Christianity was the founding religion of both the Western and Eastern empires and, as is to be expected, enormous amounts of literature has been produced based on the tenets and ideals of Christianity. This list looks at ten of the greatest masterpieces in writing which come from a Christian perspective.

This book makes the list primarily for mixing science and Christianity in a favorable way. The two subjects are often seen as being at odds with each other, but in L’Engle’s book, the protagonist, Meg Murry, and her scientist family, all very intelligent, discover a way to fold space-time and travel anywhere in the Universe, instantly. They go to the planet Uriel, which is like Heaven, where everything is good and winged centaurs sing praises. They then learn that the Universe is being attacked by a monster called the Black Thing. The Black Thing captured Meg’s father when he was working on faster-than-light travel, and took him to the planet Camazotz, where everything is controlled by a disembodied brain called IT. IT demands absolute conformity, to the point that all houses and towns and cities look precisely the same. Camazotz has been enveloped by the Black Thing, of which IT is the ruler.
Throughout the book, Meg and family discover many fascinating things, including three immortal women named Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Who, each of whom is very unique. Mrs. Who speaks several languages, and frequently quotes Shakespeare and the Bible. The protagonists finally wind up at Camazotz, and her brother is kidnapped by IT. The rest of them escape, but after learning how to defeat IT, Meg goes back to rescue her brother. IT cannot tolerate the emotion known as “love.” They return to Earth much the wiser about how to live decently and treat others well.

One of the more explicit allegories, with every character named for the quality or emotion he or she displays. In Malvern Hills, Worchestershire, a man named Will (free will) dreams of a tower on a hill, and a fortress in a valley (Heaven and Hell), and a “fair field full of folk,” between them (mankind). He sets out on a journey to attain the tower. Piers, a plowman, appears and offers to guide Will to the tower. On the way, Piers speaks to him of Truth, while Will searches for anyone who might enter the tower with him, namely Dowel (Do well), Dobet (Do Better) and Dobest (Do Best). Will is searching for how a Christian should live, according to Catholicism.

It is ranked so low on this list because, although it deals with Christianity in post-Black Death England, it is more a critique of English society at that time. It’s reliance on Christian philosophy and morality, however, requires that it be given a spot here. Various characters meet up on a road as they walk to Canterbury Cathedral to see the shrine of Thomas Becket. There is a knight, a miller, a cook, a friar, nuns, etc. They decide to have a story contest to pass the time, and the stories they tell all deal with various principles and ideas of the Catholic Church in England at that time.
Chaucer wrote this work during the Great Schism, as it is known now. The Catholic Church split right down the middle in 1378, and this lasted until 1417, after his death. One pope said the throne should be in Rome. Another claimed himself as pope and said it should be in Avignon, France. It was finally resolved with a Council and a few excommunications, and the election of a new pope in Rome. The tales show a diversity of theological understanding, various disagreements, and yet, the characters remain together in their journey to Canterbury, which Chaucer uses to symbolize Christianity holding all its followers together, whether they agree or not on any issue.

“Psychomachia” means “Battle for the Soul.” It ranks so high, despite not being well known, for being one of the very first, if not the first, Christian allegories. It is an epic poem of about 1,000 lines, not very long, which tells the story, in the style of Virgil’s Aeneid, of a titanic and desperate battle between virtues and sins, inside a nameless character, intended as the reader. All the famous deadly sins and cardinal virtues are present, though not precisely listed in their modern forms. Pagan idolatry initiates the conflict, bringing Pride into the fray, which is defeated by Selflessness, and so on. The final fight is comprised of the double threat of Hatred and Wrath versus Love, which finally defeats all sin in the name of Christ Jesus. 1,000 Christian martyrs then praise the Faith with a Hallelujah.

His entire Narnia series of children’s books teem with Christian themes, but the first that he wrote, and most famous, is the most explicit, being a loose retelling of the life of Jesus. “Aslan” is Turkish for “Lion.” And for the child in all of us, Lewis includes talking animals, lots of magic, fantastic creatures like centaurs and unicorns, naiads and dryads, which are like tree spirits (similar to Tolkien’s ents). Narnia is under the spell of Jadis, the White Witch, who has set herself up as the Queen of Narnia, and makes it eternally frozen and snowing, but never Christmas.
Four children from Earth find their way into Narnia, and discover that their arrival is predestined, and heralds the long-awaited coming of Aslan, who will right all the wrongs. Along the way he teaches them what is virtuous, what is sinful, and then deals with the error made by one of them, Edmund. The Witch demands the boy die for the crime of betraying his own siblings. Aslan offers himself in the boy’s place, and the Witch thinks that this Deep Magic will give her control over Narnia once and for all. Boy, is she wrong.

Many critics believe that Christmas is the most popular holiday around the world at present, not because of the Nativity story, but because of its revival in Dickens’s mid-Victorian novella about charity for all, regardless of religion, social standing, or anything else. In secular terms, that is what Christmas should be about, he argues in this book: giving to others without thought of recompense; the one time of the year when all differences should be put aside for a brotherhood of man.
Ebenezer Scrooge is an odious miser, a money lender, who refuses to give money to anyone for nothing. He lends to those he thinks can pay him back, but he charges quite a lot of interest, and is quick to charge more when payment is late. He does not care how poor or unable anyone is to pay him back, or how desperately they need food and shelter. But that all changes on Christmas Eve, when he is visited by the ghost of his old partner, Marley, who warns him that he is in danger of Hell. Then the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Yet to Come, visit him and show him how horrible a man he is. He changes for the better and everyone lives happily ever after, beginning on Christmas Day.
Many of the story’s elements have entered the vernacular around the world. Misers are now nicknamed Scrooges, and people much more frequently say, “God bless us, everyone.”
But is it explicitly Christian? Yes, it must be considered so, because even in secular terms, the root of the word Christmas cannot be ignored, and Dickens chose this holiday over all the others. Thus, the principles of charity for all and generosity and love are evoked in Christ’s name.

The most obviously allegorical of all Christian allegories. The protagonist is named Christian, who reads the Bible and then is burdened by a heavy packpack, which holds the knowledge of his sin. He is met in the fields one day by a man named Evangelist, who directs him to the Wicket Gate. Christian immediately leaves his wife, children, and home to seek the Gate and a deliverance from his sin, lest he sink in Tophet (Hell). Tophet is thought to be where, in Jerusalem, the Canaanites sacrificed children to the god Moloch by roasting them to death. Christian is diverted on his journey by Mr. World Wiseman, who tempts him to seek deliverance through the law (earthly law). Christian refuses and reaches the gate, where Good Will instructs him further. He finds the place of deliverance, which is Calvary, where the straps of his backpack snap and he is relieved of his burden. In the 2nd part, Christian’s family finally goes after him and thus finds deliverance from their sins, and reunion with Christian in Paradise. Good Will reveals himself as Jesus.

It is probably the longest single epic poem in English, and Spenser intended it to be twice or four times as long as what he finished. It is 6 Books, each celebrating a particular virtue: holiness, temperance, chastity, friendship, justice, and courtesy. The first book is the most famous, since Spenser wrote in such a laid-back style that it takes him quite a long time to say anything, and most readers quit with the first book. He also invented the Spenserian stanza for the work. In the first book, the protagonist is the Redcrosse Knight, symbolizing King George of England (the red cross was and still is on the English flag).
He rides over the English countryside, getting into adventures, and rescuing Una, a damsel in distress, who symbolizes both Queen Elizabeth I and the Virgin Mary. She travels with a lion (God’s law) and a lamb (God’s love). She recruits him to save her family’s castle from a monstrous dragon (Satan), whom the Redcrosse knight defeats in combat after putting on the armor of God. This duel, near the end of the first book, is one of the most famous events of the poem, and a classic tale of a knight slaying a dragon. The protagonists come across various villains on their journey, such as Duessa, who represents the false Church, Archimago, a sorcerer who represents paganistic heresy, who hates Redcrosse and England, and King Arthur and Merlin.

Rather than an allegory, this epic poem is overtly theological, and a masterpiece of explanation as to why God allows people to suffer, how sin began, why Jesus must be the Messiah, etc. Milton enters deep into philosophy many times, especially when God, watching from Heaven, explains that mankind has just committed sin and killed itself by disobeying his law (don’t eat that tree’s fruit). So with Man officially fallen from grace, the Son of God, still in Heaven, having not yet been born mortal on Earth, who has no name, announces to his Father that he will descend into the world of men, become one, and allow himself to be killed to atone for Man’s sin.
Satan, meanwhile, is given one of the most interesting portrayals in literature. He is practically the hero of the poem, from his and his minions’ point of view. They are cast out of Heaven for warring against God. Satan wants to be God, and refuses to quit. Now burning in Hell, he and his minions discuss how to get back at God. Some want more open war. Satan advises against this, and decides on surreptitious treachery: he knows of God’s newest and greatest creation, Man, on Earth, and will travel out of Hell, up to Earth, and corrupt that creation, to make God despair and hate him. How evil!
One of the most fun moments in the poem is a flashback showing the actual war in Heaven. You ask yourself how those already immortal can be killed, but this is not the issue. Satan and his angels fight against Michael and his angels, and whoever is stronger will overpower the other and gain the throne, casting the losers out of Heaven to Hell. Michael and his angels are nearly beaten back to the walls of the Holy City, but are saved at the last moment by the Son of God, who saddles up a chariot of ethereal fire and does what everyone would love to see in a film: Jesus kicking ass. After all, he’s not a tame lion.

The Divine Comedy is the finest work in the Italian language, which is saying a lot. We would be hard-pressed to decide on the greatest work in the English language, or any other language, but Dante has Italian pretty well sewn up. He invented terza rima for the purpose of this epic poem, a rhyme scheme still popular and widespread today. It does a fine job interlocking the 3-line stanzas. The Comedy, as he titled it, doesn’t have one single joke. It’s a comedy in the sense that Dante, the main character, journeys upward from Hell, through Purgatory, to Heaven, and not the other way around. So it has a happy ending and is not a tragedy.
But the most famous Canzon of it, the Inferno, is 34 books of the most awe-inspiringly elaborate, horrifying tortures anyone has devised in fiction. The modern Christian conception of a lake of fire is nowhere to be found. Instead, much more interesting are the punishments Dante devises for the various sinners in response to their particular sins. Hell is in 9 circles, and Dante constructs it as an amalgam of the Ancient Greek and Roman Hells, combined with Christian ideas. Various popes and cardinals are down there, along with all who died before Jesus’s death removed sin from mortal man. The Harrowing of Hell is mentioned near the beginning, after which the Old Testament heroes, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses and King David, are rescued up to Heaven.
The entire poem is a critique of various famous figures from Dante’s time, and antiquity. Some he admired, like Homer, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, and Lucan, are in Limbo. Julius Caesar is there, and Saladin, who was decent and chivalrous. Alexander the Great, however, is eternally boiling in Phlegethon, a river of blood in the 7th Circle. Talk about macabre. And if you’re wondering, yes, lawyers are down there, boiling in a sea of pitch.
For its jaw-dropping brilliance of imagery from page one to page end, and the fact that the reader has been taught quite a few lessons without realizing the work’s didactic nature, Dante must surely secure for his masterpiece the first spot.




















Awesome list! Except for "A Christmas Carol." That was a bit of a stretch. Though I admittedly haven't read it, I think putting it on a list of Christian fiction is questionable. Dante's Divine Comedy is spectacular and a great choice for number one.
Oh, and since people have to scroll past this post in order to comment on the list themselves, I implore all who read this: Please do not bring up the Bible. The author left it out for a reason. Regardless of what that reason is, the fact remains that an arguments about it would be pointless.
boring list.
boring comment, Jy
cliche reply
Surely number 1 should have been the new testament
what is that? huh? is that sarcasam or you just farted?
For the record, I can confirm that as sarcasm, Mordechai – hope this helps.
Can't think of anything intelligent as a reply?
LOL. Bravo to you sir; that was excellent.
Keep telling yourself that Squire. It's your life choice to believe what you will, but that doesn't make the Truth invalid.
Wow. The Bible should be #1 on this list. Anyone who doesn't believe that a book where men live to 120 and the entire world can be flooded in 40 days of rain and where all humans are descended from a single man and woman is completely retarded.
You have to be retarded to be Christian. It's a mental illness.
big ups to this comment
So, anyone who doesn’t believe as you do is retarded? What a hateful and mean-spirited thing to say. You should learn some tolerance.
Ironically most of what you just said CAN happen, and there are way more unbelivable stories in the bible. I’m no big Christian but I think that if someone doesn’t believe in some form of afterlife, they may as well be animals. Oh well, keep living for sleep, ***** and food whilst firmly believing nobody can judge you for this. Doggie. XD
don't call me Shirley
I tried to read Chaucer once. But my brain exploded into tiny pieces.
Too bad.
Canterbury Tales is a wonderful little book, funny and poignet by turns. You have truly missed something lovely.
If you liked Canterbury Tales, you should read the Decameron. Chaucer 'borrowed' a lot of stories from Boccaccio. Also, try to find an annotated Penguin edition. I've got one of those, and such books are a lot more fun if one understands every little joke.
Thanks for tip!
I shall procure one posthaste!
Really. I'll get a copy asap.
seggie — i would like to jump in and second this. it is *fantastic*. i, personally, say it is really really good, but knowing you, you'll think fantastic.
the title is essentially a compound word, relating to the greek words for ten days:: δέκα – déka; and ἡμέρα – hēméra.
it was written (correct me if i'm wrong, armin) 35 years before "cant .tales" and, as armin said, the writings of chaucer (some, anyway) will seem familiar.
giovanni boccaccio is a touch more philosophical than geoffery chaucer, but — in a certain way — that actually makes for easier reading. well, easier if youre drawn in, at any rate.
i, mean, brock would say "borinG" but knowing you, you'll be thanking armin for this reference shortly after reading. the only thing i do not agree with is that the annotated version does the original justice. i a way, armin is correct, in that certain ideas will be a little clearer, and make a little more sense, but to me, its just not quite up to par — go with the long version.
The annotated is the long version. It's the version with scholiae, which clarify things. Excuse me if I used the wrong word.
You should totally read the long version. I don't know if your 13th century Italian is any good, because if it is, you should read it in the original language too!
boring
Just out of interest, Brock, not having a go this time, but what lists do you like?
He likes the ones with weird animals and the like. I was going to say something incredibly mean that would probably make brock cry, but I decided not to.
brock, i'm not trying to have a go this time, either. and like major, i'm just curioius — soooo…if youre having a doug13 moment and you want to tell me to go ***** my mother, come back when youre in a better mood. but here's what i'm wondering. —- a few of the lists you have said boring. boring. boring.
right — got it.
so, did you read the list, and think — holy crap — i hate this *****, i think i'll tell everyone i think its boring.
or
did you look at the title and say — i hate this subject — im not going to read it.
the reason im wondering is because some of the ones you said "boring" about recently were very well written and researched. so much so, that people (at current, im thinking of general tits, who sayss this a lot) — have made the comment that they thought the subject was boring, but were pleasently surprised by the content.
just curious, thats all man
jeewantha kulatunga can be a good otoipn he’s good more than kapuva also kulatunga is a good fielder like dilly .also can ball .should be in the wc squard (0)
seriously? no "Dante: the divine comedy"?
Seriously? No reading the list before commenting? It's number one for Christ's sake!
erm… check #1 on the list.
@mechrabbit: "seriously? no "Dante: the divine comedy"?"
@flamehorse: "1 "La Divina Commedia" Dante Alighieri""
every now and then we give some people hell because they dont read the lists.
what im curious about is — why some people (probably do read the lists) simply do not pay attention to them.
yeah — the words arent *exactly* the same, but really — this doesnt take a rocket scientist
It's #1!
Is the fact that the title is in Italian just discombobulate your brain completely, or did you even bother to read the list?
Seriously?
I am so totally thrown by the fact that you didn't know that #1 was even *ON THE LIST* that you have even read La Divina Commedia.
I could be wrong.
You may just still half asleep, but…nah!
he gets no pass on this one.
half asleep?
girl, i was 85% asleep when i read this list at 3:45 am, and i caught #1 right away.
and seggie – i move that your observation about him not reading the work is not only correct, but extremely likely
bad rabbit.
go to your room.
ollie, I always go for the "long " version, the original version if I can…and with middle english, fortunately, I can.
There is something to be said in favor of a Parochial School education, and I survived 13 years in the system…K-12.
You're just intelligent…I'll never know whether or not I am intelligent, or I had intelligence thrust upon me.
Epic FAIL!!
The only one I have read in this list is Narnia. I read it when I was quite young and so I didn't see the symbolism in it until the movie came out. It is quite clear of the Jesus-Aslan connection as his death in the movie is quite the rip-off of Jesus' execution. Edmund's death for betraying Aslan/Judas betraying Jesus. And The White Witch would be the parallel of Satan. There is a great paper dealing with this subject: http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/success.html
I read Narnia when I was in 5th grade. I agree with you, it was quite obvious that Caroll had intended this book as a kind of retelling of the execution and rebirth of Jesus. I think that may have been what made Narnia so popular.
I read Narnia as an adult and loved the Chronicles. The depiction of Aslan in the Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe movie was noble. The sacrifice and rebirth is emotional and an excellent *****ogy to Christ. PS: My computer wallpaper is Aslan.
Ummm… Sorry to have to do this, but it's in my contract (goes w/ the screen name), so:
Lewis Carroll (2 "r"s) ≠ C S Lewis
C S Lewis wrote the Narnia books in the mid-20th century; Lewis Carroll is the pen name of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, who wrote the Alice books in the mid-to-late 19th century.
Other than that, of course, they're nearly identical — they did both teach at Oxford, after all, so it's easy to confuse them.
Thanks for pointing that out!
First video needs reupload Also’ very calm would be such eterrpoir редактировалось: Sep 07 2011 10:46 AM UTC (101 д. назад)
Cool list!
Downright sleepy list.
VERY good list. I really mean it
Totally agree with you on number one. The Paradiso expecially is probably the best writing in human history.
As to where Dante takes the inspiration to the actual shape of his underworld much is mistery. Certainly there is a classical inspiration but also a cosmology of the Spirit and a sort of christian antroposophy (if that can we call it).
In a way Dante journeys through universal history, through mankind's history, through each man's history and, at the same time, through his onw personal history. All wrapped up in one.
Only thing i don't like is that he perceives evil not like a force capable of acting but as absence of good. Neo-platonism was mighty important for that philosophy
That is why the Devil dwells jammed at the bottom of the pit.
I much prefer the jew's Devil which walks on the ground under the sun, much like a man himself.
He doesn't say evil is the absence of good. Evil in Dante's Comedy is namely the opposition to God's Will. And since a certain action is necessary to act against His Will, then evil is neither the absence of something or a natural force; it is simply evil when it fulfills its own definition. Action against the Will of God is evil.
Maybe, but that action, this opposition to God's will, is done by the man himself following free will, not by the action of evil, so in doing evil the Devil plays no part. The Devil has been defeated and he can't do no harm anymore. That's what Dante believes.
Other theologians believe that if Christ redeemed our eternal body we still have the duty to fight off the Devil and free our physical body. That's a bit more like me. Just my two cents
Hi guys. Sorry to poke my nose in again – it's an annoying habit I know – but I was just wondering to myself; how come folks like to acknowledge the white but not the black?, the heaven but not hell?, the hoards of angels and ranks of cherubs but not the demons? I suppose in this modern age it's not cool to consider there is anything more out there than heaven. I mean, the Devil? Surely that went out with the 1950's – it's all nonsense really – surely?. Working for a shaman, I've seen those who plainly and clearly hear the divine whispers, those tingles of intuition – the slightest breath and beat of love and kindness. I've also come accross many who hear whispers of another kind, and temptation (what? not that old chestnut??) leading them into all kinds of dark places. 'Devils' cannot do us any harm, true, but we can do harm to outselves with a little prod. So I still have to consider – even after all these years of reasoned thought – that there has to be the Yin, just as there has to be the Yang.. Hmmm.
Positively agreed, Lifeschool
You worked for a shaman? What was your duty?
Now, that's a job i would take no questions asked!
lifeschool —–
dont you currently work for a shaman?
or did i miss, something and mordechairmenaoi said it correcty, in the past tense?
and dont apoligise for sticking your nose in — that is what the comment section is for, and your input often brings new ideas and/or discussions into the ring.
@ mordechaimordechai and Oliver: Yes, I do currently work for the shaman 'working' rather than 'having worked for', and it's an interesting lifestyle choice. As you may imagine, I work as the customer services guy – mainly giving advice to those who need help in life – transforming their myopia into a positive utopia. Sometimes it helps to talk to someone who can see the long view, the wider picture; where trauma is just another path towards a greater understanding and appreciation of life.
I think I just misunderstood what you were saying. You mean that Evil IS the Devil? Gotcha.
@Timothy: – Evil… that's a broard brush. I how could one describe it?? I suppose I'd say it's 'something that goes against morality', or perhaps, 'something that is undertaken purposely to provide harmful results'. But this is a very black and white answer and goes nowhere to describe the whole thing. It may help to use the words 'construction' vs 'destruction' rather than Good and Evil. On a certain level we have to have both. There is also quite a grey area in between these extremes where a persons shifting core motivation won't necessarily provide the anticipated results. In this grey area, it only takes a slight shift to move from a positive outcome to a negative – from honourable to manipulative – and it is in this delicate area that I feel a person can be swayed by energy movements beyond our five senses.
The way I see it comes down the the basic factor of energy. All life consumes energy to further itself. Energy has polar opposites. Humans, plants and animals work well when given a perfect balance of both. Light elements thrive off love and giving. Dark elements thrive off fear and taking. They consume it; just as it consumes them. In the movie 'Monsters Inc', the monsters steal the fear (the screams) of the innocently manipulated, and this is just another way of showing that shadow elements require this, just as light elements worship singing (the opposite to screaming in fear). It's all a neat balance, and yet again we see the Yin Yang in action.
That's a really interest idea, Lifeschool. While I don't necessarily subscribe to it, I definitely see the merit in thinking like that.
I realize the dangers of taking the work of another person at their word, but I feel that Dante's description of Evil is one of the most well thought out concepts that I have heard regarding the whole thing. When Faith enters the picture, it is silly to talk about the concept of Good and Evil without reference to God. For Dante, and now for a large number of people around the world, "Evil" has taken on a new meaning. Evil is the opposition of God's will. The first Evil acts that demonstrate this perfectly were committed by Lucifer when he went against God's divine plan.
This view is almost comforting, in a way, in that it allows there to be a total control over one's actions. That, however, is also the intimidating part. There is no option of saying that you were forced to do it or that you weren't acting under free will. I think this is where yours and my ideas differ most fundamentally.
Out of curiosity, what school of thought are you operating out of where the ideas of light and dark forces come into play?
I'm using Theology mixed with an experience of Spritualism and Buddhism (pretas).
heartsong / David, I always apreacipte your vlogs and your taking the time to connect with us. I’m also happy for you that you’re taking a little time for yourself. You go, go, go so much that you really do need that down time. Thanks so much for telling us about Marius. Even when we go through rough times, we have nothing to complain about. I know what you mean about a light in his eyes, it comes from within and that is beautiful. Thanks again, David.
Lovely. I loved the quote at the end of number two, "After all, he's not a tame lion"!
If lists were made to suit people that said “boring” all the time, we’d all be a bunch of drooling blobs of flesh eg. ‘Wall- E’ or ‘Idiocracy’.
Nice list, I never had Dickens down as a Christian writer though… I always assumed the Victorians were big sinners!
Milton, Spencer, and Chaucher deserve to be on here, but for the other entries you could have found better alternatives. How about La Gerusalemme liberata by Tasso, or something out of the matière de bretagne, like Le Chanson de Roland, or Perceval ou le conte du Graal by Chrétien de Troyes? And the immrama? Orlando Furioso by Ariosto?
You missed a chance at a very good list here by going with the more familiar and popular books.
Sometimes things are familiar and popular for a reason. In most of the cases on this list (Christmas Carol excluded), I think the popularity is well-deserved and appropriate recognition for the magnitude of the writings.
Four of these I never even heard of. The matière de Bretagne has shaped chivalry (and thus the Middle Ages) almost entirely. The almost every tale about a voyage was influenced by the immrama. I'm not saying the listed items aren't important; I'm saying there are more important works.
Originally I was going to say this list was to biased towards English, but the author even forgot some essential English works. So I concluded he was trying to score with (for native English speakers) easily recognisable and popular works. This means the title should be: ' 10 popular works of Christian Fiction in the English world' or '10 great works of christian fiction'.
True. Tasso and also Von Eschenbach's Parzifal should be nominated.
Le Roman de la Rose is also a possible entry.
Just to name the most famous, let's not forget that almost every piece of medieval fiction has some sort of mirror to the bible.
actually, armin, this is a good list….imho
every now and again, there will be a list somehting along the lines of 'little known works of fantasy novels', or bizarre 'instances in greek literature'
frater likes anything that has bizarre in the title, and this has become so clear over time, that it wouldnt surprise me in the least if someone *specifically* made that distinction, and actually created an alternate list, keeping that in mind.
all the works you listed would make a fine basisfor an 'ocscure christian works of fiction' list, and if flamehorse replies to this thread, and says that he left thdse off for that reason, i wouldnt even sort-of be surprised.
List author: Flamehorse …
*rolls eyes*
"Christianity was the founding religion of both the Western and Eastern empires and"
*face palm*
Lol, this was exactly what I thought. I found Dante's entry interesting (and well deserved at number #1) but seriously only Flamehorse would put A Christmas Carol down as Christian fiction.
Erm – I wrote that – not flamehorse. I write the intros to his lists usually.
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox anyone? Splitting of the Roman Empire? I’d say two distinct empires were formed.
Jesus was a psychopathic warmonger. Ever read 10:34 in the Gospel of Matthew? "I come not to bring peace, but a Sword." Lovely guy. I don`t think!
I'm guessing you've read that quote in isolation on an anti-Christian website and just allowed them to do all you're thinking for you.
I'm not a Christian by any means, but that verse can be interpreted in any ways.
No, I`ve read The Bible, and some of the things are sick as hell. It reads like Mein Kempf. You ever read Deuteronomy 20:16-17 and 1 Samuel 15:3, which is the line that a lot of people use to justify mass-murder? Probably not.
The old laws in the Old Testament were fulfilled and therefore negated by Jesus' coming. And if you take the time to actually think about it, the point of the laws was to preserve the nation of Israel and keep it alive.
No, you didn't read the Bible. Only convicts do. *just kidding*
would you actually be shocked if he was an ex-con?
not i said the fly
You can't read one or two passages from the Bible and decide that that is what it is all about. That is like taking two sentences from a book and deciding that they summarize it. It doesn't work.
Hitler expressed some of his Christian views in Mein Kampf, which are radical, violent and anti-semitic.
I've read the Bible and I must say, people who criticize the Bible always list the two or three verses that can be percieved as violent or evil. How about the hundreds of verses that have turned people's lives around? John 14: 1-3, Psalms 23:4, Matthew 6:25-34, Romans 12: 1-2, Psalm 73: 26, the list goes on and on.
Two or three versions that can be considered violent? Try hundreds!
Really? Give me two hundred and fifty verses that can be considered violent out of the New Testament (the old testament is going to include violence as it is about the Jews acquiring their homeland and fighting for freedom).
Man, the entire old testament is basically different groups going to war, mainly because of God. Besides, you were just a bit of a hypocrite, weren't you: "Jeez I hate when people criticize the bible based on a few verses. Here are a few verses that prove that it's good!" Because that makes sense.
@armadillotron:: ''"No, I`ve read The Bible""
———did you understand it?———
and since i know you are going to say "yes",
in the interest of saving time, i'll counter with,::
———are you sure?———
to which you will say "yes"
at what point, in the interest of saving more time, i'll counter with ::
———prove it———
hmmmm, clearly here is a guy who only ready one scripture and says AH HA see!!! You must have been asleep for the part in Matthew where he STOPS Peter from killing a man with the sword and even goes as far as to heal the ear that was cut off. He then rebukes Peter for his attempt on the mans life. Or even better the part where Jesus surrenders his life and dies. But of course lets look at that one little passage as you have and go with your theory…….I don't think!!!
It`s not just The Gospel of Matthew.. Read Luke 19:27 KJV? "But mine enemies which not that I reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me." So not only was Jesus a warmonger the guy was a sadist. What sort of man, wants to see people killed? Not a sane one, obviously. He`s seems more like Genghis Khan than a man of peace.
Armadillotron, if you've taken that view, fair enough. It's open to interpretation anyway.
Just a question, are there any passages in the Bible that contradict your point of view, or at least made you question your belief?
That quote was spoken by a character in one of Jesus' parables. Try reading the actual context.
If you want to argue against the Bible, you read it and try to understand it, not scan it loosely and read off bad-sounding verses from a poorly-written anti-Christian website.
I glad every one heeded this post from timothyjames: " I implore all who read this: Please do not bring up the Bible. The author left it out for a reason. Regardless of what that reason is, the fact remains that an arguments about it would be pointless."
tim.jim. is cool, but his comment at the beginning reminded me of parent/child relations…..
do not eat anymore m&m's!
okay, ma!
*grabs m&m's like a *****ing ninja…..and dips outta there*
?Another contradiction: In your ghpemaoe post entitled “A Vision for American Exceptionalism” (and what a vision it is, I don’t think anyone can disagree with the bland and vague policy positions you take here) you make known your support for “a safety net for subsistence, health-care, and education for those in need”. Where do you suppose the funds for that safety net come Nick? You got it. Redistribution of wealth. Next you claim that progressives seek utopia. I certainly can’t speak for all progressives, but I challenge you to find a single progressive intellectual who claims to seek utopia. Conveniently, you provide me with my own defense a few meandering paragraphs later when you advocate striving to do the good we can, while acknowledging that perfection is not possible, only an abstract to be pursued. I think most progressives would agree with this general sentiment, so you really have no point.Moving on, you attempt to establish a key moral difference between giving to private charity and supporting taxation and provisioning of public goods and services by the government (or as you so reasonably call it, redistribution of wealth). The first is good, the second evil. In fact you go so far as to say that God would rather have us not give anything to those less fortunate than have us support redistribution of wealth. Wow, there must be a big difference! Lets explore what you have to say: 1) property is transferred from one nameless faceless group to another nameless faceless group in the case of wealth redistribution. Isn’t that the same thing that happens when you donate to a large charity? Maybe donating to a large charity is evil, and volunteering at a soup kitchen is good.2) “Progressives do not make a personal decision to give to the poor but rather a decision for others to do so.” In fact wealthy progressives who support wealth redistribution do just that. Warren Buffet comes to mind.3) Progressives only consider the ends while conservatives only consider the means. This is some real 9th grade philosophy class garbage here Nick. I know you’re intelligent enough to understand why this is garbage, so I can only conclude that you’re not in the habit of questioning your own positions. You believe in the Ten Commandments right? Thou shall not kill? So you must be a pacifist. No you say? You think it is OK to kill in self-defense? We call that the ends justifying the means. How about thou shall not lie? Did you tell your kids about Santa Clause? The ends of their joy justified your means of lying. Adults understand that morality must take into account both ends and means, and progressives take both ends and means into account when supporting a social safety net. We believe that the favorable outcome of greater equality is worth the relatively small sacrifice that the wealthy are required to make.You even explicitly claim that for Christians, the loss of even one innocent life is enough to make any end that requires that loss immoral. So I suppose no Christians supported any wars recently in which innocents have been killed. They did? Oh.The remainder of your piece is mostly a repetition of what you’ve already stated and a few other tired and poorly supported points. Frankly I don’t care to re-read these sections a third time only to come, for the third time, to the conclusion that they have no real content besides 1) God wants us to have a free market and 2) the only solution to our problems is to convert people to Christianity. Both of which are so poorly supported I’ll decline to respond. In summary your writing is poorly organized, unnecessarily long, repetitive and rambling, and devoid of content save a few flowery paragraphs expressing your love for God. Loving God is great, but it is not the robust intellectual thought that your writing masquerades as.
Shouldn't the great work of Christian fiction be…The Bible???
The Bible isn't traditionally seen as fiction.
farting silently is accepable
^ once again, unfunny. you remind me of most of the christians i know…basically unfunny.
That makes it fact?
No, but neither are most Classical age historiographies, but they aren't considered fiction either. The Bible however, is quite a different tale. Long story short: The Bible is meant to be a factual description, but not a historic one. It is meant to be a description of the bond between the Jewish people and God, and the mythic portions are just figures of speech, added embellishment.
I wish I could find some decent sources, but I only have my (non-English) textbooks, and a French article by Paul Ricoeur. If you nevertheless are interested in reading some more, you should probably start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics.
how is it possible to be a factual description but not a historic one? That's a contradiction right there. "The mythic portions are just figures of speech." The bible is intended as the ''word of god'' so how can any single portion of the bible be just figures of speech, im just loving the hypocrisy here
The bible should definatly be number one. I mean virgin conception, Noahs ark, water into wine, sea's parting in the middle, ressurection, not to mention the hundreds of other whacky stories! The bible is the best selling book of fiction in history!
Although I wholeheartedly agree this joke is getting a little old, don't ya think
The reason the Bible isn't considered fiction (even though it is) is because, then millions of believers would realize they have been duped (which they have been) and feel like fools (which they are).
I agree with Matthew, surely the Bible should be number 1.
Surely Lord of The Rings should be here as well, seeing as The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is here.
I was surprised not to see Lord of the Rings myself. Some of the choices are well-made, but Lord of the Rings is such a major piece of literature, and now cinema, that it should definitely be included.
But it's just a good story that happened to be written by a Christian, that's part of what makes it so good, Tolkien, unlike Lewis, didn't try to inject every part of it with his own beliefs. Just because someone's Christian doesn't mean everything they write is automatically 'Christian Fiction' it's the content that counts.
True. However, apparently LOTR was written as a response of sorts to Narnia. Tolkien felt Christianity shoudn't be represented by a huge, powerful lion but by a smaller, more vulnerable creature who have to undergo several challenges before reaching their goal.
Perhaps, but either way it's no where near as explicit as C.S Lewis was and 'a smaller, more vulnerable creature who have to undergo several challenges before reaching their goal' could apply to anyone or anything with any goal, that's what I liked so much when I read The Hobbit for the first time, the whole sense of adventure, not just travelling a long way but Bilbo Bagginses personal adventure as well, for me that's what makes it one of the best books I have ever read, even though (as the book states) the battle at the end would probably be remembered as minor in the history books it's how much Bilbo has changed from the start of the book to the end that really matters.
Fair point.
seeing dickens and paradise lost on the same list made me think for a moment that this was a "10 worst books of all time" list.
i liked dante's stuff though. chaucer was worth the time too.
what about william blake, though? i'd have thought his "marriage of heaven and hell" would be on here.
Better set up a counter at the top of the page and keep track of how many people will comment, thinking they are clever, and write, "Hurr durr what about the Bible hurr durr??!?!?!??" before they read the comments and see everybody already has done that. Same people who saw the movie Kick-Ass, and walked out of the theatre saying, "Boy oh boy, that movie kicked ass!" You're a genius, sir or madam, and I envy you.
Does it matter? I said it. I know there were several that said it before me. I get to state my opinion just the same as anyone. It's all apart of the commenting system. So….get over it.
Yeah, you said it. So did everybody else. I don't care who says what, usually, but as soon as I read the list title, I knew it would be spammed with unoriginal comments. I am allowed to state how annoyed with that I am. It's all apart of the commenting system. So…. get over it. : )
Dude we dont see you that often.
Been keeping my happy ass busy. I've been studying up, I have to start EMT- Basic classes soon.
And also, I must say, I haven't found a good many of the recent lists that interesting. Apologies to the authors if you read this, but it's the truth.
If you modify the hderaes in your browser you can. Basically you change the value of the user agent and then revisit the site. But now the site thinks you are an iPhone, iPad, etc. so no re-direct. Do a serach under how to modify hderaes
Waterboarder, let's say you're right. Even if you are passing off several unfalsifiable theories as fact. Don't you think that understanding the non-existence of God could be a traumatic thing for someone? Yet you treat them with so little compassion it's flabbergasting. You're clearly a very cruel-minded human being to be so heartless and arrogant towards people trying to find meaning in their lives.
I respect atheists who argue that we don't need religion because we can be compassionate, caring people without the need to be told how to be one. Or also argue that morality should exist on its own terms and not be dictated to us. These are arguments I hold with. But someone like you does not belong in this group.
You are merely an egotistical, ranting individual who would just rather be right than help out your fellow humans. Let me ask you a question. Why should someone ally themselves with your school of thought then seek out the comforting, even if incorrect, world of religion providing they do no harm to others?
The Bible IS sick. It justifes slavery-Leviticus 25:44-46 and killing children-by "dash them against the rocks"-Psalm 137:8-9and Ezekiel9:5-6. So, how can The Bible be a peaceful book? It isn`t. It just like the Koran.
LOL have you read any of the Qur'an? It's not a violent book. It's actually less bloody and violent than the bible. Not that I believe a thing written in them.
Fair point. However, all religions are mentioned. What about Buddhism?
Also, the majority of Christians are peaceful.
Christians are peaceful?! Yeah right. What George W Bush and the future President Sarah Palin are peaceful? And going back in history, Pope Innocent III and other Popes, The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were peaceful? Course they were!
George W Bush and Sarah Palin are two Christians, correct. And yes, the others were several centuries ago. I don't recall saying every single Christian is peaceful.
All the ones I know are. They tend to be the ones helping out at charity shelters and volunteering for good causes.
Also, very telling that you chose to not respond to any of my earlier points but instead lept on a straw man argument at the first opportunity.
No – Sarah Palin and George Bush profess to be Christians. They don't act like Christians therefore they aren't.
They do act like Christians. They profess to follow Jesus. That's all that one needs to do to be a Christian.
Actions speak louder than words. They aren't christians. Thats like lil wayne saying he's the best rapper alive when he clearly isn't
I'm going by what it says in the Bible. If you profess to follow Jesus and repent of your sins, then hot dog! An eternity of singing God's praises in Heaven awaits. That is the only thing one needs to do to be a Christian, according to the Bible.
Um, sorry friend, but (ironically enough) you've accepted as accurate and representative of Christianity in general the interpretation of one small — tiny (in context) ! — community of self-styled "Christians."
(What's ironic is that I'm guessing (could be wrong) that you oppose (and strongly) the belief system (not to mention the probable politics) of this particular crowd. They'd just love your assumption that they're the real deal.)
Specifically, this is the take of a fair number of congregations in the US — but ONLY in the US (and any little groups elsewhere that they've converted, with the evangelizing donations from Great-Aunt Trudy, who gives them money for the tee-vee shows to save the little heathen bay-beez), and ONLY since the late 19th century. Call it the Jerry Falwell / Tim LaHaye / Jack Chick cult (they weren't the originators, of course, but they're all well-known proponents).
Check the Bible itself, and/or any competent history of religion, and you'll find that Christianity in most of the world for most of 2 millennia would utterly reject the idea that you can live a life of grievous sin; simply make a deathbed conversion ("I buh-LEEV-uh, Jay-zuz-uh!"); and — bang! — go directly to Heaven, do not pass "Go," do not collect $200. Such a belief, of course, is typically American, in some of the worst ways: selfish, lazy, ignorant, grossly oversimplified, immature, unsophisticated, and utterly without basis in fact or even theoretic support in the very documents they profess to revere and obey.
I thought the whole point of being a "Christian" was to "live Christ-like"?? I agree that it's more than just saying something. You're supposed to act according to the teaches of the Bible.
I'm saying it's in the Bible. I'm not saying it makes sense.
N I thought that in order to be a christian not only did you have to accept J.C., but you also have to keep the 10 commandments and the teachings of J.C…. which most "christians" like palin and bush, and the westboro baptist church do not even bother following.
The probem with people like you (bleeding heart atheists) is that you assume that just because a few Christians are violent means that every Christian is violent. That is an extremely ignorant point of view. That is like saying that just because a few Muslims hate Western culture means all Muslims are violent extremists; that is not true. Also, it is like saying that all atheists are ignorant pigs like you; it's not true.
The problem with people like you is that you assume "bleeding heart atheists" are all alike. Personally I don't give a *****, and I don't see why anyone does.
The "dashing against the rocks" quote was a description of Babylonian captors killing Israelite children.
With every post you simply establish yourself more and more as a typical atheist will absolutely no grasp of the Bible.
"Typical atheist"?
You're a typical *****tard.
Sorry to offend you.
But it's typical in that almost every atheist I've ever encountered has little grasp of the Bible, yet decries it and argues against it as if they have absolute authority. Of course not every atheist is like this. But I've spoken to MANY atheists. And it is very common.
I'm possibly in contravention of Godwin's law here, but have you ever read Mein Kampf?
No, I have not. Nor do I attempt to make an authoritative argument against its values based merely on my outside impressions or isolated quotes. I disagree with Hitler's philosophies based on my own ethical views and understanding of history. I do not attempt, as many atheists do, to decry something with absolute authority that I have never read.
So you're unaware of any of the themes in it? If I was to say that I have never read it either, then I post the following quotes:
"If we consider how greatly he has sinned against the masses in the course of the centuries, how he has squeezed and sucked the blood again and again; if furthermore, we consider how the people gradually learned to hate him for this, and ended up by regarding his existence as nothing but punishment of Heaven for the other peoples, we can understand how hard this shift must be for the Jew."
"The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew uses every possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people."
"…the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
Would you similarly chastise me for taking such comments out of context, and claim that I am a "typical non-Nazi"?
I'm aware of the themes in it, and I know of what it espouses and discusses. I simply have not read it.
As clear-cut as I believe the quotes are, I would not criticize you for taking them out of context because I do not know the context. While I am fairly sure of their intention, message, and context, I cannot make that claim.
Btw, I hope you know I wasn't talking to you when I first posted. My response was directed to Armadillotron.
Aren't you getting angry at him for doing the EXACT thing you just did in this post?? You're getting all worked up because he lopped you into a category with "Christians" that he you didn't feel it was fair to include yourself, only to turn around and accuse him of being on of the "MANY athesists" you've had the pleasure of meeting.
Speaking of the Bible, isn't their something in your precious book about casting the first stone??
Rather ironic considering that according to tests done in recent years atheists have known more about religions, including Christianity, than the Christians themselves.
Furthermore, I would argue that people have, in modern years, simply changed the meanings of the bible to fit with more modern views, much like how "The Merchant of Venice" is no longer seen as a comedy, because of the tragedy of Shylock: We no longer consider it amusing because we now view Jews as people. In much the same way, it seems to me, the bible has been reinterpreted constantly.
Finally, I don't know what atheists you meet, but please don't judge all by the biggest asses, among us. And I would add that most Christians I know have the same problem. They don't know what they're talking about, but argue anyway, and just shout louder to make they're point. You yourself do not seem to be such a person, and I hope you will agree that I am not, I'm just saying that that argument can be applied to both sides.
ah the internet…
nobody mentioned anything about believing in god, it's just a list of books that happen to have christian themes, take a valium.
Then let Ianz09 comment as well, and you can get over that! : )
Of course he can comment all he likes. But to say that others should restrict their comments simply because another mentioned it is just silly. Who cares if there is 100 posts all saying the same thing? That's just 100 people who agree with an opinion. He can point it out and I can point out how silly it is. Makes perfect sense.
True. He didn't actually say people shouldn't say it. Just that it would be interesting to keep count.
@Oouchan: One day I'm gonna read the Bible – cover to cover – and then I'll know what all the fuss is about.
From what I remember from lower school and singing hymms and stuff, I remember liking the parables because they made us think about philosophy – perhaps that's what got me started all those years ago? I can't honestly remember.
I have read the entire thing which was one of the reasons why I no longer believe in that.
I can say that I didn't absorb as much from it even with me keeping an open mind, but by the end I was just shaking my head. If you are going to read it, please do so. I always recommend reading it to get an idea of what the fuss is about.
Linds Posted on my only thought on the color msehce is Jesus loves His enemies? swell pics, bro very swell. (ps- you should feel special. your blog is pretty much the only one i ever check regularly.)
Well, let's put it this way. Since literally no thought went into saying "Where's the Bible?" and it was said deliberately to ***** people off (or, at the very least, posted it well aware it would ***** people off), it has the same level of cleverness and purpose as if somebody posted a comment that read, simply, poop. You wouldn't have a problem with 100 comments making a statement you agree with, but if 100 comments just said "poop" you would deem them spam. But, since you agree with the statement, and made it yourself, it isn't spam. But for those who like a little thought, saying something as deliberately thoughtless and immature as poop qualifies as spam. When I skim the comment section, I'd like to read more than just reiterations of the same dead-horse joke.
Bear in mind, I'm not offended by people saying that. It is no skin off my nose. I'd display an equivalent amount of annoyance for somebody who said, on a list of movies that included the movie Kick-Ass, that "that movie kicked ass! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!" It just gets annoying to wade through the same pile of ***** on my way real thoughts.
Strange *****ogy then. A tool used solely as a weapon to hack people up. Also, you can't blame anyone for Jesus' death but Jesus – it was his plan to die forever condemning us to guilt about it. He was god after all and it was his plan, far be it from us feeble humans to mess with god's plan to hang his fleshy corpse on a instrument of torture.
hmmmm, clearly here is a guy who only ready one scripture and says AH HA see!!! You must have been asleep for the part in Matthew where he STOPS Peter from killing a man with the sword and even goes as far as to heal the ear that was cut off. He then rebukes Peter for his attempt on the mans life. Or even better the part where Jesus surrenders his life and dies. But of course lets look at that one little passage as you have and go with your theory…….I don't think!!!
Far be it from me to think these stories actually happened. And because you guys interpret the literature so liberally I'm going to do the same and say that Jesus rebuking Peter hacking off the Roman's ear was because Jesus wanted that pleasure for himself.
No in point of fact, I wasn't agreeing with the commenter who said that Jesus was a warmonger, I just said that a sword is a stupid *****ogy.
The sword is not a stupid *****ogy, at all.
The sword devides, separates . The sword of Michael cleaves evil from good. It is also a symbol of struggle, from within and from without. Following Christ is not supposed to be peaceful, comfortable businness, that is what He's saying.
The sword cleaves heads from bodies and life from limb. The *****ogy is also weak for is ambiguity – you can say he meant that followers are supposed to go to war for him, something christians have followed very well historically. Maybe he might have used a more enlightened *****ogy like that of medicine and health care.
The sword metaphor is repeated when he told his followers to buy swords and if they didn't have any to sell their shirt for one.
Thank you for putting it so clearly, someone had to.
#3 at the time of that book being written there had not been a King George of England. i think the list writter mean Saint George of England?
Which empire in the east was founded under Christianity? Do tell.
Tehnically, the russian empire was also an eastern empire. Orthodoxy helped coagulated the rulers’ power and also cyrillic is basically developed and suported ny christians.
Yes, you are correct, but the russian empire is normally considered west since the base of power was St. Petersburg., but ya, you are right about that.
Well the base of power shifted a lot in the beginning. It usually was situated in nowadays ukraine (kiev), in that region then during the tsardom empire it moved to moscow and afterwards it settled in sankt petersburg (peter the great but the russian were already an emerging powerhourse before him.
Also slavic populations were located in asia.
And i dont why i forgot this (since its one of my fav empires) but a middle eastern empire was the byzantine empire. It had territories in nowadays arabic peninsula and contantinopoles had parts of it in asia minor.
I dont know why flamehorse said THE western and eastern empires. It makes no sense. Especially since eastern empires have many differences (i imagine that these differences stem from the different origins and religions- buddhism, hinduism, islamism orthodox christianism etc) whereas we can say a western empire since the base of power was western europe and the main religions and cultures were very much alike: catholicism, protestantism and church of england.
you have a fav empire…thats kinda weird o_O.
Also, whats the name of this byzantine middle eastern empire. I might look into it. It was a weird first line though, especially to someone from the eastern part of the world. So yeah, thanks for the info…wierdo.
What about the crusaders kingdom of jerusalem eastablished after the first crusade that was driven by pure christian faith ( and maybe a little greed…). It lasted for a hundred years before Saladin took it back. A western invasion but it was a christian empire in the east.
Islamism … lol.
Perhaps just a matter of perception, and my failed geography classes, but I generally consider East to be India, Pakistan, Philippines, China, Mongolia, etc. I just wouldn't have considered Russia Eastern, even though I know that it stretches all the way to the Pacific (or is it the Arctic?)
Why isn’t the Bible on this list?
I used Come here every day anticipating the new list but recentley they’ve got boring. It’s been a while since you’ve added an unsolved mysteries list, they’re interesting not books and theatre, add some more of them!
Why isn't the Bible on this list?
Asked, and answered. And then asked several more times. And then discussed in great detail about whether it is either: unoriginal and predictable, or within everybody’s rights to be unoriginal and predictable. I don’t believe a consensus was ever reached, but I do believe both sides of this debate to be correct, even though this unfortunately results in a lot of unoriginal and predictable comments. Welcome to the club.
Yes, that's right only elitist egghead nerds and geeks would want to read a list about books and theater. *sarcasm*
@Maggot, yeah I realised I just couldn’t be arsed to read through all the comments.
@Moonbeam, thanks for reassuring me of something I already know. I never said any of that I’m just saying that comparing comments from an unsolved mystery/bizzare list to that of one about theatre/Christian literature, and you’ll find alot more. That tells me that more people are interested in that rather than this.
Hey Waterboarder. No issues with what you are saying at all, just keep in mind not believing in anything is a leap of faith just as much as any belief is. So where does that leave you? Believing that all exists from nothing? Or from one tiny atom (which by the way must have had some beginning, fair?) That is a far stretch my friend. Respect others beliefs. You don't have to be a jerk about what others feel. Its fine to believe what you want, but don't rip apart others for what they hold dear. I tire so of all these non believing people screaming "tolerance" at others while they do their best to be as intolerant as they can be. In the end, its all about Love. And if people aren't doing it, that the tragedy. For the religious and the non religions there is just a lot of hate. SAD.
Do you honestly believe that atheists "believe in nothing"?
Another religion list.
Prediction: There will be one ***** who starts a huge chain reaction of comments of people saying that god does/dosen't exist.
Sorry…someone already did. It's above.
My computer is really slow so it didn't show atleast half of the comments until I refreshed it. Damn… Too late
Better luck next time.
You were right. Bucketheadtheprognosticatorrocks would be a really long name : ). This list may get as long and vicious as the game that cannot be named that plays in the World Cup. : ).
Watch it. It may start from your comment. Or from mine. Yickes.
No Lord of the Rings: Tolkien, in ?"Letters of JRR…." or was it "JRR……architect of M.E." stated quite categorically that LoR was a Biblical/Christian allegory as was the narnia series.
Still and all – a very very good list – haven't read Chaucer in modern English yet – and the one I read in his native Middle English was as one commenter said "enough to explode one's brain"; it was VERY hard to read; however, I too found including "A Christmas Carol" a bit on the 'drawing a long bow' side.
Well done Horse – your lists are always entertaining
Chaucer is better, more exciting, funnier, more poignet in middle english than in translation that I wouldn't bother to read the translation.
I've read both, and MUCH prefer the original.
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>You're probably correct – but trying to FIND a copy in modern English is difficult enough anyway!</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Carra 23</DIV> <DIV style=”FONT: 10pt arial”>
Western an eastern historians usuallu call the great schism the 1054 schism. Ive never heard of the other schism to refered to as the great, only the papal schism.
On another note, oh how do I hate religious debates. Like deeez said. Opinions are like *****s and everyone has one. Sadly during religious debates people seem that they siffer from diarrhea…oops. Erase that. I meant logorrhea. Yes logorrhea.
PS: for the movie nuffs out there: mike to hayley: “have you ever read the lion the witch and the wardrobe?”
Attn: BucketheadRocks, Camo, OliverAlbq, Woyzeck, LalaB, and any others who had an opinion on BucketHead’s ListVerse dick of the week contest, please refrain from using any of today’s comments as fodder for a decision, Doug13 is a lock. Armadillotron’s comments today should be set aside for the “Grand Idiot of the ‘Net” distinction. Betwn “Jesus is a psychopathic warrior” and “The Bible reads like MeinKampf”, even my Hindu community’s children would be hard pressed to believe Arm’dilo isn’t a talking rock.
Do you know how hard it is to not nominate Armadillotron? Especially on a religion list?! Doug13 is the dick of the week until Wednesday so you don't have to worry about that.
Mein Kampf happens to read like The Bible because Hitler wrote it that way. He wanted to become a central force in the lives of Third Reich citizens, so he parodied an existing religious work to parallel himself with Jesus and be looked at as a religious icon. I think that our friend Armadillotron should look at a timeline ad realize that The Bible was written first.
Well yes, Hitler was a religious person. He famously said, "By fighting the Jews, I`m doing the Lord`s work," "Like Christ, I`m a Saviour." When the precursor of the CIA was doing a psychological profile of Hitler, they concluded that he had a "messiah complex." Which means the person sees himself as a Saviour. So he was clearly a madman in my opinion. And if you look at things logically, if their`s a God, why has there been people like Hitler?
There has been people like Hitler because sometimes humanity need something that will awaken them and remind them of what true evil is. Hitler is dead, isn't he? Israel has been formed, hasn't it? God may not build a bridge, but he will give you the wood with which to build it.
And afterwards, he will send millions of people who fought to defeat evil to Hell. Not to mention the majority of Hitler's victims.
That is not true. Joshua, Moses, Solomon and all of the other Old Testament heroes engages in war to fight against pagans. You're going to tell me that they are rotting in Hell right now? I think not! Soldiers engaged in a war to fight against a mad man and they are most certainly not going to be sent to Hell!
Well gee, I'm basing this observation on the Bible. Do you have another source for determining God's will? Or are you referring to a kind of Purgatory?
Then there's the fact that the Catholic church was sympathetic towards Nazism, turned in Jews and helped many Nazi fugitives escape to South America after the war. According to the Bible, there is no difference between them and those members of the church who helped Jewish fugitives escape the Nazis. Both were equally Christian, both are equally going to Heaven.
Each person is judged individually in the final judgement. God is not stupid, He knows what sins people commit. You make it sound like He is oblivious to anything that goes wrong in the world.
And if on Judgment day it is disovered that they were not followers of Jesus then they have commited an unforgivable sin. The Holocaust was merely a pre-Hell tea party for European Jewry, and most of those Russians who very helpfully got rid of the menace of Hitler which God imposed upon the world will find their winter clothes quite useless where they're going (including the ones who didn't rape every woman in sight on their way to Berlin).
Using that same logic, everyone in the Old Testament is in Hell. What you said makes no sense. Did you read my comment? Everyone is judged individually. Some sins are outshined by the good things people did and some good things are canceled out by the sins people have committed. Besides, most good people that are worthy of going to Heaven believe in at least some divine figure. Therefore, they do accept some kind of God. Oh, and by the way, according to the Bible, the Jews are God's chosen people, so why would they go to Hell for their beliefs?
"Using that same logic, everyone in the Old Testament is in Hell."
No, most Christian theologians say that those who predated the existence of Jesus get a free pass (presumably based on their moral behaviour). Those who were born 1920 years or so after Jesus' birth have no such excuse, and according to the Bible are therefore Hellbound.
"What you said makes no sense. Did you read my comment?"
Yes.
"Everyone is judged individually. Some sins are outshined by the good things people did and some good things are canceled out by the sins people have committed."
And all of these actions are cancelled out by whether or not you declared yourself a follower of Jesus and repented of your sins. That's in the Bible.
"Besides, most good people that are worthy of going to Heaven believe in at least some divine figure."
If what you're saying is that religious people commit more moral actions than non-believers then you're dead wrong. If what you're saying is that purely religious behaviour alone is worthy of Heaven then you're right, but it negates your argument. From a Biblical point of view, the only action which is worthy of Heaven is professing you follow Christ and repent of your sins.
"Therefore, they do accept some kind of God."
Other Gods aren't covered by Biblical salvation.
"Oh, and by the way, according to the Bible, the Jews are God's chosen people, so why would they go to Hell for their beliefs?"
Because they don't believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. It says so in the Bible. I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm saying that it's in the Bible.
I should stress at this point that I am an atheist, but none of what I'm saying comes from my atheism. I'm basing this absolutely on the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.
God isn`t real. He`s a myth. In the same way that Robin Hood is. And if there is "A God," who isn`t oblivous to things that go wrong in the world, then why doesn`t he do something about it? Why doesn`t he stop all the wars in the world? He`s God isn`t he? If I was a God, like God or Zeus, or even a Demigod like Hercules, I could do all the things I`d wanted to do.
Of course you would do all the things you wanted to do! You are a selfish pig who has no knowledge of what selflesness or heroism mean.
Armadillotron just said that if he was God, he would end war. How is that not selfless?
Gott ist tot! Gott bleibt tot! Und wir haben ihn getötet.
Nietzsche
No, he said that if he were some sort of divine figure, he could do all of the things he wanted to do. The first part of his comment is about God wanting humanity to prosper and yet there still being wars. He never said that he would end wars, he said he would do what he wanted to do.
You're the one who split into two parts. What he implies is that God could and should end war. He strongly implies that this is what he would want to do if he was God. Let's ask him, shall we?
Armadillotron, if you were God, would you choose to end war?
Now he is going to say yes! Who wouldn't? No, what he said is that he would do what he wanted if he where God! I'm not sure what he wants, but I'm sure that some of it is selfish! What I'm trying to say is that of course he would do what he wanted because he is human! Humans are imperfect! God would not do what he wanted! God would do what was neccesary to better humanity! So, he sacrificed his only son on the cross to take away all of our sins so that humans might, one day, be unselfish and without sin like him.
Yes, if I was a God, I WOULD end all wars. And famines and diseases. And I`d make all people love each other. I wouldn`t be like a Greek God, who liked to play "games," with mortals, I`d just make people love one another. The sort of God I`d like to be, is like the God who can create things and a Greek God, who was a God of something. If I was a God, I wouldn`t sacrifice myy own son! What kind of God is that? And I couldn`t do anything selfish-because, er, I`m a God.
"I'm not sure what he wants, but I'm sure that some of it is selfish!"
And how exactly does that preclude him from commiting selfless actions too?
"God would do what was neccesary to better humanity! So, he sacrificed his only son on the cross to take away all of our sins so that humans might, one day, be unselfish and without sin like him."
If you want to go down that route, let's have at it. How exactly is humanity "bettered" if God sends the majority of it to Hell? How is it anything but selfish for a supreme being to create people knowing full well that they are going to burn for eternity? And finally, why would a supreme choose as a means for taking away our sins the torture and execution of a human version of himself in a largely illiterate corner of Palestine? How exactly does that benefit humanity?
"How exactly is humanity 'bettered' if God sends the majority of it to Hell?"
It is not God's fault that people like you choose not to believe in Him. He has tried his best, He even sacrificed His own son so that humans may, one day, live in a land of milk and honey, and all people like you do is criticize him and point out what you believe to be flaws. Besides, if you want a "scientific" explanation that proves His existence, than I can give one to you.
How can you prove that God exists?
"It is not God's fault that people like you choose not to believe in Him."
That's bull***** on a number of levels. Firstly, belief is not a matter of choice. I would simply be unable to wake up tomorrow and say, 'Today Woyzeck, you will believe in God'. That's not how it works. Secondly, it is his fault if I don't believe in him because he created me knowing that I would be an atheist and knowing I would be going to Hell. In fact, he has known this since the beginning of time. He has infinitely more control over my life than I do. That is the nature of God.
"He has tried his best,"
That's not just bull*****, that's *****ing crazy. We're talking about God here. An all-powerful, all-knowing being. If what you said is true, then my mind is more powerful than God. Is that what you're saying?
"He even sacrificed His own son so that humans may, one day, live in a land of milk and honey,"
Again, *****ing crazy. First of all, his sacrifice of "his own son" (as if any of his creations are somehow not his children) is an arbitrary choice he made to contravene arbitrary laws he created for no discernible reason. His "sacrifice" of his son means jack *****. To quote Edward Norton, "JC had it easy. A day on the cross, a weekend in Hell, and all the hallelujahs of the legioned angels for eternity".
"and all people like you do is criticize him and point out what you believe to be flaws."
Aw, poor God! I hope I haven't hurt his *****ing feelings!
The flaws I'm pointing out are yours. You are the one who is trying to paint a picture of a pained, sympathetic, all-knowing, all-loving God. I'm pointing out that if he exists in a manner *****ogous to what it says in the New Testament, then he is an jealous, merciless, sadistic all-knowing psychopath. Nonetheless, he would remain God regardless of my opinion of him.
"Besides, if you want a "scientific" explanation that proves His existence, than I can give one to you."
Yes please! I'd very much like to see that!
Very well then. You'll probably call it bull*****, but here it is, for what it's worth. There is a scientific law called the Law of Energy Conservation. It states that energy can never be created or destroyed. Who's to say God isn't some form of ultra-powerful energy? I know that it is somewhat vague, but I think that it qualifies as proof.
I know it's not bull*****, but how exactly does it prove God's existence?
Well, it doesn't. It's a scientific theory that can be given as something that, with further research, may prove God's existence. What proof do you have that God does not exist?
So you were telling porkies when you said you had a scientific explanation which "proves (God's) existence".
"What proof do you have that God does not exist?"
The same as I have that Mickey *****ing Mouse doesn't exist. What a silly question. What proof do you have that Ganesh doesn't exist?
If there's a Valhalla, I'm going to it.
I have no proof that Ganesh doesn't exist. I have no proof that Ganesh does exist. Both of our arguements are based off of our beliefs. Neither of us are right, and neither of us are wrong. So why don't you shut up?
Do I really have to spell it out for you? I don't believe in God because there is nothing to suggest that God exists. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
"So why don't you shut up?"
Aww, did I make you cry? The truth *****ing hurts, don't it?
No, my dear ignorant ass, you didn't make me cry. You just made me realize how much of a waste your life is. You have nothing, absolutely nothing, to live for. What if it turns out that there is a God? What does it hurt to believe in a God? Because you want to break away from a social norm of belonging to a religion? Because you want to seem smart? What does it hurt to believe in some divine figure? You really should go to church or do something, just as a backup plan. Just in case your theory about the absence of a divine figure turns out to be wrong. Just in case you actually end up being judged by God after you die. Just in case, so that you don't burn in hell for an eternity. Just in case so that you can at least have something to look forward to after you die, instead of nothing. Just in case you are wrong.
I reiterate one more time: I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God. "Breaking away from social norms" (roffle) and the fact that I am extremely intelligent has nothing to do with it. I know it's difficult for someone like you to comprehend.
And actually, I have plenty to live for. I'm young. I live in the most exciting city in the world. I have the job I've always dreamed of. I play in a band. In a short while, I'm going back home to see the girl I love. And when I'm bored, I have people like you to play with – people who prove to me that I know more about Christianity than 99% of phony Christians.
According to the Bible – you know, that book that the religion you supposedly belong to uses as its guide – going to church and pretending to believe in God will get me sent to Hell anyway. You should read it once in a while, you might find it interesting.
Stay in school, buddy boy.
P.S. – The reason I asked if I made you cry is because you act like it. If you don't want people to take the *****, don't go sobbing like a little ***** when they beat you.
Sir, you have not beaten me. What have you got to show for your atheistic beliefs? Nothing, absolutely nothing! The only thing you've got is your own special place in Hell! And just so you know, you only reaffirm my belief that you are an ***** who has no comprehension of what religion is. But, enough, I'm tired of fighting. My fingers are getting tired from typing so much.
I have plenty to show for my beliefs, as I've already shown you. For one thing, I know more about your religion than you do. You on the other hand have nothing to show for your supposedly Christian beliefs, since you don't even know what it is that you believe in. All you've shown is that you throw a tantrum when you're unable to hold your own in a discussion with an atheist. Later days, baby. Keep reaching for that rainbow.
Religion is not based on logic, it is based on comfort. It is an attempt to answer the life's questions. It's not supposed to have some fancy scientific theory to go along with it. All religion is supposed to do is comfort people that everything is okay and that they can turn to someone higher than themselves for comfort. But, whatever, you're an imbacile that will never learn.
So you admit that religion is a fantasy. You admit that there is no "fancy scientific theory" (read: judgment based on evidence) to back it up. Thankyou. If you'd said that in the first place, this conversation would have been a lot shorter.
You mis-spelled "imbecile".
No, religion is not a fantasy. Religion is about taking a leap of faith and believing in something that you cannot see. You cannot see love, but love exists. You cannot see God, but I still say God exists. Stop twisting my words around to fit your arguement.
There is evidence for love. There is no evidence for God. I didn't mean to twist your words, that's basically what you said. The only difference is that I use the term "fantasy" where you use the term "faith". That is the basic difference in our views, wouldn't you say?
I think taht we both have opposing views that will not be changed or influenced. How about we stop going back and forth at eachother and move on to the evil Nazi list?
Because if I were to say that I believe that their's a *****ing banana cream pie at the center of the universe, you would call me crazy, but their's as much proof of my pie as their is of your god. You did very well against Armadillotron, who was an idiot, but I think Woyzeck is kicking your ass a little bit
He's simply going to say that you existing right now is proof enough.
Well, there are some isolated sects that revere Woyzeck as a God (vonhohenzollern for example believes that I am more powerful than the Christian God). I'm more humble myself, I prefer to say that I am God-like.
No, I'm not that big of an *****.
I was mistaken because you didn't answer me when I asked whether you believe that my mind is more powerful than God. Do you believe that?
No, although I must admit you are very smart.
Thankyou. I love you, vonhohenzollern.
i dont know how i got involved, but i actually agree with him/her.
armadillo isnt acting like a dick.
hes acting like a 'tard.
I'm flattered, I didn't even know my dick had been nominated.
I will use this as a reply to many of your comments ( cuz im using a freaking mobile version):
Religion is a complex topic and sometimes you make general statements about christianity and you treat it like a monolythe. It has several big separations with HUGE differences. Some dont believe in saints, others believe there are many different holy books that go into deeper topics than the bible (ive even heard that we should treat said books like a tree and the bible as the fruits). Some theologians say people shouldnt even read the bible as it is too complex and it needs to be interpreted. And it is obvious that the bible or testaments dont have an unique tone. It depends on who wrote it and when etc.
You just cherry pick what parts please you so i will do the same (we’ll drink a nice sherry afterwards if you ever com’ere;) )
You say you just *****yse the teachings of Jesus from the new testament. Well christianity has a bit more things to it. If not all the great writtings from the beginning of christianity would be pointless. But no, they do have a point. They break down the teachings, extract what is important and add where it is missing (these are all done after multiple discutions- at the beginning they were the famous councils and only people considered holy can continue what is considered the work of God and Jesus).
Im some points you argue why god doesnt stop a war. Well usually in christianity it is considered that the existence of an individual doesnt stop at the death of the body. So it would be pointless for God to intervene in everyday business- In fact some would say it would be unfair; i wouldnt like my croupier to mess at the roulette table with the ball before it stops at a number.
Lets face it. There have been millennia of such debates. And this debate is incomplete. We arrive at a point where we DONT know whats next. Every argument can be bent (in a way that both parties agree is correct) so we can arrive at whatever conclusion pleases us.
I should say at this point that i wont state my system of beliefs as i have been corrupted by the french laicite and neutrality is needed in these types of convos. (c-a-d i dont give a flying sh*t about your belief and im sure nobody gives a whoops a** about mine).
Interesting list – unlike a ton of folks, I think A Christmas Carol qualifies. In an obvious way, I agree, but it does best illustrate how Jesus (whether you believe in his divinity or not) intended for us to live. You know, treat others as you wish to be treated, tend to the sick and the impoverished, care more for others than yourself. In fact pretty much the opposite of how American society (snort, of course those defending that status quo the fiercest also claim to be "good" christians) works. Jesus is rolling over in his grave or crying big tears from heaven over the mockery we've made of his teachings.
Mom, I hope you are talking about North Americans and not just about the US “eh”
We're not quite as bad as you guys – but we're learning fast.
That darn evil nation south of your boarder. I’m going to move to Canada and become a Canadian citizen so I am a nation that God sheds his tears at as much. My point is mom I don’t think that Jesus is shedding tears at one or a dozen nations, I think it would be at an individual. Also if you really think that Jesus would shed tears at a nation even figuratively, can’t you think of other nations that might be a little more deserving than your friends to the south (and north)?
My point is not that we're an evil nation – it's the hypocrisy of saying we're a Christian nation when it's entirely obvious that we're not. We may profess to be Christians (for the most part), but our actions show otherwise eh? Unfettered and unregulated capitalism is pretty much anti-Jesus.
mom, Obama has stated we are “NOT a Christian Nation”. Yes, we are a nation where most people consider themselves as Christian. But who is to judge which individual is a true Christian? Certainly not me.
Do you know any true "Christian nations" ?
None, although some of our more progressive european neighbours could quite likely lay claim to "behaving" like Christians.
Personally? I don't believe in the divinity of Christ or Mohammad for that matter. Don't believe in God either. I do believe that we would all be better humans if we behaved as Jesus' broad teachings demand.
"progressive european neighbours" Do you have the courage to name one?
No we can't. I'm from the Netherlands, which is traditionally considered one of the most progressive nations in the world. We have had a christian party in our governement for more than 150 years. And what have we got to show for it? One in six Dutchmen voted for a bigoted idiot. Our welfare state is being destroyed as we speak. Our christian parties think it's more important to spend money on wars and new jet planes, than on decent care for our sick and elderly. The christian minister (about equivalent to secretary) of justice decided human rights are there to be violated.
The only upside is that we have more than two (in our vision ultra-conservative) parties to choose from, but I'm afraid all politicians are the same
Well if you're looking for a utopia, you're never going to find one. Still, The Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland – they certainly seem to try harder to live up to the ideal than Americans, and to a lesser extent Canadians. And I sympathize – we have the same sort of conservative movement here.
I'm not looking for an utopia. I just find it 'surprising', that a party who identifies as christian cares so little about their fellow human beings.
And we Europeans have different values than Americans. We pay about 2 or 3 times your taxes, and we have fewer civil liberties, but we have more social securities. Too bad I'm more in favour of the American idea of being rewarded for the work one does, not the more egalitarian European system.
So it really is more a case of preferences, I guess
I must agree with you on your stance on christianity. Many christian churches pervert Jesus' teachings and try to gain power and wealth by 'selective quoting', and forego his message.
However, you make the mistake of thinking 'goodness' equals 'christian'. You musn't forget a great deal of western ethics is still based on christianity, but has mentally been detached from it. In the same vein you could name a lot of books or stories about people doing the 'right' thing, and call them christian, even when they aren't.
I agree. The shame of it is that if all Christians actually behaved as Christians should, according to Jesus' message (not the exact words for all you fundementalist folks), Christian would equal good. This doesn't mean that Buddhism can't equal good too. There is room on this big planet for many different paths.
A Christmas Carol completely fails to illustrate one of Jesus' more important teachings, however – give no thought to the morrow.
Well gee whiz then Jesus contradicts himself – isn't the promise of heaven nothing but looking to the morrow?
As much as it would delight me to stumble across such a contradiction, I think his point was that one should give no thought to the morrow as you might die today.
As an American US citizen I have to disagree with your stereotyping our society and all of us into one category. It's a vast nation with wildly different people. Step into any one of the group homes where I work and witness staff of all faiths tenderly caring for the "least of our brothers." By the same token witness rudeness and intolerance by some people in everyday interactions. Even as one travels from state to state the cultures and societies are very different from each other.
Also, I'm splitting hairs here – sorry – but according to the Christian bible Jesus isn't in a grave. Christians believe he rose from the dead.
I know that – did you read what I said – either rolling over in his grave or crying from heaven…
depends on what you believe eh? And I wasn't speaking of the people but of the system. I know there are very kind, generous, caring individuals. Given a chance, I like to believe that of most people.
Pretty cool list. I tried reading number 1 once
Hey there. I'm not sure if this is one of the better Flame lists or not – some entries seem very well deserved but some seem odd somehow. I like the inclusion of the Faerie Queene, I wonder if the author has read all six books? As for the comments, well, I'm gonna sit this one out; I don't think I'd add much to the discussion.
“Working for a shaman”
Y’er a freakin nutter.
I know that "greatest" does not equal "popular," but if you ever compile a top ten list of popular Christian literature, you should consider:
"The Robe" by Lloyd C. Douglas
"Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ " by Lew Wallace
"Magnificent Obsession" by Lloyd C. Douglas
"The Song of Bernadette" by Franz Werfel
"Don Quixote" by Miguel de Cervantes, may be deemed a stretch, but certainly would warrant an honorable mention.
The Song of Bernadette isn't fiction. It's the biography of St. Bernadette Soubirous.
True, for the basic framework of the story, however, as noted in the Wikipedia article, and other sources, Werfel added characters who never existed, along with a few fictitious incidents, to flesh things out — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_of_Bernadet…
But, while categorized as an "historical novel," rather than a straightforward biography, "The Song of Bernadette" is, nonetheless, a beautiful, inspiring story of faith.
Lists cant be made to every bodies taste all the time, I enjoyed the read of this one though.
Thanks Flame.
You're welcome.
Id personally take off a christmas carol and put quo vadis instead.
Really glad you didn't include The Left Behind Series.
Yeah, I loathe them. How to make money off God.
"How to make money off God for Dummies"
Ben-Hur is a bit boring
Can we count in Jesus Christ Superstar also? That was not bad at all!
Honestly, what was the point of this list (if it wasn't to cause a flame war)? Can we have a list of the greatest Muslim fiction too? What about Hindu? Taoist, Buddhist, Atheist, Pantheist, ect? The quality of the book, not the religion it comes from or endorses, should be the deciding factor.
And "the founding religion of both the Eastern and Western Empires"? That's just downright offensive. There are many, many countries that are not and never were Christian. Japan for instance. They are certainly a world power and are less than 1% Christian (mostly coming from newly emigrated citizens and a few obscure churches). And i could probably give you hundreds of other examples of countries that have nothing to do with, and have had nothing to do with Christianity since their founding.
I used to be an avid Listverse reader, but i'm truly becoming tired with the site. The quality of its lists has greatly declined since the new year.
P.S. Judging from the way these books seemed to be chosen (by popularity), you might as well have put on the Twilight series. They're vastly popular, so they must be good, right? Besides, they're touting a kind of christianity.
Milky, are you on crack? Do you not get the concept of a work of Christian literature? One that implicitly deals in Biblical themes? FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, MILKY.
Exactly what kind of Christianity is Twilight touting? What kind of Christianity is peopled by vampires and werewolves?
Oh wait, I was forgetting the Greek Orthodox church.
Twilight is touting Mormonism, a branch of Christianity. SMeyer has stated before that blood in her novels and the process of feeding represents ***** before marriage and that she has placed religious themes in her book to promote Christianity. Vampires represent those who have saved their souls by abstaining from activities that are supposed to damage the soul, such as adultery. Werewolves are the ethnic bad guys who do all or most of the things that you aren't supposed to do (those lost from the Kingdom) and that is why they lose.
And no, i'm not on drugs. Anyone who has ever read those books with a bit of sense can tell they are propaganda. The author even SAYS that it's one step away from indoctrination.
I've never read Twilight, I just wanted to compare Greeks to vampires and werewolves. It doesn't surprise me that it is religious, however – there is a clear parallel between the art of writing Mary-Sue literature and mind*****ing Jesus.
As for their being propaganda, that's certainly the case with The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. C.S. Lewis was something of a moral idiot, and he clearly had no issues with recruiting children through subversion. As you said in your first post, the deciding factor in literature should be the quality, which is the area in which C.S. Lewis' *****e parables fall down.
I had the impression that you were a Christian trying to knock both my point and another branch of Christianity, though now seeing your other posts, i guess that wasn't the case.
“Exactly what kind of Christianity is Twilight touting? What kind of Christianity is peopled by vampires and werewolves?
Oh wait, I was forgetting the Greek Orthodox church.”
” I just wanted to compare Greeks to vampires and werewolves. ”
Wozzeck you are dear to me but let me step in with my eastern european knowledge so i can enlighten you, as ive seen your errors and it hurts my soul.
Well basically my dear londoner friend you dont know sh*t. The origins of the vampires, may be retraced from regions in eastern europe but not the balkans (oltenia parts of serbia). In oltenia (a region of romania) there was the tradition of “strigoi” a some sorts of undead- a dead person that would come alife (a person dead before being married for example) and usually the ritual (i would say a gypsy ritual) was to get the corpse back, remove its heart (i think) and burn it. Afterwards that region has been annexed by the habsburgic empire (or maybe austro-hungaria but im not sure) and the authorities observed this ritual. And the origines arent well known. The word comes from slavic and the region was in the path of the the slavic migrations, they went south of the carpathians (logically they didnt want to go over the mountains)
And now in the picture come the famous authors that created the myth of the vampire.
Fun fact: Vlad tepes was the ruler of wallachia and had no connections with transylvania and romanian is the most eastern latin languange.
The werewolves also are a mix of different beliefs but the ancient greeks had the idea of men turning into wolves so again not a christian belief.
I dont know if you are greek, bulgarian, serb or romanian but try not to show this obviously that you know nothing or eastern european mythology and culture (i know its fashionably to talk cr*p on the net but i think highly of you and i expect more from you)
I know vampires and werewolves don't come from Greece. I was making a rather blunt suggestion that Greeks are hairy and bloodthirsty. I dithered between the Greek and Russian orthodox churches; either has the potential to have its members called hairy. Armenian Orthodoxy would be the most effective comparison, because Armenians are very hairy, but the Armenian Orthodox Church isn't as well known as the other two.
Woyzeck wasn't being serious.
P.S. I'm not a Londoner. I just live there.
Yeah! lol!
So we put there Ulysses also?
"Ulysses" might work well. How about "Finnegan's Wake?" You could make ANYTHING out of that.
I think the Jfrater meant that christianity was the founding religion of both Roman Empires Western and Eastern. It was also very easily understood.
I wasn't the only one who misunderstood this, reading back in the comments. When anyone says Eastern Empire, i think of an empire in the "East" which is traditionally Asia and Oceania. However, that still does not detract from my other points.
Well you’ve got the russian/tsardom empire dude. Russia is in the —–>east. Way out there. You’ve got territories even more eastern than indian and china. Slavic populations LIVE in asia.
Geesh i hate repeating myself.
Haven't we opened up a can of worms here? This was a good list, although I believe that the comments will prove more interesting than the actual list.
You got it but don't get sucked into it. i'm reading the whole thing again the 4th time and i start feeling a bit sick *runs to the bathroom in a haste*
It's hard not to get sucked into it when ignorant asses continue to post idiotic comments like "What about the Bible?". But, I will try my best.
Good list. Keep em comin =)
Good list. Well-picked I'd say, except for "A Christmas Carol". I think Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" could easily replace that one. Also, I'd pick Tolkien over L'Engle and maybe include Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich".
Well done, glad none of those "Left Behind" books made it. Those books are the literary equivalent of orange cow dung – they catch your attention because you're like "what the . . .?" — but at the end of the day, they're still *****.
I vaguely knew how the Easten/Western thing was meant, but I knew it would cause trouble. But it's more fun to just say: THIS LIST IS TOO AMERICAN! (Well, somebody was going to say it and it might as well be me. If we did a list on "How American Americans Have Americanized America," somebody would say it was too American.)
ehe heh eh! that's right.
If they do such a list i will act the character i always wanted… the *****ed off chinese girl with a degree in economics.
That's a one to keep!!!
I could go for a list that says it's too Texan. Remember Goliad, Remember the Alamo. Rember the hurricanes. Ask Louisiana, they live next door. Hurricanes suck. I'm agnostic but I prayed to someone a gator or moccason was not going to bite me when I was out in those Ike flood waters. I figured the fire ants would just ***** me off.
Why hasn't JFrater published my list of the "Top Ten Pictorial Depictions of the Prophet Muhammed" yet?
JFrater ordered it be sealed till 13/12/2012 (the correct continental european notation) when we will all be dead. On the 14th Blogball will add a bonus to his last list.
Are you refering to the 2012 doomsday theory? I thought it was December 21, 2012…
Great list. I remember in elementary school in the 1960's, they showed us a film called A Wrinkle in Time and urged those of us who would actually read a book, to read the book.
Gee look, yet another list of religious propaganda. Can't say I'm surprised, since that's all Frater seems to care about lately. Why don't you just make this into a blog already, so we can skip the pretext of neutrality on what purports to be an entertainment site?
"Virus Clans" was an attempt at a modern science-fiction novel that promoted the Christian religion. It wasn't really that great or anything, but it ought to be mentioned along with "Twilight" and the "Left Behind" books so people know this stuff is still being written. Incidentally, is it just me or is most Christian fiction really bad? Okay, Dante Alighieri was a great talent, and so was John Milton. Even Alexander Pope was interesting. But that's ALL poetry. The fiction, from C.S. Lewis on, is really… BAD.
no Madách – The Tragedy of Man? it's hungarian, but classic. Anyway, not a boring list, it wouldn't come to my mind to associate christianity and fantasizing
here's another: the bible
You spent hours thinking that one up while you played with your blocks.
Lovely. ^ ^
A pretty good list, Flame. Better than pretty good, really, very good.
I haven't read all of these books, only, Canterbury Tales , A Christmas Carol, Pilgrims Progress (a school assignment), Faerie Queene, The Divine Comedy, and Miltons Trilogy… Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, and Samson Agonistes.
I have never been able to understand how anyone could get the full impact of Paradise Lost without reading the other two works, so intimately bound to it. That may, in fact, be the reason so few people seem to really understand and love Milton.
I think I would have added the Holy Sonnets and Sermons of John Donne, but I don't know how they are classified, for the sake of the list.
I remember this joke. Milton married and wrote paradise lost. Then he divorced and wrote paradise regained.
ha ha ha! Very good!
Fun fact: J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were fans (and writers) of Christian allegories in literature. Tolkien disapproved of Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. He said that its themes were too obvious and lacked subtlety. I would have liked to have seen LoTR on this list (Gandalf=Jesus), but I’m not surprised by it’s exclusion.
I always thought it was Aragon = Jesus
Gandalph I dragged into an abyss by the balrog (into the tomb). He later reappears, to everyone’s surprise, not dead and clad in white. He says that he has become more powerful than any of them can understand. He leads their party through the darkness and is always working for the greater good of Middle Earth. If you want to look into Middle Earth mythos, he has a Jesus-God relationship with the Maiar (gods of ME). Interesting stuff.
Wow. I misspelled “Gandalf”.
Lol. Reminds me of how I keep spelling the word “fallacy” like: “phallacy”. Lol.
I bought the divine comedy on my iPod a couple of months ago, and I’m on the lion part. Which is the beginning.
READ BOOKS FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!
A listening book is a lot different from a real book. The teller (or how do you call the person that reads it aloud?) always have their own interpretation of things, and it's way more fun when you can let your own imagination run wild.
Books? They cost more than what I got that story for.
Oh, man, you are gonna LOVE it.
Before reading the comments, I can predict what half of them will say (the most uninspired comment ever):
"Where's the Bible?"
Well you’re so late to the party that even the prediction is uninspired. It’s been covered already.