930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: markie on January 31, 2005, 05:24:00 pm
-
Ok I finally got around to watching the passion of the Christ. What an awful movie. All the slow-mo and cheesy demon bits just made me think, made for T.V.
Did anyone actually think it was a good movie?
Did anyone think it was anti-semitic?
Did anyone think that the beatings were way over the top and that no-one would survive such punishment?
-
jesus definitely would have bled to death long before he even started carrying the cross. he took a helluva beating with those straps that had the hooks and barbs on the end. the only good thing about the film was the dialogue in aramaic. it's definitely not something i'll watch again.
-
Originally posted by joz:
jesus definitely would have bled to death long before he even started carrying the cross.
Yeah, that is what I thought.
So why glorify the violence? As if the story is not horrific enough. I really didn't understand the movie was made that way.
-
Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
Did anyone think that the beatings were way over the top and that no-one would survive such punishment?
Not even god?
:D
-
Originally posted by Bags:
[Not even god?
:D
No, not even God. :D
-
I have not yet seen Passion as of yet, but from everything that I have heard and read about this movie, the whole point is that this is not intended to be Mel Gibsons portrayal of Jesus' death. It is simply Mel putting on screen as accurately as he can the story exactly as it is told in the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Of course, there are bits in one gospel and not in another, so it's a conglomeration of them all. This bit about the whips having metal tips and stuff to increase the pain/bleeding is a detail that I'm not sure is actually in the Bible or not. However, it's probable that the research was done on the types of whips that Romans would use for this kind of thing, and that's why they added it. Glorification of violence? From a Catholic standpoint, especially hardcore oldschool Catholic such as Gibson is... that's the point. One should be able to meditate on the insanely intense and bloody experience Jesus went through, and this will help you focus on living a Godly life. And heck, Jesus defied the laws of physics while wallking on water, so i'm sure he found it no harder to defy the laws of anatomy and held in his blood long enough to do what had to be done.
-
But by focusing on the violence so singleheartedly means the spirituality of the story is lost. It does not really matter that it is Jesus being stomach churningly beaten anymore. Its just stomach churning.
You need to see the movie to comprehend how over the top it is.
-
I thought the point was to be realistic about the violence...it was horrific, so it comes off as horrific.
That said, I haven't seen the movie and won't -- I refuse to feed any dubloons into the Gibson fundamentalist brand of catholicism. That's what's stomach churning to me, that the general public saw this is a 'catholic' movie, when it's really fundamentalism, which is a whole different story. Which I'm learning more about through "Under the Banner of Heaven," about fundamentalist Mormons -- an entirely different movement from Mormonism generally.
-
I didn't really like it. Sad, yes. But near the end, it did get very Hollywoodesque - made for TV as you said.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
'catholic' movie,
You should see the movie.
I find the not wanting to support or give money to, or not wanting to suppory anti-semitism as poor arguments.
It really is just the bible story done gory and wrought with violence. I dont see any agenda in the movie, just that it is not very good and overly violent. Just like a regular Hollywood action flick.
-
Originally posted by El Tee:
I didn't really like it. Sad, yes. But near the end, it did get very Hollywoodesque - made for TV as you said.
*edit* I can't remember what scene it was -- but as I recall near the end I thought "Aw come on". Just a bit too over the top. I got it. He was bleeding.
-
Originally posted by El Tee:
I didn't really like it. Sad, yes. But near the end, it did get very Hollywoodesque - made for TV as you said.
When he got nailed to the cross, I could guess the shot and the look of anguish..... And all in slow-mo too. Classy. If the movie had no slow-mo it would have been done in half the time.
I guess the movie would have been much better if it had carried on into the resurection. Stopping there is the pain without the elation.
-
what i find so interesting is the same people who were buying tickets in droves, are more than likely the same people who complain about the sex and violence in hollywood.
-
Originally posted by El Tee:
*edit* I can't remember what scene it was -- but as I recall near the end I thought "Aw come on". Just a bit too over the top. I got it. He was bleeding.
Oh year the spear into the side of a dead man? I imagine little or no blood. He was dead no heart pumping. Instead we get a gusher! Niagra falls were shamed.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
what i find so interesting is the same people who were buying tickets in droves, are more than likely the same people who complain about the sex and violence in hollywood.
Yeah, I found the conclusion, I would much rather watch a movie about sex than violence....
-
I'm trying to recall (there seem to be a couple "Aw, come on" moments). I think it was when they turned him over on the cross. The scene took forever (and to turn him back over). It's reported to have happened but man, sheesh, long scene. Also, the sound when they put in the "crown" on his head. Again, reported to have happened...and I'm not squemish.
I think this movie lost me after he was whipped.
Anyone think the two female leads were miscast? I think the woman who played Mary Magdalene should have played Mary.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
what i find so interesting is the same people who were buying tickets in droves, are more than likely the same people who complain about the sex and violence in hollywood.
But you see this is different. This is portraying JC. These end up being the same people that complain about sex when even JC had Mary Magdalene.
-
Originally posted by hitman:
...when even JC had Mary Magdalene.
WHAT? You're crazy...you're buying in to that DH Lawrence/Martin Scorsese lunacy.
-
Since the movie came out, it surprises me how many people can offer an opinion about the movie, even without seeing it.
I did see the movie and thought the violence was gruesome. At the same time, I felt the movie was tastefully done. No previews, no opening credits, Aramaic very well done, the cinematography and scenery was stunning, and the acting was great.
The movie felt like an accurate interpretation and I did not feel as if it had anti-semetic subtexts. But that's just me.
-
I'll start by answering your first 3 question. I believe it was a good movie. Not because of the violence and the blood, but for the reason it actually gives the viewer some sort of interpertation of what happened to Christ. People read about it in the Bible, but never see it acted out in front of them to understand the magnitude of what actually happened.
I don't think the movie was anti-semitic, but I do believe that it protrayed the Romans worse than the Jews. Was it just me or was King Herrad protrayed as a little too gay. No disrespect to anyone, just a feeling I took from it.
The beating Christ took may have been over the top, but that was the Mr. Gibson's decision to show that this was Christ not you and me but Christ.
I'm no Jesus freak, but it was a good movie. Would I watch it again, probably not.
-
I haven't yet been fotunate enough to see it. I think I'll wait for the sequel.
-----
Jerry Bruckheimer presents...
A John Woo film...
Jesus has risen, and he's pissed! It's payback time baby.
Antonio Banderas is Jesus in:
The Passion of The Christ II: Dead Reckoning
Also starring Martin Lawrence.
This film is not yet rated.
-
I'm reminded of south park's "Passion of the Jew":
[/QB]Stan:
That movie sucked ass. Give us back our eighteen dollars.
Film Clerk:
I can't refund your money. You sat through the whole movie.
Stan:
That wasn't a movie, that was a snuff film!
Kenny:
(Yeah!)
Stan:
You can't charge people to watch a guy get tortured for two hours!
Film Clerk:
That guy happened to be Jesus, and he went through all that to pay for YOUR SINS!
Stan:
We go to church to learn that stuff! We go to movies to be entertained! We weren't entertained, and we want our money back!
Film Clerk:
I'm now allowed to give you your money back after you sat through the whole movie! You'd have to take your complaint up with the film's producers.
Stan:
W-what? Mel Gibson? You're saying we have to get our money back from Mel Gibson?
Film Clerk:
Yeah. I'd like to see you try.
Stan:
Oh, we will! This is America! And in America, if something sucks, you're supposed to be able to get your money back! Come on, Kenny!
[/QB]
-
did anyone really think a Mel Gibson movie was going to be good anyway?
-
The popcorn was good!
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
did anyone really think a Mel Gibson movie was going to be good anyway?
that movie with him and helen hunt where he could hear what woman were thinking was awesome and you know it!
-
Originally posted by ratioci nation:
that movie with him and helen hunt where he could hear what woman were thinking was awesome and you know it!
Lethal Weapon? ;)
-
I think my mom liked that one. It may have even replaced Patch Adams as her fave film
Originally posted by ratioci nation:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
did anyone really think a Mel Gibson movie was going to be good anyway?
that movie with him and helen hunt where he could hear what woman were thinking was awesome and you know it! [/b]
-
How can you say it's "factual" when the whole bible crap is fiction anyway? I mean, answer me this.....if there's a Jesus and God and all that stuff, why the hell was there a tsunami on boxing/stephens day? Or a Holocaust, or an Armenian earthquake or a George Bush etc. etc.
-
Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:Did anyone think that the beatings were way over the top and that no-one would survive such punishment?
He's jesus dude, he has magic powers...
-
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
How can you say it's "factual" when the whole bible crap is fiction anyway?
There are more secular sources backing up that there really was a person named Jesus then there is confirming there was someone named Oliver Cromwell.
-
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
Or a Holocaust, or an Armenian earthquake or a George Bush etc. etc.
God gave us free will.... the fall and Adam and Eve, remember all that stuff.
So the consensus is it is a pretty shit movie. Only one person so far liked it.
-
If I had the jewels of heaven awaiting me, and wasn't getting laid like Jesus wasn't, i certainly wouldn't have held on for dear life.
Originally posted by Sailor Ripley:
Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:Did anyone think that the beatings were way over the top and that no-one would survive such punishment?
He's jesus dude, he has magic powers... [/b]
-
Originally posted by elj:
There are more secular sources backing up that there really was a person named Jesus then there is confirming there was someone named Oliver Cromwell.
Errr, no.
-
Originally posted by Sailor Ripley:
he has magic powers...
he clearly put them to good use.... Water into wine, couldn't he have turned those barbs into feathers?
-
If there is a GOD then it's for sure that HE likes to watch us suffer. And that's fucked up. Jeffrey Dahmer used to like to watch animals suffer.
-
Originally posted by L. O. Cutionist:
And that's fucked up. Jeffrey Dahmer used to like to watch animals suffer.
That is Unlikely (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/dahmer/why_4.html)
-
Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
That is Unlikely (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/dahmer/why_4.html)
<img src="http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/notorious/dahmers/4a.jpg" alt=" - " /> <img src="http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:sW_1miyBjLYJ:http://www.starpulse.com/Movies/Napoleon_Dynamite/thumb.jpg" alt=" - " />
Napoleon Dynamite?
Well, maybe nor Dahmer. But I read that torturing small animals is, like, a prime indicator of sociopathy, or something. Maybe it was Ted Bundy..?
-
How did we get from Jesus to Dahmer?
Well Dahmer did have a dead animal fascination that grew into a dead human fascination. I dont think he liked torture, he just wanted some dead bodies to play with.
I think that makes him an atypical serial killer.
-
Then Bundy, goddammit!
Anyway, the whole GOD concept doesn't pass the logic test:
If God is all powerfull, then why did HE create such a fucked up system wherein we have to be redeemed? Why not be redeemed from the gitgo?
-
Originally posted by L. O. Cutionist:
If God is all powerfull, then why did HE create such a fucked up system wherein we have to be redeemed? Why not be redeemed from the gitgo?
Because then we get to choose God. Is it not better to be loved out of choice rather than a forced to love due to fear.
Although it seems to me only the young and stupid or old and scarred of dying people believe in God.
-
Originally posted by L. O. Cutionist:
concept doesn't pass the logic test:
If God is all powerfull, then why did HE create such a fucked up system wherein we have to be redeemed? Why not be redeemed from the gitgo?
well, you see. . .god created adam, and out of adam, god created eve. . .eve, tempted by a serpent, convinced adam to eat an apple from the tree of knowledge. upon finding this out, god banished adam and eve from paradise, as such, each one of us has had to deal with the result of their sins. so, each of us have original sin, which can only be redeemed through faith and/or good works (depending on which christian religion you follow). however, god also gave man the ability to have free will (a point that's also debatable depending on which christian religion you follow). man has the option to believe or not believe, to act one way or not act one way. if you choose to reject god, you can, but do so with certain repercussions.
anselm argues that since we can conceive of the idea of something higher and more powerful than man, there must in fact be something higher and more powerful than man. i know, it's rather silly argument, but it sufficied for near 400 years.
pascal puts forth the following wager (unlike previous a priori arguments, such as anselm's above, or descartes): if you believe there is no god, and in fact, there is no god, then nothing happens, if you believe there is no god, but there is a god, then you are damned to hell, if you believe there is a god, but there is no god, then nothing happens to you, but, if you belive there is a god, and there is a god, then you end up in heaven. so, pascal asks, what would you choose? nothing, hell or heaven? how does it hurt you to believe in god?
nevertheless, kierkegaard would probably agree with you. . to a point. he argues that being a christian should be the most miserable existence because you know that your life on earth can only be terrible, in comparison to your life in heaven, but, you can't (or shouldn't) do anything to end your life sooner. therefore, a christian is doomed to despair that he/she cannot be reunited with god and jesus until he/she dies, and no sooner. so, he/she can only feel despair knowing that the best life is in fact not on earth as a living person, but when one is dead.
(and yes, i'm aware that i could be using God, but i feel that the distinctions between the two are irrelevant. . .faith is faith, whether it's the christian God, or anything else for that matter. . as well all have our own "faith," be it in god, science or believing in nothing at all)
-
Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
Because then we get to choose God. Is it not better to be loved out of choice rather than a forced to love due to fear.
Although it seems to me only the young and stupid or old and scarred of dying people believe in God.
But you seem to be missing the point:
Why create a system wherein "choice of God/choose God" is such a major factor? An all-powerful God could create a cosmos where this "choosing" wasn't neccessary. Why do we need this pepsi God-challenge anyway?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, you see. . .god created adam, and out of adam, god created eve. . .eve, tempted by a serpent, convinced adam to eat an apple from the tree of knowledge. upon finding this out, god banished adam and eve from paradise, as such, each one of us has had to deal with the result of their sins. so, each of us have original sin, which can only be redeemed through faith and/or good works (depending on which christian religion you follow). however, god also gave man the ability to have free will (a point that's also debatable depending on which christian religion you follow). man has the option to believe or not believe, to act one way or not act one way. if you choose to reject god, you can, but do so with certain repercussions.
anselm argues that since we can conceive of the idea of something higher and more powerful than man, there must in fact be something higher and more powerful than man. i know, it's rather silly argument, but it sufficied for near 400 years.
pascal puts forth the following wager (unlike previous a priori arguments, such as anselm's above, or descartes): if you believe there is no god, and in fact, there is no god, then nothing happens, if you believe there is no god, but there is a god, then you are damned to hell, if you believe there is a god, but there is no god, then nothing happens to you, but, if you belive there is a god, and there is a god, then you end up in heaven. so, pascal asks, what would you choose? nothing, hell or heaven? how does it hurt you to believe in god?
nevertheless, kierkegaard would probably agree with you. . to a point. he argues that being a christian should be the most miserable existence because you know that your life on earth can only be terrible, in comparison to your life in heaven, but, you can't (or shouldn't) do anything to end your life sooner. therefore, a christian is doomed to despair that he/she cannot be reunited with god and jesus until he/she dies, and no sooner. so, he/she can only feel despair knowing that the best life is in fact not on earth as a living person, but when one is dead.
(and yes, i'm aware that i could be using God, but i feel that the distinctions between the two are irrelevant. . .faith is faith, whether it's the christian God, or anything else for that matter. . as well all have our own "faith," be it in god, science or believing in nothing at all)
This is all VERY interesting mental masturbation. Why doesn't God just cut-to-the-chase and dispense with all of this "testing of belief" nonsense. He's all-powerful, after all.
-
if you're really interested in these questions, read this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591022134/qid=1107278992/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-1464802-5253411?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
-
You talk a lot of shit on the board that I am positive you wouldn't say to anyone's face. Quite a bit like Rhett, really.
Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
Although it seems to me only the young and stupid or old and scarred of dying people believe in God.
-
Originally posted by econo:
You talk a lot of shit on the board that I am positive you wouldn't say to anyone's face. Quite a bit like Rhett, really.
Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
Although it seems to me only the young and stupid or old and scarred of dying people believe in God.
[/b]
throw down your gauntlet! slap him across his face with your glove!
<img src="http://droognet.ca/dreamweaverltd/duel.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Glove slap! I don't take crap!
Nah, I'm just calling Markie out. It's well known that the US is full of religious loonies. The ones that move here eventually turn into them...
-
Originally posted by econo:
You talk a lot of shit on the board that I am positive you wouldn't say to anyone's face. Quite a bit like Rhett, really.
I have no qualms about saying things like this to peoples faces. I have no particular desire to be universally liked and I love to get a rise out of someone.
But feel free to keep singling me out. But perhaps it would be more interesting to forward your own viewpoint, rather than using a red herring, which makes you like Rhett.
-
Originally posted by econo:
The ones that move here eventually turn into them...
When they get old and scared of dying? Are you trying to further my argument? Thanks!
-
42
-
nevermind, markie learned to spell.
-
I spell as well as some people use punctuation. Same mistake twice.... Not even the edit function can help me now.
-
Originally posted by elj:
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
How can you say it's "factual" when the whole bible crap is fiction anyway?
There are more secular sources backing up that there really was a person named Jesus then there is confirming there was someone named Oliver Cromwell. [/b]
there are also alot of scientists saying bigfoot and the lak ness monster exist. oh, and dont forget about king aurthur, he existed.
-
There's an awful lot of Rhett calling around here, is everybody really that bad?
-
Apparently, your high school English teacher didn't exist.
Originally posted by TheWaz:
there are also alot of scientists saying bigfoot and the lak ness monster exist. oh, and dont forget about king aurthur, he existed.
-
Originally posted by econo:
Apparently, your high school English teacher didn't exist.
Originally posted by TheWaz:
there are also alot of scientists saying bigfoot and the lak ness monster exist. oh, and dont forget about king aurthur, he existed.
[/b]
It was his science teacher who didn't exist.
-
well, you see. . .god created adam, and out of adam, god created eve. . .eve, tempted by a serpent, convinced adam to eat an apple from the tree of knowledge. upon finding this out, god banished adam and eve from paradise, as such, each one of us has had to deal with the result of their sins. so, each of us have original sin, which can only be redeemed through faith and/or good works (depending on which christian religion you follow). however, god also gave man the ability to have free will (a point that's also debatable depending on which christian religion you follow). man has the option to believe or not believe, to act one way or not act one way. if you choose to reject god, you can, but do so with certain repercussions.
anselm argues that since we can conceive of the idea of something higher and more powerful than man, there must in fact be something higher and more powerful than man. i know, it's rather silly argument, but it sufficied for near 400 years.
pascal puts forth the following wager (unlike previous a priori arguments, such as anselm's above, or descartes): if you believe there is no god, and in fact, there is no god, then nothing happens, if you believe there is no god, but there is a god, then you are damned to hell, if you believe there is a god, but there is no god, then nothing happens to you, but, if you belive there is a god, and there is a god, then you end up in heaven. so, pascal asks, what would you choose? nothing, hell or heaven? how does it hurt you to believe in god?
nevertheless, kierkegaard would probably agree with you. . to a point. he argues that being a christian should be the most miserable existence because you know that your life on earth can only be terrible, in comparison to your life in heaven, but, you can't (or shouldn't) do anything to end your life sooner. therefore, a christian is doomed to despair that he/she cannot be reunited with god and jesus until he/she dies, and no sooner. so, he/she can only feel despair knowing that the best life is in fact not on earth as a living person, but when one is dead.
(and yes, i'm aware that i could be using God, but i feel that the distinctions between the two are irrelevant. . .faith is faith, whether it's the christian God, or anything else for that matter. . as well all have our own "faith," be it in god, science or believing in nothing at all) [/QB]
first of all, before i go into any detail, you claim that all life stems from 2 individuals, which is impossible because there would not have been enough ginetic diversity to create generations of children.
in response to pascal, if you belive dont believe in god, theny ou dont end up in heaven of hell, because there is no god, and this is what you believe, so making an argument that you COULD end up in heaven if you belive in god isnt going to sway anyone who doesnt belive in god.
-
Originally posted by TheWaz:
in response to pascal
this is a great ep
<img src="http://pascalgoespop.com/Images/HRH-031.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
im liking the cover
-
Originally posted by TheWaz:
first of all, before i go into any detail, you claim that all life stems from 2 individuals, which is impossible because there would not have been enough ginetic diversity to create generations of children.
Actually you are wrong on multiple levels.
Adam and Eve were genetically perfect. So it would be fine generating a multiple generations from them. Over time mutation would lead to the diversity we have today.
-
Originally posted by TheWaz:
first of all, before i go into any detail, you claim that all life stems from 2 individuals, which is impossible because there would not have been enough ginetic diversity to create generations of children.
in response to pascal, if you belive dont believe in god, theny ou dont end up in heaven of hell, because there is no god, and this is what you believe, so making an argument that you COULD end up in heaven if you belive in god isnt going to sway anyone who doesnt belive in god.
i claim nothing. . .even the bible misses out on this. even though man started with adam and eve, there is no problem finding wives for their sons once they leave paradise. . .i've never quite understood it either
as for your second paragraph, well, it's a run-on sentence with numerous grammatical errors that don't help in explaining your point. . .use the markie edit feature, and clarify, please.
-
What if God's not one of us
...just an alien on the bus?
-
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/272005mf.asp (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/272005mf.asp)
Scalia told the faithful in Baton Rouge to "have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world."
Yes, but know this -- the most passionate contempt will be reserved for those who, when the darkness seems to be winning, shine the light of God's glory and illuminate the gloomiest situations. Be prepared, at that very point of redemption, for the onslaught of the scorn of which Scalia speaks.
And bask in it.
-
42
-
ah, well it appeared as if you were making that claim, but it applies either way.
as for my spelling, as someone already pointed out, my english teacher didnt exist. and of course, this forum isnt important enough to send everything i write through a word processor.
-
WAZ, read this!
Originally posted by TheWaz:
[qb] first of all, before i go into any detail, you claim that all life stems from 2 individuals, which is impossible because there would not have been enough ginetic diversity to create generations of children.
[/b]
Actually you are wrong on multiple levels.
Adam and Eve were genetically perfect. So it would be fine generating a multiple generations from them. Over time mutation would lead to the diversity we have today.
-
but their children will have the same genetics, and they would have had to mate with eachother, and there is no genetic diversity there. and inbreeding upon inbreeding will not be able to continue forever.
-
Originally posted by TheWaz:
but their children will have the same genetics, and they would have had to mate with eachother, and there is no genetic diversity there. and inbreeding upon inbreeding will not be able to continue forever.
which is how mutations occur. this was all spelled out in Jurassic Park.
-
Originally posted by TheWaz:
but their children will have the same genetics, and they would have had to mate with eachother, and there is no genetic diversity there. and inbreeding upon inbreeding will not be able to continue forever.
Wrong! They are genetically perfect. They have no recessive lethals or deleterious traits. Therefore their offspring can mate with each other. The interbreeding can continue forever. Until mutation takes hold which generates diversity and eventually supplies a strong selection against inter-breeding.
-
I believe it was C.S. Lewis that tried to point out that we must remember we're talking about God here. Of course one can't expect to apply things like science and logic to understand God, he's above all that. It's a part of creation that things like logic and science work, but since God created those rules, he's not bound by them. At any rate, I don't see any place in the Bible where it said that Adam and Eve were the only people until they had children. Just that they were the first. I'm also one of those crazies that sees no conflict between creation as told in the Bible and evolution/big bang and all that. Just don't take the 7 days as literal 24 hour periods and everything falls into place.
-
Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
Wrong! They are genetically perfect. They have no recessive lethals or deleterious traits. Therefore their offspring can mate with each other. The interbreeding can continue forever. Until mutation takes hold which generates diversity and eventually supplies a strong selection against inter-breeding.
Don't listen to markie. He thinks this dude (http://www.thebicyclingguitarist.net/) is THE ANNOINTED ONE
-
Originally posted by L. O. Cutionist:
Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
Wrong! They are genetically perfect. They have no recessive lethals or deleterious traits. Therefore their offspring can mate with each other. The interbreeding can continue forever. Until mutation takes hold which generates diversity and eventually supplies a strong selection against inter-breeding.
Don't listen to markie. He thinks this dude (http://www.thebicyclingguitarist.net/) is THE ANNOINTED ONE [/b]
thats what i thought until i actually heard him play. you dont expect that to actually sound good do you? unless he puts cards in the spokes.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by TheWaz:
but their children will have the same genetics, and they would have had to mate with eachother, and there is no genetic diversity there. and inbreeding upon inbreeding will not be able to continue forever.
which is how mutations occur. this was all spelled out in Jurassic Park. [/b]
Exactly. This is also very well documented in white ghettos I have visited in Philly and Richmond. After years of inbreeding, a sort of genetically perfect "super race" has emerged.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
I believe it was C.S. Lewis that tried to point out that we must remember we're talking about God here. Of course one can't expect to apply things like science and logic to understand God, he's above all that. It's a part of creation that things like logic and science work, but since God created those rules, he's not bound by them. At any rate, I don't see any place in the Bible where it said that Adam and Eve were the only people until they had children. Just that they were the first. I'm also one of those crazies that sees no conflict between creation as told in the Bible and evolution/big bang and all that. Just don't take the 7 days as literal 24 hour periods and everything falls into place.
It doesn't really matter what quote you pull from some great author/philosopher of the past. If God were all powerful, why wouldn't he create a perfect cosmos. This imperfection implies that "Omnipotence" is a concept that GOD does not really understand.
Or that HE really digs seeing small animals suffer. Either way, far from ideal...
-
Originally posted by L. O. Cutionist:
It doesn't really matter what quote you pull from some great author/philosopher of the past. If God were all powerful, why wouldn't he create a perfect cosmos. This imperfection implies that "Omnipotence" is a concept that GOD does not really understand.
Or that HE really digs seeing small animals suffer. Either way, far from ideal...
why would he want to create a perfect cosmos? again, as posted above, god, as creator, is above all human logic and explanation. he does as he sees fit, for whatever reason. anyway, either/or propositions don't fit within a logical argument anymore, as derrida has shown that there is always at least a 3rd option.
so, to your small animal dying. . .presuming you are the owner of the small dog, what lessons does that impress on to you? that life and love are fleeting, and that you should live each day to the fullest? or, someone could take it that as a sign that god is unpleased with that person. in any event, that animal is now "in a better place." for every death, a new life is made. it's part of the cycle of life, regardless of whether it is a plant, animal or human. . .
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
why would he want to create a perfect cosmos? again, as posted above, god, as creator, is above all human logic and explanation. he does as he sees fit, for whatever reason.
Why did HE create an imperfect one, then?
Why the need to create anything, anyhow?
Why does God feel this burning need-to-create, anyway? I think HE might benefit from psychoanalysis..?
-
ABORTIONS FOR ALL!
-
Originally posted by elj:
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
How can you say it's "factual" when the whole bible crap is fiction anyway?
There are more secular sources backing up that there really was a person named Jesus then there is confirming there was someone named Oliver Cromwell. [/b]
I know there was a bloke named Jesus, he used to cut our grass when we lived in Wheaton.
-
Originally posted by L. O. Cutionist:
Why the need to create anything, anyhow?
Why does God feel this burning need-to-create, anyway? I think HE might benefit from psychoanalysis..?
why the need to create anything? why does an author need to create a story, why does a musician need to create music, why does the painter need to create a painting? creating life is what god does, and let's humans screw it up however they see fit.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by L. O. Cutionist:
Why the need to create anything, anyhow?
Why does God feel this burning need-to-create, anyway? I think HE might benefit from psychoanalysis..?
why the need to create anything? why does an author need to create a story, why does a musician need to create music, why does the painter need to create a painting? creating life is what god does, and let's humans screw it up however they see fit. [/b]
So like the musician sometimes smashes his/her instrument on stage, the tortured painter destroys their own work and writer tears up their work and starts from scratch....God destroys life (tsunami) once in a while, I think I'm beginning to understand it all now.
BTW. on the subject of over-hyped movies....is it just me and my wife who think "Lost in translation" was a load of shite? Or were we lost in the translation of lost in translation? It seems to me the whole movie was basically taking the piss out of the Japanese, which was moderately funny for, what....3 minutes? We didn't even make it to the end of the movie.
-
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
BTW. on the subject of over-hyped movies....is it just me and my wife who think "Lost in translation" was a load of shite?
No, not just you at all.
Although Scarlet is pretty so it was not a complete loss.
-
I hated Lost in Translation, I think my wife liked it.
Scarlet does nothing for me. I think she is dating that turd Jared Leto. So that lowers her a couple of notches right there.
-
Lost in Translation had some good moments that were ruined by Sofia Coppola's reliance on Japanese stereotypes to illustrate the culture. The argument could be made that since both of the characters were more or lest outcasts in Japan that this was a reasonable thing to do, but I think she could've done better.
Scarlett Johansson was the one redeeming quality of Ghost World, gave a good performance in Lost in Translation and The Man Who Wasn't There, and I've heard was excellent in Girl With The Pearl Earring. Forgiving her turn in Eight Legged Freaks, I generally like her work.
-
yeah, how sad is it that scarlett is dating that fool? someone needs to give her a copy of this (http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/_/id/118966/30secondstomars?pageid=rs.Artistcage&pageregion=triple1). i still love her. altho i agree lost in translation wasn't all that. it was pretty, but pretty pointless.
-
I though Thora Birch and Steve Buschemi were the redeeming qualities of Ghost World, not to mention the script and directing. Scarlet Johansen? Blah.
Originally posted by j_lee:
Lost in Translation had some good moments that were ruined by Sofia Coppola's reliance on Japanese stereotypes to illustrate the culture. The argument could be made that since both of the characters were more or lest outcasts in Japan that this was a reasonable thing to do, but I think she could've done better.
Scarlett Johansson was the one redeeming quality of Ghost World, gave a good performance in Lost in Translation and The Man Who Wasn't There, and I've heard was excellent in Girl With The Pearl Earring. Forgiving her turn in Eight Legged Freaks, I generally like her work.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I though Thora Birch and Steve Buschemi were the redeeming qualities of Ghost World, not to mention the script and directing. Scarlet Johansen? Blah.
agreed
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I hated Lost in Translation, I think my wife liked it.
Scarlet does nothing for me. I think she is dating that turd Jared Leto. So that lowers her a couple of notches right there.
No I didn't. You're thinking of Garden State.
-
I know someone who thinks Jared Leto is rather hot. He was purdy in fight club, before the beating.
Who would have thought Rhett and Ratio cination had the same taste in women?
I quite liked Ghost world. I have not disliked a Scarlet movie yet, although I have not seen 8 legged....
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I though Thora Birch and Steve Buschemi were the redeeming qualities of Ghost World, not to mention the script and directing. Scarlet Johansen? Blah.
What can I say? I didn't like Ghost World. The movie is, for the most part, so wrapped up in being jaded and anti-establishment that the characters seemed hollow. Enid tries to rebel but is ultimately just an onscreen cliche of every too-cool-for-that art student. If I want to experience that I can do it at any local university.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by hitman:
...when even JC had Mary Magdalene.
WHAT? You're crazy...you're buying in to that DH Lawrence/Martin Scorsese lunacy. [/b]
No...not really...but what are you buying into???
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
why [...] why [...] why [...]why [...] screw it up
Why the need for all of these "Why???" queries anyway? I though HE was, supposedly, omniscient, or something..? Couldn't he just dispense with it? Or maybe God isn't omnipotent after all. Maybe HE needs our help?
-----
"Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
-Joe Theismann
-
Originally posted by Taipei Personality:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
why [...] why [...] why [...]why [...] screw it up
Why the need for all of these "Why???" queries anyway? I though HE was, supposedly, omniscient, or something..? Couldn't he just dispense with it? Or maybe God isn't omnipotent after all. Maybe HE needs our help?
[/b]
blah blah blah. . .
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
blah blah blah. . .
What? Have you run out of great authors/philosophers to quote?
-
Originally posted by Taipei Personality:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
blah blah blah. . .
What? Have you run out of great authors/philosophers to quote? [/b]
no, far from it. but, what do you care anyway. you admittedly ignore them.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
no, far from it. but, what do you care anyway. you admittedly ignore them.
"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it does not go away."
Philip K. Dick
-
Who said God had perfect foresight anyway?
If you read Genesis, Each time he creates something new, it's followed by the line - " and He saw that it was good."
Many have interpreted this to mean that He was kind of ad-libbing the whole creation gig. If he knew exactly how everything would turn out, why would he have to judge it as "good" after the fact?
-
Originally posted by j_lee:
Enid tries to rebel but is ultimately just an onscreen cliche of every too-cool-for-that art student. If I want to experience that I can do it at any local university.
she should have shacked up with Steve Buscemi and lived happily ever after
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
why would he have to judge it as "good" after the fact?
Alternatively, you could argue that this is the sign of a proud God. He is God, of course whatever he does is going to be good, right?
-
Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
Alternatively, you could argue that this is the sign of a proud God. He is God, of course whatever he does is going to be good, right?
Not necessarily.
Remember that whole Noah deal? He had to erase the whole blackboard and start again.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Who said God had perfect foresight anyway?
If you read Genesis, Each time he creates something new, it's followed by the line - " and He saw that it was good."
Why didn't HE KNOW it was good? Did he use HIS eyes to see it? Does HE need sensory organs?
...doesn't sound like the actions of an omnipotent being to me. Rather the opposite.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Remember that whole Noah deal? He had to erase the whole blackboard and start again.
That is the one bible story I have most trouble with.
For one it is not possible on many levels. Not genetically perfect, Lions would eat the antelope..... etc.
But more importantly, it shows a bitter god who has control over events and this world. Neither do I see as being particularly appealing. If he had the kind of power to cause a worldwide flood surely he could temper down a couple of waves.
So that sets up a conundrum, either he does not care, or he does not care enough anymore to do anything.
-
I thought you said "temper down a couple of WIVES" when I first read this.
Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Remember that whole Noah deal? He had to erase the whole blackboard and start again.
That is the one bible story I have most trouble with.
For one it is not possible on many levels. Not genetically perfect, Lions would eat the antelope..... etc.
But more importantly, it shows a bitter god who has control over events and this world. Neither do I see as being particularly appealing. If he had the kind of power to cause a worldwide flood surely he could temper down a couple of waves.
So that sets up a conundrum, either he does not care, or he does not care enough anymore to do anything. [/b]
-
cliff notes:
http://hosted.tribalwar.com/musashi/passion.html (http://hosted.tribalwar.com/musashi/passion.html)
-
Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
That is the one bible story I have most trouble with.
For one it is not possible on many levels. Not genetically perfect, Lions would eat the antelope..... etc.
But more importantly, it shows a bitter god who has control over events and this world. Neither do I see as being particularly appealing. If he had the kind of power to cause a worldwide flood surely he could temper down a couple of waves.
So that sets up a conundrum, either he does not care, or he does not care enough anymore to do anything.
After the flood, he said he wouldn't do it again.
The rest is a little too complex for a nightclub message board. Try CS Lewis' "The Problem of Pain" for an answer to the "why do bad things happen if He is a loving God" question.
The Problem of Pain answers the universal question, "Why would an all-loving, all-knowing God allow people to experience pain and suffering?" Master Christian apologist C.S. Lewis asserts that pain is a problem because our finite, human minds selfishly believe that pain-free lives would prove that God loves us. In truth, by asking for this, we want God to love us less, not more than he does. "Love, in its own nature, demands the perfecting of the beloved; that the mere 'kindness' which tolerates anything except suffering in its object is, in that respect at the opposite pole from Love." In addressing "Divine Omnipotence," "Human Wickedness," "Human Pain," and "Heaven," Lewis succeeds in lifting the reader from his frame of reference by artfully capitulating these topics into a conversational tone, which makes his assertions easy to swallow and even easier to digest. Lewis is straightforward in aim as well as honest about his impediments, saying, "I am not arguing that pain is not painful. Pain hurts. I am only trying to show that the old Christian doctrine that being made perfect through suffering is not incredible. To prove it palatable is beyond my design." The mind is expanded, God is magnified, and the reader is reminded that he is not the center of the universe as Lewis carefully rolls through the dissertation that suffering is God's will in preparing the believer for heaven and for the full weight of glory that awaits him there. While many of us naively wish that God had designed a "less glorious and less arduous destiny" for his children, the fortune lies in Lewis's inclination to set us straight with his charming wit and pious mind.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by j_lee:
Enid tries to rebel but is ultimately just an onscreen cliche of every too-cool-for-that art student. If I want to experience that I can do it at any local university.
she should have shacked up with Steve Buscemi and lived happily ever after [/b]
That would've made it even worse.
-
I like happy love story endings...what can I say
-
ggw....precisely what I was looking to reference after someone knocked me earlier for mentioning C.S. Lewis. I would also suggest checking out "A Grief Observed" it's basicaly Lewis writing in a journal all of his theological thoughts following the untimely death of the woman he had married only about 2 years before. Chock full of things like..."how could God be such a sadist?"
-
I always liked The Screwtape Letters.
But that's me.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
ggw....precisely what I was looking to reference after someone knocked me earlier for mentioning C.S. Lewis. I would also suggest checking out "A Grief Observed" it's basicaly Lewis writing in a journal all of his theological thoughts following the untimely death of the woman he had married only about 2 years before. Chock full of things like..."how could God be such a sadist?"
I had to read a bunch of CS in a "philosophy and literature" course ... I thank god (or whatever higher power attacks mobile home parks with hurricanes and tornados) that i never have to read that blowhard again ...
-
Originally posted by HoyaSaxa03:
I had to read a bunch of CS in a "philosophy and literature" course ... I thank god [...] that i never have to read that blowhard again ...
So, then which author/philosopher do you appropriate your theological worldview (http://www.rathergood.com/first_drink/) from?
-
Originally posted by Taipei Personality:
Originally posted by HoyaSaxa03:
I had to read a bunch of CS in a "philosophy and literature" course ... I thank god [...] that i never have to read that blowhard again ...
So, then which author/philosopher do you appropriate your theological worldview (http://www.rathergood.com/first_drink/) from? [/b]
Ludwig Feuerbach (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/)
-
"God suffers â?? suffering is the predicate â?? but for men, for others, not for himself.
What does that mean in plain speech? Nothing... "
God has a hard-on for suffering? What a grand guignol dialectic your version of God has a weakness for.