I see it as my duty to entertain and mock the absurdi.ties posted by both sides of the argument, though more often than not absurdi.ties fall on
the religious side of the line.
However, as I understand the Hutterite beliefs, they are very conscious of the «boundaries between the religious and the secular,» and strive to live as much as possible on
the religious side of the line (probably with a view to the biblical admonition to «keep yourselves unspotted from the world»).
Not exact matches
From the Christian
side, the thinking has gone on the
line that the Christian church as fellowship
of faith in Christ should cease to be a
religious community in the common communal sense.
I am actually shockingly pleased to hear it because so often I think believers want to take the hard -
line, schoolyard tactic
of «atheists killed more people» just so they remain «cleaner», because they think non-believers are saying their «
side» is totally clean by criticising the concept
of religious warfare.
The restriction
of personal and spiritual growth is the unwelcome
side effect
of religious rules and their
lines of demarkation.
Among the multiple
lines of critical and cultural discourse surrounding the film, however, one particularly stands out: the notion
of There Will Be Blood — with its central conflict between cutthroat oil prospector Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day - Lewis) and zealous small - town preacher Eli Sunday (Paul Dano) in 1911 California — as a kind
of demonic origin tale for the state
of contemporary American political culture, with narrow - minded
religious fervor and bald - faced capitalistic excesses forming two
sides of the same tarnished coin.