Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
mr.guy said:Dude, that's just the first 80 pages. What some would call the "introduction". That's a poor characterization of the book.
Secondly, priestly actions are not "god's" actions...this particular priest (bishop of digne) was notably benevolent, and is to be considered anomalous (says hugo). Altruism is a better theme when addressing jean valjean, rather then his piety.
True. I always saw Javert as a pompous, annoying, and has to get his way, kind of person. Didn't like him. I believe he committed suicide at the end because he'd rather die then have his reputation tarnished.mr.guy said:Javert wasn't a warden, he was an inspector. He was a guard on valjeans' chain gang after his first arrest. As for "satisfying justice", javert is never satisfied with any of valjeans deeds, no matter how benevolent. Javert in no way at all represents justice, he's a beurocratic zealot. Maybe rent the film (or better yet, the book) and then we'll talk.
Actually warden and inspector and preist and bishop are different things. If you've read the book, you'll know Hugo goes for description and he used those terms for a reason.FFH said:Warden-Inspector, Priest-Bishop, close enough. It's been a while.
Not quite. Javert is by no means an egomaniac; he killed himself when he realized how unfair and cruel his pursuit of jean valjean really was. Also, as previously stated, javert is judicialy obsessed. I presume he didn't handle the failure of his legal system, as it became plain to be faulty in the instance of jean valjean. It's interesting to note that his suicide note is a list of ten suggestions for the police force.beckysoup61 said:True. I always saw Javert as a pompous, annoying, and has to get his way, kind of person. Didn't like him. I believe he committed suicide at the end because he'd rather die then have his reputation tarnished.
It's not a stupid topic; it is a good one.standing_alone said:I remember when I was a Christian and was in my confirmation class and the paster said something to the fact that, "If someone is starving they shouldn't steal a loaf of bread because it's a sin. If they're a believer and starve to death, they'll get to go to Heaven." I'm wondering how any of you feel about this, Christians especially. If someone is starving, is it okay for them to steal a loaf of bread (even if it's considered a sin) so they don't die a miserable death, or should they let themselves starve to death in case there is a is a Heaven? I myself say, "For the love of all that's holy, steal the loaf of bread!" I mean, hey, it's not like they haven't committed any other sins in their life, so what's wrong if they commit a sin so they don't starve?
If only there were more people in the world like her.I shall never quite forget the way her eyes misted over as she recalled the feeling of feeling guilty - not at the taking of the bus, nor the food, but at passing many more people stranded in Orlando; the bus was completely full, and the only guilt was at the fact that she could not help all the others.......
I think sometimes atheists have better morals then other people. Because some Christians(not anybody here, I dont' think), believe that if you accept Christ you are saved and it doesn't matter if you sin or not anymore. I've actually met Christians like that. So I have great respect for atheists.retrorich said:I would definitely steal the bread--and especially if I needed it for my children--but I would not steal if from someone who needed it as much as I did. From a store, OK.
But, of course, I'm an atheist, and some people believe we don't have ethics or morals.