at times feel assaulted by it. i react to this sense of being-assaulted by watching, preferably an english premiership game, which happens to be rountinely available for therapeutic viewing at the various publick houses i frequent, to the extent that i frequent. 2. drawing on my background as catholic boy, i would think that finding out that the physical jesus was not hoovered into the sky would pose a real problem for any christian who is not secretly a gnostic. it was gnostics like the manichees who argued that because spirit and body were irreconcilable that only the spirit jesus was involved with the resurrection and ascension--and those folk were stomped out--mostly we only know about them now via augustine's confessions. same thing with the idea that jesus had a kid by mary magdalene, who was supposed to be madame jesus--this is a feature of a number of gnostic accounts of his life, but was not included in the nicea batch of authorized stories about the true jesus as understood from the 4th century viewpoint. it would seem to me that either of these claims, should they turn out to be true, would pose basic problems for christians: that it is otherwise is perhaps a function of the fact that the material treated in the doc is not new and that it is beset with the predictable problems that accompany trying to locate stuff related to a specific individual from 2000 years ago. the debris field would be highly scattered and what survives arbitrary. it is that arbitrariness of that which survives 2000 years that is the ultimate bulkward of defense against the problems that would be raised. anyway, i dont watch tv. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-05-2007 at 03:45 PM..